User talk:Glrx

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


Welcome!

Hello, Glrx, 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:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! RayTalk 19:29, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Merry Christmas![edit]

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Glrx. You have new messages at Qwertyus's talk page.
Message added 22:04, 27 January 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

QVVERTYVS (hm?) 22:04, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

... and one more. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 22:26, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Why are you changing my edits??[edit]

I would like to know why you change my edits on the page caller id. ~NutwiisystemRocks (talk) 19:17, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Re: edits to Caller ID that gave instructions for disabling Caller ID in different regions; North America was present and this editor added United States.
First, the US is part of North America, so the US need not be separately called out. NANPA. Canada and Mexico are not separately called out, so why should the US be listed.
Second, WP should not be a reference manual for how to use different phone systems. It is enough that Caller ID can be disabled with touch tone or rotary commands. I see no point to explaining how to disable it in countries throughout the world. That's just not something readers need to know; it's also explained in telephone books. I would cut down the section a lot; in that vein, I removed the redundant entry you added.
That said, I'm ignoring the addition now. It's not worth disputing. Glrx (talk) 23:16, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

What is a "crlf"?[edit]

You fixed a couple of my edits on the Comparison of the AK-47 and M16. However, I am at a lost. Please explain what I did wrong so I do not make the same mistake in the future. Thank You.--70.173.135.216 (talk) 01:34, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

CRLF is very old lingo for a teletype "carriage return + linefeed". In your editing, you inserted several newlines. That doesn't affect the appearance on the page (it's treated as a space), but it makes it difficult to compare differences (which WP does only by paragraphs). Inserting a newline in the middle of a paragraph is shown as deleting second half and then reinserting the second half. It's difficult to see what changed in the second half.
You also deleted one or more wikilinks. When text is surrounded by [[]], that's a link to another article. Glrx (talk) 00:54, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Why did you remove my N-door multi-elimination demonstration of the Monty Hall problem under the section "N-doors" as "offtopic"?[edit]

Seriously? 37.201.226.78 (talk) 07:08, 19 February 2014 (UTC) Just going to undo, because the reason given inapplicable. C0NPAQ (talk) 07:12, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

The edit at Monty Hall problem was off topic because it does not address the Monty Hall problem in general or the reason for the N-doors argument in particular. Your illustration is difficult to follow and not about random choice at all. There is a common answer to the question of when the World War II ended; a knowledgeable contestant could answer the question immediately. The MHP contest does not have a known answer: the location of the car is not a widely known fact. Furthermore, the N-door variation does not possess any characteristics of a total order.
You reinstated your edit, but another editor reverted you.[1] You need to discuss your illustration on the talk page before reinserting it. Glrx (talk) 23:27, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

RE: Not a software developer[edit]

As a software engineer with 15+ years experience, I can tell you without question: What sounds like advertising to you is merely clarification. When choosing a development package, from a list of packages, one must know what features are available before hand. I have never in my lifetime had spare time to review a list of "uninteresting packages."

You *might* be well "educated", you *might* be well versed in many areas of science and technology, but you certainly are not the only person on the planet with such a background (eat it); While you may think differently the "facts at hand" certainly do not authorize you to dictate a free on-line encyclopedia, which many users such as myself have made financial contributions to support so that our ideals and interests in information may be independently supported.

Furthermore, your background compared to the knowledge I possess of myself paired with experience suggest that you have not, nor will you ever have the foresight to overrule my unbiased and logical judgment on the topic of Software Engineering. If you would not like me to poke my nose in your business, keep yours out of mine.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Triston J. Taylor (talkcontribs) 05:30, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

