User talk:Lkcl

Hi Luke, Welcome to Wikipedia. Best of luck. Richard W.M. Jones 22:57, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

proxy being used

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

Lkcl (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Caught by a colocation web host block but this host or IP is not a web host. My IP address is 217.147.94.29 . i run an HTTP proxy via a VPN on my own server, have done for 12 years as i move around different countries a lot. Lkcl (talk) 19:15, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

The block is appropriate. However, you may be a candidate for WP:IPBE, as it sounds like you may be able to justify an exceptional need. Yamla (talk) 19:19, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

---

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

all sorted - WP:IPBE thanks User:Yamla Lkcl (talk) 21:09, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&logid=115970425

Help

Lkcl- the article on SMB and its parts and related protocols would benifit from describing them using the OSI model and/or the TCP/IP stack. Thanks -indolering

Minor edits

Minor edits should only be used for edits that could not possibly be disputed - things like spelling and grammer corrections, and wikifing. Do not use minor edits for any change in content. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:00, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

TM

I enjoyed reading your addition to Talk: TM. It won't stop the edit wars, and they will now probably take aim at you as well, but at least you've written something that is actually from the TM point of view. Thank you! David 16:04, 23 September 2006 (UTC) Thanks for your reply! I agree with your points. David 15:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

A Note on Encyclopedic Language

Hi,

I am following events at Bourke engine with some interest. You appear to be doing a good job with the citations, but might I suggest you concentrate on making sure your language is encyclopedic as well? Your knowledge on the subject seems impressive, and I want to make sure your contributions to Wikipedia stand the best chance of not being reversed. If you have questions or comments, please leave a note on my talk page. Cheers, Ebikeguy (talk) 17:38, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

thanks - it's not so much "my" knowledge as it is that i got the book, have been reading it every day, and have been discussing it with a friend for about an hour a day because we're evaluating whether to put this engine - or a variant - into mass-production. so i'm learning as i go: it's Bourke's knowledge that i'm absorbing. regarding the style: i'm quite a prolific writer on technical subjects, and once wrote an entire technical book without ever using personal pronouns (at all - including the introduction), but i am a) not entirely used to wikipedia although i've read lots and occasionally contributed small-scale for over a decade b) am taking over what is effectively abandoned page that had several prior editors, including a few bun-fights, by people who clearly didn't understand the subject matter. but one who believed that he did, if it's the same person i think it is, there is empirical evidence to suggest that he's slightly mentally unstable :) anyway i'm correcting bits as i go. i'm aware i do slightly... archaic sentence construction, but i'm also keenly aware that i'm somewhat hampered by having to focus on rebuttal of the "Engineering Critique" which is... achh it's bad. if the engineering critique section is anything to go by, it's no wonder nobody's taken up the Bourke Engine... Otto has a _lot_ to answer for. *sigh*. Lkcl (talk) 22:43, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lightning Memory-Mapped Database, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Python. 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) 09:51, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

LMDB

Hello, I replied to your allegations on my talk page. Please have a look and clarify if I've misunderstood something. In any case, I did not push my copy to the oringal LMDB location. That was done by user Aperson. Mwasheim (talk) 14:39, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

EOMA68

Please could you declare your interest in EOMA68? Thank you. zazpot (talk) 19:50, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

how do i do that? ahhh i see, you put a link - thanks Lkcl (talk) 20:06, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

right... okay, going to need your advice / input. i'm a software libre developer of 20+ years experience: working "publicly" - even before wikipedia existed - has been something i'm committed to in ways that actually go *beyond* what Wikipedia commits to! i therefore don't see it as being a conflict *at all*. now, if i was a "paid shill", working on a proprietary standard, a "conflict" would definitely be perceived. if EOMA68 was designed to be a "restricted paid-up membership" standard (such as that of the MPEG standard) then yes, there would be a definite conflict of interest. i fully understand that Wikipedia is fully committed to open (and accurate) information.... and likewise funnily enough i am fully committed to "EOMA68 the fully open standard" and to make sure it's accurately (and openly) documented. the fact that i'm using elinux.org - which is also a wiki that's run on the exact same source code and the exact same Creative Commons license - should be a big clue!!!! so you're going to need to be much more specific about where the "conflict" is before i make any such declaration that even such a conflict *exists*! to make it clear: right now the way i perceive this is that by asking me to make a "COI" declaration, it's asking me to *lie* (i.e. to state that there is a "conflict" where i do not perceive there to be one). if you can think of another way that this can be declared, or if we can walk through *specific* examples where "conflict" could actually be demonstrated, i'm happy to make such a specific declaration Lkcl (talk) 20:16, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

updated the talk page Talk:EOMA-68 best covered there i feel.

