User talk:Comps

WikiProjects that may be of interest to you
You seem quite active in database theory articles. The area needs expert wiki editors quite badly. Perhaps you could also watchlist WP:COMPSCI where occasionally some interesting discussions take place.

By the way, nice work on snapshot isolation! Pcap ping  08:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Will do. Comps (talk) 17:09, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Minor edits
Please don't mark all your edits as WP:MINOR, that has a way more narrow definition than your edits. Thanks, Pcap ping  08:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, will try to be more careful with this. Thnx. Comps (talk) 17:11, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Utilize
Are you playing games? Are you saying you're unaware that concise writing communicates information better? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:18, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Specifically for "use" and "utilize": I really could not find a difference, except the length, which is a minor difference for a user who usually perceives the whole word at a glance. Nothing to do with conciseness. I see no real difference that worth bothering here. Talking about style, alternating use-utilize may make it better, to break the routine, since the term repeats quite many times in this short piece. Comps (talk) 17:03, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

May have a different connotation than "use":


 * Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary
 * Utilize (v. t.)
 * To make useful; to turn to profitable account or use; to make use of; as, to utilize the whole power of a machine; to utilize one's opportunities.

Comps (talk) 17:21, 27 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Most readers aren't aware of the difference, and even if they are aware of it, the reader can never be sure if the writer actually meant that, or if they just habitually choose a big word over a small word, which is the most typical case of utilize. Which means it's a skunked term, like "hopefully". If you really want to tell them that something was used well, used profitably, used to superior advantage, you need to say that explicitly. And that raises the more important issue: use is a neutral statement of fact. The special sense of utilize is a value judgement that requires a good citation, and even an effort to find balancing contrary opinions. In short, utilize sounds like an advertisement, use sounds like an encyclopedia. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:51, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Note that this is you own private opinion (I wonder where you get it), not supported in any dictionary or text about English that I have seen. Thus you cannot impose your subjective opinion forcefully, unless you prove what you say, or at least bring some evidence to support this. "User" and "use" which are close, are now being utilized many times in the short text, which makes it monotonic. Good style calls for variety in patterns, not for many repetitions... Please reconsider at least to put alternation between "use" and "utilize."  --Comps (talk) 18:16, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
 * And how many dictionaries did you have to read before you found one that didn't just say that use and utilize are equivalent? Did you look at Wiktionary? It cites four usage guides that say use is preferable over utilize, and only two for the minority opinion that utilize has a special connotation. And even those two are only saying utilize is acceptable in some cases. If those six references are insufficient, I can find more, but really, how many do you need?This disagreement existed long before I came along and it is why the term is skunked: it distracts from the content of the article, and it can be misleading or biased. And for what? There is no upside. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:38, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the references. What I have learned is that "use" is more general, and thus safer to use. You using "skunked" for "utilize" is completely out of line. It is a legitimate word when used for "applying to practical use" even in your Wiktionary reference. This is the additional connotation. Your "majority/minority" applies to the Wiki-utilize article's refs, but even there I have not seen forbidding its use, if used properly.This applies to all uses of "utilize" I had in Index locking. Thus no reason for "skunked" and change because reasons of conciseness (though it is a shorter word). For style purposes alternating between the two words could be nice. --Comps (talk) 18:14, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Skunked just means that it's one of those English grammar questions that people bicker over. "Hopefully" is one of the worst problems. Ending sentences with prepositions and splitting infinitives are notorious examples. Your high school English teacher told you one thing, but linguists and lexicographers say something else. Or look at British and US spelling. Taking sides in these debates is pointy, and it's almost impossible to use "utilize" (or "hopefully") without taking a side in the debate. But since the purpose of a Wikipedia article is to enlighten readers about the subject, and not to bicker over English grammar, the safe choice wins, if there is a safe choice. Unsafe choices, while possibly technically correct are called "skunked terms" because you're bound to annoy somebody and distract from your real goal of writing clearly. It comes from Garner's Dictionary of Modern American Usage And I admit you're right that using utilize (if used carefully) can break up the monotony of "used" over and over. So I was wrong to say there is no upside; just very little upside, and there are many other was of breaking up monotony. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:52, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

regarding database testing
Hi, I added a section of database testing to database. You said to create a new page for it but I created article page for it and got deleted from administrator 3 times previously and they suggested to add it in database page ,so i added. I assure you to add more useful content to it as i progress so please revert changes and let the section database testing be there i will keep it improving. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110808028 amol (talk • contribs) 13:44, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi,

