User talk:voidxor

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

RAID-Z (non-standard RAID levels)[edit]

Hello there. First and foremost, I want to apologize if I came off as accusing you of malice for removing the RAID-Z section. I was just confused why the section was deleted while a user was actively editing it. Secondly, I'd like to take you up on your offer in aiding to re-build the section. I'm not an advanced Wikipedian by any means, but I'd like to improve that section because of the importance it holds. Thank you for any help you are able to offer Jchap1590 (talk) 04:14, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Don't worry about it; I didn't take offense to anything you said, and I certainly didn't feel that you were accusing me of malice.
As far as "while a user was actively editing it", how was anybody supposed to know that you were actively editing it? Your changes are only seen by others when you click the "Save page" button. Nobody can see you typing. If your worried about being interrupted while you take your time with your edits, try building your content and adding suitable references in a sandbox, and then copying and pasting your wiki code into the article all at once.
I'm glad you help you or the article however I can. Just let me know where you need assistance. – voidxor (talk | contrib) 04:43, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I could use some help making the diagrams showing how the blocks are mirrored (like in standard RAID levels), which can be found on pages 3, 4 & 6 of this paper: ZFS and RAID-Z: The Über-FS?. I'm not sure how to do that. Thanks, Jchap1590 (talk) 18:45, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not very skilled at making vector graphics. Cburnett made the diagrams on Standard RAID levels. Perhaps you could try asking him for help on his talk page. – voidxor (talk | contrib) 05:05, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) As an alternative, you could simply put a detailed drawing request in our Graphics Lab/Illustration workshop. BTDT a few times, with great results. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 20:51, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the suggestions.. how can I create a sandbox and share it with you guys so I can get input on what I put together? Jchap1590 (talk) 19:16, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Rather than a sandbox (which would be routinely wiped), I'd suggest creating a subpage in your user space. For example, you could create a page at User:Jchap1590/RAID-Z, play with it all you want (no rush because it shouldn't be deleted), and ask Dsimic or myself for help as you find necessary. Then, when you're happy with your creation, simply copy and paste your code into the article. – voidxor (talk | contrib) 21:39, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Awesome! Thanks so much for the help :) I will notify once I've gotten a couple paragraphs together. Jchap1590 (talk) 01:58, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

User talk:Peter Horn# November [edit]

American style truck showing the names of its parts. From US Army Field Manual FM 55-20, Figure 8-8, Department of the Army, Washington DC

Just because the 1970 Car and Locomotive Cyclopedia Of American Pracice Car and locomotive cyclopedia, is not readily available outside of the offices of the railway industry, that does not mean that that it is not a “reliable source”. Any edition of the so called CAR and LOCOMOTIVE CYCLOPEDIA has a ‘’General Index Car And Locomotive Parts And Products’’ (all caps theirs). In case of the 1970 edition it is on page 1055. Actually there are two kinds of center plates, a "female" one that is an integral part of the truck bolster and a "male" center plate that is attached to the rail car or is an integral part of an "end casting". The latter types do not appear on the illustration which shows only the "female" plate on the bolster. Peter Horn User talk 23:52, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

PS, mea culpa, it was not my intention to be sarcastic. I hope that Car and locomotive cyclopedia is a satisfactory reference. Peter Horn User talk 16:14, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Peter Horn, it's not that the Car and Locomotive 'Cyclopedia isn't a good reference; it's that your citation of it was lazily done. In order to ensure that you aren't plagiarizing or doing original research, Wikipedia readers and other editors need to be able to follow your citations back to your source of the facts. Saying, "See any edition of...," as you did, doesn't help anybody. You may know that any edition will discuss centerplates, but you need to name one. Which volume? Which page? Please spell out exactly where the rest of us can look to support the facts you're adding.
I assumed that you were taking a sarcastic shortcut to Wikipedia's citation requirement by saying, "See any edition of..." In other words, I thought that you were essentially communicating, "Yeah, I get that Voidxor wants me to cite my source, but come on! Everybody in the industry knows what a centerplate is!" If this is not the case, I apologize for accusing you of sarcasm. We'll work on citation skills together. Just let me know how I can help or if you have any questions.
Just FYI, if a source's formatting is to use ALL CAPS, it can be corrected to the grammatically appropriate capitalization (like Title Case, for titles) when used on Wikipedia.
Also, I personally wouldn't use that image in the glossary because it will be too small to read. If you happen to create a centerplate article (properly cited, of course), the image could be useful there. – voidxor (talk | contrib) 01:16, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Easely "fixed" by clicking on the image. Peter Horn User talk 13:39, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I know that, and you know that, but we should assume that not all readers know enough about Wikipedia to know that a thumbnail can be enlarged by clicking. Keep in mind, that's a feature of Wikipedia's user interface, and most websites don't do the same. – voidxor (talk | contrib) 17:46, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

