User talk:Comp.arch

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

My "public service announcment":

The United States Computer Emergency Readiness Team (US-CERT), explained that using Windows XP without mitigation, as Microsoft's support [has ended], "[exposes users] to an elevated risk to cybersecurity dangers, such as malicious attacks or electronic data loss"; users "may mitigate some risks [regarding Windows XP] by using a web browser other than Internet Explorer"[1][2] or by other means.

This language should be somewhere in the Windows XP article as it is neutral and not biased for Microsoft. Then, the layperson who does not know about security in general and the risk regarding XP or Internet Explorer (IE), in particular, can make an informed choice about what to do about XP or it's components (eg. Internet Explorer).

US-CERT is already considered a secondary (in relation to Microsoft) reliable source in the Internet Explorer 6 article:

Art Manion, a representative of the United States Computer Emergency Readiness Team (US-CERT) noted in a vulnerability report that the design of Internet Explorer 6 Service Pack 1 made it difficult to secure. He stated that:

There are a number of significant vulnerabilities in technologies relating to the IE domain/zone security model, local file system (Local Machine Zone) trust, the Dynamic HTML (DHTML) document object model (in particular, proprietary DHTML features), the HTML Help system, MIME type determination, the graphical user interface (GUI), and ActiveX. … IE is integrated into Windows to such an extent that vulnerabilities in IE frequently provide an attacker significant access to the operating system.[3]

My last attempt[1] put the language below in the main text, way after "Windows XP was a major advance [..] in security" in the lead, but my previous attemptsCite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). [2] put language above the paragraph with the quoted text, as I didn't want the layperson to start reading the article and maybe stop at "security".

I was trying to keep the "advise" short previously; see the language I used:

On March 10, 2014, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security's US-CERT advised alerted, 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"[4][5] or by other means.

and this link:

with the language immediately above it was "censored"[3] by Wikipedia editors,[4] under, I think, misapplied Wikipedia policies guidelines; from the Windows XP main text ("End of support"-section)! Not just its WP:LEAD. I may have been a little overzealous in trying to convince editors it should be in there but ended up being silenced. Well, I had given up anyway (for now at least). There is no consensus on adding this to the article, not even any support. Maybe some didn't read what I put on the talk page or ignored it, others thought the above still "not important" for inclusion after reading on the talk page:

It seems I need to spell the danger out, that explains why it's an "important point", in an WP:OR-like way that can't be in the article itself, but may inform editors: It doesn't take a WP:CRYSTAL ball to know that a security exploit will be found (or not if they are not looking, eg. in built-in IE6) in Windows XP (also applies to all other IE-versions on XP). That is the risk we have support for from Microsoft, until tomorrow. When it happens, usually a patch would be available from Microsoft. This is something an anti-virus software does not fix. It gets worse; when Microsoft patches newer versions of the operating system, that patch (assuming the exploit it patches is also a security hole in XP), is a recipe for break-in into XP that is made worse because XP is proprietary software. If it would be open source, you could possibly backport the patch to XP. Unmitigated, XP is borderline certainly an "unmitigated disaster", not a risk, waiting to happen. Is the advise from the government, not just "some critics" not important and on topic? Please revert the revert. comp.arch (talk) 12:34, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Do not just take my word for it, see eg. latest BBC article.

If you are really paranoid you can disconnect XP from the Internet, which makes it more secure, but it will still be less secure than supported offline OS. Since you are paranoid about security you should then read about Stuxnet and how you could get infected with an USB stick via compromised certificates (I assume they will not get updated ever again).

Let's wait and see if a major security outbreak will convince people that it is notable after the fact. I wander if one changed word "advises" to "claims" would have changed anyones mind. It wasn't a forbidden "how to" (ridiculous), but it might make sure. I take some responsibility for not starting with some other language/placement.

