User talk:50.53.15.59

Welcome to Wikipedia!

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

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• Simplified Manual of Style
• Intuitive guide to Wikipedia

You are welcome to continue editing without logging in, but many editors recommend that you create an account. Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits such as the ability to create articles. For a full outline and explanation of the benefits that come with creating an account, please see this page. If you edit without a username, your IP address (50.53.15.59) is used to identify you instead.

In any case, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on this page. Again, welcome! Randykitty (talk) 20:16, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Your many edits from "Red Book" to "CD-DA"

I noticed you have edited several dozen articles to change mention of and links to "Red Book" to "CD-DA". This is problematic for several reasons.

It is arguable that the term "Red Book", referring to "the standard sort of audio CD playable in an ordinary player that is used for commercial music sales," is not particularly familiar to the average non-technical reader. But I do not think that the unexplained "CD-DA" is any more self-descriptive. The "CD" part is clear enough in context, but "DA" could mean many things.

In fact, per the Wikipedia Manual of Style, the first appearance of "CD-DA" in an article should be written out in full (see MOS:ACRO). This isThis is especially important where understanding of the term is essential to understanding the surrounding text, which I believe is the case here. So, replacing mention of "Red Book" with "CD-DA" should end up with "Compact Disc Digital Audio (CD-DA)".

Besides complying with WP style guidelines, I would say that this is considerably more self-explanatory (hence more understandable to the typical nontechnical reader, i.e., better) than either "Red Book" or "CD-DA" alone.

You should also be aware that either way, the actual article you're linking to is Red Book (CD standard). I am aware that both Philips and Sony used the term "Compact Disk Digital Audio", and so it appears in the logo... while "Red Book" is a colloquialism, not part of the official title. Nevertheless, here on Wikipedia, the CD-DA page is merely a redirect to the Red Book page. Now, links to redirects are not in and of themselves a problem. After all, they occur often as pages are moved (renamed) and there is no requirement that they be changed to links to the "real" page. However, in general, editors should not deliberately create new links to redirects unless there is some compelling reason to do so.

Whether that article should actually be called "Red Book" rather than "Compact Disc Digital Audio (CD-DA)" is another question, one that has been discussed before to no conclusion (see talk:Red_Book_(CD_standard)#Rename article to Compact Disc Digital Audio), but should not affect current editing.

Please consider these points in your future editing. Thank you. Jeh (talk) 08:58, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with all you comments. Part of my motivation was to move away from "Red Book" though I do think "Red Book" CD-DA is clearer and succinct. I understand and have no issues with CD-DA being spelled out prior to its use as per the the style guide but I believe there are some exceptions. CD-DA is no more abbreviated or confusing than CD-ROM not being spelled out and the article is named such. I am mostly just trying to clean up the Rainbow Books. Methinks one good article on that is all that is required and all the other articles should use the marketing named they became known under and just refer to which book they were originally published under as part of their history. I opted to move toward linking to CD-DA to be in line with "Yellow Book" CD-ROM article. We can both agree Red Book is much less well known and not a good choice for the name of the article (I realize perhaps not all agree with that). That said the days of commonly referring to CD audio format as Red Book are long gone. 50.53.15.59 (talk) 14:41, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

May 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Tōge 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.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:33, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Oops

Yeah, somehow managed to deleted them both. Done. --Shirt58 (talk) 11:18, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Please do not bypass redirects

Hi, I see that you are currently changing alot of wikilinks to redirects to directly point to the target page, therefore I'd like to make you aware of our editing guidelines WP:NOTBROKEN, WP:NOPIPE, etc., which explicitly advise against doing this except for in very few specific cases. These guidelines also give explanations why this is normally not helpful and often even unconstructive. Therefore, I'd like to ask you to please stop doing so. Thanks. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 14:56, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree that most changes are useless, but to my humble opinion, a change of 8086 to Intel 8086 is not a bad thing. At least it will become useful after 6,000 years ☺

In any case, such link changes are accepted as a part of an otherwise useful edit, but strongly discouraged as standalone edits. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 15:05, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and you will note I mostly made such edits as part of a larger one or in cases that are such explicit exceptions (e.g., nav templates etc.). I am already well aware of the policies on such things as I have helped contribute to their development in the past. Thanks for noticing but I am not in need of education in this department. 50.53.15.59 (talk) 04:36, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

August 2013

Hello, I'm Yintan. I wanted to let you know that I undid one of your recent contributions, such as the one you made with this edit to Popek and Goldberg virtualization requirements, because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Yintan  11:30, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Forget it, my bad. Yintan  11:37, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you'd like to explain what you consider to not appear constructive about making the title of the article italics like every other legal case article? According to WP:MOSLAW legal case names are always italicized. I directly copied that from Intel Corporation Inc. v. CPM United Kingdom Ltd however you can also see the title is italics for Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.. Thanks. 50.53.15.59 (talk) 11:01, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Apologies offered.
— | Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh Buzzard | — 11:22, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Accepted--thank you. 50.53.15.59 (talk) 11:24, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you!
— | Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh Buzzard | — 18:44, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Leujohn. I wanted to let you know that I undid one of your recent contributions, such as the one you made with this edit to Intel Fortran Compiler, because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Leujohn ^{(talk, stalk me?)} 18:11, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

My bad, I'm sorry! I undid my revert to your version. Leujohn ^{(talk, stalk me?)} 18:19, 27 August 2013 (UTC)