User talk:Comp.arch

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Windows XP. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. ViperSnake151  Talk  13:57, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Windows XP. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:22, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

In the last 24 hours I made this these edits:

[Is this first one considered an edit or a revert as it is the "first" in the 24 hours window?]

Then, it is three or four depending on counting. Note I always explained in summary and always explained in Talk page between how the reverts where "wrong", sometimes justification being based on policies misapplied. The last one in the page itself was a compromise, not editing the LEAD. That one should stick in the main text but was also reverted. Then I made a final one in the talk page that says in summary "I give up, Do as you think is right." comp.arch (talk) 15:06, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Comp.arch (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)

---

Request reason:

Like I said before the block "I give up, Do as you think is right." If I stepped over the bright line (is my revert count four or three), then I'm sorry, but I would like to know. In any case if I did and anyway I could use a Wikibreak for at least 24 hours, but would like "April 2014"-section removed on appeal if it's unfair. I understand what I was blocked for ("the bright line"), if the count is right. I always try to be productive, I always try to respect the line and policies. comp.arch (talk) 15:26, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

The "bright line" is the point at which you'll get blocked for edit warring essentially automatically. However, if you read a bit closer in WP:3RR, it says "even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring"; and indeed, you were edit warring regardless of any 24-hour window. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:49, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Jpgordon, since it has come to this, me getting blocked for adding this sourced information I tried to get a "content resolution" but can't post it since I'm blocked:

Location of dispute

Windows XP Dispute overview

I ask for content resolution on the [removal from an APPROPRIATE place in the main text.] of: On March 10, 2014, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security's US-CERT advised, as support ends on April 8, 2014, not using unsupported Windows XP without mitigation; users "may mitigate some risks [regarding Windows XP] by using a web browser other than Internet Explorer"^[1][2] or by other means. Others had given similar advise before and Microsoft also advises people not use Windows XP anymore. This is not an "how-to". It is good advise, but not a hatnote, not a disclaimer, not breaking any of the policies that objections had been made about. It was my last attempt at getting important information in the article removing the possible "systematic bias" I could think of. Since it has come to me being blocked for adding this sourced information. Does it belong in the article? Does it belong there in the article? Does it also belong in the LEAD? I do not need a resolution on the LEAD. My edit: [] Users involved

Comp.arch, Resolving the dispute Other steps if any, you have tried to resolve this dispute

It started with I added a different text as a hatnote, and realizing it was against policy I tried to change the text and to comply with all policies. It took too many reverts from others and my to trying to comply by making changes to comply. This text belongs in the final destination if not also somwhere in the LEAD. How you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Is a consensus needed at least for including in the main text?

You can address these issues on the article talk page when your block expires. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 18:51, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Ok, Jpgordon, already have, but to no avail. I can force a resolution there, but I guess it can wait. Would I be vindicated for the 3RR-rule after the fact? I'm not sure I want to delete this section myself from the page if not. comp.arch (talk) 19:00, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

There is no "vindication for the 3RR-rule". Nobody gets to edit war; it doesn't matter if you're 100% correct. The problem is behavior, not content. And you cannot "force a resolution". --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 22:31, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

To clarify, I asked about consensus, and responded to that answer with "force a resolution", meaning I can ask for it about the content addition, wasn't talking about an unblock. If the content gets in it might be a "moral vindication", at least, for me regarding some of my reverts. Never intended to edit war, was always commenting on talk page in between. I thought that was the requirement, not reverting without. Believed I was taking criticisim into account in between.

I know I have to convince an admin to unblock if I want the unblock. I do not care about being blocked for a while if I deserve it and even if I didn't go over the bright line. I'm not sure I did. Even if I broke the rule, by misunderstanding, two of the rules that allow unblocking apply. comp.arch (talk) 00:03, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

By the way, the block is now expired. You should be able to edit normally now. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 17:51, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Guy Harris, or anyone else (uninvolved with my edits on the Windows XP page). I value your input. Please if you can take a look at the "public service announcment" at the top of my page to review it content wise. Your personal view on running unsupported software and in particular that is proprietary software to boot. Then does the specific text belong in your view in the article. Or where? Possibly a little modified. Then I admit I was edit warring, not on purpose, and possibly going over the "bright line" first the first time, by accident, always trying to explain in summary and on the talk page. Didn't realize you need consensus before moving on. I have to reflect on that. Please be honest, if you will. Have you found me obsessive on other occasion, and what about this one? Is it bad to be obsessed about what you feel is right? Any advise other than what I already know, trying to control it and be more careful regarding policies and people's opinions. Maybe I need "conflict resolution" about content, but it seems like a hostile way. Do you find the tone at the top of the page hostile? I'm not sure I want to/should edit Wikipedia anymore (for the first time). At least some parts. comp.arch (talk) 12:33, 8 April 2014 (UTC) P.S. I was going to discuss your last revert of my edit :)

"fine. You win". I feel no victory, I feel sad or something, mixed feelings. Hope the other person doesn't feel he lost. Should I go to his talk page? Avoid it and the page he edits? Will sleep on this. comp.arch (talk) 17:57, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for putting more info into Android (operating system) article. One thing to note though: you really shouldn't put as much quotations, particularly when they can be paraphrased. See WP:QUOTEFARM for details. Basicly they should only be used when the original wording is important per se. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 15:11, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Template:Unix internals, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Template-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Fiddle Faddle 22:52, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Timtrent. Regarding the notice, I can't however see that I could have done this myself. Checking the Wizard again, it seems I can go either way when starting a regular article, but not for a template. I'm not too worried about it (maybe the above notice could be amended), I know this applies for regular articles (that I would have done myself), I'm will not be making many templates I think.. comp.arch (talk) 10:24, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Life is always a mystery. Very few of us make templates. We just know when one is needed and make it :) Fiddle Faddle 21:08, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give User:Aunva6/HSAdraft a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut-and-paste-move repair holding pen. Thank you. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 02:03, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry Aunva6, I thought I was doing you a favor, not a disservice.. Hope no harm done. It seems from the edit history everything is ok now (and I think I get this now). Didn't mean to take credit from you, thought "Copied from" then your page gave that. Maybe that is ok for article space (only). I've never moved from "user space" before. I've moved/rename whole articles before with the right mechanism. But I've also just copied parts of/merged some Internet Explorer versions (can't recall anything else), eg. []. comp.arch (talk) 17:50, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

no harm, just letting you know. the CSD was so that the existing page could be deleted and the new one moved into the same place. this needs to be done by a sysop, hence the CSD tag, which puts it into a category for deletion and move. next time, just let the speedy deletion go through, and the admin will move it. I think that merging just uses tags on the talk page, so you're fine there. -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 18:38, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi you are invited to vote for the image to be used on the LG G2 infobox page at Talk:LG G2. Thanks! GadgetsGuy (talk) 06:28, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Template:Unix internals has been nominated for merging with Template:Unix. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 09:33, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Regarding yout date Format changes in the android article for consistency: you did it wrong. You should have used the preferable yyyy-mm-dd iso format. Infact, this ugly middle endian Format makes not only ME sick as it is not used by 95% of the world. Addirionally, i cant reuse your mm-dd-yyyy Formated refs directly in other language WPs. Please don't do. Shaddim (talk) 15:36, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

@Shaddim: Thanks for stopping by. Yes, isn't inconsistency irritating. It seems to me I didn't do it wrong. The date format for this article was decided in 2007 it seems. An illegal date format "06-September-2007" had been used before - never YMD date format. The rules are (with exception - that do not apply here) that "first use" decides. I had to go through several pages of the oldest changes to find first use for you to make sure. Then in fact MDY was the only correct date format according to the WP:MOS rules. I would support you in finding a better way to find/decide the correct date format for articles. YMD doesn't sound bad, I wouldn't even have changed if that was consistently used in refs. I can live with MDY in article and YMD in refs (that I believe is allowed). There has to be consistency within article and in refs, and makes sense between though I'm not wedded to that. I doubt you can convince people otherwise but you can try in the article talk page (I assume it's allowed, but not sure, with consensus). I've already been thanked for the change by a regular there.. :) comp.arch (talk) 16:38, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

@Shaddim:, note I used a script to change date formats. As I edit my own language (DMY) WP sometimes, I wander if the script (or some other) can't help? I rarely copy links between, they should be changed anyway - say "(English)" (that this script doesn't do). Look up the rules and if there is a script that does it for you. You may let me know if you find a good one. I'll try to think of you if I see one. comp.arch (talk) 16:47, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:MOSNUMscript. Guy Harris (talk) 20:42, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

See User:DASHBot. The comment is presumably either an indication that it did something to the reference or a note to itself about the reference. Guy Harris (talk) 21:55, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Comp, thanks so much for fixing the errors that came up as a byproduct of my editing Raspberry Pi. Also, are you good with wikitables? I'd like to split the video output row into subrows to accommodate the fact that composite vid is available across the different versions. Apparently there's a rowspan param but I can't quite get the hang of it --Cornellier (talk) 21:58, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Please see this edit, where I declined your proposed move of Gimlé. The target, Gimli, already contains a DAB page and Gimlé is already mentioned there. If you check the corresponding articles on the French, Spanish and German Wikipedias they always end this word with an 'e' though not always with an accent. On the Norwegian wikipedia the article is at no:Gimle (mytologi). If you have a further idea of how to rename this you might consider a formal move discussion. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:01, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

ok, I see. Gimle might be better than Gimlé though. comp.arch (talk) 17:08, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

The best plan is to use the most common spelling in English-speaking sources. The article itself doesn't link to any sources that are available online, but there should be books. This search in Google Books finds somewhat more hits for gimle than gimli. EdJohnston (talk) 17:18, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I know. Original term (even if that is Gimli) may not be best. I can't see for sure if Gimle is more used then Gimé so I'm not pressing for any change and let others decide. I thought Gimlé was plain wrong but turns out some Icelandic sources use it. é seemed strange for English source considering é isn't even in Norse. Not sure if it was in (in Old Norse) and was dropped. Or when Icelandic got it. comp.arch (talk) 17:26, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I knew Forrest J Ackerman, the guy who coined the term. He was the first fanboy: an enthusiast, but notorious for being utterly without taste or discrimination. From Perry Rhodan to Ursula K. LeGuin, it was all good to him. The term was coined as a bit of hip, trendy slang back when "hi-fi" was cutting-edge sound technology. A small but outspoken segment of the science fiction community remains bitterly opposed to it, as carrying overtones of childish and unthinking spectacle, as exemplified by most of the programming on the SyFy Channel. Even among those who do not oppose it so bitterly, or those outside the field who remain unaware of or indifferent to the controversy, the term remains slang, and thus unsuited for use in an encyclopedic project such as this one. It was always slang, and remains so. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:53, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Julia (programming language) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:38, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Yo dude, regarding your question of October 10 in the comment to your edit of Software patents, about Oracle being a licensee -- Oracle isn't the licensee, Oracle now owns the patents, so it is (probably) properly the assignee. It's possible that they are having the patents held by another company, such as an offshore subsidiary in Ireland, to work a tax dodge, though, in which case they might "license" the patents back from the subsidiary, paying huge license fees to the offshore entity, deducting them from their U.S. tax statements, and (because Ireland and other countries have lower corporate taxes) thus paying a lower effective tax rate. (Very common nowadays, hence the mention of it.) In this latter case, Oracle is technically a "licensee", even though it is really "licensing" its own IP back from itself.