In case people think, what I can currently find in the article on the US-CERT:

In cases where the use of XP is still necessary, critics, along with the United States Computer Emergency Readiness Team, simply recommended against the use of Internet Explorer and Outlook Express in favor of alternatives which are still maintained on XP, but still argued that users should eventually upgrade.

will do, "critics, along with".. it's a little "weasel wordy" implying the US-CERT is just some "critic" ("censoring"? as it is the government), as the US-CERT doesn't say "eventually upgrade" and the reference (above) to their alert, I provided to, was reverted. No solutions they provide to the alerted risks, include running XP. Running XP without IE only "mitigate[s] some risks". I included the information on IE as it is the built-in browser many people use. Risks, not mitigated by only stopping usage of IE, include (I guess) using ALL computer files. They are all decoded by the operating system in some way. Often specifically some file/data formats. Eg. there have been a string of buffer overflows exploits in JPEG decoding code (and other decoding code) that seems never-ending, see latest patch that will ever be available.

To be fair, this is in the article:

Microsoft began to increasingly urge XP customers to migrate to newer versions such as Windows 7 or 8 in the interest of security

however, while the "advise" from the govenment is a "how-to" in some people's minds, this "urge" that is ALREADY in the article is not..? I'm not sure I understand this "systematic bias" against the govenment. The link to the US-CERT advise should be in the article. Please advise how the language on US-CERT can be improved. Is including an "urge" from a company to upgrade to a newer product for money not WP:NPOV while skipping the neutral advise from the government?


  1. ^ "Alert (TA14-069A): Microsoft Ending Support for Windows XP and Office 2003"". March 11, 2014. Retrieved April 6, 2014. Computer systems running unsupported software are exposed to an elevated risk to cybersecurity dangers, such as malicious attacks or electronic data loss. 
  2. ^ Keizer, Gregg (March 11, 2014). "US-CERT urges XP users to dump IE: If customers must run XP after April 8, switch to alternate browser that still gets patches, advises team from Dept. of Homeland Security". Retrieved April 4, 2014. 
  3. ^ "Vulnerability Note VU#713878". US-CERT. June 9, 2004. Retrieved 2006-04-07. 
  4. ^ "Alert (TA14-069A): Microsoft Ending Support for Windows XP and Office 2003"". March 11, 2014. Retrieved April 6, 2014. Computer systems running unsupported software are exposed to an elevated risk to cybersecurity dangers, such as malicious attacks or electronic data loss. 
  5. ^ Keizer, Gregg (March 11, 2014). "US-CERT urges XP users to dump IE: If customers must run XP after April 8, switch to alternate browser that still gets patches, advises team from Dept. of Homeland Security". Retrieved April 4, 2014. 


0+ This user has made more than 0 contributions to Wikipedia.

I'm impulsive - I'm sorry..[edit]

I'm frequenty too impulsive and it is sort of ok as I quickly try to fix my mistakes. However, I can't fix typos in edit summaries. If it's possible, let me know, I assume it's not possible for good reason..(?)

English is not my native language. I tend to get misunderstood as I do not write to clearly always. Please assume good faith, as it is. comp.arch (talk) 09:48, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Dear diary, I'm in hot water, again, in less than a week. However this is the first time I went over the line. Good behaviour would be everyone would be happy with you. I've had four disagreements that I can remember, started years ago now (I think, used IP before, about a year under a "name"). Not sure what is the average in disagreements. Some about "facts". comp.arch (talk) 17:08, 7 April 2014 (UTC)


Hello, Comp.arch, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on [[user talk:--Søren1997 (talk) 10:41, 8 April 2013 (UTC)|my talk page]], or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome!

Comp.arch, you are invited to the Teahouse[edit]

Teahouse logo

Hi Comp.arch! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Benzband (I'm a Teahouse host)

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:17, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

"One more thing, infoboxes are not for history I would think."[edit]

Template:Infobox software has at least one item of history in it, namely the "released" parameter - "The date in which version 1.0 (or closely-matching release) of the software product in question reaches its release to manufacturing (RTM) stage.". Template:Infobox OS inherits from it. Guy Harris (talk) 16:37, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

TemplateData is here[edit]

Hey Comp.arch

I'm sending you this because you've made quite a few edits to the template namespace in the past couple of months. If I've got this wrong, or if I haven't but you're not interested in my request, don't worry; this is the only notice I'm sending out on the subject :).

So, as you know (or should know - we sent out a centralnotice and several watchlist notices) we're planning to deploy the VisualEditor on Monday, 1 July, as the default editor. For those of us who prefer markup editing, fear not; we'll still be able to use the markup editor, which isn't going anywhere.

