User talk:Azarboon

Hello, Azarboon, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits to the page CAP theorem did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may have been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations verified in reliable, reputable print or online sources or in other reliable media. Always provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to The Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome!  PetraMagna (talk) 19:47, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

I haven't removed your additions, but using blog posts as a source on Wikipedia is usually a bad idea unless you know what you are doing. The existing blog post by Abadi could be counted as reliable since it's (1) written by a subject expert and (2) revisited later in reliable publications, but it should be removed as well since there is a published source that says the same things. PetraMagna (talk) 19:53, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for comment. The blog post author is a subject matter expert. Also I mentioned that he "argues" about those counter points; it's good to expand the view of readers but also indicates that the opinion is arguable. Azarboon (talk) 01:04, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

I wanted to say that not any software engineer is a subject expert, but seeing that Brooker has published in peer-reviewed conferences he definitely ticks that checkbox. However, if someone challenges that source, I am pretty pessimistic about the outcome as having a publication is a very low bar. Re the "argues" wording, it usually applies to biased sources. Using it in this context is fine, but it doesn't automatically justify using an unreliable source. PetraMagna (talk) 02:30, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Hello Azarboon! Your additions to Serverless computing have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, it's important to understand and adhere to guidelines about using information from sources to prevent copyright and plagiarism issues. Here are the key points:

• Limited quotation: You may only copy or translate a small portion of a source. Any direct quotations must be enclosed in double quotation marks (") and properly cited using an inline citation. More information is available on the non-free content page. To learn how to cite a source, see Help:Referencing for beginners.
• Paraphrasing: Beyond limited quotations, you are required to put all information in your own words. Following the source's wording too closely can lead to copyright issues and is not permitted; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when paraphrasing, you must still cite your sources as appropriate.
• Image use guidelines: In most scenarios, only freely licensed or public domain images may be used and these should be uploaded to our sister project, Wikimedia Commons. In some scenarios, non-freely copyrighted content can be used if they meet all ten of our non-free content criteria; Wikipedia:Plain and simple non-free content guide may help with determining a file's elegibility.
• Copyrighted material donation: If you hold the copyright to the content you want to copy, or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license the text for publication here. Please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• Copying and translation within Wikipedia: Wikipedia articles can be copied or translated, however they must have proper attribution in accordance with Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. For translation, see Help:Translation § License requirements.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices. Persistent failure to comply may result in being blocked from editing. If you have any questions or need further clarification, please ask them here on this page, or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. jlwoodwa (talk) 03:17, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. I've edited it accordingly: paraphrased and summarized it. Also, the content is free to use under  Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 license (CC BY-SA 4.0). Azarboon (talk) 03:45, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. However, please do not use unreliable sources such as blogs, wikis, personal websites, and websites and publications with a poor reputation for checking the facts or with no editorial oversight. These sources may express views that are widely acknowledged as pushing a particular point-of-view, sometimes even extremist, being promotional in nature, or relying heavily on rumors and personal opinions. One of Wikipedia's core policies is that contributions must be verifiable through reliable sources, preferably using inline citations. If you require further assistance, please look at Help:Menu/Editing Wikipedia, or ask at the Teahouse. Note in particular that self published books are not reliable sources. MrOllie (talk) 11:52, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

@MrOllie thank you for explanation. i will never cite self published books. Also, is there any black list of publishers? I think once you wrote that IGI Global should not be cited. please let me know if I can find list of such publishers so I won't cite them. Azarboon (talk) 12:02, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Your edit to Availability has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for information on how to contribute your work appropriately. For legal reasons, Wikipedia strictly cannot host copyrighted text or images from print media or digital platforms without an appropriate and verifiable license. Contributions infringing on copyright will be removed. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 13:35, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for mistake. Got your message and will correct it accordingly. Azarboon (talk) 14:33, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Azarboon. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Yan Cui (software engineer), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 15:07, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Distributed transaction, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Distributed environment. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 07:53, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

These sections are pretty clear cut original research, specifically analyzing primary sources. I have no doubt you are correct, however a reliable secondary source would be needed for us to cover the limitations of cloud provider SLAs. Brandon (talk) 08:42, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I see you've added references, however these appear to be generic references about SLAs generally and their limitations. Do you have any references that are specific to the cloud provides to which you added the section and why this would be an "issue?" Again I do not doubt limitations of SLAs are a legitimate issue professionals have to deal with, however that does not warrant a section on every major cloud provider article without substantial secondary coverage of the topic. Brandon (talk) 05:05, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for comment and letting us discuss it here. As far as I remember, all added references are explicitly addressing the cloud. Please let me know if you have any specific source in mind, so I will look further into it / replace it.

There are many cloud providers there. Some have looser and some have stricter SLAs. But AWS, GCP and Azure share the same issue (I checked their SLAs individually). I believe it should be added there. Especially that their current page is full of promotional materials. Adding these information will give a more balanced view to readers.

