User talk:Comp.arch

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


0+ This user has made more than 0 contributions to Wikipedia.

I'm impulsive - I'm sorry..[edit]

I'm frequently too impulsive and it is sort of ok as I quickly try to fix my mistakes. However, I can't fix typos in edit summaries. If it's possible, let me know, I assume it's not possible for good reason..(?)

English is not my native language. I tend to get misunderstood as I do not write to clearly always. Please assume good faith, as it is. comp.arch (talk) 09:48, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Dear diary, I'm in hot water, again, in less than a week. However this is the first time I went over the line. Good behaviour would be everyone would be happy with you. I've had four disagreements that I can remember, started years ago now (I think, used IP before, about a year under a "name"). Not sure what is the average in disagreements. Some about "facts". comp.arch (talk) 17:08, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

My "public service announcment":

The United States Computer Emergency Readiness Team (US-CERT), explained that using Windows XP without mitigation, as Microsoft's support [has ended], "[exposes users] to an elevated risk to cybersecurity dangers, such as malicious attacks or electronic data loss"; users "may mitigate some risks [regarding Windows XP] by using a web browser other than Internet Explorer"[1][2] or by other means.

This language should be somewhere in the Windows XP article as it is neutral and not biased for Microsoft. Then, the layperson who does not know about security in general and the risk regarding XP or Internet Explorer (IE), in particular, can make an informed choice about what to do about XP or it's components (eg. Internet Explorer).

US-CERT is already considered a secondary (in relation to Microsoft) reliable source in the Internet Explorer 6 article:

Art Manion, a representative of the United States Computer Emergency Readiness Team (US-CERT) noted in a vulnerability report that the design of Internet Explorer 6 Service Pack 1 made it difficult to secure. He stated that:

There are a number of significant vulnerabilities in technologies relating to the IE domain/zone security model, local file system (Local Machine Zone) trust, the Dynamic HTML (DHTML) document object model (in particular, proprietary DHTML features), the HTML Help system, MIME type determination, the graphical user interface (GUI), and ActiveX. … IE is integrated into Windows to such an extent that vulnerabilities in IE frequently provide an attacker significant access to the operating system.[3]

My last attempt[1] put the language below in the main text, way after "Windows XP was a major advance [..] in security" in the lead, but my previous attemptsCite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). [2] put language above the paragraph with the quoted text, as I didn't want the layperson to start reading the article and maybe stop at "security".

I was trying to keep the "advise" short previously; see the language I used:

On March 10, 2014, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security's US-CERT advised alerted, as support ends on April 8, 2014, not using unsupported Windows XP without mitigation; users "may mitigate some risks [regarding Windows XP] by using a web browser other than Internet Explorer"[4][5] or by other means.

and this link:

https://www.us-cert.gov/ncas/alerts/TA14-069A-0

with the language immediately above it was "censored"[3] by Wikipedia editors,[4] under, I think, misapplied Wikipedia policies guidelines; from the Windows XP main text ("End of support"-section)! Not just its WP:LEAD. I may have been a little overzealous in trying to convince editors it should be in there but ended up being silenced. Well, I had given up anyway (for now at least). There is no consensus on adding this to the article, not even any support. Maybe some didn't read what I put on the talk page or ignored it, others thought the above still "not important" for inclusion after reading on the talk page:

It seems I need to spell the danger out, that explains why it's an "important point", in an WP:OR-like way that can't be in the article itself, but may inform editors: It doesn't take a WP:CRYSTAL ball to know that a security exploit will be found (or not if they are not looking, eg. in built-in IE6) in Windows XP (also applies to all other IE-versions on XP). That is the risk we have support for from Microsoft, until tomorrow. When it happens, usually a patch would be available from Microsoft. This is something an anti-virus software does not fix. It gets worse; when Microsoft patches newer versions of the operating system, that patch (assuming the exploit it patches is also a security hole in XP), is a recipe for break-in into XP that is made worse because XP is proprietary software. If it would be open source, you could possibly backport the patch to XP. Unmitigated, XP is borderline certainly an "unmitigated disaster", not a risk, waiting to happen. Is the advise from the government, not just "some critics" not important and on topic? Please revert the revert. comp.arch (talk) 12:34, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Do not just take my word for it, see eg. latest BBC article.