What's important here, though, is that the VisualEditor features an interactive template inspector; you click an icon on a template and it shows you the parameters, the contents of those fields, and human-readable parameter names, along with descriptions of what each parameter does. Personally, I find this pretty awesome, and from Monday it's going to be heavily used, since, as said, the VisualEditor will become the default.

The thing that generates the human-readable names and descriptions is a small JSON data structure, loaded through an extension called TemplateData. I'm reaching out to you in the hopes that you'd be willing and able to put some time into adding TemplateData to high-profile templates. It's pretty easy to understand (heck, if I can write it, anyone can) and you can find a guide here, along with a list of prominent templates, although I suspect we can all hazard a guess as to high-profile templates that would benefit from this. Hopefully you're willing to give it a try; the more TemplateData sections get added, the better the interface can be. If you run into any problems, drop a note on the Feedback page.

Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:11, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:32, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

kB vs KB[edit]

Hi! I see you are on a quest of changing every instance of "kB" to "KB" and waving the flag of WP:COMPUNITS while doing it. I have actually read that page and it doesn't say anything about "kB" being wrong, it does say that "A capital K can be used for "kilo-" when it means 1024 in computing contexts." Emphasis is mine, and they are using the word "can" not "must". So, in my interpretation, "kB" is still OK, and KB is just as acceptable. I won't change your edits, and I like consistency, but I think you can cool down the crusade a bit since "kB" is most certainly not wrong. -- Henriok (talk) 16:52, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

If the prefix "K-" were in commerce with a unit of measure defined in SI, weights and measures inspectors could go into stores and seize goods that are not properly labeled, and fine the establishment that illegally offered the mislabeled goods. Those who make suggestions about what "k-" or "K-" mean when combined with "b" or "B" have no such enforcement powers, so it's just a matter of people following whichever suggestion they like best. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:28, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for commenting on my page. Yes, I'm on a crusade.. Just as I try to fix punctuation (or anything I see wrong) I try to fix these little things that bug me that are also wrong, like using kB (that should be used only for 1,000 bytes as the SI-prefix k means that) when KB (historically 1,024 bytes or KiB that is discouraged) is really meant. These are just errors in my opinion (maybe little things), but why not be accurate? Enforcement is a different matter (people will still say mHz and not MHz even if they are also different units and wrong and we guide the way). Say what you mean and instruct others in WP:COMPUNITS be reverting your revert of my change there? comp.arch (talk) 21:33, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Adding gpu to {{Infobox CPU}}[edit]

I noticed you added a gpu field to the {{Infobox CPU}} template. I have some comments over on it's talk page. —RP88 (talk) 12:07, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

ARM Holdings[edit]

Hi - I notice that you have put a series of "citation needed" templates on ARM Holdings. This is a FTSE 250 company and investment analysts use these pages. Posting unsourced information makes the article very unreliable. Making unsourced claims about customer lists also makes the article read like and advert. I am afraid I am inclined to add an "advert" tag to the article. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 21:35, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

ARM architectures and other (e.g. 360 architecture)[edit]

Dunno if you've read the stuff I added on Talk:ARM architecture yet (I started on it before you added stuff to my talk page, and finished it and saved the edits afterwards). It discusses some of the ISA changes.

IBM System/360 architecture is one member of the family, and didn't change much during its lifetime, so it's singular. A page for the entire family, or for the 32-bit flavor of the family, might be "IBM System/3x0 architectures" or might be "IBM System/3x0 architecture family". The family definitely had significant changes other than going 64-bit with z/Architecture - S/360 -> S/370 introduced some new user-mode instructions, some kernel-mode changes (with a mode bit) and, shortly after the first S/370s came out, an MMU to support demand paging (the IBM System/360 Model 67 also had one, but it was a special S/360 model; the S/370's MMU was similar but not identical), and S/370 -> S/370-XA meant that 7 of the upper 8 bits of addresses were no longer ignored (again, with a mode bit, so code that expected to be able to stuff extra data in the upper 8 bits of a pointer would still run in compatibility mode).