Anyway, I don't think it affects the article itself, but since you asked, I figured I'd let you know. 60.248.2.163 (talk) 21:26, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed some of your comments on the page history on pages listing unidentified murder victims. I agree with your opinion about the date format's being inconsistent, which is probably a result of different editor's preferences. The anchors being added above the headers ensures that the redirects to the page show the title of the entry, as placing the anchors below redirect readers underneath the title, which could cause some confusion, as a lot of the cases are known by different names. Thanks! --GouramiWatcher^pride 00:38, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello! Any chances, please, for you to have a look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Software § Date format in release history sections of Linux articles and possibly comment there by providing your point of view? The whole thing is pretty much poorly discussed with only a few editors actually discussing it, while it seems to be affecting more than a few articles (and the date format seems to be extending beyond the tables into references, please see history of the Linux distribution article). Any contributions to the discussion would be highly appreciated! — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 02:39, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

"ff." after a page number means "and following pages". "p." means page and "pp." means pages. Pelarmian (talk) 18:07, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello! There's a somewhat lengthy content-related discussion in Talk:Linux distribution § Information on GNU/Linux that would really need input from more editors. It's about an ongoing disagreement on how should a Linux distribution be described, required level of coverage by references, and partially about the way article's lead section should reflect the article content. If you could provide any input there, I'd really appreciate it! — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 02:56, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi. I noticed that "Comparison of current ARM cores" is a subset of "Comparison of ARMv7-A cores", except for the ARM11 column, thus I consider it redundant and put in a request to DELETE the "Comparison of current ARM cores" article. If you are interested, please comment at "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of current ARM cores". Thanks in advance. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 20:40, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello Comp.arch,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged STOPzilla/sandbox for deletion, because it seems to be promotional, rather than an encyclopedia article.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. One life to live (talk) 11:34, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I moved it into userspace and removed the speedy tag. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:27, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I wasn't aware the sandbox should be at User:Comp.arch/STOPzilla/sandbox. It may even not be true. The location isn't too important to me. I assume I can point to my sandbox from STOPzilla's talk page (and maybe point CNET to it). comp.arch (talk) 13:40, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Comp.arch. You have new messages at Template talk:Talk page stalker.
Message added 15:33, 24 February 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:33, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi.

The Verge is a website name and goes into |website= (or |work= if you prefer a shorter alias). |publisher= is Vox Media.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 00:15, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi,

I recently edited an addition you made to Supercomputer. You listed a number as 3,76 MFLOPS/W. Refer to Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers#Decimals.

Sorry, I know it's tough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.141.169.24 (talk) 03:30, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello! Regarding your addition to the zram article, it would fit well in the Virtual memory compression article, which describes the concept in general; the Virtual memory compression § Recent developments section would be an almost perfect fit. :) On the other side, the zram article is devoted to a Linux kernel feature, so mentioning other operating systems is pretty much out of place. Hope you agree. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 13:29, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Regarding your question, zram and zswap are quite different and fit different usage scenarios. It's all described in the articles, and comparing them is up to the readers; there would be next to no point in having some kind of a "dedicated" comparison. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 14:00, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I just saw it now, and it's all coming back to me.. I've seen this before. Seems fine what's already in the article. What I was really after - just hadn't started reading.. :) Seems all editing is done [for now, it never is, on this or other issues..] comp.arch (talk) 14:04, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Totally forgot that I've already described the differences between zram and zswap in zswap § Alternatives. :) — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 14:09, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm having second thoughts about this revert, maybe I've misjudged it – are you Ok with that? — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 14:29, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

It's probably best that you reverted my DMY-change. I'm sure I just did a an MDY-change and explained in edit summary, but it just vaporized.. Maybe I got an edit conflict because you were already editing and I missed it.. If you are still doing this by hand (as I did for months (or years?) as I hate inconsistency, before I discovered the script), you should stop that right now.. :) comp.arch (talk) 14:40, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll have a look at WP:MOSNUMscript. :) — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 14:44, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Time Reborn

not sure how to fix this, see Talk:Time Reborn, of this physics book.

Thanks, I wasn't sure Duality (mathematics), still isn't sure.. but have no better idea, so leave that in. comp.arch (talk) 16:43, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

As far as I know, all versions of NeoOffice since 3.1 are based on Go-oo 3.1, whatever the NeoOffice version number is - it forked there, and everything since has just been patches and tweaks. There should be at least primary sources to this effect, if not third-party ones ... I think NeoOffice more-or-less sorta-tracked OOo/Go-oo up to then - David Gerard (talk) 15:58, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Did you mean to make this in your own sandbox?--Savonneux (talk) 12:42, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Fine with me if there is a policy against.. (I want others being also able to change the proposed copy and automatically be allowed). Not sure how to move except by copying. I thought sandboxes where used in article space, maybe that is no longer done..

I thought this was automatic, you had a bot, or you were just very fast :) comp.arch (talk) 12:48, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Special:NewPages if you were every curious how they catch new pages so fast :P --Savonneux (talk) 11:05, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. RHaworth, I was kind of expecting it would stay as not a "test page", but part of a discussion at the talk page (I was getting reverted and wanted to develop an alternative lead up for discussion). I only thought the capital S had triggered some auto-delete-process. I was hoping the page would be userified, as has happened before as User:Comp.arch/Digital rights management/sandbox, but it and later edits are just gone.. This was userified User:Comp.arch/STOPzilla/sandbox earlier, but the grounds where different. Any way to recover/userify? An ancient proposal I made is still staying at Template:Unix/sandbox.. it didn't gain consensus; I stopped pushing for it. I liked more people to see it, however, from the talk page (those discussions are however now archived). comp.arch (talk) 11:14, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

So hold on, the acronym DRM is NPOV, but once you expand it, it's suddenly non-neutral?

"digital rights management" is a POV, another is POV for DRM is "digital restrictions management", using DRM and linking, keeping controversy there (to be explained).

"Digital rights management" is the title of the article. In fact, "digital restrictions management" is a POV term used by the FSF. ViperSnake151  Talk  16:10, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

For the article itself: No, expanding is ok, so is expanding it as the synonym and/or explaining the restrictions. Not, saying much about the downsides or explaining well is not ok.

I would rather not explain the issues on every page or provide a source, the quote above, was about DRM on other pages. You, do not agree that DRM is a WP:COMMONNAME by now?

And I didn't say "Digital rights management" is a POV violation (in it's page), just that it is a POV, meaning that rights need to be managed by software on somebodies else computer. comp.arch (talk) 16:12, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Comp.arch. Thanks for contributing to the discussions at Talk:Digital rights management. I note that most of the recent traffic on that page is between you and Objective3000. However, after having tried conversing with this user myself, I am not sure that there is any point in continuing to reply to them. They continue making the same claims over and over again, even after being presented with contradictory evidence; I strongly suspect now that no new facts or arguments are going to change their opinions. I think this behaviour is obvious to any third parties reading the discussion, so continuing to engage with Objective3000 is only serving to bury the evidence and more cogent arguments and analyses presented by both sides. (The problem is compounded by the fact that they don't seem to understand where and how to format their replies; two or three times now they've confusingly replied to one of my comments with a message for you. Ironically, they've now taken to lecturing you on how to use talk pages.)

Please keep in mind that Objective3000 is just one editor; they aren't the sole arbiter of content in the article. Any given change to the article need only achieve a rough consensus, not unanimity, so it's not always helpful (and sometimes even harmful) to spend so much effort convincing a single participant. —Psychonaut (talk) 16:19, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Right.. what I've been thinking.. That I should just stop. Maybe put this up for a vote (I'm just not experienced with that). I've mostly been reading his replies, but also yours. Do you like the sandbox version? Better? Worse? now than the original? Feel free to edit it. I hate for there being sides in this, but this article seems it will always be one of the hot-button ones.. I thought a compromize could be reached.. by validating both sides. comp.arch (talk) 16:24, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that if we both just stop responding to this user for a few days, that might give others reading the page a chance to see what's been presented and evaluate the arguments and evidence. (I know it's hard to resist, but let's try to commit!) At that point we might see whether a rough consensus is evident. If not, I'm happy to set up an informal straw poll or formal RFC—these can usually be structured so that the discussion doesn't derail the !voting. In the meantime, I'll check over your sandbox version once I get a chance and get back to you with my opinions. —Psychonaut (talk) 16:32, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

TIMI, or just MI, as IBM now calls it, is a very-high-level instruction set, but it's not ever executed by any processor. Instead, it's translated, the first time an MI program is run, into the native machine code of the machine on which it's running.

In the System/38 and the "CISC" AS/400's, that native machine code was called IMPI, which originally stood for Internal Microprogrammed Interface; it's System/360-ish, although some document I saw said it didn't have indexed addressing modes (perhaps it only had base+register rather than base+register+register). In the "RISC" AS/400s and later machines with different names, it's 64-bit PowerPC, with a few extensions such as tag bits and, at least in some versions, apparently some fixed-point-decimal-assist instructions.

Frank Soltis' books on AS/400 discuss this. In Inside the AS/400 (ISBN 1-882419-66-9), he says that the "vertical microcode" of the System/38 and CISC AS/400 - i.e., the low-level OS code compiled into IMPI - was called that because IBM didn't want to have to unbundle it as they had to do with System/370 OSes and allow clone makers to use it. The team that wrote the low-level OS code, which includes the code that translates TIMI into IMPI, was put into the hardware group, and given the task of writing something called "microcode", so, for legal reasons, they could pretend it wasn't OS software and thus didn't have to be unbundled. (The "horizontal microcode" was real microcode that implemented IMPI on the hardware.)

According to this USENET post, there was, at one point, an IMPI manual, "System/38 Internal Microprogramming Instructions, Formats and Functions Reference Manual", with IBM manual number SC21-9037; I haven't been able to find it online anywhere. Hopefully somebody will give a copy to the bitsavers.org people so they can scan it in. Guy Harris (talk) 22:08, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I just did a minor edit and you noticed.. As I said "assumed" (and had some vague recollection it was just true, and would have seen both, just by looking at the article on AS/400). Thanks, for writing this detailed info, just for my benefit.. Looking at the article I saw: "AIX XL C/C++/C# compiler". I didn't know IBM had an C# compiler, could be. But for AIX and/or AS/400, wasn't expected. There is no need to convince me and give detailed info (here). You just silently fix if you know this to be false. comp.arch (talk) 08:55, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Android browser is almost dead. Chrome the default browser mostly. I don't think Android browser should even be grouped with it. --Pmsyyz (talk) 15:20, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Pmsyyz, thanks for dropping by, but note, that Android browser isn't dead and statistics should sum up to 100%. First for some other statistics, the worldwide one from StatCounter: Android is still at 6.3%. Yes, in the US part of the world, it's 2.86%, close too what the government site statistics says, on their sites 2.7%. I didn't bother to move the government statistics down, as reverse chronological order is also better and by getting newer statistics for the world they would go above. Possibly the US statistics are redundant, from government sites or otherwise. Still that is not just one site (recently webschools was thrown out on that grounds). A table for each country is too much and singling one out, the US, may not be appropriate. Still an argument for, would be that statistics differ there or in the developed world.. but good luck with defining that. I've added some things on countries in prose, but try to start with continents at least.

It's ok for you to drop by here, but really, this could have also gone to the talk page directly (I read it, not only mine). comp.arch (talk) 15:39, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Please read MOS:HYPHEN, which says that compound modifiers should be hyphenated (this applies to "floating-point types", "SIMD-style registers" and similar). Ranges must use an en dash (that is, "20–30 times"; unless you can find any reliable source saying that "20~30 times" is a commonly accepted notation). Do not use the ™ and ® symbols. What is the purpose of the comma that you put in "...in a package, Decimals.jl."?

Regarding the fear of changing quotations, MOS:QUOTE says: "trivial spelling and typographic errors should simply be corrected without comment", so there is no need to keep silly punctuation (including square brackets instead of parentheses) and stylistical errors. I would also suggest rewriting that list of "main features" to incorporate it into the text and make it more homogeneous ("Call C functions directly", "Powerful shell-like capabilities" and "Designed for parallelism" are not in the same grammatical form) or at least putting its header inside the quote, so that it does not look like just a poor formatting.

Please revert you reverts according to the MOS.

— Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 19:33, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Mikhail Ryazanov, about "silly punctuation (including square brackets instead of parentheses)", I put the brackets in to clarify at the same place. I didn't put the list in myself, but at some point I put in the blockquote, becuase that is what it is, a quote. Then I think brackets are more appropriate as the text in is was mine (maybe it's just inappropriate to but it into the list at all..). Maybe I'm wrong. You can revert the blockquote, but then I think this would have to be rewritten, not using their words? While I think "powerful" is completely true, that is something I might have avoided putting in, without a quote. While I did revert you, that is something I do to signal, that I just did revert, but in your case, I didn't revert much, just a small part, but said something more in the edit summary. Feel free to edit, there is no big disagreement. About the hyphens, I guess target articles should use them in their titles, and I was just conflicted about using them unchanged. I'll be sure to look into this soon. comp.arch (talk) 11:55, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Without your explanation about the brackets, it was quite impossible to understand what they actually mean, which is another indication that all this quote needs rewriting... ;–) I've put other punctuation corrections back. The article title "Floating point" is not hyphenated because it is "point" modified by "floating", whereas in "floating-point type" the hyphen is required to indicate that "type" is modified by "floating point" rather than "point type" is modified by "floating" (English is right-associative). — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 04:08, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hello! Just as an additional explanation, in "floating point" as a noun phrase we have "floating" that serves as an adjective that modifies "type", while in "floating-point type" it is that "floating-point" serves as a compound adjective that, as a whole, modifies "type" and, as such, requires a hyphen to indicate that "floating" modifies "point". Just my two cents. :) — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 04:29, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Thinking about this more, I think the brackets where a mistake, and I see now that a footnote, that I put instead, is even better. About floating-point, that is a redirect but the title doesn't use a hyphen and I guess that may be ok in that case (but also linking to it through the redirect). comp.arch (talk) 09:27, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

The very purpose of the "floating-point" redirect is to be able to link this adjective form easily, as explained in Wikipedia:Redirect#Purposes of redirects. And as WP:NOTBROKEN says further, using the "redirect" [[floating-point]] is better than "direct" [[Floating point|floating-point]]. — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 06:56, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Piping to redirects is pointless. It doesn't matter whether you pipe to Remote code execution or Arbitrary code execution, in the article you still see "remotely exploitable" and you still see the same thing at the target. Linking to redirects, as distinct from piping, is for use when you need to write Bruce Jenner but want to end up at Caitlyn Jenner without wanting to have to pipe. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:47, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hello! While that generally is true, there are exceptions as always. If there's a chance that a redirect is going to be expanded into a separate article (such as with the redirects tagged with {{R with possibilities}}), it's actually better to use a redirect in a piped link. Hope you agree. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 11:53, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

That is true but in this case, it's not likely since remote code execution is simply arbitrary code execution on a remote machine. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:01, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

If you make a Trojan horse then it runs on a "remote" machine from your point of view, to the "user" it is his "local" machine. In that a case "locally exploitable" security hole will do (what arbitrary code execution describes). The even more dangerous security hole is "remotely exploitable". I'm not even sure it should stay at the same article. comp.arch (talk) 12:12, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

@AussieLegend: I really don't know the whole context in which this is used, but remote code execution is a special case of arbitrary code execution, so piping a link using Remote code execution as a redirect should be beneficial. At some point in time, Remote code execution might be turned into a separate article, or, which is more likely, changed into a redirect to a specific section of the Arbitrary code execution article it currently redirects to. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 12:43, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, could also be a section, good point. Anyway here is the [context. comp.arch (talk) 13:23, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Remote code execution has been a redirect and nothing else since it was created 7 years ago. The likelihood of it ever becoming an article is extremely low.

If you make a Trojan horse then it runs on a "remote" machine from your point of view, to the "user" it is his "local" machine. If you say a machine is "remotely exploitable, it means that a local machine is exploitable from a remote location, but I don't understand where you're going with this. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:43, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

The age of the redirect is a valid argument. Though, remote code execution is a special case of arbitrary code execution, so it shouldn't hurt to pipe a redirect. However, if you really insist on not piping a redirect, I'd be fine with doing it the other way. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 16:09, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Dsimic, it seems you may agree with the piping I did (and content? at least you Aussie) at Windows XP. What I'm thinking (often) when I use redirects, is if the user hovers over a link. I know in this case, it doesn't really add much to see Remote code execution at the bottom of your browser (at least if you know what "remotely exploitable" means.. but then you wouldn't click or hover..). Note also, that hovering only shows "Arbitrary", not "Remote", (and the latter is worse). You actually have to click to see Remote in bold in the lead, and why it is bad. I also wander if I should have linked exploit.. comp.arch (talk) 12:12, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

"It doesn't matter whether you pipe to Remote code execution or Arbitrary code execution, in the article you still see "remotely exploitable" ". If it doesn't matter then why the change? As I said, you do not see by hovering only.. comp.arch (talk) 12:13, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

You actually have to click to see Remote in bold in the lead - Why is that a problem? Why do you need to see "remote" bolded? What does it add? I don't understand this argument.

If it doesn't matter then why the change? I could ask the same thing given this edit, but I've actually already answered this in my opening sentence. It's pointless. Why is seeing the actual article that is being targeted such a problem? --AussieLegend (✉) 15:43, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

This isn't such a big deal to me, but anyway, the target article is for more than one concept, as indicated by more the redirect and bolding in the lead. Hovering over shown only one of those, that actually applies true, but if you do not click you might think the arbitrary part is the main thing. As Dsimic said, the ridirect could point to the more specific thing, if not an actual separate article later. Then I wouldn't have to go back and fix. The one who reverted you last time (not me!) had some pointer about this not being wrong. comp.arch (talk) 18:31, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Laplet. Thanks. ViperSnake151  Talk  15:52, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Regarding this edit, the name of the magazine was Byte: The Small Systems Journal. --bp0 (talk) 17:47, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I just realised that you had already copied my previous version of that table onto the main article, and reverted by Guy Harris, with "no, that table reflects some weird confused ideas". I am so thankful that you did it, I just realised a bit too late. It does not really matter! I have made three different versions of that table on talk page of Talk:OS X, if you are interested in, then I wish you get involved into it! So many thanks in advance!

Best Regards,

Aaron Janagewen

P.S.

On 7th of November, 2015, the tables mentioned above have already done by me. I know there are much room to improve it, but I think it is already to take place the table in the main article. If you think it worthy, then pick up your favourite one, improve and replace. Thank you in advance!

Best Regards,

 Done

As someone interested in the List of ministers of the Universal Life Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), I thought I'd let you know an RFC has been started over reliable sources. Please join in Talk:List_of_ministers_of_the_Universal_Life_Church#RFC:_Reliable_sources here. Me-123567-Me (talk) 23:20, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

My edit summary was truncated, so I'll clarify here.

First, per WP:COMMONMATH, lowercase unspaced "x" is permitted for specific uses, which by existing consensus includes display resolutions. On the other hand, unspaced "×" is explicitly forbidden (binary operators need to be spaced on both sides, as well as accompanied by units). Of course, since display resolutions aren't multiplication operations, there's no actual reason to prefer the "×" sign.

Secondly, per WP:BRD you should not redo an edit that was reverted, even if partially. Instead, discuss the issue on the applicable talk page. I've actually been involved in several discussions about this issue in multiple articles, and have repeatedly suggested that someone take this to WT:MOSDATE if they want to change the style guidelines, but so far no one has done so. If you want to be the first one, by all means go ahead.

Regards, Indrek (talk) 17:47, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I may be in the wrong on this. I see "However, an unspaced x may be used as a substitute for "by" in common terms such as 4x4." that isn't strictly saying you should use x(?). It would be best if the MOS where clear either way as I've "corrected" a lot.. Yes, BRD is good, revert (w/edit summary) gets the point across (both ways), in this case a minor thing between the two of us, and maybe nobody else needs to be involved..? comp.arch (talk) 17:52, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

You're right in that the MOS doesn't specifically mandate "x". And yes, the language could certainly be more specific. There's been at least one discussion where it was suggested to explicitly allow or disallow "x" for resolutions, but if I recall correctly the idea was shot down as not worth the effort. Which is perhaps fair - the difference between "x" vs. "×" is certainly minor and doesn't really affect readability. For that reason I've decided not to go out of my way to change articles from one style to another, so long as they stick to one of them consistently (including the technically disallowed unspaced "×"). I do revert blanket changes that I come across, though, if they're away from a MOS-accepted style (even if the new style is also accepted, as such edits are explicitly forbidden).

As for the current case, I would suggest that this minor thing, as you put it, is not worth more of our time. If you disagree and do want to debate further, though, I would still recommend taking it to WT:MOSDATE, as this affects many articles on Wikipedia. In any case, let me know how you wish to proceed. Indrek (talk) 21:22, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Not taking sides, just keeping status quo at unrelated, with ×, film article Full-frame digital SLR. comp.arch (talk) 13:14, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi.

Regarding your contribution to Windows 10 article, for a long time now, Microsoft had a software as a service method of income called Microsoft Software Assurance (MS-SA). It is a business model in which Microsoft signs a MS-SA contract with a business and during the contract period, it provides services such as technical support, updates and upgrade in exchange for monthly payment. It provides service in the form of giving software, so software as a service. Exclusive software are distributed as part of this program, like Microsoft Desktop Optimization Pack.

This existed even before Windows 10, since before Windows 2000, as far as I remember. But with Windows 10 software as a service is now provided outside SA too, e.g. as part of the Windows Insider program, as part of OEM agreements and to some extents, as part of the retail sale (which is minuscule).

Oh, look! My notification light turned on! It must be you calling me. (My best guess.)

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 09:36, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

There is a very basic reason why I made the changes that I did. First, as you guessed, is that I'm following what the source says. It gives the value in 2003 dollars, so that's what we have to start with. We don't know how they derived that figure, so we can't de-inflate it accurately back to 1956 dollars. They could have inflated actual expenditures from 1956 to 2003, actual expenditures from 1957 to 2003, actual expenditures from 1958... and so on until they had a total in a single year's dollars.

There are two methods in {{inflation}} for handling inflation conversions of US dollars. The base US works off the Consumer Price Index, and it's best for dealing with consumer-level prices. For larger dollar amounts, the economists say we should be using a different index, and we have US-NGDPPC, which is the National Gross Domestic Product per capita. The CPI lags behind only a year or so, but the NGDPPC index has approximately an 18-month lag. Normally I update it for the newest data set on Tax Day, April 15. When I make that update this year, the article will update to 2014 dollars and it will display the updated year. Unless the government starts releasing those datasets faster though, we can't reduce the gap between year displayed and the current year, not even for CPI-based figures. Imzadi 1979 → 22:22, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

NGDPPC indexes were introduced in error – so they are being replaced now by US-/UK-GDP indexes. Please take note. See Template talk:Inflation for details. cherkash (talk) 05:07, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Saw your recent edit on Constitution of Cuba. I've long wondered what format to use for Cuba entries and I've just recently settled on DMY based on the style used by the news agency of the Cuban government, as seen here. I've modified Constitution of Cuba, most of which is my work. Cheers. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 19:32, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Bmclaughlin9, while you're at it you could maybe add to Date format by country. Since Cuba is one, I was a little puzzled why it's not listed. Yes, I believe DMY is (only(?)) used, could maybe have changed under WP:STRONGNAT, just didn't as first use seemed not DMY, and sometimes main authors may not like changes.. comp.arch (talk) 19:53, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Added. I've been finding the Cuban WP entries wildly inconsistent as to date and not monitored by many editors. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 20:28, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello

How do you do?

There are a couple of things I feel I should let you know. First, there is a full article titled theguardian.com. If you don't believe me, click on this link.