You inserted a link to advertise/WP:PROMOte your recently published code. It's your code, so you are not "unbiased"; see WP:COI. The link is inappropriate; generally, it is a bad idea to insert links to one's own work on WP; it can be done, but it usually better to let others do it. The insertion has been reverted under WP:BRD: if you want your project listed in the article, then you should bring the issue up in a new section on Talk:Hash table and get a WP:CONSENSUS to add it.
Background: An IP editor's sole edits inserted a github.com implementataion link in the article Hash table.[2] The section has the potential to become a spam magnet. The 16 February 2014 insertion stated:
  • HashTable A robust implementation of hash tables written in C. The software is covered by a 2-Clause BSD license. The library supports per-instance private data, and binary keys, as well as binary values of arbitrary length. The GNU Tool chain is a requirement to build the package using the provided Makefile, however the library code is both operating system and architecture independent.
The text did not claim anything significant about the implementation. The WP edits appeared to be a WP:COI advertisement for some code.
I followed the link and discovered that the current version had been placed on github on 16 February 2014 by Triston J. Taylor. There wasn't any significant content on the page, so I reverted the edits.[3]
Now User:Triston J. Taylor appears and reverts my reversion.[4]
Glrx (talk) 20:12, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, gee, thanks for the education. That was much faster than searching through a bunch of crap I'll never need to know for days on end. I earnestly appreciate your effort. But on the whole, I think I'll just call myself not interested WP publication, you call it a conflict of interest... I see it as a conflict of freedom of information. I added this content so it would be available to other people who *might* be interested. An encyclopedia is a catalog of information, I added such information, you removed it, and so shall it be. I haven't got time to play games or jump through hoops and I'm not a circus monkey so don't ask. Once again, Thank you for your disapproval. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Triston J. Taylor (talkcontribs) 12:50, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

How do you mean "sentence that contradicts the lead"?[edit]

I'm fine with your edits and certainly not going to start a war, but still, how do you mean?

How is Just as the Intel 4004 and Intel 4040 it used the same physical design methodology and the same basic elements at the transistor and microarchitecture levels, so the major change was the switch to faster n-MOS transistors. contradicting the lead?

Are you talking about the lead of the full article (which does not even mention 8080 or 4004) or possibly the lead of the Design section (which does mention 4004 and 4040)? Other than that, I could see how many people would argue that sentence was to much detail, in that brief context, even if I would argue that technical detail should be embraced under a Design-section, also when comparing closely related chips.

Best Regards // HenkeB (my 2006 account/name, not used since many years) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.253.225.3 (talk) 12:56, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

This is about my edit to Intel 8008.
The lead sentence of the paragraph describes some significant changes to the 8008: going to a 40-pin package, using the extra pins to make a better bus architecture, and adding some instructions. That contradicts the "the major change was the switch to faster n-MOS transistors". The process switch seems secondary. Saying "the same basic elements at the transistor ... level" but then also claiming the switch from PMOS to NMOS is is the significant change confusing. If the transistor level stayed the same, then why was the switch significant? Intel recognized that the 8008 architecture needed a lot of improvement, and Shima was thorough. IIRC, he dumped the carry-lookahead network in favor of a faster ripple-carry adder (speed-power tradeoff).
On top of that, the text is unsourced. Glrx (talk) 21:28, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Ok, I see what you were aiming at, regarding "the lead".
The "transistor level" can mean two things (with some degree of overlap) depending on author and context, typically either
(1) How transistors are made, including materials, back gate bias, doping profiles and basic types (polarity as well as enhancement/depletion mode) etc. or it can mean
(2) How transistors are interconnected in order to implement logic gates, latches (registers), ROM/PLA-structures, and so on. I was using the second definition here, with the first seen as (part of) the physical level.
I was trying to describe how these digital buildning blocks (not the external interface) were very similar, in the 4004, 4040, 8008 and 8080 except for the change to n-typ transistors in the 8080, which made it faster (largely because the mobility of elektrons is 150% better than the mobility of holes). The 8085 and 8086, on the other hand, used depletion mode loads, other design teams, etc. and so differed more.
But I agree that this is largely unsourced, or "original research" (looking at chip photographs, disclosed ciruit diagrams, timing diagrams in the old 4004, 8008 and 8080 manuals, reading between the lines in interviews with Faggin and Shima, etc., adding two and two toghether). That is why I cannot really argue that this should be included in a WP-article, although most articles seem to contain "unsourced" material, in reality.
A ripple carry adder is much slower than a carry-lookahead adder. Speed would probably be the sole purpose of choosing the latter, as it needs more gates to implement and therefore draws more power. The improvement from 8008 to 8080 (above the external interface and the faster n-MOS transistors) was mainly in the instruction set. It was things such as direct adressing and 16-bit instructions. 16-bit additions were implemented via the same 8-bit ALU as the other instructions using a PLA-based state machine and sequencer. (The original Z80 did the same using a 4-bit ALU, costing an extra cycle (11 in Z80, 10 in 8080) as Faggin and Shima were afraid of copying their own design, probably with Intel's lawyers in mind).
Take care // Henrik
My adder comment was to dispute the digital architecture difference.
I disagree that "A ripple carry adder is much slower than a carry-lookahead adder." Shima had many constraints: area, power, and time. The IC world is not like the discrete world: one is not limited to a single gate speed. Faster gates can be made by using larger gate widths. IIRC from 1972, Shima was simulating a full lookahead adder, but then decided to try two four-bit adders with ripple carry between them. He could apply the saved area and saved power to making the four-bit adders faster. The design was better. Then he tried simulating four two-bit adders with ripple carries, and that was also better. In the end, a beefy ripple-carry adder was the simulation winner.
If I believe my university professors, in the asynchronous logic world, a ripple carry adder can have better average performance than a look-ahead adder. For most additions, there are not a lot of late carries.
I don't know which adder the 8080 eventually used, but Shima was not stuck to any particular micro architecture.
Glrx (talk) 20:07, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Collapsing unsourced material[edit]

