User talk:SamJohnston

Private and Public Clouds

Hi Sam, I'm wondering why you removed the references to public versus private clouds. Many people are using the private cloud moniker and the industry has embraced the term. Why not include the definition in Wikipedia? For example, Randy George just published a long article in the online and print edition of InformationWeek about private and public clouds. Several analyst firms use the terms and most end-users like the clarity the detail brings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwmaxey (talk • contribs) 15:28, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

There is ample confusion already (not to mention significant dissent) where the purpose of the article is to give clarity. While it is quite possible that 'private cloud' purveyors like ParaScale will be succeed in co-opting the cloud computing moniker to mean something different, the vast majority of cloud computing discussion is about Internet based solutions; we'll review this when and if that changes. -- samj _in^out 17:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Cloud Computing Infrastructure

Sam, I edited the cloud computing page to include virtual lab infrastructure. This is an important example of cloud infrastructure that is seeing significant adoption. I included a link to Forrester research in the entry and to skytap which is a provider of this type of infrastructure. Also, see GigaOm's commentary on different types of cloud infrastructure http://gigaom.com/2008/07/20/9-cloud-computingsectors-to-watch/ for verification Knoxi171 (talk) 02:16, 15 August 2008 (UTC)knoxi171

Category:Everything as a service

I've moved your new category to be a subcategory of Category:Service-oriented (business computing). By the way, you missed a few as-a-services - see my blog. [1] --RichardVeryard (talk) 16:21, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

{{Cloud-computing-stub}}

Hi - a stub template or category which you created has been nominated for deletion or renaming at Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion. The stub type, which was not proposed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals, does not meet the standard requirements for a stub type, either through being incorrectly named, ambiguously scoped, or through failure to meet standards relating to the current stub hierarchy or likely size, as explained at Wikipedia:Stub. Please feel free to make any comments at WP:SFD regarding this stub type, and in future, please consider proposing new stub types first! Grutness...wha? 01:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd just like to answer your question about upmerging. Upmerging is where you keep the template, but have it feed into the next higher category (as opposed to the template having its own category). In this case, {{cloud-computing-stub}} would feed into Category:Network software stubs or Category:Computer network stubs (I'm not sure exactly where cloud computing would go) instead of its own Category:Cloud computing stubs. However, I think this point is mostly moot since the template has been deleted. Let me know if you have any more questions and happy editing! ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 16:41, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Cloud users

I see you're adding Category:Cloud users to many articles. But I don't see any mention of the issue in the articles. That makes me wonder about two things: what is the source for this information, and what is the relevance? The kind of IT architecture that a college uses is very peripheral information, to my view. If we don't even mention it in the text, is it really that important? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what this link is: http://www.google.com/a/help/intl/en/admins/customers.html. Is this your source for the inclusion of the organizations that use cloud computing? If so it seems pretty thin. I'd suggest that this information would be better in a list, with sources, than as categories. I can't imagine that anyone reading an article about one of these organizations would care that they use Google Apps, or wonder which other organizations do as well. Many vendors have similar pages of endorsements, but I don't recall ever seeing one used as the basis of a category. OTOH, the cloud computing vendors is a logical category and I don't see any problem with that. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:29, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation, but I still disagree about the utility or relevance of the user category. Taking the example of the colleges, we don't have categories for which kind of lawn mowers they use, which type of roof covering they have, or what style of chairs they provide. That sort of information may be of interest to the readers of articles on chairs, but not the readers of articles on colleges. I'm going to nominate the category for deletion. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Nominated here: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 September 12#Category:Cloud users. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Cloud Computing

Sam, thanks for your work on the various CC pages, though there's still lots to do. I've just been working on the MapReduce page, where the problem there is linkspam from anyone with a MapReduce implementation, same as the EC2 pages. The main problem on the base Cloud Computing page is that it is too vague a term to (currently) write or illustrate well. I have some ongoing plans to fix that by way of some external papers. Incidentally, I work on Apache Hadoop related stuff at HP, in case you want to know my conflicts of interest. SteveLoughran (talk) 22:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Testing -- samj _in^out 18:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I am...