Second, effective 2014, it is no longer justifiable to use {{Cite news}} for web material because now {{Cite web}} supports all the parameters that {{Cite news}} has. {{Cite news}} should now be only used for offline news sources. Do you know why?

When I first came to Wikipedia, I nominated an article in WP:FAC. Featured Articles have one devilishly simple requirement: Citation style must be consistent. This requirement has always caused articles that used a mixture of {{Cite web}} and {{Cite news}} for web resources to fail because in reality, {{Cite news}} is nothing more than a slightly different {{Cite web}}. So, an article must use only one of them. Really, there is no magic in either of them. Just an FA-failing difference.

If there is anything else you need to know, please let me know. Also, please feel free to visit User:Codename Lisa/Websites and their publishers.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 12:39, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not fine anymore! :)

I must rethink, my use of "cite news".. Wasn't aware of this ("justifiable", as if it is documented, it is well hidden.. and contradicts Template:Cite_news#URL) or really that they have different citation styles.. Thinking about it more, there must have been a reason to have both. Even if you are right, it seems you run into trouble if an "offline news source" happens to be added later. "cite press" of course has a visible difference, and I assume is still ok.. comp.arch (talk) 13:32, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Believe it or not, discovering it was overwhelming for me too. I was in the middle of a brutal FA nomination and it only got more brutal. To make the matter worse, it landed on me in a time when they were actually different and using both was justifiable. Only, not FA justifiable. (I even got hospitalized during one of those nominations.) They really used to be different. Different people had written them and they had zero idea about what is citation style. There was |issue=, |number= and |agency= in one and not in the other. (I forgot which.)

I went ahead and added the difference to their documentation pages. Waiting for the hammers to fall...

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 13:41, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello. Unforunately, subpages have been disabled in main article space on English Wikipedia. So I've moved your draft to User:Comp.arch/Mersenne Twister so it won't get deleted. Thanks, OnionRing (talk) 14:04, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

My bad, I was actually reading the section on the Dingoo OS before but somehow missed it and only saw Linux (easy, considering I only know one who has it and he's porting games to the Dingux Linux distribution). I was curious about how much one million would be in percentage and used the amount of sold units of the mentioned consoles and got about 0.3 %, that really is not significant, though of course giving it a plain 0 (I'm fine with that) but then percentages with two digits after the decimal point when in reality they are not counting any other consoles because they can't, is kind of silly. -- Lightkey (talk) 19:00, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Lightkey, I never heard of this computer (or Pyra), and all small or old computers are intriguing. Still, it has 32 MB so I it wouldn't have gained much market share.. Even if not discontinued, but since it is, I'm not bothered too much as it's not really unfair to anyone.. comp.arch (talk) 19:21, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't know where the amount of RAM comes into play. If it had more RAM, it would have cost more and the price point (you could get it for $70) was the major selling point that made it as popular as it was without any advertising. Just to remind you, when it came out, the Nintendo DS was still the current hardware with all of 4 MB RAM. -- Lightkey (talk) 19:39, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

As I said, it's discontinued, but yes you can do a lot with 32 MB or even kilobytes, I just meant 32 MB is low now and not competitive, compared to e.g. 256 MB of Nintendo 3DS, the current variant. And $70 is also high, compared to Android smartphones you could get. 128 MB was I believe the minimum there, then 256 MB, and I doubt you can get smaller RAM chips anymore, so those bigger chips are not at a cost disadvantage. comp.arch (talk) 20:17, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

You keep comparing with current hardware when you said "wouldn't have" (meaning at the time of release), of course either the price would have dropped or the specifications updated if it was continued now, seven years later. Also smartphones have very simple cases and are thus cheaper to produce, not really fair to compare. -- Lightkey (talk) 04:09, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Cases are what, plastic? Smartphones (especially the more expensive ones) are some of the most advanced technology in the universe. That they are cheap, doesn't have much to do with fair, more just economy of scale. Anyway they didn't keep producing Dingoo (in more advanced versions and/or cheaper), so that discussion is moot. comp.arch (talk) 11:11, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I like that you keep bringing up examples that have nothing to do with the discussion. Anyway, at least I can concur with the last sentence, it's moot to compare its features with current hardware (I haven't heard of $70 smartphones in 2009), my point all along. -- Lightkey (talk) 08:14, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I realize the situations back then, and that things could have evolved differently to the present. I'm not sure what the point of the discussion is. I never edited Dingoo and I think, you where ok with my other edits. We can go on, if continuing the discussion is helpful for either of us. comp.arch (talk) 14:11, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Also thanks for tidying up DragonBox Pyra, though I didn't quite understand the explanation for removing smartphone functionality. "Not a [[, and a [[smartphone]]", what is missing there? Did you mean VoIP when you wrote VIOP? Were you talking about the Pandora there or the Pyra? -- Lightkey (talk) 04:14, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, a typo for VoIP (and extra "[["). Unless I'm mistaken, it doesn't have (all the) phone hardware. [By coincidence I'm looking just now at libimobiledevice6 ("Library for communicating with the iPhone and iPod Touch"). I would guess that library has no separate functionality to access the iPhone (uses the "computer" part of it).] iPod was different but then came iPhone and later a cut-down version iPod Touch that is the same in every way except for the phone hardware and then not a smartphone. Similarily, being able to run Android is not enough to be called a smartphone, not Android is for for e.g. TVs without that hardware. At some point this perspective will get outdated, IPv6 is now used in all newer phones behind the scenes (and no circuit switching or later related telephone tech) so a phone number and the hardware for it (and usually a SIM card) may not be considered the defining factor someday in the future. Smartphone vs tablet (those are not "phones", but bigger and better in every way, also have most (or all?) of the same communication hardware and a "phone number") is also mostly arbitrary distinction. [In the end desktop vs. smartphones will also be arbitrary.] comp.arch (talk) 11:11, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the lengthy explanations. Just to clarify, the question is not whether it's a smartphone but whether it has its functionality, so most of it was irrelevant. I added it back since it does have a proper all-in-one phone chip in the mobile edition which costs as much as one of those cheap smartphones. -- Lightkey (talk) 08:14, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I think I've fixed it diff. How do you like it? Triplecaña (talk) 09:17, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

I see you reverted some IP's removal of the Dhrystone comment on the Comparison of ARMv8-A cores article. I agree it should be somewhere, but probably not on a page discussing hardware specs. It might be more relevant to discuss removing the Dhrystone metric entirely. I am starting a discussion on the talk page related to this. Dbsseven (talk) 21:23, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

It probably gives some indication of the speed of the microarchitecture, some, even misleading info, given a disclaimer, seems better than no info.. comp.arch (talk) 09:14, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello comp.arch!

I just reverted your revert on the CentOS page. Let me clarify.

In this sentence, there were two usages of the article "the". Quote:

 they work as part of the Red Hat's Open Source and Standards team, which operates separately from the Red Hat Enterprise Linux team.

The first "the" is not correct here, since one has already "Red Hat's" in front of the team's name. One could say the Open Source and Standards team [at Red Hat], but not "the Red Hat's ... team". I'm not exactly sure what the grammatical rule here is, so I cannot provide you with any link, but I think it's because you ask "whose team? Red Hat's". In the second half of the sentence, the "the" is by the way correct since "Red Hat Enterprise Linux" is a name, while "Red Hat's ... team" just showed that this team belongs to Red Hat and hence "Red Hat" is not part of the team's name.

If you've got any more remarks on this, please let me know before any further revert. Cheers! --Shurakai (talk) 20:03, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Z1 Android Watch-Phone 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Z1 Android Watch-Phone 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 high-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 notice from the top of the article. Daylen (talk) 17:12, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

The problem is that shared source is an article only about Microsoft licenses and that is completely not applicable. And it is the license used for RISC OS is a kind of dual-license. --Egel _Reaction? 11:25, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but but not "only", see shared source (should not be upper case) "is an umbrella term covering some of Microsoft's legal mechanisms for software source code distribution." [I do not think it needs to cover them only, even if they coined the term, that article could also be changed to reflect that] I can go with not linking to shared source, but really the concept is the same (and I think RISC OS got that idea from them). I find it similar to linking to OSI (or open source), when that applies, say you made software under the MIT License (or " "Expat License" (used for Expat)[10] or to the "X11 License" (also called "MIT/X Consortium License"), it doesn't imply you have anything to do with MIT, the university. comp.arch (talk) 11:49, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the page Windows Vista has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. Please use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did, and feel free to use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do. Thank you. 80.221.159.67 (talk) 07:39, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

80.221.159.67 (and CodenameLisa), I believe this templated text you put here is in error. I did have an edit summary, an appropriate one, I believe. Maybe you meant to comment on someone else (not sure if there's a feature that does this thruogh the user interface for you..)? comp.arch (talk) 11:17, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Comp.arch. As per the comment you made in the energy efficiency template for electric cars, please check MOS:US. In American English you use U.S. not US. In addition, the article is about ratings from a U.S. agency, so U.S. is just fine. Cheers.--Mariordo (talk) 18:17, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

"you use U.S. not US", it doesn't actually say that (and that template may be American English; but used in a lot of articles); yes it says "dominant" but then "The Chicago Manual of Style (16th ed.), now deprecates U.S. and prefers US (without periods). US is more common in most other national forms of English. [..] that incorporate the country's initials (USN, USAF), do not use periods. When the United States is mentioned with one or more other countries in the same sentence, U.S. or US may be too informal". That is often a problem, when you wan to say "US and UK" in same sentence or article. MOS:NOTUSA redirecets to the same section that only disallows USA; in fact is named "US and U.S." e.g. either (both?) is allowed. comp.arch (talk) 14:43, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm getting confused. According to this link here, Firefox requires Android 4.0.3 or later, but in both links, the system requirements for Firefox are only Android 4.0 and above. If this is confusing, then when did Firefox support for Android 4.0-4.0.2 end? --Angeldeb82 (talk) 20:42, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure when exactly. Version x.y.z is a x=major, y=minor, z=even more minor.. At some point they've required 4.0.3 (assumed since they say so). I'm guessing the others 4.0 are just not specific, and shouldn't be taken as 4.0.0. [This doesn't matter to most people, I guess all have the update to 4.0.3 by now, so nobody is thinking of updating, slightly "outdated" info. Maybe I shouldn't have updated WP; it just seemed more accurate was ok..] comp.arch (talk) 21:13, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

If this term is used in relation to the PDP-11 (it doesn't seem to be used inside PDP-11 architecture), it means simply that some of the fields of the instruction are groups of three bits. There is nothing about those instructions that especially tailors the PDP-11 to operate on groups of three bits. (If you want to, it is trivial to isolate such a group, and easy to get them into the low-order position of a byte or a word to operate on them.) Spike-from-NH (talk) 21:21, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, like I thought a misleading misnomer. comp.arch (talk) 21:44, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi,

Since I only corrected facts and did minor edits on this article, it doesn't constitute a real world example of how to do it properly. I can still describe my general approach though. In the following conflict of interests and neutrality are often mixed together because in this context they can't really be set apart from each other.

• I gave information on me that is relevant to conflicts of interest on my user page. It might not be totally up to date but it gives a pretty good picture of the projects I contribute to.
• Describing the change in the edit summary might also help explaining the reason, which will show that it's not done to personally benefit from it at the detriment of the readers.
• I try, when possible, to stick to facts.
• Sticking to facts also helps with neutrality: In general, I noticed that Wikipedia has a very specific writing style that is probably the result of its neutrality: If you look at the articles on heavily controverted politicians like this one, you can see that, at the time of writing, that part of the article sticks with facts. It often looks like that: <The politician> has been accused of <something awful> By <a list of named journalists with precise reference to the accusation> or <by a court and has not been condemned> and he responded that: <the illogical response he gave with the reference to the citation>. Here it only presents facts.
• I try to avoid presenting things that I can't back with facts and judgements. I will avoid telling that "People tend to prefer Android to I/OS" if I can't back it somehow. Even if it is a honest opinion, and that it is not biased by my involvement in free software, it might be biased by other things such as:
  • The wold that I live in (Europe), in other parts of the world, the opposite might be true, but if I don't have any information on the other part of the world, I won't be able to tell. In that case I might instead tell that "In a study<reference> conducted in France, it was found that people tend to prefer the Android interface over the IOS one". The relevance of such information also needs to be taken into account, it might or might not apply depending on the context of the article or the section that is being modified.
  • People living in a specific community like the free software community or heavily using some network services with a Filter_bubble might also have a very strong bias. The free software community started to identify and address many of its bias recently 1. There are several presentations at the Libreplanet conferences that describe and show how to address such biases.