I think MIPS, SPARC, and PA-RISC mostly just widened the registers when they went 64-bit; they may have added some instructions as well.

For 6800 -> 68000, that's not just widening from 16 to 32 bits, it's a change more significant than even x86-32 -> x86-64 or ARMv7 -> ARMv8.

As for what counts as a new member of a family:

  • any change that breaks user-mode backwards compatibility counts;
  • changes that break only kernel-mode backwards compatibility probably count, albeit with a note that user-mode backwards compatibility is preserved;
  • I might be inclined, for the sake of consistency, to say that going 64-bit counts, even for relatively straightforward widening that preserve kernel-mode and user-mode backwards compatibility;
  • extensions don't count, although large extensions might deserve their own pages, such as MMX, SSE, NEON, etc.. Guy Harris (talk) 21:00, 3 October 2013 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Comp.arch. You have new messages at Codename Lisa's talk page.
Message added 18:42, 25 October 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Codename Lisa (talk) 18:42, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

A note about overlinking[edit]


Did you know that WP:REPEATLINK only applies to prose and not tables? Repetitive linking makes prose ugly but is absolutely necessary in table. The reason is simple: Imagine someone is reading Windows NT section in Comparison of Microsoft Windows versions. It is not user-friendly to expect him to scrolling 18 A4 pages up to find a link to Closed source.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 00:29, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, good to have a mentor.. :) You're right it seems. I'm still learning.. Thought I was following policy. Changed policy to make clear and reverted one bit of what I done. See that edit. comp.arch (talk) 22:16, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi. You are welcome. :)
So, you went on and edited the guideline? Well, guideline editing requires a deep understanding of how community thinks, so, if you really think you are still learning, I don't really advise editing guideline pages. But the good thing about guidelines – which is one level below policy – is that you can take it easy. For example, no one insists on having duplicate links in the same cell. (Tacky, isn't it?) Common sense and compromise are the key.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 03:13, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
FYI: The discussion is here Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Linking#Repetition_of_links_with-in_tables. And if I want to respond here and send a talkback to you it seems I have to go to your page separately to to that. comp.arch (talk) 09:25, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi. I am aware. I and most Wikipedians keep talk pages in our watchlists for a while. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 20:51, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

ARM architecture[edit]

You might be overly simplifying the ARM Instruction Sets in the infobox of ARM architecture. Most important is there are one or more unique instructions sets that some ARM change between, especially between ARM and Thumb on some architects. Concerning the Cortex-M, see the tables in ARM_Cortex-M#Overview that I created. • SbmeirowTalk • 18:17, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I know, still don't quite get what you mean. Was going to add back Thumb, thinking you meant that, but regarding ARMv6-M at least, wouldn't that be more wrong or even totalli wrong? Regarding gpr, maybe no sany person would think PC is general purpose, but it still annoys me to have it under that heading. I thought "registers" is valid as that works "kind of". I agree that it doesn't get displayed right. Couldn't that and shouldn't it be changed in the Infobox template? ARM (old ones) is unique as far as I know in that the PC and maybe SP can be used as any other register. Doen't make the PC general purpose. comp.arch (talk) 21:15, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
PC is R15. I have written small amounts of ARM and Thumb assembly code, but haven't ever messed with doing operations with R15. I assume calculations using R15 should work just like any other register. Still the PC (R15) wasn't my point of contact, so what I should've said the "Encoding" fields of each infobox needs clarification since there are multiple instruction sets on some architectures. I was thinking that we should state the name of each instruction set, then the width details for each one. BTW, I agree that Template:Infobox CPU architecture needs refinement, but that is another discussion. Have you looked at x86? I haven't edited x86, but I have looked at its infobox. • SbmeirowTalk • 08:21, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Right I forgot. I took out ARM as a name of encoding as I think that is kind of overloaded.. Aarch32 only appeared with ARMv8 but I guess could maybe be used with ARMv7, not sure I want to risk that, might be a superset(?). Feel free to revert me if I make mistakes (I try to explain in summary if I delete things), no need to leave a note on my talk page each time. It's nice though. Calculations work for PC (relative addressing) and STM/MOV to if for jumping (a "nice" hack). But any other move/addition to R15 (PC) would be catastrophic (but "work" in a sense.. :) ) comp.arch (talk) 08:56, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Nook HD model is interlaced[edit]