I noticed that you uncollapsed my addition of unsourced material to an article's Talk page in at least one case. Please note that I deliberately add the material in collapsible form so that editors who aren't interested in addressing the sourcing problems don't have to deal with the full text appearing each time they view the page. The text is, of course, available at any time by expanding the box. I would be curious to hear why you feel that not offering this option is preferable. DonIago (talk) 13:59, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

This is about Doniago's post to Uninterruptable power supply and my edit of that post.
First, your edit to the talk page had no explanation of what you did, and it was unsigned. Explanations are needed so other editors can understand what happened without a lot of detective work. Signatures are relevant for indicating who made the changes and for dating (which also helps archiving). Your post to the talk page was opaque.
Second, your edit put a heading inside the collapsed box. If you'd looked at the expanded box, you'd see the heading was not rendered correctly. The heading should have been created outside of the collapse box. Your (unsupplied) comments should have gone outside the box so people would now what the box is about.
Third, collapsing a modest paragraph seems to be overkill. You spent 7 lines to create the collapse box when the paragraph is only seven lines. Collapse boxes are appropriate for walls of text.
Glrx (talk) 00:34, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
It is inaccurate to say that I provided no explanation, as not only did I provide an edit summary explaining that I was adding to what was obviously the Unsourced material section, but there is a header at the top of said section explaining its purpose. Given that I was the only contributor to that section to date, I'm not clear on how adding a signature at the end would have been necessary or necessarily appropriate. IMO it would have looked more awkward than anything else.
A heading was intended to be inside the collapsed box given that it was the heading of the section that was moved from the article. The heading appeared as the name of the collapsed box as well. I fail to see how this was unclear, but if you have a significant disagreement then perhaps a third opinion would be warranted.
I collapse unsourced material by default when adding such sections, and was encouraged to do so when I started this practice (as an alternative to simply deleting unsourced text). If you are willing to provide further reasoning I may reconsider my practice, but your suggestion that it's not clear what I'm doing seems exaggerated to me. DonIago (talk) 14:51, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Please tell more[edit]

You deleted my addition to the coaxial cable article.:
"Coaxial cables are most commonly used for cable television and transmitting RF signals for other devices. Coaxial cables are not used to carry electricity to power electrical devices."
(Undid revision 598050115 by Wyn.junior (talk) cables are used to carry power for lnb and old catv; RF use redundant) (undo | thank)
Please tell more info on the Talk:Coaxial cable page. I am very interested. Thanks.--Wyn.junior (talk) 03:23, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

April 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Invention of the integrated circuit 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.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • ?. |title=Semiconductor Circuit Having Isolation Means |country-code=US |patent-number=3150299) |issue-date=1964}}</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:57, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Fixed. Glrx (talk) 23:02, 5 April 2014 (UTC)