GNUtoo(my point of views(for npov)) | talk 22:30, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! I had long forgotten my question from almost one and a half years ago (that I guess prompted this). First I thought I might have done something wrong. :) comp.arch (talk) 15:35, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Comp.arch,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Codename Lisa (talk) 07:17, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
P.S. Please archive your talk page!

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

 	+ 	

I have not found any section of WP:MOS that explains explicitly how links must be capitalised. But the standard practice is to capitalize when the link refers to the article, and to not capitalize when it refers to the topic of the article. Typically: "For the definition of a sequence, see Sequence." You can convince yourself by reading most good WP articles.

Most of your other edits on sequence consist in adding blank lines before and after displayed formulas. This makes reading the source more difficult, as the paragraph structure is lost. In fact, a displayed formula belongs to a sentence; if blank lines are systematically added before and after every formula, it result that the limits between paragraphs are unclear, and the place where one wants to edit more difficult to find. Moreover, when checking other user edits, the diff presents the modified paragraph and the two neighbour paragraphs. When formulas are separated with blank lines, it results that, often, very few text is displayed in the diff, which makes difficult to use ctrl F for finding the place of the edit in the article. So, please do not do changes that do not change rendering, and may be time consuming for others. D.Lazard (talk) 16:35, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I just know about: MOS:CAPS: "Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization" and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking#Section links (not I just changed latter, lower cased just conservatively, possibly more should be lower cased). For, e.g. "See also:".. then I'm not sure if upper case should follow, yes it's commonly done.., maybe incorrectly, or it should follow because of the colon, and NOT otherwise. comp.arch (talk) 17:47, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

In MOS:TITLE#Capital letters: "However, for names of Wikipedia articles and of section headings in articles and pages, generally only the first word and all proper names are capitalized in titles". This seems clear, even if the syntax is not (I have corrected it). D.Lazard (talk) 18:16, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

No, this page and rule is (only) when you name the article themselves (and you by default can't have first letter lower case), and e.g. iPad and eBay are exceptions (that need the lowercase template, for technical reasons). E.g. generally proper and non-proper nouns are upper case in the actual titles, but you like to coordinate system and Cartesian coordinate system differently. comp.arch (talk) 18:42, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Nissan Leaf, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:25, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi.

There is an AfD entry on a software product that I opened a long time ago, but it has received zero responses so far (apparently due to a glitch). I was wondering if you'd be interested in taking a look at it. This discussion is at:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apache Mobile Filter

Thanks

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 12:13, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Aside from what you say about it, is this useful software, or no good reason to include (with maybe changed text)? I admit, I hadn't heard of it, and "Apache" is interesting in the name, seems it's for Apache (then ok? and not against their trademark policy? Not sure about their's, but e.g. "Ubuntu[tool]" wouldn't be..). I'm inclusive at least on including math (something that has proofs; less so for physics, but kind of like all candidate theories documented). About someone selling something, I lean against, but for open source, at least it passes WP:V by existing. comp.arch (talk) 14:42, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Hey, I've just edited A/UX and noticed that I reverted this edit of yours. So I figured I'd explain my reasoning here, but feel free to move this to Talk:A/UX if you wish.

I sincerely doubt anyone is going to confuse A/UX for anything recent, and I don't see any other reason to have this information in the lead. It seems trivial here. —151.132.206.26 (talk) 18:58, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

And you reverted while I was typing that, ha. That's fine. —151.132.206.26 (talk) 18:58, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi.

Thanks for understanding. Just wanted to give you a heads up as to what has changed. According to "Groove Music and Spotify: FAQ". Support (13 ed.). Microsoft. 13 October 2013. Retrieved 22 October 2017.:

I’m not a Groove Music Pass subscriber. How does this affect me?

Nothing will change for you. You can continue to play your local, OneDrive, or purchased content that you have downloaded to your devices through the built-in Groove Music app. If you want access to tens of millions of streaming songs at no cost, you can try Spotify anytime with Spotify’s free offering.

Microsoft is replacing the Music Pass with Spotify.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 12:37, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Right, I knew about Spotify and the deal with Microsoft. My understanding is that (at least) from beginning of next year Groove is completely gone. I'm in no hurry to get rid of the trivia, to me Groove is an app and we need not mention any on WIndows 10, as not part of the OS? comp.arch (talk) 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Comp.arch,

I noticed the edit summery which you've mentioned on the Windows 10 article. What makes you think that Cortana can't be hidden on my system when I use it aka the Fall Creators update I can actually hide Cortana fully by right clicking on the taskbar and removing the search bar as well as enabling the registry tweak (Windows Search -> AllowCortana -> 0 value) this registry tweak in the policy section on regedit can fully disable Cortana. OmegaDOS 16:58, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm sure it can be hidden (I don't use Windows), it's just that if you can hide something, is it an added feature, not "Features removed on version 1607"? Is it only an option to hide, or hidden by default? comp.arch (talk) 17:29, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

That's fine and I did used to use Windows but now Arch Linux fully. Though what puzzles me is why was it mentioned as "Features removed on version 1607" when in fact it wasn't a removed feature nor added it was already there from the start when Windows 10 was fully released. Someone didn't do their homework on this. OmegaDOS 18:09, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello

As you are one of the top ten contributors to the iOS articles, I thought perhaps you might be interested in participating in the Templates for Discussion entry for {{MacOS derivations}}. This template is a navbox. The discussion is stalled because of a lack of contributors.

To summarize the long conversation there (and the changes that happened afterwards), IMHO, this navbox:

• Is redundant to the {{Apple Inc. operating systems}} navbox. Whatever benefit {{MacOS derivations}} offers can be integrated into the former via editing.
• Diseminates unreferenced information. A navbox should only help navigate.

As such, it should either be deleted or merged. Currently, this discussion is only attended by the template's creator, and one other anonymous editor (IP) who doesn't have any other contributions to Wikipedia.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 07:45, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Apache_OpenOffice#Current_options . Opened RfC Entalpia2 (talk) 14:03, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

The hatnote on Mercury (planet) seems unnecessary too, but it's been there for a lot longer so I suppose there's a long-standing local consensus that I'm unaware of. This is not the case for Android (operating system). This falls under WP:NAMB: "It is usually preferable not to have a hatnote when the name of the article is not ambiguous." The title of the article is not ambiguous, and the redirects are not ambiguous. A user typing "Android" into the search box will arrive at the disambiguation page immediately. Reach Out to the Truth 13:39, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

"will arrive at the disambiguation page immediately." also applies to Mercury. I didn't check policies to carefully, it just seemed you might be in error. I'm not saying I'm against removing it, just that it seems ok to keep it. I can go either way, and will not interfere againt if you remove it, unless I'm sure you're violating something. comp.arch (talk) 14:13, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Have you ever read WP:BRD? It's not B,R, Reinstate it anyway before even agreeing to discuss it. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:51, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I have in the past (and "edit warring" does not apply, i.e. no "repeatedly"), and now again, it's "an optional method". Anyway, if I'm being to aggressive, I'm sorry; and I too the change back. I just believed you where still mistaken, and my edit summary would just convince and no need for talk page. I can see your point on "beginners", WP just isn't only for those, and they should rather know the [Python] world isn't simple. Think this over, we'll agree on something. comp.arch (talk) 10:00, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello. I was trying to correct one of your mistakes in the Visual Studio Code article, but I seem to have ended up reverting it without providing an explanation. Sorry.

The thing is: The table lists built-in support only. There are millions of extensions supporting millions of languages. If you want to list extensions, I think you should do it in a separate table to make it clear which one is supported out of the box and which one is not. 5.219.73.153 (talk) 05:50, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

I see your point, I may end up doing that. I just wasn't really sure even Python support was built-in. It seems it's done by an extension, and thus the implementation and potential capabilities are the same., so not much of a difference. Except, the built-in extensions are then "vetted" in a sense (I'm not sure where they came from, maybe third party and got approved; I belive at least there was no Python support to begin with). Another option could be a column in the table saying "built-in". comp.arch (talk) 14:50, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

On 08:07, 6 September 2019 you added two sentences at the front of the fourth paragraph of the Windows 7 article. It looks as if the first of those sentences is missing a subject. Did you omit the first part of that first sentence? DovidBenAvraham (talk) 17:01, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, fixed it. comp.arch (talk) 13:20, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

I reverted the IP's edit because the source for the system requirements specifically says 'hard disk space', not any storage device. See: https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/help/10737/windows-7-system-requirements. --Sek-2 (talk) 13:02, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

I did check before seeing this and yes they do use that terminology (and even for their page on Windows 10). To know if I was misremembering, there is existence proof, using Microsoft's tool that a hard disk isn't a strict requirement: comp.arch (talk) 13:17, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

According to IBM System/360 Model 85, the Model 85 was the first IBM mainframe to have 128-bit floating point arithmetic instructions, so it's been around for a long time. The format in the Model 85 and at least some IBM System/370 models was IBM "hexadecimal" floating point, in which the exponent field was the exponent in a power of 16.

IEEE 754 mentions 128-bit binary and decimal floating point formats. IEEE 754-1985 only had 32-bit and 64-bit binary formats; IEEE 754-2008 added 128-bit binary format and added decimal formats.

I think some model of IBM System/390 was the first to add IEEE floating-point support; I don't know which mainframe models support either 128-bit binary format or any of the decimal formats. Guy Harris (talk) 16:22, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Guy Harris, I recalled hexadecimal, and after adding I saw 128-bit at least older in POWER9, but this line "Added vector quad precision BFP (128b)" is misleading (page 99) if non-vector BFP floating point existed before, and it seemed it didn't/doesn't with the FPRs otherwise only 64-bit.

The Model 85 does say 128-bit, but the link is to the hexadecimal format, so I assume IEEE 128-bit [BF] format now used, and first in now in the mainframes (64-bit for longer there). I'm not sure how Millicode works, but since there where no 128-bit registers (unless at some point then dropped?!), I assume Millicode is some kind of microcode, and it could have worked on RAM in CISC-style, not registers. See also related: "one Nest Accelerator Unit per processor chip which is shared by all cores on the chip and features the following [..] Supports DEFLATE compliant compression/decompression and GZIP CRC/ZLIB Adler [implemented with] Architected Instruction [still, somehow] Executed in Millicode"

There's lots more of interesting stuff in the new z15, e.g. SRAM on the way out for the business I guess(?), as L1 cache and all higher levels there no longer SRAM, now eDRAM. comp.arch (talk) 20:35, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Hexadecimal format was all that the S/3x0 line did until S/390; the Ninth Edition of the Enterprise Systems Architecture/390 Principles of Operation says in "Highlights of ESA/390" that one of the new ESA/390 features is "Binary floating-point (BFP)", which is IEEE floating point. It continues to provide the hexadecimal floating point, and even adds "26 new instructions to operate on data in the HFP format" that "are counterparts to new instructions provided by the BFP facility". However, it also seems to say, in "Summary of Changes in Sixth Edition", that the binary floating-point stuff was added in the sixth edition, so perhaps it wasn't in the initial ESA/390 machines. (They also appear to have extended ESA/390 to have 16 floating-point registers rather than the 4 that S/360 and S/370 had, with the "basic-floating-point-extensions facility".)