I'm sorry, but you are incorrect. Stop undoing my edits to Nook HD being an interlaced screen. LCD screens can certainly be interlaced. Don't presume that I "googlewacked" as you put it. --KJRehberg (talk) 20:03, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Nevermind, I'm not going to get into an edit war with you. I'll just let Wikipedia get worse. --KJRehberg (talk) 20:15, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Hold on, I didn't have time to answer. I also want the truth and was actually googling is case I was mistaken. I still assume good faith on your part, however you reverted back your change of the Nook HD being interlaced and along with it another change I made. I assume that was an accident and you don't disagree on the soc part. I reverted your interlaced recently and have done so once in the past (not sure if it was you), since I thought it was an honest mistake and no citation given. comp.arch (talk) 20:33, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

My first AfD, do people know this or STOPzilla (or iS3). Hope I'm doing good[edit]

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/AVM_Technology comp.arch (talk) 14:53, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

"Quantum computer" my favourite page on the SIMPLE version of Wikipedia (for kids)[edit]

As of now current version on [Quantum computer]. Was to complicated for mere mortals (with banner) and I'm not even going to try to simplify it for kids. comp.arch (talk) 16:39, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

The purpose of infobox[edit]

Hi. How do you do?

So, it seems you and are going to work together in the same area of Wikipedia for the foreseeable future. Well, I am glad because you are certainly friendly.

Now, I saw your edits in Internet Explorer article and something caught my attention: Your edits in the infobox. Let me explain: In software articles of Wikipedia, except for video games, there are two forms of infobox: The ordinary infobox is put on the articles that cover all versions of a product with one same infobox. For example, TuneUp Utilities, Windows Movie Maker or Firefox. These always include the latest specs only, e.g. operating system and platform for the latest version only. There is also the collective infobox, put on main article page for software that have one article for each version. For example, Microsoft Office or Internet Explorer. They may include information on the entire range of the versions. Which one to choose? WP:MOS says it is a matter of optional style; both are acceptable and the choice is subject to agreement between editors.

Now, your edit in Internet Explorer had a problem: You made the infobox so that some of its fields were on the entire range of the version while some of them (platform and operating system) were only about the latest version. This dilution is not good. Either all fields should be on the entire range of the versions or none of them.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 03:11, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

64 bit ARM[edit]

Hi Comp.arch.

You were asking about 64 bit ARM if there are any. Currently, the only 64bit ARMv8-A processor on the market (There is one!) is the Apple A7 which powers the iPhone 5S and iPad Air. However, I'm unsure if Chrome for iOS has been re-written yet to support the 64-bit architecture (the current version, 30.0.1599.16, does not yet, the beta might.)

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Piper13 (talkcontribs) 16:06, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I know about A7. And I think they haven't upgraded Chrome (OS) on iOS or otherwise (also runs on Linux and Windows RT). comp.arch (talk) 16:10, 7 November 2013 (UTC)


Did a bit of googling on our mutual "friend". He's 18 ys old and banned from several gamar and technology forums due to trolling and abusive language. I'm not surprised. -- Henriok (talk) 10:07, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Scissor kick (strike)[edit]

I declined your request as a technical move, but opened a discussion at Talk:Scissor kick (strike). Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:51, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Jailbreaking legality discussion[edit]

Hi comp.arch! Re this revert on iOS jailbreaking, see my recent comment on the talk page here for suggestions about fixing the "legal" and "illegal" language: Talk:iOS jailbreaking#Jailbreaking (and rooting) (il)legal(?) in the States. Dreamyshade (talk) 17:31, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi again! I wrote another comment on the talk page, including a proposal for new wording that we might be able to agree on. :) If you have a chance, feel free to check it out. Dreamyshade (talk) 10:07, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Don't worry[edit]

Don't worry about anything that happened at "Categorization of people‎". Please, feel free to ask questions to me anytime. In theory, Persondata should be deleted shortly. In theory, Wikidata will take over. I say "In theory" because it was supposed to happen months ago. Bgwhite (talk) 09:49, 3 March 2014 (UTC)


