User talk:Dsimic/Archive 7

Hello

I have set up User:Codename Lisa/Websites and their publishers in an attempt to improve the existing citations quality in the computing topics. Perhaps it can be a part of the Manual of Style one day. I hope you find it useful. And if you wanted to edit or contribute, I'd be honored.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 02:40, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Codename Lisa, and I sincerely apologize for the delay in responding. Just had a chance to look at the page you've linked above, and I find it very useful. However, I have a couple of suggestions resulting from my uncertainties about the {{Cite web}} template, which I've wondered about for quite a while. Oh, and of course, thank you very much for putting all that website–publisher information together. :)

One of the things I'd like to discuss is whether it might be better to use |website= parameter instead of |work=, in the current information layout? Using |website= seems slightly more logical to me, while these two parameters (AFAIK) should be equivalent from the {{Cite web}}'s current perspective. Another thing I'd like to discuss (which hinges on the first one) is whether we should somehow keep the website domain as part of the citation? IMHO, keeping the domain should be highly usable simply because many people remember the websites by their domains; as a result, leaving the domain out might be actually confusing. I'm not sure whether having both |website= and |work= parameters might be a solution, so the value of |website= is the website domain, and the value of |work= is the descriptive name of the website? — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 09:54, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi. |work= is an alias for |website=. So I use |work= to type three letters less. But the point is, when you populate both with different values, the template ignores one and throws a CS1 exception error. (CS1 stands for Citation Style 1.)

Best regards,

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

Right, I'm aware of that, but I was actually referring to the possibility of untying those two {{Cite web}} parameters and using them separately as I've described above. Would you find something like that useful? — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 13:17, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Technically, doing this requires changing Module:Citation/CS1. Only an administrator or higher can edit that page. But the bigger problem is that even with enough authorization level, changing such a popular citation style requires very broad consensus.

Personally, I have no feelings towards this suggestion. That's of course because of my background in FA that killed that certain nerve in me. But I can imagine what objections would be aimed at it if you ever proposed it: domain names like blogs.technet.com and blogs.microsoft.com are absolutely useless. And some websites have changed domain names during their lives, even though their contents are still active. (e.g. del.icio.us has become delicious.com and regional ZDNet websites have all got merged into ZDNet.)

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 16:00, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh, totally, I wasn't implying that such a change related to the behavior of {{Cite web}} template could be done without an extensive prior discussion. Though, you're right, I forgot for a moment how tedious and fruitless such discussions can be, so the whole idea is probably one of the cans of worms that's better left unopened. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 08:01, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

An article that you have been involved in editing— NX Bit —has been proposed for merging with Executable space protection. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. WikiWisePowder (talk) 21:56, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello, WikiWisePowder! As I can see, the NX bit article has been already merged into Executable space protection, which might be debatable and against the general 30-day guideline. I'll have a more detailed look into it in the following days, and will provide my further thoughts on the merger. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 10:13, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Hm, just saw that you've performed even more mergers; in particular, you've also merged the Data Execution Prevention article into the Executable space protection article. IMHO, that isn't the way to go simply because having longer articles reduces readability, but unfortunately I don't have the time at the moment to provide a more detailed feedback. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 09:40, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on other people again, as you did at Talk:Server Application Programming Interface, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors, which you did not on Talk:Server Application Programming Interface. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. Ttt74 (talk) 17:23, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Ttt74, could you, please, explain what exactly do you consider to be a "personal attack" you're referring to? — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 17:31, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Can you explain why you used the phrase 'Just my $.02' in your comment Ttt74 (talk) 17:52, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Did you read the dictionary entry I've already referred to? In a few words, "my two cents" is an American idiomatic expression that basically means "here's my humble opinion, and you can do whatever you want with it". As such, it means no insult or disrespect whatsoever. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 18:13, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

It's the first time I hear about this phrase: and I really got confused about its meaning and I thought it was an insult. I didn't well understand what the dictionary you referred to was meaning. Now I understand after doing some searches: It's OK now, but I'm not familiar with those kinds of informal phrases, and I don't like when people use it. Ttt74 (talk) 19:52, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

You may remove this section. Sorry for disturbance. Ttt74 (talk) 19:58, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There's the first time for everything. I would expect an apology from you, simply because you accused me of something I haven't done, and on top of that you did it by templating me in a very unfriendly way. "My two cents" is just an example of idiomatic expressions one has to become accustomed to – such expressions exist as a natural part of many languages, with the English language being no exception. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 20:10, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

(by talk page watcher) @Ttt74: Hi. There are a couple of things you should know: In Wikipedia, we see other people do lots of questionable things, like reverting another person, etc. But our first reaction is never a level 4 warning! We always assume they are doing something good. My principle is: Hesitate in registering signs of hostility; even when you did, hesitate in reacting. So, even when I see a seemingly rude statement I often politely ask for clarification, even feign stupidity if required. As for Dsimic, he is one of our friendliest editors, not to mention very smart.