It may be that the only machines supporting some ESA/390 features were z/Architecture machines running in ESA/390 mode; at least some of the new ESA/390 features appear to have come from z/Architecture.

Chapter 18 indicates that hexadecimal floating-point has 32-bit, 64-bit, and 128-bit floating-point formats. Chapter 19 indicates that the same is true of binary floating-point.

I think the Twelfth Edition of the z/Architecture Principles of Operation, as it dates back to 2017, covers z14 but not z15; Chapter 24 "Vector Floating-Point Instructions" speaks of support for "short-format, long-format, and extended format binary-floating-point (BFP) operations", which I'd read as supporting 128-bit (extended) format vector FP. So I'm not sure what the z15 Redbook is saying. We may have to wait for the thirteenth edition of the Principles of Operation to find out what's added.

Millicode is the same sort of thing as DEC Alpha PALcode (or DEC Prism Epicode) - it's machine code that runs in a special mode, perhaps having access to instructions and other processor resources not available to regular code (and that's not architected, so they may be unique to a processor), as well as regular architected instructions (other than those that are themselves implemented in millicode) and that's run as a result of special traps to millicode performed when instructions not implemented in hardware are executed. S/3x0 has more complicated instructions than does Alpha, so there's probably more millicode and more instructions that trap to millicode.

The floating-point registers in S/360 through z/Architecture are 64-bit; 128-bit numbers take two registers. If any floating-point operations were implemented in millicode rather than hardware, they'd probably still use the regular floating-point registers, and perhaps also use internal-only registers in the process. Guy Harris (talk) 01:11, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

I meant my added text to be read as, "New in z15 [..] and [also added] e.g. 128-bit IEEE (non-hexadecimal) binary", as in unrelated to Nest. Anyway, I was going there to take it out. I could have changed to a separate sentence with say "added vector 128-bit .." but that seems to much of an implementation detail after reading your latest text here with non-hexadecimal 128-bit alrady in (in some form). I may look into it more, or add some other interesting stuff later, but too busy currently. comp.arch (talk) 08:33, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

I answered you 2 weeks ago in the talk page of the Transistor count article but you haven't answered me yet. I plan on cleaning up a bit the Microprocessor category (move a few chips that are not CPUs to the "Other devices" category) but I would like to have your opinion. --Samurai80 (talk) 12:04, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

I was just very busy. I think you have the storage controllers in mind. Yes, they are not strictly microprocessors, would fit under memory, but they belong to one CPU I believe, so I wanted them grouped with. It's an implementation detail that they are split between two chips. Maybe move chips, and reference them somehow? Some other chips have multi-chip modules, such as AMD Zen 2, for cache memory, stretching the definition of a microprocessor. comp.arch (talk) 18:04, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

My turn being late, sorry. Well after thinking about it, I believe some storage controllers are actually very similar to a CPU, like the devices in NAS for instance, and others are more some sort of full hardware storage interface managers (so very different from CPUs). So it depends, but I can't determine which type the devices present in the list are. I think it's ok to leave them here, at least as long as we also leave other "exotic" types of CPUs in this category. Regarding MCM, I don't see how it stretches the definition of microprocessor. A microprocessor may very well use several ICs, the only requirement is to gather all the functions of a CPU inside one component/device. And the use of MCM in CPUs isn't new, the cache was actually very often in a different IC in the past (while still in the same package). It was the case for the Pentium Pro and the Pentium 2 slot 1 for instance. These are definitely microprocessors. --Samurai80 (talk) 10:42, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

I just have longer memory from e.g. Intel386SX that didn't have cache, and an extra cache chip for sure wasn't CPU, nor the combination of both together a microprocessor. MCM, to me seems, just like an implementation detail of the same concepts. In IBM's case it seems similar to 386SX case, and I very much it's a NAS controller from reading the specs at some point but I'm not too worried about separating out memory-only chips from the table. comp.arch (talk) 19:12, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

I am not sure of what you mean about the MCM, your sentence isn't really clear to be honest. A CPU implemented as an MCM is still a microprocessor, it is pretty clear to me. And a microprocessor includes cache AND cores, even if the cache is on a separate chip. The only restriction is that a microprocessor has to be included in a single package. I don't understand the next sentence dealing with NAS and memory-only chips neither. --Samurai80 (talk) 10:22, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

I looked up, yes, "A microprocessor is a computer processor that incorporates the functions of a central processing unit on a single integrated circuit (IC), or sometimes up to 8 integrated circuits." What I thought, or assumed is it needed to be on one die (aka IC). From way back that's what I remembered (excluding the support chips, ROM etc., back then there was no cache; with 8-bit micros). You brought up NAS (meant to use some missing words... so I just struck out), so I just answered, nevermind, just ignore it and and what I said on MCM. comp.arch (talk) 10:40, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Well that's because long time ago a CPU was a huge rack of electronics. Since the 70s, MCMs or not the CPUs are all microprocessors.--Samurai80 (talk) 12:49, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Please don't make edits like this, that make a lot of unnecessary cosmetic changes (a blank line after a section header makes no difference in rendering, ditto with the spaces around the equals signs). I just went through an ANI thread about this with someone else (see WP:ANI#A876 before it gets archived). The short version is that there is no "correct" way for these things, and changing them to your own preferred version is both inappropriate, and wastes editors' time trying to sift through them to see if there were any actual substantive edits and if there were any problems with them. On a side note, please also include an edit summary, even for minor stuff. Thanks, –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:58, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

In diff 949767741 you added memory tagging, which is currently a red link. I don't know how this is used exactly, but it seems similar to protection keys. If this is the case, perhaps there should be a redirect to this section of Memory protection, possibly after adding a paragraph there. Vincent Lefèvre (talk) 16:29, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Comp.arch.

You've made an edit to an image caption which I originally provided, and I'm not sure the change is correct.

The Wikipedia Manual of Style says that a caption which contains a complete sentence should have every sentence (and every sentence fragment) end with a period ("full stop").

The caption in question says "Rear side of a floppy disk in a transparent case, showing its internal parts." I'd say that was a complete sentence, and that the period was suitable.

Also, even if the period was not suitable, shouldn't an edit which removes it be marked as "Minor", as it doesn't affect the meaning of the caption in this case. --Bob (talk) 18:48, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

A. You're right, it's about if it's a full sentence. E.g. "Rear side of a floppy disk in a transparent case" wouldn't be, as there's no verb. Show is a verb, but words like "showing", with -ing, are a sign it's only a sentence fragment.

English is not my native language, so to not rely on me only, I ran the sentence (with period) through a service, and got: "No changes made: All spelling is correct, but this text is just a sentence fragment and needs more words to be a complete, correct sentence." B. I should have marked with a "minor". I would hate to change a correct sentence to an incorrect one, maybe I didn't because of that (I actually thought I had marked minor). [EDIT: on "and every sentence fragment", no the MOS says the opposite, "should not end with a period".] comp.arch (talk) 19:20, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

I was considering "showing" to be a verb, but it seems that it may be considered a gerund with the wording I've used, so I suspect the change is correct. When I said "every sentence fragment" I should have simply quoted from the style manual: "If any complete sentence occurs in a caption, then all sentences, and any sentence fragments, in that caption should end with a period." --Bob (talk) 19:44, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

The material on PA-RISC is not mine, and I have no idea what the usage is in the HP community, but if it were me I would write PA out as PA-RISC, with a link the first time. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 20:23, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Re your move of Angle-sensitive pixel, I'm wondering what the heck you're thinking. I moved it back to hyphen, as I could see no way that the dash could make sense there. Dicklyon (talk) 02:42, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Back then I was rather new to WP, and I guess even less up-to-speed on dash rules, and yes, I was simply in error, misunderstood the MOS (MOS:DASH). I've known the correct rules for years now. Thanks for changing back. [Seeing "dash", and not remembering changing this page in 2014, my first though was my work on using Julia library plotly/Dash.jl, a wrapper for the JavaScript one.] comp.arch (talk) 11:57, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello. Please do not use Stack Overflow as a source on Wikipedia. It is not a reliable source. Anonymous discussions, internet forums and user-generated content (like wikis including Wikipedia, IMDb etc.) can never be used as a source on Wikipedia. In general, do not use unreliable sources such as blogs, websites with no editorial oversight, publications with a poor reputation for checking the facts or with expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions, as one of Wikipedia's core policies is that contributions must be verifiable through reliable sources, preferably using inline citations. Please see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources to see which sources are considered (un)reliable on Wikipedia (a quote from the page: "As an Internet forum, (Stack Exchange) is a self-published source that incorporates user-generated content, and is considered generally unreliable"). Thanks.—J. M. (talk) 08:03, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello. Once again, Stack Overflow is not a reliable source and it cannot be used as a reference. The suggestion in your edit that an unreliable source is better than none is wrong. When something cannot be supported by a reliable source, the information should not be included at all, or it should be tagged as unsourced. You can not use unreliable sources on Wikipedia. This is a strict, unconditional requirement. Verifiability is one of the core policies that Wikipedia is based on, which means it is non-negotionable. It cannot be changed, you cannot disregard it, you simply have to respect it if you want to edit Wikipedia. Thanks.—J. M. (talk) 17:27, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Actually what's I'm sourcing, or meant to (first answer of two, I should have linked directly to the first only), is Pierre "Senior Software Engineer at Google" (not just Stack Overflow), seemingly an Android WP:EXPERT (with good rank I think for the Android category there), and thus a WP:RS. "You can not use unreliable sources", yes, in general, and SO is not reliable in general, but it doesn't mean it's unreliable or a blanket ban on using it, as e.g. WP:DAILYMAIL is worse to use. comp.arch (talk) 21:25, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Heya. That edit on Cronies of Ferdinand Marcos was so hilarious that I think it deserves a barnstar. So here you go. - Chieharumachi (talk) 15:34, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

		The Philippine Barnstar
		Comp.arch, I award you this Philippine Barnstar for that awesome funny catch of a misdirected wikilink on Cronies of Ferdinand Marcos. - Chieharumachi (talk) 15:34, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Hey, I have deleted this from the leading paragraph of CPU cache

Apple M1 CPU has 128 or 192 KB instruction L1 cache for each core (important for latency/single-thread performance), depending on core type, unusually large for L1 cache of any CPU type, not just for a laptop, while the total cache memory size is not unusually large (the total is more important for throughput), for a laptop, and much larger total (e.g. L3 or L4) sizes are available in IBM's mainframes.

I think it's a good and informative sentence, just not good for a leading paragraph about a general topic - it feels out of the blue, and takes ~ half of the leading paragraph, while being more confusing than informative.

Maybe move it to History? Either Overview>History or Implementation>History?

- Running 01:51, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

• well I added it here - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CPU_cache#In_ARM_microprocessors - it's ugly but all I can do, with my limited knowledge. - Running 01:57, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.Slatersteven (talk) 16:08, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for dropping by! When I first saw you revert, I considered doing that, on your page. But since someone else reverted, and explained, it seemed we were ok. "An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions. Editors engaged in a dispute should reach consensus or". I would say it's an overstatement (and not my intention) that I'm edit warring, with one substantial revert (explaining that and all in edit summaries), and after that (last one) was reverted I went to the talk page, before seeing your message here. Feel free to drop this from my talk tage, at least the message got across. comp.arch (talk) 16:40, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I have noticed that whenever I see an edit by you it really improves the article. I just wanted to drop you a line thanking you for all of the hard work. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:15, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Same here, sort of. I see some nice work on hyphen and dash fixes. But I also see some squeezing out of spaces from the source, which I'd like to see stop. Dicklyon (talk) 03:25, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I saw your edit for the opcode count. I had the same impression from the Expressions File (expr.rs): that all the "classic" instructions were duplicated with the SIMD prefix. Then the SIMD-only instructions were added to the list.