Thanks. Replied at Talk:EOMA-68. zazpot (talk) 22:36, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 27 August

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

• On the EOMA-68 page, your edit caused an unsupported parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

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) 00:21, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident in which you may be involved. The thread is EOMA-68. The discussion is about the topic EOMA-68. Thank you.

Sorry, that sounds awfully formal! It's not intended to be, it's just mandatory boilerplate. zazpot (talk) 17:20, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

not a problem (the formal bit). just so you know: to be absolutely clear, i am never going to be making a false declaration. the last one of these "discussions" i was involved in, the total lack of trust - in direct violation of wikipedia's policy - left me with absolutely no desire to be involved in one of these quotes discussions quotes ever again. i'll take a look, but from experience i can tell you right now that i have absolutely no trust whatsoever in these public "discussions". Lkcl (talk) 05:12, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Warning

You know about our COI policy, you are reverting multiple other editors, including site administrators, to include promotional content on a product you admit you own. That stops now. If you make any more promotional edits to EOMA-68 you may be blocked from editing without further warning. You may propose changes on the article's Talk page, but if you do not tone down the rhetoric there by a very substantial degree then that too could lead to your being blocked. Right now you are indistinguishable from a spammer. That is a bad place to be and now would be a really good time to change. Guy (Help!) 17:28, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

JzG, i'll respond on your page. this is complex: summary is: your warning's not appropriate. it's too complex to explain, and there's too much "wrong" with what you've said to even begin to answer it in a reasonable amount of time. i have been working on wikipedia for a long time, and am familiar with the "path" that you're taking. Lkcl (talk) 18:09, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I think it's fair to say that I have been working here longer than you. And, unlike you, I have no vested interest in this content. Now would be a good time to start listening to the people who are trying to explain the problem, rather than recruiting your friends to help in the edit war, as you rather obviously have been. Guy (Help!) 21:37, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

guy: firstly i've been editing here since at least 2005 (and probably longer than that: 2005 was when Richard welcomed me to wikipedia was when i publicly created an account in order to edit the Samba page, rather than carry on doing anonymous editing). when are you going to get it through your thick head that i don't have a vested interest in this content. i'm an engineer (engineers are known for speaking their minds and speaking "truth"- you can't be an engineer and get away with lying - it's bloody dangerous), but more than that i specialise in software libre where the "four freedoms" are specifically based in ethical behaviour and in the generally-accepted light of "full public accountability". thus, in direct contrast to a "business", even "edit wars", conflicts and failures are part of the learning curve that's critical in the "Libre" world so that other people can learn from it. did you actually *do* any research - at all - on me before beginning with the accusations that you're hell-bent on levelling? did you bother to look up what software libre projects i've been involved in? what people are learning right now - publicly i might add - is that YOU are in direct violation of Wikipedia policy to trust contributors; YOU have made ASSUMPTIONS that there exists a COI based on ASSUMING that i'm an employee of a corporation that DOESN'T EXIST; YOU have assumed that i'm PROFITING from this venture when the fact is that it's had about $100k of sponsorship money (NOT INVESTMENT) put into it from various sources and the ENTIRE crowd-funding money ($150,000) is also GONE (accounted for very very quickly over the next few months and being DOCUMENTED PUBLICLY at http://bugs.rhombus-tech.net ), but not only that but you've FLAGRANTLY violated Wikipedia's editing rules AND blatantly violated the trust placed in you as an Administrator by TWICE putting in an entire bunch of edits that are FACTUALLY INCORRECT. and you're trying to issue *ME* with a warning??? Lkcl (talk) 01:43, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Lkcl. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Lkcl. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Lkcl. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Permute instruction

Hello. Your request for page restoration was approved. You'll find the content at User:Lkcl/Permute instruction. Have a great day!  A S U K I T E  14:00, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

I have restored the deleted page Talk:Permute instruction and moved it to User:Lkcl/Permute instruction so that you can work on it there. Don't return it to main space until it has some content. Creating a stub with minimal meaningful content is fine, but not one with no meaningful content at all. JBW (talk) 14:04, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you to you both for your kind attention, JBW and User:Asukite i will update it first and carry out the move once completed (done it before) Lkcl (talk) 15:08, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Massively parallel processor array, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page SIMT. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 05:58, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 18

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Flynn's taxonomy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page AVX.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Bit manipulation instruction set moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Bit manipulation instruction set, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Curbon7 (talk) 23:59, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Peer review for vector processor

Hi, if you're still interested, I can leave some comments at the peer review for vector processor. Zetana (talk) 19:29, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

yes please Zetana because this is one of a very rare set of high-importance (well over 400 links) topics, with both historic significance and modern-day usage, and there's just not enough review or understanding at all. any review any time is very welcome Lkcl (talk) 12:48, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Okay! I am busy right now but I can get to your PR by this Friday at the latest. Zetana (talk) 07:30, 15 November 2021 (UTC)