If you are really paranoid you can disconnect XP from the Internet, which makes it more secure, but it will still be less secure than supported offline OS. Since you are paranoid about security you should then read about Stuxnet and how you could get infected with an USB stick via compromised certificates (I assume they will not get updated ever again).

Let's wait and see if a major security outbreak will convince people that it is notable after the fact. I wander if one changed word "advises" to "claims" would have changed anyones mind. It wasn't a forbidden "how to" (ridiculous), but it might make sure. I take some responsibility for not starting with some other language/placement.

In case people think, what I can currently find in the article on the US-CERT:

In cases where the use of XP is still necessary, critics, along with the United States Computer Emergency Readiness Team, simply recommended against the use of Internet Explorer and Outlook Express in favor of alternatives which are still maintained on XP, but still argued that users should eventually upgrade.

will do, "critics, along with".. it's a little "weasel wordy" implying the US-CERT is just some "critic" ("censoring"? as it is the government), as the US-CERT doesn't say "eventually upgrade" and the reference (above) to their alert, I provided to, was reverted. No solutions they provide to the alerted risks, include running XP. Running XP without IE only "mitigate[s] some risks". I included the information on IE as it is the built-in browser many people use. Risks, not mitigated by only stopping usage of IE, include (I guess) using ALL computer files. They are all decoded by the operating system in some way. Often specifically some file/data formats. Eg. there have been a string of buffer overflows exploits in JPEG decoding code (and other decoding code) that seems never-ending, see latest patch that will ever be available.

To be fair, this is in the article:

Microsoft began to increasingly urge XP customers to migrate to newer versions such as Windows 7 or 8 in the interest of security

however, while the "advise" from the govenment is a "how-to" in some people's minds, this "urge" that is ALREADY in the article is not..? I'm not sure I understand this "systematic bias" against the govenment. The link to the US-CERT advise should be in the article. Please advise how the language on US-CERT can be improved. Is including an "urge" from a company to upgrade to a newer product for money not WP:NPOV while skipping the neutral advise from the government?

References[edit]

  1. ^ "Alert (TA14-069A): Microsoft Ending Support for Windows XP and Office 2003"". March 11, 2014. Retrieved April 6, 2014. Computer systems running unsupported software are exposed to an elevated risk to cybersecurity dangers, such as malicious attacks or electronic data loss. 
  2. ^ Keizer, Gregg (March 11, 2014). "US-CERT urges XP users to dump IE: If customers must run XP after April 8, switch to alternate browser that still gets patches, advises team from Dept. of Homeland Security". Retrieved April 4, 2014. 
  3. ^ "Vulnerability Note VU#713878". US-CERT. June 9, 2004. Retrieved 2006-04-07. 
  4. ^ "Alert (TA14-069A): Microsoft Ending Support for Windows XP and Office 2003"". March 11, 2014. Retrieved April 6, 2014. Computer systems running unsupported software are exposed to an elevated risk to cybersecurity dangers, such as malicious attacks or electronic data loss. 
  5. ^ Keizer, Gregg (March 11, 2014). "US-CERT urges XP users to dump IE: If customers must run XP after April 8, switch to alternate browser that still gets patches, advises team from Dept. of Homeland Security". Retrieved April 4, 2014. 