But I know so little about the WebAssembly instruction format that it seemed like a situation ripe for the obvious answer not being the right answer.

The version of the text that I changed claimed 236 instructions total. I did not know enough to contradict that claim. I was just looking to reword the existing text. I got sucked into doing research.

I leave it to your assessment of your own knowledge of WebAssembly to set the facts for the instruction set. I may reword your edit. But I will try to retain the same facts, including instruction count.

There are at least 160+ before these addition al 235. comp.arch (talk)

   $ sw_vers
   ProductName:	macOS
   ProductVersion:	11.5.2
   BuildVersion:	20G95
   $ python3
   Python 3.8.2 (default, Jun  8 2021, 11:59:35) 
   [Clang 12.0.5 (clang-1205.0.22.11)] on darwin
   Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information.
   >>> 
   [2]+  Stopped                 python3
   $ ps -ef | egrep -i python
     501 13925  9304   0  1:13PM ttys095    0:00.05 /Applications/Xcode.app/Contents/Developer/Library/Frameworks/Python3.framework/Versions/3.8/Resources/Python.app/Contents/MacOS/Python
     501 13933  9304   0  1:13PM ttys095    0:00.00 egrep -i python
   $ xcodebuild -version
   Xcode 12.5.1
   Build version 12E507

I.e., it appears to ship as part of Xcode. /usr/bin/python3 is a wrapper program that finds the currently-selected version of Xcode and runs that version's Python 3, at least with macOS 11.5.2 and Xcode 12.5.1 (probably true of all macOS 11 and Xcode 12).

As for Python 2 on Big Sur:

   $ /usr/bin/python
   
   WARNING: Python 2.7 is not recommended. 
   This version is included in macOS for compatibility with legacy software. 
   Future versions of macOS will not include Python 2.7. 
   Instead, it is recommended that you transition to using 'python3' from within Terminal.
   
   Python 2.7.16 (default, Jun 18 2021, 03:23:53) 
   [GCC Apple LLVM 12.0.5 (clang-1205.0.19.59.6) [+internal-os, ptrauth-isa=deploy on darwin
   Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information.

I have a large pile of Mac clones from a company named "VMware", so, checking various older versions of MacOS+Xcode:

• macOS 10.15.7+Xcode 11.4: Python 3.7 provided with Xcode, Python 2.7.16 provided with the OS;
• macOS 10.14.6+Xcode 11.3.1: no Python 3, Python 2.7.16 provided with the OS;
• macOS 10.13.6+Xcode 9.4: no Python 3, Python 2.7.16 provided with the OS;
• macOS 10.12.6+Xcode 9.2: no Python 3, Python 2.7.10 provided with the OS;
• OS X 10.11.6+Xcode 8.2: no Python 3, Python 2.7.10 provided with the OS;
• OS X 10.10.5+Xcode 6.4: no Python 3, Python 2.7.10 provided with the OS;
• OS X 10.9.5+Xcode 5.1.1: no Python 3, Python 2.7.5 provided with the OS;
• OS X 10.8.5+Xcode 5.1.1: no Python 3, Python 2.7.2 provided with the OS;
• (Mac) OS X 10.7.5+Xcode 4.3.3: no Python 3, Python 2.7.1 provided with the OS;
• Mac OS X Server 10.6.8+Xcode 3.2.6 (Server because the client version can't run as a VMware Fusion guest): no Python 3, Python 2.6.1 provided with the OS;
• Mac OS X Server 10.5.8+no Xcode (Server because the client version can't run as a VMware Fusion guest): no Python 3, Python 2.5.1 provided with the OS.

/usr/bin/python doesn't print out the "future versions of macOS" warning on any pre-Big Sur release.

Guy Harris (talk) 23:12, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

And, on another Mac in our household, running 10.15, and without Xcode:

• /usr/bin/python3 exists, but reports an error from xcrun warning of an "invalid active developer path" due to Xcode not being installed;
• /usr/bin/python2 and /usr/bin/python exists, and are 2.7.16;

so Python 2 is supplied with the OS but Python 3 is provided with Xcode with a wrapper provided by the OS. Guy Harris (talk) 19:22, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Due to fat thumb, my edit note reverting your edit to Interpunct went off in mid-correction. Perhaps you weren't aware that

1. the case of the leading initial in an article name is ignored when piping
2. == asdf == and ==asdf== have identical effect (and don't help with legibility, unlike space before pipe with citation templates)
3. {{unichar}} rewrites its {{1}} argument so the case doesn't matter.

? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:10, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the thanks! Unexpected. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:37, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

You've marked Oreo 8.1 as unsupported, but there's no citation for the same. An upstream link would be helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.207.228.125 (talk) 08:02, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Chatul. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Thanks. --Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 13:29, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Good morning Comp.arch. You who have knowledge about init could you help with editing the article s6 (init) to get it accepted. Since I think init s6 is very important in Linux environment. Thank you very much --Rstmnq1000 (talk) 00:20, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Hey. I was just wondering where the consensus for articles moves like Russo–Ukrainian War and Russo–Kazan Wars was established? MOS:ENBETWEEN states that there are examples where you want to use en dash, and not em dash, and wars is one of the examples (eg, the Uganda–Tanzania War). I'm hoping you can clarify why those pages have been moved where the MOS implies they shouldn't be? Thanks. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:16, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Is this maybe a misunderstanding? I'm changing hyphen to ndash, not to mdash, unless I made a mistake. Can you then point it out? comp.arch (talk)

These changes are both incorrect. Per MOS:DUALNATIONALITIES, combining forms like 'Russo-' take a hyphen, not any kind of dash. RGloucester — ☎ 17:24, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Well thanks for the link (the rules are more involved that I realized), but it seems I'm still right (at least where not adjectives, did I make some mistake?). comp.arch (talk) 17:31, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Please read the guidance. Combining forms like 'Russo-', 'Franco-', 'Sino-', &c., take a hyphen, not a dash. This is because they cannot exist as independent words. You would be right if the articles were titled 'Russian–Kazan', or 'Russian–Georgian', but they are not. RGloucester — ☎ 17:33, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

(e-c) Russo–Ukrainian War was the one on my watch list that resulted in my checking for other articles. After the move the dash there is the longer mdash with the resulting URL "Russo%E2%80%93Ukrainian_War". However the same issue also appears on International sanctions during the Russo-Ukrainian War, Russo-Kazan Wars, and all of the others you've moved over the last few hours. I also note now that @RGloucester: has reverted at least some of the moves. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:26, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Also please note that the move of Russo-Ukrainian War required discussion first per WP:PCM, since there have been move discussions on it in the past. VQuakr (talk) 18:59, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Hey! I saw your edit to Ford F-series and I'm a bit confused why you did it. You changed "trucks" to "light duty trucks" but added (not officially cars) with a reference relating to Biden making it so anything that's not a car can pollute more. How exactly is that something that should be in the article? I really don't understand the "(not officially cars)" thing because if it's called a truck then why would it officially be a car? ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 19:40, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

To clarify, I find it highly ironic that the F-150 is a "light-duty truck" (officially, while maybe not in practice), and that's an official category of vehicles (I mean regulation-vice). I'm not a native English speaker, to me cars are basically vehicles for roads, e.g. excluding planes. I at least thought would include [light] trucks/pickups. I found it interesting they are denied from using the regular category (whatever that is, I assumed cars, maybe that's just the term journalists use, not the official category), or rather Ford chooses to avoid regulations. comp.arch (talk) 20:06, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

I usually just call anything that's a road vehicle (like a car or truck) a car. But the Ford F-150 is officially a truck, not just to avoid regulations but that's because that's what it is classified as. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 20:08, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi Comp.arch, Firefox for Enterprise isn't a separate browser release as your (now reverted) edit implies. It's really just additional tooling to assist with deployments and configuration profiles in a corporate network environment. --  Netsnipe  ►  06:46, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I'm LaundryPizza03. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Precision tests of QED, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:20, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Partially ordered set shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

Please stop page-move-warring here. Phrases like "Partially ordered set" do not need hyphens. Hyphens are only for stacked modifiers where it is ambiguous whether the first word modifies the second or the third. Here, because we have an adverb-adjective-noun phrase, there is no ambiguity. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:46, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I had not "seen that other editors disagree", or at least missed it since nobody reverted (in a way that it pops up). I will stop now, but I still think this is better English (is that wrong?). comp.arch (talk) 15:52, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

To-day, we do not use hyphens as often as in past-days. The kind of Wikipedia-editor who goes around finding small grammatically-dubious points of pages and replacing them with less-dubious wording is more likely to remove adverb-adjective hyphens than to introduce them. In that sense, I think it is wrong, or at least, that it would be a bad thing to have gnomes running around on both sides clogging up our watch-lists. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:57, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

FYI, no hyphen after -ly adverbs (with some exceptions) because there is no ambiguity. — Vincent Lefèvre (talk) 16:07, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

In addition to the page-moves at Partially ordered set, there was Partially ordered space and an assortment of edits in article space; I have reverted these as well. JBL (talk) 17:24, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Isn't it better to leave it in all caps? it's more common and recognizable. –Daveout(talk) 23:49, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Maybe, at first I meant to jus change which page it points to since it was renamed, but ARM company has decided Arm lower case for the arch and the company name. I'm actually very conflicted about that, and do not intentionally change in (some) historical) cases. comp.arch (talk) 08:01, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I found a discussion about it on talk, maybe it will change your mind. I'm on the all caps team. Join us. –Daveout(talk) 08:08, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi, if you intend to move all Gnome Rhone articles this will cause major disruption to articles, navboxes and categories. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 16:23, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

I have reverted the page move, of the nine languages that this article appears in only the English version used the format you moved it to. If you want to gain consensus to move pages from this company then that can be discussed at WT:AIRENG. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 16:33, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Please stop the 'dash crusade'. Of the 19 languages that De Dion-Bouton appears in only the English article has the format that you moved it to. Consensus has to be gained for these page moves and article text edits. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 17:04, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

I'll stop, for now (at least until clear about rules), but the change seems consistent with the rules: MOS:ENBETWEEN. Maybe there's an exception for companies (that I missed). I'm mainly dealing with concepts, and want to give people credit (I also wanted consistency within articles I was editing), where ndash means "and" (in some cases it doesn't apply where only one person, e.g. Levi-Civita symbol). I don't care as much about companies, while the same grammar rules would seem to apply. When I think about it, that would then likely apply for Rolls–Royce (and I see someone added as a redirect). I draw the line at Coca–Cola (though it seems correct...). comp.arch (talk) 17:52, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Generally, use a hyphen in compounded proper names of single entities from MOS:ENBETWEEN. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 18:03, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi, FYI: here's the theoretical process. However, the Registration Authority will change from SIL to the ISO Maintenance Agency. Only 2022 requests will be handled in January 2023. Requests starting in 2023 should be taken up by the MA, along with other pending requests. So I'm afraid old requests will not be addressed in 2022/2023. Cheers, A455bcd9 (talk) 14:26, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I think Special:Diff/1122212656 shouldn't really be marked as "minor", see WP:MINOR#What not to mark as minor changes. You shouldn't mark an edit as minor when Adding or removing content in an article. And in general, it seems that many of your edits when they probably shouldn't be. And as a heads-up, I may re-word/add a reference to mentions about 3.12 if I have time to phrase it well (I'm trying to think about what is the right way to present alpha versions of Python to a general reader in that article.) Thanks and happy editing! Skynxnex (talk) 16:42, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I didn't add it originally as a minor change. Yes, when restoring it, the same exact text, I did that, while reverting you. I think, at least thought it's ok with policy (if not first change, I might be wrong, and then good to have it clear). I can see others might want to know, though most importantly, at least you (who I thought was simply mistaken to remove), why I intentionally "reverted" you (what I thought sufficient, to notify you really, not to revert your addition, only revert of my revert...), and the edit summary. I try to do only minor changes marked minor. Do you have (another) counterexample? I make mistakes, but I thought with-in the rules, that I try to conform to. comp.arch (talk) 16:55, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Minor edits should be Examples include typographical corrections, corrections of minor formatting errors, and reversion of obvious vandalism. A minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. And in particular that covers this, from WP:MINOR: Reverting a page is not likely to be considered minor under most circumstances. When the status of a page is disputed ... then it is better not to mark any edit as minor. Reverting blatant vandalism is an exception to this rule. I hope you didn't see my edit as "blatant vandalism" :).