Pretty appalled at your deleting both "postcode anywhere" and "data as a service"! I will of course assume you are acting in good faith. I have to say I find your decision to delete both articles bizarre. With regards to the SOA diagram, I am not a spammer and highlighting the basic differences between SOA and traditional architecture is not "original research". The diagram in question which you seem to have a problem with is very simple and explains established practice. I think service-oriented architecture needs more in the way of explaining it than a picture of a cloud labelled "cloud"! By contributing helpful diagrams I am providing a vital service to Wikipedia.

The articles...

Postcode Anywhere - deleted as "spam"... according to the Wikipedia policy, "Note that simply having a company or product as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion." Postcode Anywhere is an international company with a turnover measured in millions of pounds. It is not a startup boy-band or trivial nonsense. Furthermore, the article was encyclopaedic and factual, with facts referenced (e.g. which awards it has won). While I can understand it being flagged up as needing a little clean-up, to delete the article in whole is inappropriate.

Data as a Service - This is not a new term and neither is it coined by me. To delete this in entirety is frankly bizarre. I added a company link as an example of a data as a service company. I could understand if the link were removed and seen as "spam" but to delete the whole article is reckless.

There are 286,00 results on Google for the term "data as a service" (with quotes). As someone with cloud computing affiliations, you should know that some of the concepts are relatively new. The function of Wikipedia is to educate people. As of now, "Data as a service" is an accepted term, and is referenced a lot over the web. e.g.: [2] [3] [4]

Deleting "data as a service" because other terms exist as well is not logical.Creating an article addressing this term follows Wikipedia best practise. Modifying it does too. Deleting the article in whole does not.

I would appreciate it if these articles are reinstated, either in part or whole. I cannot see any valid reasons for their entire removal.

This sort of deletionist reaction is not healthy. I am certainly not happy with being labelled as a spammer for making very valuable and much-needed contributions to Wikipedia. JamesLWilliams2010 (talk) 10:53, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. Please familiarise yourself with WP:5P and get back to me if you have any further questions. You should also check out WP:COI for good measure. -- samj _in^out 15:50, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Seems to me...

It is cheeky to say the least citing "conflict of interest" when you are affiliated with cloud-based systems yourself, and have indeed created a company page that is no less "spammy" than the one written for Postcode Anywhere.

My having affiliations with a cloud computing company puts me in a position to be knowledgeable on the subject. I highly doubt that Wikipedia has in mind "you are only allowed to write about something you know nothing about", though sometimes this accusation has been levelled at moderators. The Wikipedia policy on this says you may proceed if you exercise extreme caution. I did so. The Postcode Anywhere article had no gushing praise. It had citations for the awards it had won. A page has to start somewhere. To delete the page in its entirety and then lock it is inappropriate. I don't feel your response takes care to address the issues I have raised, and I am left feeling that a speedy deletion has been sneaked through.

Not only have two useful resources been deleted on DaaS, but a useful diagram which I have spent some time constructing has been systematically taken off pages for no apparent reason other than transparently inaccurate claims of "Spam". I note that they are replaced with crude diagrams of your own construction.

If you remain unable to justify your actions I will go through with whatever procedures are necessary to put your actions under review. JamesLWilliams2010 (talk) 16:20, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello again. Had you not have interfered with the cloud computing article it's likely I never would have seen your 'contributions', but you did, and I felt that your contributions were unhelpful and bordering on vandalism. That's just my opinion, though I am quite sure it would survive peer review. Note that I didn't delete the pages, rather just proposed that they be deleted. Both were deleted by User:Orangemike, Postcode Anywhere having been 'upgraded' to a speedy by User:Stifle. I wasn't aware of the salting but according to the logs this was done indefinitely by an administrator due to having been repeatedly recreated. This is Wikipedia's mechanism for protecting itself against well-intentioned but disruptive edits. Regarding your diagram, it is original research which is not allowed. My crude diagrams avoid this trap. Note that the inclusion of data as a service in such a diagram is a blatant conflict of interest and it is clear that you are trying to popularise the term via Wikipedia rather than vice versa (that is, recording its popularity after the fact). Finally, I've created many articles but none for any company I'm affiliated with - which one was it you had a problem with? -- samj _in^out 01:20, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't really care whether or not you feel my contributions would survive peer review. It should not be your sole decision, and certainly not without any discussion. The fact is they have survived for some time. Users have also reverted back to my edits after vandalism. The "cloud computing" page is not your property. It's supposed to be a wiki.