Contents

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Comp.arch, 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:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on [[user talk:--Søren1997 (talk) 10:41, 8 April 2013 (UTC)|my talk page]], or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/130.208.138.229

Comp.arch, you are invited to the Teahouse[edit]

Teahouse logo

Hi Comp.arch! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Benzband (I'm a Teahouse host)

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:17, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

"One more thing, infoboxes are not for history I would think."[edit]

Template:Infobox software has at least one item of history in it, namely the "released" parameter - "The date in which version 1.0 (or closely-matching release) of the software product in question reaches its release to manufacturing (RTM) stage.". Template:Infobox OS inherits from it. Guy Harris (talk) 16:37, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

TemplateData is here[edit]

Hey Comp.arch

I'm sending you this because you've made quite a few edits to the template namespace in the past couple of months. If I've got this wrong, or if I haven't but you're not interested in my request, don't worry; this is the only notice I'm sending out on the subject :).

So, as you know (or should know - we sent out a centralnotice and several watchlist notices) we're planning to deploy the VisualEditor on Monday, 1 July, as the default editor. For those of us who prefer markup editing, fear not; we'll still be able to use the markup editor, which isn't going anywhere.

What's important here, though, is that the VisualEditor features an interactive template inspector; you click an icon on a template and it shows you the parameters, the contents of those fields, and human-readable parameter names, along with descriptions of what each parameter does. Personally, I find this pretty awesome, and from Monday it's going to be heavily used, since, as said, the VisualEditor will become the default.

The thing that generates the human-readable names and descriptions is a small JSON data structure, loaded through an extension called TemplateData. I'm reaching out to you in the hopes that you'd be willing and able to put some time into adding TemplateData to high-profile templates. It's pretty easy to understand (heck, if I can write it, anyone can) and you can find a guide here, along with a list of prominent templates, although I suspect we can all hazard a guess as to high-profile templates that would benefit from this. Hopefully you're willing to give it a try; the more TemplateData sections get added, the better the interface can be. If you run into any problems, drop a note on the Feedback page.

Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:11, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:32, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

kB vs KB[edit]

Hi! I see you are on a quest of changing every instance of "kB" to "KB" and waving the flag of WP:COMPUNITS while doing it. I have actually read that page and it doesn't say anything about "kB" being wrong, it does say that "A capital K can be used for "kilo-" when it means 1024 in computing contexts." Emphasis is mine, and they are using the word "can" not "must". So, in my interpretation, "kB" is still OK, and KB is just as acceptable. I won't change your edits, and I like consistency, but I think you can cool down the crusade a bit since "kB" is most certainly not wrong. -- Henriok (talk) 16:52, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

If the prefix "K-" were in commerce with a unit of measure defined in SI, weights and measures inspectors could go into stores and seize goods that are not properly labeled, and fine the establishment that illegally offered the mislabeled goods. Those who make suggestions about what "k-" or "K-" mean when combined with "b" or "B" have no such enforcement powers, so it's just a matter of people following whichever suggestion they like best. Jc3s5h (talk) 18:28, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for commenting on my page. Yes, I'm on a crusade.. Just as I try to fix punctuation (or anything I see wrong) I try to fix these little things that bug me that are also wrong, like using kB (that should be used only for 1,000 bytes as the SI-prefix k means that) when KB (historically 1,024 bytes or KiB that is discouraged) is really meant. These are just errors in my opinion (maybe little things), but why not be accurate? Enforcement is a different matter (people will still say mHz and not MHz even if they are also different units and wrong and we guide the way). Say what you mean and instruct others in WP:COMPUNITS be reverting your revert of my change there? comp.arch (talk) 21:33, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Adding gpu to {{Infobox CPU}}[edit]

I noticed you added a gpu field to the {{Infobox CPU}} template. I have some comments over on it's talk page. —RP88 (talk) 12:07, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

ARM Holdings[edit]

Hi - I notice that you have put a series of "citation needed" templates on ARM Holdings. This is a FTSE 250 company and investment analysts use these pages. Posting unsourced information makes the article very unreliable. Making unsourced claims about customer lists also makes the article read like and advert. I am afraid I am inclined to add an "advert" tag to the article. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 21:35, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

ARM architectures and other (e.g. 360 architecture)[edit]

Dunno if you've read the stuff I added on Talk:ARM architecture yet (I started on it before you added stuff to my talk page, and finished it and saved the edits afterwards). It discusses some of the ISA changes.

