User talk:Crispmuncher

Talk:Xmodem

I have removed our xmodem CRC discussion from the Xmodem discussion page, FYI. Having my reference up there for so many years and then suddenly getting it removed was disappointing. It isn't worth the effort to correct the error, xmodem-crc has already been given credit to the right person <wink> at other credible, peer reviewed locales. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bwilcutt (talk • contribs) 18:10, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

RE: Oops

No problem, I know it was accidental =p. Kindest regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 21:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Intel 80486SX

Your assistance is requested on this page. A user has rekindled an argument you had over a year ago but more sources are still needed. 87.112.2.151 (talk) 22:47, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Any specific suggestions?

Hi. The article on Universe Sandbox was my first article for Wiki. I agree it did read somewhat like an advertisement. I have tried very hard to correct that impression by removing some adjectives, some lines and adding some of its limitations. If you have any other specific recommendations so that you don't think it is like an advertisement, I would appreciate hearing them and would make the changes. I did closely try to follow what was done on articles for similar types of software. Now I am struggling to learn how to add some images and logo for this article and think that would be under fair use. Thank you. Galodw13 (talk) 16:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Scroll Saw

The connection between a sponsoring site (with banner adds and all) and the predominate focus of the site (forums, genernal info, free resources, and etc) should be considered when determining the appropriatness of an external link. In the case of http://www.scrollsawer.com, This site is a primary gathering location for a great many scroll saw hobbiest and professionals. Yes, there are banner adds (like there are on many many other sites liked within Wikipedia), but the focus of the site is strongly to the side of information and forums. Many many members do not subscribe or contribute to the sponsoring publisher in any way.

Other sites that would be "known" to anyone in the scrolling community would be Steve Goods site where he had video demonstrations on every aspect of the hobby. In scroll saw circles, he is a household name. Carole Rothman is the same for the segement of scrollsawer making bowls. She would be considered the definitive resourse for all things about bowl creation from the scroll saw. Her site does, again have banner adds for her book and such, but the focus of the site isn't commercial. The site name has blog in it, which will automacially flag those links.

From the lack of feedback and communication, I'm not sure whether just the www.scrollsawer.com link was the only thing objectionable, or also the manufacturuing links, pattern links, and whatever.

The talk page for the aricle has nothing concerning the reverts or the question over relevancy of the edits. My comments have been added to that section now.

Gloden (talk) 19:34, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

It is interesting that you added the three revert role to my page, after I stopped reverting, and after I explained, assuming you read it, what I thought was happening. And I might remind you, in the same guidelines of conduct, issues with edits should be discussed with the third party, right, or did I read that wrong. you stated yourself that I was new, and obviosly hadn't go the hang of things yet, but you instead of engaging in any conversation, you go to "ban" mode? Is that in the spirit of how things are supposed to be conducted here. I think you are breaking some rules of your own.

And you violated the priciple of politeness, as I was trying to figure out what was going on with my edits, the bots, and you, I kindly suggested you not revert, and was given a "smart remark" (we will quit reverting when you . . . . ) I was trying to do right, and I get attitude and disrespect with no attempt to reach out and determine what was going on?

You have a history of other reverts on the scroll saw forum going back and I am looking at the nature of those edit as well as they seem to show a trend of edititing that has been counter productive to fuller and more complete content within the article. Since you seem to be hoovering over this topic, it seems like your are trying to "own" the content. I could be wrong, it will take some time to see if there is a trend that reflects this intent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gloden (talk • contribs) 05:54, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, crispmuchner, you did not go the 3R rule until after the reverts had changed, and if you take a few minutes to look, the last revert/edit was to restore content minus the link that you mentioned in the admin page. The last revert was in spite of that edit. So yes, coming back after I engaged the admin page and started the talk page does indicate a vengencful response or you would have done that prior. That is indisputable or perhaps you have another reason for engaging after the fact. On the talk page, instead of focusing on the legality of the issue being brought up, you go back in to repremand mode. That is not appropriate by any stretch of the imagination, period. Your actions and communications are in doubt and you should be held to the same level of behavior as everyone else. I didn't cast myself as the victim, that is your judgement of me and my motives.