As for "issues": if you have a better alternative, I'm more than happy to reconsider this. BTW, if you check latest versions, I've added more info to their "issues": Azure has lots of issues with security breaches. AWS has issues with surprise bills. So, I've added them. Azarboon (talk) 05:27, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Just to correct myself: As far as I remember, all added references are explicitly addressing the specified cloud provider or cloud in general. Azarboon (talk) 05:33, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

@Brandon After careful consideration, I decided to remove the SLA related content from pages of AWS, GCP and Azure. Thanks for brining this up to my attention. Azarboon (talk) 08:45, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! Cloud computing feels like a better home for the content. Brandon (talk) 17:46, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello Azarboon, It's been many years since I spent much time editing pages on Wikipedia. I wandered back to see you've been trying to improve the pages on Software Architect and Software Architecture. I appreciate the efforts and it appears you are learning the ropes (MrOllie is very good at this stuff).

For the page on Software Architect, may I make a few suggestions? Look to describe the profession of software architect, not the behavior of a software architect in a specific situation. There's' nothing wrong (in my eyes, anyway) with describing ways that a software architect can handle ambiguity, but the page, in general, fails to describe some basic bits of information about the profession.

For example, how does a person become a software architect? What degree should they have? What universities are particularly known for developing research in software architecture? What professional bodies provide membership to software architects? Do software architects have an impact on society? Who are some famous software architects?

Focus on the people doing the work. How did they become one? Where do they go from here? Let the page on "Software architecture" describe the work and the outcomes.

Just suggestions. Thank you for your efforts. Nickmalik (talk) 03:54, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

@Nickmalik Thank you for your suggestion. I must admit that my focus leans more toward exploring and sharing the deeper competencies of architects—the serious, substantive aspects of the profession—rather than addressing the more basic, introductory topics. I prefer to leave those foundational discussions to others. That said, I’ll certainly keep your suggestions in mind for future edits. Thank you again! Azarboon (talk) 04:34, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

I work for NoSQL database company MongoDB Inc. In compliance with WP:COI, I suggested adding a "Software" section summarizing what the company does on the Talk page here. I saw that you were interested in NoSQL databases and was hoping you might be willing to take a look at the request as an impartial editor. Let me know and thanks in advance if you take the time to review. ToniBirdOne (talk) 19:07, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi Azarboon, I noticed you recently made changes to a few articles (Distributed Computing and Microservices), adding sections about "Cell-Based Architecture". Both of those sections are identical and cite the same three books repeatedly for each paragraph. I was able to properly source the "circuit breaker" pattern in all three books, but none of them seemed to use the phrase "cell-based architecture" or "cell" at all. Am I missing something about those books? Moreover, I don't think it's appropriate to include duplicate sections on separate pages. A link to Cell-based architecture may be preferable in one or both cases. NoelleLavenza (talk) 06:27, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

@NoelleLavenza The exact term used in books may vary, but the gist is correct. It's a consolidation from those sources. Azarboon (talk) 06:32, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Azarboon,

I came across your contributions to storage and tech topics on Wikipedia and thought you might be the right person to reach out to about some edit requests I’ve made as someone with a declared COI. I see you’ve received other requests like this, so I’ll keep it brief.

I’ve put together some proposed edits to the Commvault article to make it more complete. Given your experience in this area, I’d appreciate it if you’d take a look when you have a moment. You can view my requests on the talk page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Commvault

Thanks so much for your time and any feedback is appreciated. SBCornelius (talk) 17:19, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Grayfell, and welcome to Wikipedia. I appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Generative artificial intelligence, it appears that you added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. Grayfell (talk) 07:14, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation and for pointing this out. I have revised the text to address the WP:OR concern by explicitly attributing the analysis to a reliable source. I appreciate the guidance and will be mindful of this rule in future edits. Azarboon (talk) 09:40, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

To be blunt, I don't think you did understand the problem. The edits you had made to Cloud computing cited sources which do not discuss cloud computing. Summarize what sources say about "cloud computing" directly. I've attempted to rewrite your addition to address this issue.

Based on your stated interests and activity, I will also point out that using WP:LLMs to contribute to Wikipedia, including to talk pages, is discouraged, as it mostly just creates more work for other editors and comes off as insulting. Grayfell (talk) 23:50, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for this. You are right; WP:NOR was new to me, and thanks to your rewrite, I now understand what the issue was. So thank you for that. Regarding LLMs, English is not my native language, and I use them only for proofreading; otherwise, the content is my own. Azarboon (talk) 00:35, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with your other concern. The sources I cited are relevant to cloud computing. For example, FISA applies to cloud services, even if the term cloud computing is not explicitly used. You were right that the connection was not initially clear, which is why I added an additional source. Azarboon (talk) 00:44, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

What "other concern"? My only concerns were WP:OR and WP:LLM. If you used a chatbot to write this, than the chatbot made this comment more confusing.

Learning a language is difficult. If you, as a human, make mistakes, I will understand and will appreciate the effort. Chatbot slop, on the other hand, will make me much less likely to want to help you. If you cannot contribute without using an LLM, than you are probably not ready to edit the English Wikipedia.

Whether you agree with me or not, Wikipedia:No original research is a policy. Relevance is decided by the sources themselves. If a source doesn't discuss cloud computing directly, it is not very useful for that article.

You may find it helpful to look at WP:PRIMARY and WP:INDEPENDENT, also. Grayfell (talk) 22:13, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for this. I appreciate you taking the time to explain the issues and help improve my understanding for future edits. I am satisfied with the current state of the "cloud computing" page, and I am fine with leaving it as it is. Azarboon (talk) 00:04, 25 January 2026 (UTC)