If you want more examples of edits I think probably should not be marked as minor: Special:Diff/1120707203 and Special:Diff/1120815643. I hope that you take this in a good-faith effort to help us improve Wikipedia and just to be aware that if someone else may disagree with it, don't mark it as minor. Happy editing and I appropriate all the updates you've been doing! Skynxnex (talk) 17:26, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Right of course I didn't think you were a vandal (nor I think vice versa). I actually though of my version edits, and bringing them up preemptively. I doubt anyone would revert them, and thought people would just find annoying to be informed of them. To me, at least some of them are minor changes. Possibly people WOULD like to be informed of new versions, to be informed, rather than for editing reasons. The other edit results from me actually first being reverted on an opposite edit (elsewhere), and I agreed that phrase is better, and changed everywhere else for consistency. I'll think more carefully about my minor edits. I'm only very rarely reverted, and don't take it the wrong way, it's better to be notified, than to be silently changed. comp.arch (talk) 18:33, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

The water yields change every year and so does the order. Usually the mean value over a longer period is taken (multi-year average). For the Guaínia/Negro what is in the table: 35,943 m3/s (1977-2006). What does not change is that the Amazon River has always been and remains the first. And a graph like this makes no sense. 2A02:AB88:4701:2100:BDA4:FA1:69DA:57A7 (talk) 11:45, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

This has had some discussion at Talk:Nothing, Forever. If Twitch and the broadcaster both deliberately refuse to say which piece of dialogue caused the suspension, but Discord fans have a pretty good idea, Wikipedia shouldn't quote that Discord opinion as a plain statement of fact. Belbury (talk) 18:23, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Sorry I misread (I actually read "Xander, one of the creators of Nothing Forever, said on Discord", while I guess it could be anybody), I thought I was reading an answer on quotes (at Vice) taken from the creators, from Discord. Even if that's wrong, or not proven (doesn't need to be Vice is WP:SECONDARY and should be trusted(?)), I think you shouldn't have reverted last time, with this: "as a result of some character dialogue having broken Twitch's rules on content" because that's not proven. The only thing I see official is "This channel is temporarily unavailable due to a violation of Twitch's Community Guidelines or Terms of Service." which could mean a number of things, and also it's WP:PRIMARY. I think it's ok to say the suspension followed something transgender-related because that's a fact (and likely the cause, if you disagree and want it out, then "content" and "character dialogue" must be out too). comp.arch (talk) 18:44, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

I believe this is the article you were looking for on the Jordan Neely page. This is a gift link so you should have full access. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 23:54, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Just a quick friendly reminder: by my count, you are at four reverts within the last 24 hours on the Jordan Neely page. I certainly won't be taking any administrative action, but there are sticklers out there. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:57, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

LoomCreek (talk) 21:48, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

I think it is pertinent to say, now that we're having a dialogue at ANI, that I don't believe that you are behaving maliciously in the slightest, and I think it is admirable to want to protect Wikipedia. I do think that some of your behavior is moving into the realm of disruption, and I disagree with your position, but I also believe you are honestly doing your best to make Wikipedia the best it can be. PriusGod (talk) 22:13, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your support PriusGod, I also respect your position, and from memory every interaction with you has been positive. I don't have a disagreement with anyone, as a person, not even LoomCreek. I don't recall all usernames, but right now I feel like I'm more obsessed with defending at ANI, time that could be better spent elsewhere, even out of Wikipedia. But it's out of my hands, I don't if ANIs get reverted, or how are handled. I've never intentionally taken a Wikibreak, but may consider it. It occurred to me to check, and with 35,823 edits now, it just puts me in top-3000, or more than "99.99% of all users" (which over 25,000 edits gets you, i.e. if in top 4,500 of all users). Maybe about time to retire I see. :)

I will even consider that I'm wrong; and the name can or should be included, within the rules, or getting the rules changed if needed. I'm thinking what the exceptions can be. I can mainly think of war criminals like Joseph Kony that at some point was not notable I guess... comp.arch (talk) 22:37, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

I think that no actual sysops have replied at ANI yet is a good sign that you are likely not going to get formally or technically sanctioned (and I hope you don't!) - the discussion will probably get archived whenever it gets archived.

Like I said in one of my talk page comments - the way that BLPCRIME is written has caused a lot of problems in the past, and whether certain names get included often ends up going whatever the way the local consensus goes. It's less about an exception and more about whether more people show up with a certain interpretation.

Perhaps I'll try and draft up a proposal to change the text of the policy at some point. If I ever get around to that, I would like to invite you to help me draft it up - while I did characterize some of your deeper citations as lawyering, I think that having someone who has the experience and knowledge to dredge up specific cases would be a huge asset to a policy change proposal, not to mention being able to improve the balance of the proposal with an opposing view. PriusGod (talk) 22:52, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for the double ping - but the way you are replying to many of the comments that are not addressed to you may get you accused of bludgeoning. I don't think what you're doing qualifies as that, since you're replying to different arguments with specific rebuttals, but there are hotter heads in the talk page that might be tempted to levy the accusation. PriusGod (talk) 22:56, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

I concur with PriusGod. I suggest you walk away from that article, not because you're necessarily wrong but because you're putting in a lot of work and passion while losing the battle. Barring some new event in that case, you are not going to prevail here.

The consensus is shaping up to ignore WP:BLPCRIME. This probably says more about a flawed policy than the group of editors you're arguing with:

• that policy leaves some ambiguous weasel words to allow overruling the policy but without any guidance as to when.
• the policy should probably carve out an exception for when reporting the accused's name is so widespread. Call it WP:CATOUTOFTHEBAG. That seems to be the motivation for many editors.

Also, this incident is turning into another political litmus test in the polarized United States. The accused is shaping up to become a supervillain for many and a hero for others, independent of what may have happened and why.

You're a good editor- I'd hate to lose you because you either get fed up or sanctioned. A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:37, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

I still look at the Talk page, but I've stopped for now editing the page, or the Talk page. It seems pointless (he's already known in the news, so we're not really protecting him much by omitting the name; I'm thinking of the precedent also of allowing naming), and now I'm looking at the bigger picture, what the policy should say. One of the most common cases of A AND B not public figures are domestic disputes, and if you name the victim, you've implicitly named the spouse... I'm thinking of the John and Lorena Bobbitt case, now closed (what should and could, have been done before the case closed, or was actually done regarding naming on WP), and similar cases, e.g. Brigitte Harris case that did end in conviction (was named on WP with the m-word prior to conviction, cut off her father's penis after handcuffing him and killing), but see also other open, Disappearance of Jennifer Dulos. comp.arch (talk) 10:45, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

I took out your recent additions as WP:OR and violations of WP:NPOV. Please cite reliable sources for claims like “AMD is the clear leader” and also, please use proper grammar.—Jasper Deng (talk) 17:34, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Hello! Re: your pondering here. The Riddarholm Church is the correct English literal translation of the church's name. Since we normally don't use "The" with church names in English, like the Swedes do in Swedish, Riddarholm Church would be best. Some ninnies got together on the talk page a while back and all agreed upon the current incorrect name, adding The at the end, represented by Swedish -en, and thus making a real mess. Consensus. You probably know how that goes. Best wishes, SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:29, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

See this. You ware asked not to make such edits before. Is there a reason why you keep doing this? DVdm (talk) 14:29, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Incomplete sentences/sentence fragments do not end in periods, per MOS:PERIOD. And comma-consistency. comp.arch (talk) 14:34, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I am referring to the spacing and the capsing of the templates. - DVdm (talk) 16:02, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

So it wasn't a "Useless edit"? Please don't be too quick to revert if/when there are valid changes (mine, and science papers/articles, I'm not sure who deleted the article), plus some you object to (that add to consistency, spaces consistent, and very few case changes). Also hope you're ok with my revert of you elsewhere, I wouldn't have known of the intriguing paper I looked up if I hadn't seen your revert of atomic dark matter. :) comp.arch (talk) 16:21, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, I was too quick with my comment. I hadn't noticed the removal of the periods in the captions. They were ok. My apologies. DVdm (talk) 17:57, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Metallic means in Pythagorean triples

Metallic means are precisely represented by primitive Pythagorean triples.

In a primitive Pythagorean triple, if the difference between hypotenuse and longer leg is 1, 2 or 8, such Pythagorean triple represents one particular metallic mean. The cotangent of the quarter of smaller acute angle of such Pythagorean triangle equals the precise value of one particular metallic mean.

In a primitive Pythagorean triple (a,b,c), if a < b < c and c - b ∈ {1, 2, 8}, the Pythagorean triangle (a,b,c) exhibits a particular metallic mean ${\displaystyle S_{m}}$,

where ${\displaystyle m=2{\sqrt {\frac {c+b}{c-b}}}}$

and the Metallic Mean ${\displaystyle S_{m}=cot\left({\frac {\theta }{4}}\right)}$

where θ is the smaller acute angle of the Pythagorean triangle.

For example, the primitive Pythagorean triple 20-21-29 incorporates the 5th metallic mean. Cotangent of the quarter of smaller acute angle of the 20-21-29 Pythagorean triangle yields the precise value of the 5th metallic mean. Similarly, the Pythagorean triangle 3-4-5 represents the 6th metallic mean. Likewise, the Pythagorean triple 12-35-37 gives the 12th metallic mean, the Pythagorean triple 52-165-173 yields the 13th metallic mean, and so on.^[1]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.58.20.112 (talk) 13:17, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Modulation_techniques&diff=prev&oldid=1145517894 - on android this edit appears to change a character into an equivalent looking character. It is not immediately obvious why this was done and what change was intended. I simply request that when you make these edits please explain in the summary what you changed. Micsthepick (talk) 14:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

I see the differece now, there is an en dash instead of a regular dash. Micsthepick (talk) 14:44, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:28, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed you made changes to the capitalization of piped links on JSON, such as:

However, this has no effect on the rendered page because the capitalization of the first letter is ignored. So don't waste your time making changes like this. — W.andrea (talk) 17:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

+1. Викидим (talk) 00:30, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Hey,

I saw your edits on Afro–Latin Americans and just wanted to point out that there were two discussions about this previously which supported the use of the en dash. Essentially, if a compound word includes another compound (whether a closed compound or an open one), then the hyphen becomes an en dash as per MOS:PREFIXDASH. There, the example of Afro–Puerto Rican was added specifically to help address this issue.

My initial reaction was the same as yours and I felt it should be changed back, too, but I lost that argument. I just thought I should explain where consensus is at. I won't revert your edits, since I'll leave that decision up to you. I'm sure someone else will if they feel strongly about it. Lewisguile (talk) 12:12, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out Afro–Puerto Ricans there, it seems I'm wrong, but before I revert, it also seems the rules are ambigious. With the ndash was actually my preference, and I've been adding in most cases until pointed out was wrong for e.g. Russo- (as apposed to Russian–) per MOS:DUALNATIONALITIES and MOS:ENBETWEEN. Then I stopped doing it for such. comp.arch (talk) 16:02, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Just FYI, your edit adding x86-64-v3 support to Ubuntu was reverted recently. I swear I saw a cited source for what you added, but I can't find it right now. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:32, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

I'd love your thoughts on EU Sovereign Tech Fund (EU-STF) - Wikipedia Mgifford (talk) 22:16, 21 October 2025 (UTC)