Hi Comp.arch. Just letting you know that I responded to your comment on simple. Your thinking is definitely in the right place, so I would suggest going ahead with any ideas that you have for that article. Most of the bits and pieces you see in there have just been shoved in over time without much thought, so it's good to see someone thinking constructively with the project's purpose in mind. Osiris (talk) 13:56, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Ok. I didn't even get at first what you meant, that is I just stumbled on [Mozilla Firefox] there and edit it infrequently (maybe time to sync name with here, use Firefox (or vise versa..)). See my latest (controversial?) change. comp.arch (talk) 14:55, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Your User Page[edit]

You should create your user page. Get started by adding this. • SbmeirowTalk • 20:20, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for stopping by Sbmeirow. I "should"? Or shouldn't, that is the question. I deleted the "helpbox" you put in here. I knew about the possibility and intentionally desided not to (maybe I should, that is you recommend it). Just curious, did you add this or some bot of yours automatically. If not automatic, why do you feel that way? comp.arch (talk) 15:59, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Nokia X Software Platform[edit]

It was removed because it was not in the citation listed. However, I have added it back with a citation, and an explanation of what's different. ViperSnake151  Talk  17:03, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 31[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Milbeaut, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nm (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:50, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir[edit]

Hi, I've replied to your comment on Icelandic names here. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:56, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

AfC notification: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Template:Unix internals has a new comment[edit]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Template:Unix internals. Thanks! — {{U|Technical 13}} (tec) 15:43, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


Per WP:HATNOTE, hatnotes "help readers locate a different article they might be seeking". They aren't for general non-Wikipedia announcements. You've been reverted, please take this to the talk page if you have problems per WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO. Since you're adding this content to articles, you need to gain consensus for your edits at the article talk pages, but feel free to ask questions about hatnotes at Wikipedia talk:Hatnote. --AussieLegend () 18:37, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

End of life notices[edit]

The encyclopedic content on Windows XP already does enough to talk about the end of support for XP. Plus, you're violating Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles too. ViperSnake151  Talk  20:43, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

As explained in the talk page, I believed his revert was misapplying the Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles rule. When I reverted I guess it still counted as one revert.. comp.arch (talk) 15:12, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

April 2014[edit]

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)

Stop icon with clock
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: [5]

[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)

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked 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). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Comp.arch (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)

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 and 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.

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: [[9]] 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)


  1. ^ "Alert (TA14-069A): Microsoft Ending Support for Windows XP and Office 2003"". March 11, 2014. Retrieved April 6, 2014. Computer systems running unsupported software are exposed to an elevated risk to cybersecurity dangers, such as malicious attacks or electronic data loss. 
  2. ^ Keizer, Gregg (March 11, 2014). "US-CERT urges XP users to dump IE: If customers must run XP after April 8, switch to alternate browser that still gets patches, advises team from Dept. of Homeland Security". Retrieved April 4, 2014. 

Need a pair of eyes[edit]

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 :)

No victory[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 (talktrack) 15:11, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Your submission at AfC Template:Unix internals was accepted[edit]

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.

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)

May 2014[edit]

Information icon 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. -- Aunva6talk - 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. [[10]]. 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. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 18:38, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Input on image decision[edit]

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)

Nomination for merging of Template:Unix internals[edit]

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 (talktrack) 09:33, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

date format[edit]

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)

Raspberry Pi -- thanks![edit]

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)

Uncontroversial move[edit]

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)

"Sci Fi"[edit]

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)

October 2014[edit]

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)

Software patents[edit]

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. (talk) 21:26, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Unidentified murder victims[edit]

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! --GouramiWatcherpride 00:38, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Date format in Linux articles[edit]

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 at Olive Branch[edit]

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

A discussion on the Linux distribution talk page[edit]

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)

Reference Errors on 22 January[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:23, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 30[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Fortran, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page KB (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:25, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Request for comment[edit]

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. • SbmeirowTalk • 20:40, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of STOPzilla/sandbox[edit]

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)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
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)

Publisher vs. work[edit]


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)

Disambiguation link notification for April 23[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Julia (programming language), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ICU (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 23 April 2015 (UTC)