Regardless of the details of this immediate incident, you have also been involved in the fretwork article (a related craft) as a core content submitter, which indicates you have more than a passive interest in the topic matter. If you are making these kinds of judgement on topics you have had a history in submitting content, then there might be a deeper problem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gloden (talk • contribs) 15:30, 21 March 2010 (UTC) What you considered a meaning conversation said nothing about your concerns or even the specific link that was the source of your complaint in the admin page, so why would you say that constituded aything more that an boilerplate response? Since there are no specifics, like a bot response. That does not constitute a meaninful conversation, and you submitted that on the 20th by the way, most reverts back and forth changes and etc happed on the 19th, so, no, you did not engage in any meaningful conversation during the time of those reverts, nor was there any specific mention of the www.scrollsawer.com link nor any mention of their connection with the related publishing company.

Again, you initially indicated I should go to the talk page, which I did, but then you don't discuss the issues raised but come back now with the accusation of pushing a site. Saying I'm involved in a site because I posted a few threads in a forum and responded within a forum is distinctly different that being a from company X and pushing that site for commercial benefit. I am trying to "Discuss" this site and it's merits in light of the "rules", but engaging in that actual discussion is not how you responded. Didn't revert the scrollsawing link and haven't since I was "officially" clued in. My last submission didn't even have that link, although several others were evidently also outside the scope of the rules. As far as I can tell, I am engaging the issue the only way I know how. So we are not in a revert discussion as I'm not doing that. We are in a discussion over how these matters are communicated and discussed. If I had been approached the "first or second time" in a positive fashion, with comments that indicated the source of you contention, we wouldn't be having this discussion now.(Within the talkback section that is)Gloden (talk) 16:03, 21 March 2010 (UTC) Gloden (talk) 16:01, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Please be less bitey

Gloden, the fellow that was editing the scroll saw article might have ended up a productive editor about a subject on which we need experts. Unfortunately with your treatment of him, he will be editing here no more. Please review WP:BITE; it shows how we need to approach new editors here. The first human communication with a new editor should not be hostile unless it's a given he isn't here in good faith, in other words, a vandal. This fellow wasn't that. Your attacks on his talkpage were frankly unwarranted. He should have been helped to understand his mistakes, not browbeaten. Auntie E. (talk) 23:39, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Editor review

I have written an Editor review for you. You can see it here Acebulf (talk) 16:08, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. —DoRD (talk) 21:29, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Sunday Supplement reference in Betelgeuse

I reverted your edit in Betelgeuse, I don't see the value of a sunday supplement article from 28 years ago. Such article are normally derivative, having no information you can't find anywhere else. Why is this article of particular importance? Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 22:04, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, apologies for the delay in responding. I wished to wait until I had obtained a copy of the article for myself. I have now done so. My reasoning for undoing that deletion was a simple one as I spelt out in the edit summary: the rationale for deletion was flawed. "I can't be bothered looking this one up" is not a rationale to delete a reference. References are judged on their intrinsic merits, not on how easy they are to verify. If an authoritative reference takes some effort to track down so be it: that is not an excuse for substituting a lesser reference or deleting it entirely. Neither you no Sadalsuud claim to have read this reference but are still willing to erase the contributions of another editor because they are inconvenient to how you think the article should be. As the talk page comments show, the objective was to get rid of that section regardless of merit. Crispmuncher (talk) 19:51, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I must be missing something. Sadalsuud and Casliber have been making a major overhaul of that article, trying to clean it up and cleaning up references (in the process, adding around a hundred new references). In this particular case, with abundant peer-reviewed journal articles available, and the entire structure of the article changing, there was no point in keeping an unavailable sunday-supplement reference listed only as "additional reading". Again, sunday supplements are almost invariably derivative - they are the wikipedias of print media. They are intended to be useful only that week and then discarded - not kept as useful sources of information three decades down the road. They won't have any new information, just (at best) pointers to where useful information is published. At worst, they will be so misleading as to be actively harmful. Since an entire cleanup of the article was in progress, it made no sense retaining a reference that is hard to obtain and almost certainly has no intrinsic value in itself - if it had, the article would have cited something specific telling us what was interesting.