IBM System/360 architecture is one member of the family, and didn't change much during its lifetime, so it's singular. A page for the entire family, or for the 32-bit flavor of the family, might be "IBM System/3x0 architectures" or might be "IBM System/3x0 architecture family". The family definitely had significant changes other than going 64-bit with z/Architecture - S/360 -> S/370 introduced some new user-mode instructions, some kernel-mode changes (with a mode bit) and, shortly after the first S/370s came out, an MMU to support demand paging (the IBM System/360 Model 67 also had one, but it was a special S/360 model; the S/370's MMU was similar but not identical), and S/370 -> S/370-XA meant that 7 of the upper 8 bits of addresses were no longer ignored (again, with a mode bit, so code that expected to be able to stuff extra data in the upper 8 bits of a pointer would still run in compatibility mode).

I think MIPS, SPARC, and PA-RISC mostly just widened the registers when they went 64-bit; they may have added some instructions as well.

For 6800 -> 68000, that's not just widening from 16 to 32 bits, it's a change more significant than even x86-32 -> x86-64 or ARMv7 -> ARMv8.

As for what counts as a new member of a family:

  • any change that breaks user-mode backwards compatibility counts;
  • changes that break only kernel-mode backwards compatibility probably count, albeit with a note that user-mode backwards compatibility is preserved;
  • I might be inclined, for the sake of consistency, to say that going 64-bit counts, even for relatively straightforward widening that preserve kernel-mode and user-mode backwards compatibility;
  • extensions don't count, although large extensions might deserve their own pages, such as MMX, SSE, NEON, etc.. Guy Harris (talk) 21:00, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Comp.arch. You have new messages at Codename Lisa's talk page.
Message added 18:42, 25 October 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Codename Lisa (talk) 18:42, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

A note about overlinking[edit]

Hi.

Did you know that WP:REPEATLINK only applies to prose and not tables? Repetitive linking makes prose ugly but is absolutely necessary in table. The reason is simple: Imagine someone is reading Windows NT section in Comparison of Microsoft Windows versions. It is not user-friendly to expect him to scrolling 18 A4 pages up to find a link to Closed source.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 00:29, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, good to have a mentor.. :) You're right it seems. I'm still learning.. Thought I was following policy. Changed policy to make clear and reverted one bit of what I done. See that edit. comp.arch (talk) 22:16, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi. You are welcome. :)
So, you went on and edited the guideline? Well, guideline editing requires a deep understanding of how community thinks, so, if you really think you are still learning, I don't really advise editing guideline pages. But the good thing about guidelines – which is one level below policy – is that you can take it easy. For example, no one insists on having duplicate links in the same cell. (Tacky, isn't it?) Common sense and compromise are the key.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 03:13, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
FYI: The discussion is here Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Linking#Repetition_of_links_with-in_tables. And if I want to respond here and send a talkback to you it seems I have to go to your page separately to to that. comp.arch (talk) 09:25, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi. I am aware. I and most Wikipedians keep talk pages in our watchlists for a while. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 20:51, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

ARM architecture[edit]