There is a bit of a problem here. The center plate on a truck is not a part that can be separated from the truck bolster but is an integral, inseparable, part of that bolster and can therefore not be illustrated by itself except perhaps as an enlarged detail of the bolster. The bolster usually is a casting and the ring shown on the illustration is part of that casting. If the bolster is a weldment that ring is welded onto the rest of the bolster and the round flat space within that ring is called the center plate. I have started Truck parts. More later. Peter Horn User talk 15:43, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, there's no way to picture it without the details being too small to be legible. I was suggesting that we simply do without a photo on that particular definition. Not every definition needs a photo. For example, you can't really photograph a verb. Thus, it's totally fine to have a definition in the glossary without an associated image. – voidxor (talk | contrib) 18:12, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Ah yes, but the drawing above points to the center plate as well as all other parts and as such it is a nice stop gap especially if the image is enlarged. Click on the image and you'llbe given the source which happens to be the US army. Peter Horn User talk 21:14, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Come to think of it, one could incorporate the source info into the caption as a reference or citation. Peter Horn User talk 21:23, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

The Car and locomotive cyclopedia is an annual publication. It would not be practical to give page numbers for each separate edition. I happen to have the 1970 edition and the likely hood that anyone else might still have that edition are slim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter Horn (talkcontribs) 05:34, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Peter Horn, why is the idea of citing your sources so foreign to you? When you add facts to Wikipedia, you are expected to name the document where you learned said facts. Nobody is suggesting that you must list every possible source—just your source. It doesn't matter how old or rare that document is; just cite it (including the volume number and page number in this particular case, please)!
Also, the <ref>...</ref> tags go outside of the punctuation, not before the punctuation. – voidxor (talk | contrib) 00:16, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 11[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Glossary of rail transport terms, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 4-4-2. 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) 17:42, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Fixed! Thanks DPL bot! – voidxor (talk | contrib) 18:17, 11 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)

Dsimic, I've worked with you on the RAID articles for awhile now, so you probably know that I prefer the ISO date format anywhere that space is tight, like tables and references. Are you sure that you aren't canvassing? – voidxor (talk | contrib) 23:39, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, ISO dates are fine per se, and I'm not trying to influence the outcome of that discussion. There were simply too few editors trying to establish a new WikiProject guideline, and some of them weren't open to a sensible discussion. With more editors participating in that discussion, a broader consensus could be reached, which may be whatever we end up with. At the same time, that guideline-to-be already started to be applied to more than a few articles, even before it's established, what pretty much urged for opinions from more editors. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 03:49, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I'll read it and comment. I'm always glad to through in my two cents. – voidxor (talk | contrib) 03:52, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 03:57, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I saw your recent edit[edit]

at Liberty Memorial, and it happened just when I was struggling with an issue about the article, so thought I'd toss it out to you. The museum building is described as being "Egyptian revival" here, and in other places, but I disagree. Have an opinion? Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 18:35, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm actually helping out with a Wikipedia meetup at the National World War I Museum right now, and I helped one of the museum curators by splitting off the section about the museum from the larger Liberty Memorial article. She is looking to expand upon the information about the museum and I'm helping her and others to learn to edit Wikipedia. Since I'm attending as a Wikipedia expert, I'm not really an expert on the museum and don't know of the Egyptian Revival. Sorry, but I have no opinion to offer. – voidxor (talk | contrib) 18:53, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:The Wikipedia Library/Journals[edit]

Hey Voidxor, you should take advantage of some of the donations at WP:The Wikipedia Library/Journals. We like to make sure that Wikipedia editors get access to high quality sources when they need it. If you think one of the open access opportunities would be beneficial, I would strongly recommend applying for them! Sadads (talk) 16:55, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm aware of these offers but haven't had a need as of yet. I'll apply the next time I run into a pay wall. – voidxor (talk | contrib) 18:28, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Good luck[edit]

Trying to get attention to the unreferenced content at "species" article. It looks like this has been going on forever, with a couple editors insisting that the way it is, is the way it is. It will take a commitment of several editors to make anything happen there, I think. (talk) 13:47, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I'll watch the article and insist that the situation you speak of doesn't get worse. Unfortunately, some editors love their soapbox so much that they will fight to the death to defend it. For the rest of us, we can't verify the facts as given—or even that they weren't plagiarized! – voidxor (talk | contrib) 06:24, 28 November 2014 (UTC)