You seem to be taking the position that every reference must be retained until proven worthless, no matter how hard it is to determine if the reference even exists, even when rewriting an article. A more reasonable stance is that a reference has to demonstrate its value to be worth keeping. Now that you have a copy of the article, is there anything of notable value to merit keeping the reference? Particularly given the difficulty (which you demonstrated) in even obtaining a copy? Do note that an unavailable reference without a specific citation is simply noise, not useful information. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 20:23, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Tablet personal computer requested move

As an FYI, there is a move discussion currently taking place relating to Tablet personal computer at Talk:Tablet_personal_computer#Requested_move. --Labattblueboy (talk) 18:56, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

active components

You may be interested in the lists at WT:WikiProject Electronics, such as the list including BS170. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 16:38, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment Mangling

Hi Crispmuncher

I noticed that you undid the minor changes that I amde in good faith to your posting. AS a result of the edit conflict, your posting lined up with the previous editor's posting. All that I did was to removing this lining up. Can I respectfully suggest that you look at teh page and reinstate the colons that I added. Martinvl (talk) 16:50, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I note you've already seen the comment I left on your talk page on this issue. Crispmuncher (talk) 18:01, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Core Memory History Discussion

Cripspmuncher, Will you please open up a discussion on the Core Memory discussion page for us to discuss my adds and modifies to the Core Memory. There is lots to fix, especially beginning with the first erroneous statement. I would like to iron out each of my additions point by point. I didn't touch the ones on An Wang, where the implication that he was a cheat because Woo was ill. E.g. This has tto be sited or removed. Cgordonbell (talk) 03:35, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Cat 5e Cabling

Crispmuncher, please stop changing the information, its obvious that you do not understand what you are talking about, if you do some research online you will find the correct information. This may be that you are wording this incorrectly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sgeeves (talk • contribs) 10:30, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, no, it is not me that is repeatedly adding an obvious tautology to a page, in opposition to what is now several editors, and believing it to be some hugely significant and profound assertion. Crispmuncher (talk) 15:07, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

HDD Article Revisions

Thank you for reverting your initial revert. You may think there was a consensus but if you look back at thru the edits you will find that the material now in dispute was added by one editor without discussion. Acquiescence to an edit is not consensus. That editor has been reverting corrections and improvements to his edits claiming consensus but it never really existed. Tom94022 (talk) 20:07, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

In the round I would not agree. You do appear to be engaging more constructively in this current round of that argument but you have been accused on tendetious editing on several occasions on this very issue, and to my eyes with good reason. Crispmuncher (talk) 21:37, 1 June 2011 (UTC).

Well you are entitled to your opinion, but the accusation is easy to make and has not been proven. If you look back over two months of lack of discussion you will find that my originally proposed edits first reverted onApril 26 have more or less now been incorporated (with different wording) thanks to editors who have been willing to discuss the issues with the article. I haven't changed my behavior, but the editor who chose to revert rather than discuss is now silent. Tom94022 (talk) 22:14, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

ITN change regarding multiple countries

Please comment at Wikipedia_talk:ITN#Events_are_not_required_to_affect_multiple_countries if you wish. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:36, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Jesus phone

Should we have a redirect for every juvenile nickname that TheRegister come up with? AlistairMcMillan (talk) 11:57, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Binary prefixes...

So, are binary prefixes (MiB, KiB, etc.) now supposed to be replaced by their more common non-binary conterparts (MB, KB, etc.)? Magus732 (talk) 19:22, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

That is correct, in changed some time ago. See WP:COMPUNITS. Crispmuncher (talk) 19:46, 28 September 2011 (UTC).

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Crispmuncher! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only. If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

Nemesis

Nemesis, is a fringe theory. I do not see why you are removing references from Nemesis just because I reference individual sentences. Many of the references you removed are not "referring to the same source". Please do not confuse the dated-Nemesis theory with the different/newer Tyche (hypothetical planet) theory. Scientists do NOT support the 1984 theory of Nemesis. There has been NO support for Nemesis since 2002, and even that came from the guy who started the theory. -- Kheider (talk) 22:25, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Large Number of Unparallaxed Red Stars in Sky Surveys

Hi,

I read your points in the discussion on the Nemesis talk page (that many partially charted red stars have not yet been parallaxed for distance from Earth, or even size. Do you know where I might find a reference to support this? I have been trying for weeks to convince others editing the article that this is a valid point, and thus the theory should not be described as "Fringe" or "Discounted".

Thanks in advance for any suggestions. 65.102.241.122 (talk) 03:42, 28 November 2011 (UTC)