It is difficult not to see your systematic wiping out of contributions as anything other than something which it oughtn't be. No feedback, no discussion, just you running riot through work I have spent a lot of time preparing.

I repeat, my diagram is not original research. If I were to draw a picture of an apple that would not be original research. To draw a diagram of accepted SOA is not original research either. You still haven't even ventured how it's supposed to be original research.

Your diagrams are simplistic to the point of being useless. It is sophistry. Look it up. I know what a cloud looks like. Great diagram.

I have already illustrated that data as a service is an established and accepted term. To deny this is bizarre. I politely recommend you consult someone who knows what they're talking about. Or perform a google search. I expect you will add an entry on the subject yourself within a few days and populate it with useful diagrams illustrating that data is information.

To have the Postcode Anywhere page "salted" in this way is extremely Draconian and against what wikipedia stands for. There should generally be at least *some* discussion before such drastic action. To my knowledge there was one previous version of the page, which was indeed written inappropriately for an encyclopaedia and was correctly removed. However this problem was redressed in the subsequent re-write some time later.

To systematically destroy all of my contributions within the space of 24 hours, without any discussion or attempt at communication, is overzealous and does you no credit whatsoever. I highly doubt that my contributions could stand for several weeks and then genuinely suddenly get taken down by a convergence of moderators' opinions in a matter of hours. JamesLWilliams2010 (talk) 01:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I proposed one of these articles via the standard AfD discussion process but it was immediately upgraded to a speedy delete under CSD G11, so I followed suit (successfully) for the second. Of all people I appreciate how much time goes into Wikipedia contributions, so when you try to piggy back on established articles in order to popularise a protologism for commercial purposes by sprinkling it around existing articles without discussion don't be surprised when other Wikipedians react similarly. Inadequate articles can survive years until they drift into the attention of others, but when they do the process is breathtakingly fast - as you have seen. Anyway, I'm still waiting to hear a> the source of your diagram, which I still consider original research and b> the article(s) you claim I created under a conflict of interest (talk about the pot calling the kettle black). -- samj _in^out 11:58, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I can see why you're getting wound up: if "data as a service" is a neologism that I've invented and wish to propogate, fair enough, but just because you're not familiar with the term doesn't mean it's not worthy of an entry. Certainly, where the lines are drawn is not exactly clear with these sort of sets of emerging terms. But the facts speak for themselves on Google - "Platform as a Service" - 223,000 results; "Infrastructure as a service" - 109,000 results; "Data as a Service" - 294,000 results.

What sort of yardstick are you using to determine what "buzzwords" should be included and which aren't? Because it seems to me that "data as a service" is a fairly accepted term (and significantly more so than existing entries in the same area), and the use of it is not a "neologism" or "original research." Remember we are talking about cloud computing here - an emerging architecture, not the history of the ancient Greeks or something that has been and gone and is set in the stone of time.

It's pretty inescapable that your argument is based on a false assertion (or so it seems to me); this is the core argument; the rest is noise. If we assume here that the concept of "data as a service" is something I work with every day, and that I was amazed there wasn't a Wikipedia entry there already, then I don't think what I've been doing here counts as intentional "spam". The fact is there are relatively few people who know anythig about SOA and for someone to block another's attempts at education is pretty low. I can also pretty much guarantee that anyone who pressed the final "delete article" button because of your nomination does not have a clue what cloud computing is or is supposed to be, much less be able to make a decision as to whether "data as a service" is an accepted term or not. Unfortunately the way of Wikipedia seems to be to delete first, especially when things have been labelled as "spam" (and then not ask questions later - too busy deleting more stuff).

I think your tenacity is amusing, more than anything; I'm sure DaaS will be back on Wikipedia before too long. I'm not terribly concerned; this is tedious.

BTW here's a useful link about the various acronyms including DaaS to illustrate I'm not inventing the term (rolls eyes) and that it isn't "original research": Laird on DaaS SaaS and PaaS and it is picked up by others in the community. [5]. Not only is DaaS a recognised term but as I have illustrated with the Google figures, people are using it. A lot.

JamesLWilliams2010 (talk) 09:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)