Another thing: You discussion with Dsimic here being watched by exactly 53 editors. (Myself included.) It will permanently remain in your record. You might want to rethink your teamwork principles.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 20:26, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Codename Lisa! I might just want to add that acting without "jumping the gun" also shows one's level of maturity. We're all humans and sometimes we make mistakes, but that's why we're all here to discuss the issues and reach compromises, with all that in the interest of making Wikipedia and ourselves better. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 20:38, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

@Codename Lisa: Hi, I got confused with what Dsimic was meaning, I thought it was rude. I know what I did was wrong. Thank you for your advices. BTW, how did you know that this discussion was being watched by exactly 53 editors? Ttt74 (talk) 20:53, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Page information! The number of watcher is available for all Wikipedia pages. There was even a tool on wmflabs that could give you precise stats. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 20:56, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for clarification. Ttt74 (talk) 21:13, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm wondering why you've reverted my deletion for this section that I wrote by mistake. Ttt74 (talk) 09:48, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in reponding. As I already wrote in my edit summary, there's no need for deleting this section, and the maintenance of user talk pages is at the discretion of editors to which they belong. In other words, it's fine if you wrote something by mistake, nobody is perfect, and such mistakes are part of the learning process. Furthermore, you should stand behind your words, admitting any of your mistakes, and without trying to hide anything. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 07:02, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

It was odd from you to respond at that delay, given that you already made some contributions after getting being informed of a recent message on your talk page and before you even replied.

Anyway, I want to be clear with you; Keeping this section here means making a lot of editors aware of the mistake I did and the old dispute between me and you that I'm considering to be over: That's NOT nice. My contributions also wont hide the mistake I did: And there is no need to keep this section, since I'm the one who wrote it.

Can you explain the reason that made you so insisting on keeping this section? Ttt74 (talk) 12:31, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Please do not waste your time trying to pointlessly investigate my contributions and the reasons of delayed responding. If you really care to know, I had (and I still have) some hardware issues with the computer I've been using in the last few years, which prevent me from doing regular contributions to Wikipedia, and I also usually prioritize what to do first both in real life and on Wikipedia. There was absolutely no hidden motivation behind the delay.

As I've already pointed it out, maintenance of user talk pages is at the discretion of editors who they belong to, and I don't see any valid reasons for deleting this section. Disputes and discussions are perfectly fine, and are not to be hidden. Furthermore, please learn to acceept, publicly acknowledge, and deal with any of your mistakes here on Wikipedia. People (including me) actually highly respect when someone acknowledges a mistake and learns from it for the future. As simple as that. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 04:12, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Finally, there's someone sharing the same opinion as mine regarding the existence of Server Application Programming Interface as a standalone article. Thank you, 50.53.1.33. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 14:58, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I came across the reference to storage devices as I was looking for additional sources. I wouldn't have thought of them either, but that's what the source said and it seems to make sense. Peter Flass (talk) 17:29, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello! As already noted in my edit summary, I'd respectfully disagree that storage devices belong to peripherals. With the latest advancements in storage technology, which include boundary-blurring technologies such as NVDIMM, it's even more clear that treating storage devices as peripherals simply doesn't make much sense. Furthermore, such boundary-blurring technologies will probably require many textbooks to be adjusted because of the overall level of blurring between storage and main memory. Even if storage devices could be seen as peripherals back in the old days when many devices actually had no internal storage, technology advancements in the last few decades have only widened the storage–peripheral gap. Hope you agree. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 15:34, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I guess. Storage devices weren't there originally, and I didn't think of them until I came across the reference I cited. I guess maybe yes and maybe no. Peter Flass (talk) 19:18, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. Storage devices are peripherals. Peripherals = I/O devices. Anything you reference with read and write I/O commands is a peripheral. Doesn't matter if it's built into the main case or even on the motherboard. Jeh (talk) 21:34, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

