User talk:Craigster0

MogileFS Deletion meta-discussion
There are better ways to undelete an article. Simply write it well, source it properly and put it up again. However, deleting user pages in temper tantrums just shows that the article maybe should have been deleted because it's not important enough to spend time improving.

You get to decide: is the article important enough to rewrite and get in Wikipedia, or not?

If you really want to write an article, write it here, in user space, and, if it's worthwhile, let me know, and I'll see if I can help you with it. --KP Botany (talk) 08:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * i haven't deleted anybody's user page, in a tantrum or otherwise. perhaps you've confused me with somebody else.


 * nor did i write the the article on MogileFS that i'm arguing about the deletion of. if you want to read my argument, you can find it here on Rootology's talk page.  the reason the discussion is there will be clear if you read the entry.


 * but i do thank you for your offer of help.


 * Craigster0 (talk) 09:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Then you did it by mistake. Here's the edit history that clearly shows you deleting most of the page.  --KP Botany (talk) 13:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * you're exactly right! my apologies.  i zapped his entire page at 8:32 pm, and then you reverted the change at 8:35 pm.  i now understand a glitch that showed up during my editing, though i don't understand how i managed to zap his page in the first place.  (of course it's pretty obvious what i must have done, i just don't understand how i could have done it.)
 * anyway, thank you for your kind words and for reverting my edit so quickly. that may have spared me further embarrassment.
 * --Craigster0 (talk) 00:56, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, I've done worse, but it's luckily pretty deep in my edit history and you'll never find it.... I'd spam your user page with a set of links along with a welcome, but the links aren't the most useful set.  Just post on my talk page if you need help with anything.  --KP Botany (talk) 04:16, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * thanks Mr. Botany! i appreciate your offer of help.  i'm thinking of tackling some controversial topics, like Amazon S3 reliability, so your advice may be useful.  --Craigster0 (talk) 07:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

MogileFS deletion discussion
the following discussion is imported from a discussion started on Rootology's talk page. It has been edited to remove content not relevant to the MogileFS discussion. you can read the original here.

i want to post a comment about a deleted article, MogileFS, to MBsanz's talk page, but i cannot, apparently because it is semi-protected and i am not [was not] a "registered user". --Craigster0 (talk) 00:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I watch this page so I saw your comment. There was a discussion at Articles for deletion/MogileFS where the Wikipedia community discussed the MogileFS.  People found that the article lacked coverage in reliable sources.  Articles on Wikipedia need to have coverage in reliable sources in order to be verifiable and notable.  If you want to ask the people who commented at the AFD discussion or seek help from a Wikiproject like Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computing, they may be able to give you more details.   MBisanz  talk 01:22, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * 3) getting back to the original subject of the MogileFS article that was deleted ... i think there were a couple of errors made here. the first is the decision that MogileFS is not notable or verifiable enough to deserve a Wikipedia entry, and the second was in the way the article was deleted.  other than the aforementioned Deletion_review process, i don't see a mechanism to initiate a discussion with "the people who commented at the AFD discussion".
 * 3) getting back to the original subject of the MogileFS article that was deleted ... i think there were a couple of errors made here. the first is the decision that MogileFS is not notable or verifiable enough to deserve a Wikipedia entry, and the second was in the way the article was deleted.  other than the aforementioned Deletion_review process, i don't see a mechanism to initiate a discussion with "the people who commented at the AFD discussion".


 * i should mention that i have no personal or commercial interest in MogileFS. i've found Wikipedia to be very useful to me, and i just want to see Wikipedia be as useful as possible to others.  also, for what it's worth, i'm a file system developer on UNIX and Linux with 20 years experience, and one of the original developers of VxFS so i have some knowledge of file systems (though not of cloud storage).


 * 3a) first of all, i think MogileFS is sufficiently notable to deserve a Wikipedia entry (though i don't know what that threshold actually is).  i ran across MogileFS in the course of my work at Symantec researching Cloud Storage solutions (it *may* have come from an IDC report).  i looked up MogileFS on Google, which showed me a Wikipedia entry, among other references.  unfortunately, when i followed the Google link it was effectively broken since it took me to a page on Danga_Interactive that contained no useful information on MogileFS.  so i went back to Google, looked at the cached version of the Wikipedia MogileFS page, and got information that was useful for my purposes.


 * in this same week, i ran across another reference to MogileFS in a SNIA presentation. that can be found at .  unfortunately, the content is password protected (SNIA members only) and copyrighted, so i can't just post it here.  but only one slide of the presentation talks about MogileFS; i'll try to post it somewhere on Wikipedia and then reference it.


 * anyway, my argument for "sufficiently notable" consists of the fact that i ran across two different references to MogileFS in the course of my work, and therefore wanted more information about it.


 * 3b) although the contents of the article were sparse, they were not free of content. in fact, i found the content of the article sufficient to my need to learn something about about MogileFS.  i assume that there are other readers in the same position.


 * 3c) i'm a bit confused about the verifiable requirement. although the article appears to summarize information from the Danja Interactive Mogile FS page, that information is verifiable, as is all open source software.  simply download the source and examine it.  nobody who commented on deleting the article seemed worried about the verifiability of the information; the comments simply pertained to notability and value of content.


 * 3d) my third point is that the article was deleted incorrectly. i'm a naive Wikipedia user, but as far as i can tell there were three "votes" in favor of deleting the page, and none in favor of keeping it (see Articles_for_deletion/MogileFS).  however, two of the three "votes" suggested that the content of the page be moved to the Danga_Interactive page, which was not done, so the useful information on the MogileFS page was lost.  i think that if you're going to take the responsibility to delete the article, then you're also responsible for propagating the useful information that two out of three members of the Wikipedia community thought should be preserved.  it seems to me that the first rule of editing should be "First, do no harm".
 * --Craigster0 (talk) 09:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * As far as the substantive arguments on WP:V, an article needs to be verifiable with regard to reliable sources to be considered notable and therefore inclusive in WP. Also, I closed it as a redirect, so all of the data is available under the redirect.  In my 2 years on WP and in my research of the time before I was on WP, there has never been a requirement for closing admins to merge the data.  The data is preserved and it is up to parties involved in the article to merge the content.  I think WP:DRV would be the best place to go next.  MBisanz  talk 08:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

West Africa Ebola virus epidemic
Hi this is to inform you that West African Ebola virus epidemic which you edited will be submitted for WikiJournal of Medicine...''The objective of this message is to invite the contributors to collaboratively submit the article for review through Wiki.J.Med, and if possible, to help in further betterment of the article in accordance to the suggestions of the reviewers. Wikipedia articles are collaboratively authored. So, it is very important to make the authors aware of such a process that the article is currently undergoing'' thanks--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:45, 3 November 2018 (UTC)