I do not know about your independent article, and I'm not sure that such is justified at all (I guess the other administrators had their reasons for deletion), but I do not find a place for it in the Database article since database testing does not include specifics (for databases) that I would think have interest for general audience. Of course you test new DBMS code as well as new app code as you do during any SW development. The fact that there exists specialization in testing of some specific type of SW does not mean it justifies an article or even a section. It is like explaining in the Database article how a general-purpose computer works since computers are utilized. --Comps (talk) 06:48, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Undoing product name in database vendor list
HI, so you removed a product name, but can the vendor actually be in there? Don't see why not Itafran2010 (talk) 00:32, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Very simple: If it says a vendor list, you put there vendors; in a product list you put products. These lists typically include the 2-3 most common examples (for DBMSs with the highest selling numbers) and should not be larger. These are just some well known examples and not exhaustive lists. An item should not be in the list if it relates to a DBMS with much smaller selling numbers. Check the numbers. In principle one good example can be added. Also I'm sure that Wikipedia includes dedicated articles with such lists where you can add an important prod/vendor if missing. Comps (talk) 04:10, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ADatabase&action=historysubmit&diff=456669713&oldid=451606592 <request for comments — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.90.197.87 (talk) 12:40, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring
It doesn't matter who's right or who knows more about SQL. In the end, reverting the IP solves nothing.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:55, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, the IP can remove comments from his/her talk page but cannot edit them, unless this is being used in bad faith.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:58, 3 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Thnks. Pls see your user page. I asked for advise.

In case you don't want these alerts, just tell me :).Jasper Deng (talk) 05:16, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. They are perfect! -- Comps (talk) 05:56, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, please stop assuming ownership of the Database article.Jasper Deng (talk) 17:11, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I never did. You assume that I have assumed. Pls follow the history pages of Database and its discussion to see yourself. I want a reasonable, transparent process of collaborative change, with good will and mutual respect to each other work. Thanks for your comment and help. --Comps (talk) 17:37, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * "If you don't want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here." Says that below the edit summary box.Jasper Deng (talk) 21:42, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * This has never been a problem for me. I love my text to be edited when value added (happens all the time, with great improvements), but not when I see important aspects wiped. In this case I want 1. explanation. 2. discussion. If done without explanation, and I see severe damage, what should I do? --Comps (talk) 23:26, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You will have to prove why that is so to whomever is doing it.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:45, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, thnks. --Comps (talk) 23:49, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * U R a wise guy (and I do not mean like in the gangster movies...) --Comps (talk) 01:15, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Just a note: Accusing the other side of libel is not going to get this resolved any faster.Jasper Deng (talk) 02:33, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. So, again, what do you suggest? Now he completely crossed the line. --Comps (talk) 03:33, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Ignore it while you can. If it continues, Wikiquette assistance may be necessary, but my hope is that it can be resolved without any administrative action or warning.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:37, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * As long he completely stops his out-of-line behavior. Thnks. --Comps (talk) 03:47, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * As long as he can control his out-of-line behavior. --Comps (talk) 03:55, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of History of commitment ordering for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article History of commitment ordering is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/History of commitment ordering until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:18, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Identity
Hi,

There's a discussion on my talk page at user talk:Thumperward which concerns you. Would you consider responding to it? Thanks. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 22:49, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about Yoav Raz
Hello, Comps, and thanks for contributing to Wikipedia!

I wanted to let you know that some editors are discussing at Articles for deletion/Yoav Raz whether the article Yoav Raz should be in Wikipedia. I encourage you to comment there if you think the article should be kept in the encyclopedia.

The deletion discussion doesn't mean you did something wrong. In fact, other editors may have useful suggestions on how you can continue editing and improving Yoav Raz, which I encourage you to do. If you have any questions, feel free to ask at the Help Desk.

Thanks again for your contributions! SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:07, 10 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for letting me know. I was pinged and already replied there. --Comps (talk) 05:23, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I misunderstood what "Deletion discussion" was when replied above. I related to another discussion... Thanks again. --Comps (talk) 22:35, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Commitment ordering for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Commitment ordering is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Commitment ordering until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.


 * Hi, I just wanted to clarify that I'm not planning to rewrite History of commitment ordering. I still think it's far too specialized for an encyclopedia. I asked for a copy to look up some of the information you had written there about "dynamic atomicity".


 * On another subject, you write about "Commitment ordering": "this is the name of both the history (schedule) property and the methods, algorithms to produce such histories, which are patented." It's very confusing when you use the same words to mean related but different concepts. If it's the name of a patented algorithm then it really should be used only for that and other words should be used for the related (non-patented) concepts. It really helps someone who isn't immersed in a subject if you're clear and precise about the meaning of the basic concepts. Regards, Dingo1729 (talk) 20:32, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:CO-ScheduleClasses.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:CO-ScheduleClasses.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as non-free fair use or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly hi! 11:04, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:SCO-VS-SS2PL.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:SCO-VS-SS2PL.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as non-free fair use or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly hi! 11:32, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:CO-ScheduleClasses.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:CO-ScheduleClasses.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Kelly hi! 08:02, 9 October 2015 (UTC)