IMHO, the type of I/O is the key when determining if it's a peripheral device or not. In other words, if a human user is on one side of the I/O operation, then it's about a peripheral device; otherwise, it's a "plain" I/O device. Human users obviously can't use their senses to read or write computer storage, so storage doesn't belong to peripherals; the same applies to network interface cards, storage controllers, etc. If we'd extend the definition so an I/O device equals a peripheral device, what I/O devices wouldn't classify as peripherals? — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 13:44, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Whether a "human user" is involved is irrelevant and your distinction of "peripheral" vs "plain I/O device" is your invention (OR). "Input" and "output" does not have to involve a "user". For example, a temperature sensor is an input device but it's not accepting data from a user; a servo motor on a CNC mill is output-only but is not sending data to a user. A paper tape punch is output-only but its output is not intended for users to read (though it is human-readable with some effort). I will be correcting your recent changes to the article accordingly.

Regarding your last question - none, and that's the point. Jeh (talk) 14:38, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, we can only respectfully agree to disagree. If there are actually no differences between I/O devices and peripherals, why don't we then name the article "I/O device" instead of "Peripheral"? — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 14:47, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Let's also have a look at this source, for example. It introduces the concept of a peripheral bus, which I would be quite happy to see incorporated into the Peripheral article. Taking that route, everything that connects to a computer through a peripheral bus (SATA, SCSI, USB, PS/2, etc.) would be a peripheral device, so a SATA SSD would be a peripheral, but a PCI Express SSD or NVDIMM wouldn't. On second thought, and if we agree on introducing the concept of a peripheral bus, we shouldn't say that all storage devices are peripherals, as some types certainly aren't. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 14:58, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

No replies to my examples, huh?

The division of buses into "peripheral bus" vs. "I/O bus", together with your example of the SSD, shows the ludicrousness of your position. If an SSD is a peripheral (which it certainly is) then it stays a peripheral even if it's moved from a SATA interface to an internal expansion bus like a PCIe slot. I don't understand how it suddenly becomes not-a-peripheral when it's removed from the processor by only one major logic block (the PCIe root complex), instead of by a PCIe root complex plus a second block, a SATA host controller. It still performs the same operations and, aside from some details in the driver stack, is used by the operating system and the user in exactly the same way. So how is the PCIe-attached device not a peripheral?

Is an ExpressCard slot a "peripheral bus"? (Logically, and largely electrically, it's just PCIe in a different form factor.)

We can agree to disagree, but the article has to say one thing or another. Jeh (talk) 15:27, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for not replying directly to your examples, introducing the concept of a peripheral bus seemed to me like a general solution and a response to all your examples. However, I don't think that I deserve to be called "ludicrous". By the way, you also haven't answered to my question: why don't we rename the article I/O device?

Why a PCI Express device isn't a peripheral? The answer is simple, because it isn't connected to a computer via a peripheral bus, which PCI Express in its native form isn't. There are some variations of PCI Express, including the one used by ExpressCard slots, which are peripheral buses because they are intended for connecting devices that aren't built into a computer system.

Anyway, (putting PCI Express on the side for a moment) NVDIMM is a clear example of a storage device that certainly isn't connected to a computer through a peripheral bus. Thus, saying that all storage devices are peripherals is simply wrong. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 15:41, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

That is a circular argument. The bus a device is connected to is not what matters. Any device that performs I/O operations is an I/O device. And from the computer organization and programming point of view, all I/O devices are peripherals. The only difference between a "peripheral bus" and an "I/O bus" is what sorts of devices happen to be available to be bought to plug into them this year; that is more a marketing designation than anything else. Did you know that PATA hard drives used to be directly connected to ISA? By "directly connected", I mean the hard drive's onboard controller showed up as I/O ports in the CPU's I/O port space. In those days ISA was the only I/O bus we had. Later ISA slots were implemented via a bus bridge from the PCIbus. Does that somehow change the status of devices attached to ISA slots? Nonsense. Today, an SSD does not magically transform from being a peripheral device when it's connected to USB, to not-a-peripheral when it's connected via PCI-E. Jeh (talk) 18:46, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

This discussion should probably have gone to the talkpage for Peripheral - my fault, sorry. Peter Flass (talk) 12:04, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

I'll copy it. It should be there anyway so that others can comment. Jeh (talk) 16:49, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Ok, copy is done. @Dsimic:, do you want to hat this, to discourage forking the discussion? Jeh (talk) 17:16, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Of course, it's much better for the discussion to continue at Talk:Peripheral § Peripherals and storage, that way more editors will be able to see it and provide opinions. Got this discussion tagged with {{Moved discussion to}}. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 21:35, 11 April 2016 (UTC)