User talk:Linearizable

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Views/Day	Title	Tagged with…
30	Virtual synchrony (talk)	Add sources
76	Thin provisioning (talk)	Add sources
1,665	Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (talk)	Add sources
83	Distributed lock manager (talk)	Add sources
363	Hashcash (talk)	Add sources
44	Ricart–Agrawala algorithm (talk)	Add sources
100	Flutter (software) (talk)	Cleanup
14	History of Programming Languages (talk)	Cleanup
608	Push technology (talk)	Cleanup
144	Short Message Peer-to-Peer (talk)	Expand
272	Diameter (protocol) (talk)	Expand
90	Leader election (talk)	Expand
33	Quantum Byzantine agreement (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
1,186	Simple Network Management Protocol (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
349	Sybil attack (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
61	Percona (talk)	Merge
237	GlusterFS (talk)	Merge
235	Single point of failure (talk)	Merge
68	Semantic interoperability (talk)	Wikify
17	Virtual finite-state machine (talk)	Wikify
618	ICalendar (talk)	Wikify
5	Archistar (talk)	Orphan
2	Ali Awad Saleh (talk)	Orphan
2	Archease (talk)	Orphan
123	Spanner (database) (talk)	Stub
22	Nancy Lynch (talk)	Stub
11	Albert R. Meyer (talk)	Stub
123	Raft (computer science) (talk)	Stub
247	Neo4j (talk)	Stub
38	Lamport's distributed mutual exclusion algorithm (talk)	Stub

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 19:47, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Additional assistance with the Teradata article

Hello! Not too long ago, you helped me with an edit request to update the Teradata article, which I submitted on behalf of my employer. My initial requests were well received, but my later ones (all answered by the same editor) have been disappointing. I've struggled to get the reviewing editor to reconsider my proposed improvements or offer further feedback, even when I've suggested alternatives. I am specifically referring to this request to update the "Technology and products" section, and this request to create an "Acquisitions and divestitures" subsection within the "History" section.

For the first, I've suggested different sourcing, and provided alternative wording for consideration, but the editor declined to reply. For the second, I proposed no major content changes, and instead of actually implementing my request (which they said they did), the editor changed the entire history section into bullet points. I'm afraid the article looks worse than before. I replied to the editor, asking for the bullet point to be converted into prose, but I did not receive any reply. I am wondering if you might have a moment to take another look at this article and my requests, as a member of the Database WikiProject? You might consider looking at the pre-bullet point version of the article, for context. Thanks for advance for any assistance. Dodds_Writer (Talk · Disclosure: Employee of Teradata) 16:30, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Dodds Writer: I did see how your requested edits were being handled, and I don't have the experience to know if they're being handled "wikipedia correct". I actually privately inquired with the editor in question about how I handled your requested edits for my own education, and they kindly pointed out instances where I should have done a more careful job. Thus, I don't believe I do nor should have the authority to overrule them. I'm all for the content of pages being improved, and I'm sympathetic to what you're trying to do, but I'm unfortunately going to be of less help than you'd like on this matter though.

I believe the best I can do for you is suggest other ways forward. You can try working through things a bit more with Spintendo, and let us assume that Spintendo also has the best of intentions for Wikipedia. It's potentially arguable that the changes made to the page were modifications of your request, which the guidelines of how to handle edit requests caution about not making any substantial changes. You might have luck in just flipping the edit request template back to requesting an edit, either to get attention again or possibly get a different editor to look over the work. As a last option, looking through the other people that have signed up under the Databases WikiProject, User:Seraphimblade seems to be the only person that's active and would have an idea of what "being wikipedia" is. I'd suggest that if you do reach out, it'd be better to do so just as a request for help in moderating the discussion, as the intention shouldn't be to overrule any of Spintendo's concerns.

I'm sadly unsure of what I can actually do to help otherwise, but if there is anything, feel free to ping again and we'll figure things out. Linearizable (talk) 06:25, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply, Linearizable, and for your suggested paths to move forward. I think I will reach out to User:Seraphimblade for additional feedback. If he is not interested in helping out, I will try again to have the bullet points converted to prose by submitting another edit request. Thanks again. Dodds_Writer (Talk · Disclosure: Employee of Teradata) 18:23, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, Linearizable, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Denim11 (talk) 14:51, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hi Linearizable! You created a thread called Utility of primary, non-independent, reliable sources at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread.

Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:02, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm way behind looking at the Teahouse archives but I just saw this. Did you ever get your answer? You ask a lot of complicated questions that I wouldn't know how to answer, but from what I can tell, as long as mostly secondary sources are used, primary sources can be used for non-controversial information. At some point, though, primary sources would be original research without secondary sources to allow interpretation. That's about as far as I can go and you seem to have a better understanding of all this than I do.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:52, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]