User talk:TeaLover1996/Archive 11

High Availability
Hey, thanks for checking out the revision I made to High Availability, and for guarding the integrity of Wikipedia :-). Your objection to the edit was a need for a verifiable source.  I didn't initially go searching for one because I didn't consider the change to be something that was likely to be challenged; looks like I was wrong :-P.  I viewed the edit as a simple grammar/logic fix, not the addition of new information.

The paragraph containing my change is entirely uncited, which probably should be addressed, but that's a different problem. With that said, the logic of that paragraph is developing a certain, simple point. In order for a system to be considered highly available, it needs to meet a certain threshold of up-time. "So when it is said that some service has 99% availability across a year, it means that from across entire duration in a year (24*365=8760 hours), the service would be operational for 8672.4 hours." According to the logic of that paragraph, a highly available system will therefore meet a certain, guaranteed minimum amount of time during which it will be operational. However, in the next sentence that summarizes that logic, it states the opposite: "A highly available system will be one which is operational for maximum duration within the specified length of time"

Using the word "maximum" instead of minimum tells the reader that a highly available system cannot be operational more than the specified length of time. Instead of a guaranteed amount of up-time, it becomes a guaranteed amount of down-time (e.g. this system will not be operational any more than 99% of the time). So, my intention wasn't to add new information, simply to correct the summary sentence to correctly reflect the logic that came before.

With that said, I did some googling; here's a source from Oracle that talks about the need for a "minimal" downtime in an HA system. Might be useful as a source for the entire paragraph. What do you think?

Thanks, Opensourcejunkie (talk) 17:45, 9 June 2015 (UTC)


 * To me it would seem sufficient to cite the paragraph with that source, maybe try and look for more it makes the paragraph more reliable, the more sources the better, if you can't find anymore, do not worry. If you need anymore help just ask. Thank You TeaLover1996 Talk to me ☏  22:19, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Bad Unconstructive editing notice
Hello TeaLover1996, why on earth did you leave this Unconstructive editing notice on her Talk page User talk:Tokyogirl79. Please revert it and be more careful in future. You are beginning to test the patience of users on here and if you continue like you are I will support a block. JMHamo (talk) 15:06, 12 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree, this is very constructive, as it's adding a padlock to the page, so people know it's semi-protected. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:30, 12 June 2015 (UTC)


 * In all fairness, they probably thought I was one of the people trying to pre-emptively add things to Bogdán's article. However at the same time I would like to ask that you be more careful about marking things since my edits weren't unconstructive. The version I'd edited had incorrect information and it was easier for JHamo to revert back to a prior edit than it would be for him to manually remove all of the information and retain the template. I think that you meant well, just be a little more careful next time is all. Otherwise, no worries. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  03:45, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

=)

 * Thank You. TeaLover1996 Talk to me ☏  22:45, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Where
You need to provide diffs as evidence- not make specific claims from general assumptions. You also have a tendency to over-use templates in place of discussion. Please see WP:DONTTEMPLATETHEREGULARS. It is for such reasons, as well as your continuing pretence to be an admin, that your competency has been questioned. It is also worth bearing in mind that repeatedly removing editor's comments and notices from your TP could lead to you being seen as WP:NOTHERE. I suggest you return to basic editing for the time being- too many editors have noticed your (what might be seen as) erratic behavoural patterns. Cheers, <sub style="color:green;">Fortuna  <sup style="color:red;">Imperatrix Mundi  10:42, 15 June 2015 (UTC)