You might be overly simplifying the ARM Instruction Sets in the infobox of ARM architecture. Most important is there are one or more unique instructions sets that some ARM change between, especially between ARM and Thumb on some architects. Concerning the Cortex-M, see the tables in ARM_Cortex-M#Overview that I created. • SbmeirowTalk • 18:17, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I know, still don't quite get what you mean. Was going to add back Thumb, thinking you meant that, but regarding ARMv6-M at least, wouldn't that be more wrong or even totalli wrong? Regarding gpr, maybe no sany person would think PC is general purpose, but it still annoys me to have it under that heading. I thought "registers" is valid as that works "kind of". I agree that it doesn't get displayed right. Couldn't that and shouldn't it be changed in the Infobox template? ARM (old ones) is unique as far as I know in that the PC and maybe SP can be used as any other register. Doen't make the PC general purpose. comp.arch (talk) 21:15, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
PC is R15. I have written small amounts of ARM and Thumb assembly code, but haven't ever messed with doing operations with R15. I assume calculations using R15 should work just like any other register. Still the PC (R15) wasn't my point of contact, so what I should've said the "Encoding" fields of each infobox needs clarification since there are multiple instruction sets on some architectures. I was thinking that we should state the name of each instruction set, then the width details for each one. BTW, I agree that Template:Infobox CPU architecture needs refinement, but that is another discussion. Have you looked at x86? I haven't edited x86, but I have looked at its infobox. • SbmeirowTalk • 08:21, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Right I forgot. I took out ARM as a name of encoding as I think that is kind of overloaded.. Aarch32 only appeared with ARMv8 but I guess could maybe be used with ARMv7, not sure I want to risk that, might be a superset(?). Feel free to revert me if I make mistakes (I try to explain in summary if I delete things), no need to leave a note on my talk page each time. It's nice though. Calculations work for PC (relative addressing) and STM/MOV to if for jumping (a "nice" hack). But any other move/addition to R15 (PC) would be catastrophic (but "work" in a sense.. :) ) comp.arch (talk) 08:56, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Nook HD model is interlaced[edit]

I'm sorry, but you are incorrect. Stop undoing my edits to Nook HD being an interlaced screen. LCD screens can certainly be interlaced. Don't presume that I "googlewacked" as you put it. --KJRehberg (talk) 20:03, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Nevermind, I'm not going to get into an edit war with you. I'll just let Wikipedia get worse. --KJRehberg (talk) 20:15, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Hold on, I didn't have time to answer. I also want the truth and was actually googling is case I was mistaken. I still assume good faith on your part, however you reverted back your change of the Nook HD being interlaced and along with it another change I made. I assume that was an accident and you don't disagree on the soc part. I reverted your interlaced recently and have done so once in the past (not sure if it was you), since I thought it was an honest mistake and no citation given. comp.arch (talk) 20:33, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

My first AfD, do people know this or STOPzilla (or iS3). Hope I'm doing good[edit]

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/AVM_Technology comp.arch (talk) 14:53, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

"Quantum computer" my favourite page on the SIMPLE version of Wikipedia (for kids)[edit]

As of now current version on [Quantum computer]. Was to complicated for mere mortals (with banner) and I'm not even going to try to simplify it for kids. comp.arch (talk) 16:39, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

The purpose of infobox[edit]

Hi. How do you do?

So, it seems you and are going to work together in the same area of Wikipedia for the foreseeable future. Well, I am glad because you are certainly friendly.

Now, I saw your edits in Internet Explorer article and something caught my attention: Your edits in the infobox. Let me explain: In software articles of Wikipedia, except for video games, there are two forms of infobox: The ordinary infobox is put on the articles that cover all versions of a product with one same infobox. For example, TuneUp Utilities, Windows Movie Maker or Firefox. These always include the latest specs only, e.g. operating system and platform for the latest version only. There is also the collective infobox, put on main article page for software that have one article for each version. For example, Microsoft Office or Internet Explorer. They may include information on the entire range of the versions. Which one to choose? WP:MOS says it is a matter of optional style; both are acceptable and the choice is subject to agreement between editors.

Now, your edit in Internet Explorer had a problem: You made the infobox so that some of its fields were on the entire range of the version while some of them (platform and operating system) were only about the latest version. This dilution is not good. Either all fields should be on the entire range of the versions or none of them.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 03:11, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

64 bit ARM[edit]

Hi Comp.arch.

You were asking about 64 bit ARM if there are any. Currently, the only 64bit ARMv8-A processor on the market (There is one!) is the Apple A7 which powers the iPhone 5S and iPad Air. However, I'm unsure if Chrome for iOS has been re-written yet to support the 64-bit architecture (the current version, 30.0.1599.16, does not yet, the beta might.)

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Piper13 (talkcontribs) 16:06, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I know about A7. And I think they haven't upgraded Chrome (OS) on iOS or otherwise (also runs on Linux and Windows RT). comp.arch (talk) 16:10, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Trolling[edit]

Did a bit of googling on our mutual "friend". He's 18 ys old and banned from several gamar and technology forums due to trolling and abusive language. I'm not surprised. -- Henriok (talk) 10:07, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Scissor kick (strike)[edit]

I declined your request as a technical move, but opened a discussion at Talk:Scissor kick (strike). Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:51, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Jailbreaking legality discussion[edit]

Hi comp.arch! Re this revert on iOS jailbreaking, see my recent comment on the talk page here for suggestions about fixing the "legal" and "illegal" language: Talk:iOS jailbreaking#Jailbreaking (and rooting) (il)legal(?) in the States. Dreamyshade (talk) 17:31, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi again! I wrote another comment on the talk page, including a proposal for new wording that we might be able to agree on. :) If you have a chance, feel free to check it out. Dreamyshade (talk) 10:07, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Don't worry[edit]

Don't worry about anything that happened at "Categorization of people‎". Please, feel free to ask questions to me anytime. In theory, Persondata should be deleted shortly. In theory, Wikidata will take over. I say "In theory" because it was supposed to happen months ago. Bgwhite (talk) 09:49, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Simple[edit]

Hi Comp.arch. Just letting you know that I responded to your comment on simple. Your thinking is definitely in the right place, so I would suggest going ahead with any ideas that you have for that article. Most of the bits and pieces you see in there have just been shoved in over time without much thought, so it's good to see someone thinking constructively with the project's purpose in mind. Osiris (talk) 13:56, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Ok. I didn't even get at first what you meant, that is https://simple.wikipedia.org/. I just stumbled on [Mozilla Firefox] there and edit it infrequently (maybe time to sync name with here, use Firefox (or vise versa..)). See my latest (controversial?) change. comp.arch (talk) 14:55, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Your User Page[edit]

You should create your user page. Get started by adding this. • SbmeirowTalk • 20:20, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for stopping by Sbmeirow. I "should"? Or shouldn't, that is the question. I deleted the "helpbox" you put in here. I knew about the possibility and intentionally desided not to (maybe I should, that is you recommend it). Just curious, did you add this or some bot of yours automatically. If not automatic, why do you feel that way? comp.arch (talk) 15:59, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Nokia X Software Platform[edit]

It was removed because it was not in the citation listed. However, I have added it back with a citation, and an explanation of what's different. ViperSnake151  Talk  17:03, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Jóhanna Sigurðardóttir[edit]

Hi, I've replied to your comment on Icelandic names here. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:56, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

AfC notification: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Template:Unix internals has a new comment[edit]

AFC-Logo.svg
I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Template:Unix internals. Thanks! — {{U|Technical 13}} (tec) 15:43, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Hatnotes[edit]

Per WP:HATNOTE, hatnotes "help readers locate a different article they might be seeking". They aren't for general non-Wikipedia announcements. You've been reverted, please take this to the talk page if you have problems per WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO. Since you're adding this content to articles, you need to gain consensus for your edits at the article talk pages, but feel free to ask questions about hatnotes at Wikipedia talk:Hatnote. --AussieLegend () 18:37, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

End of life notices[edit]

The encyclopedic content on Windows XP already does enough to talk about the end of support for XP. Plus, you're violating Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles too. ViperSnake151  Talk  20:43, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

As explained in the talk page, I believed his revert was misapplying the Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles rule. When I reverted I guess it still counted as one revert.. comp.arch (talk) 15:12, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

April 2014[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Windows XP. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. ViperSnake151  Talk  13:57, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Windows XP. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:22, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

In the last 24 hours I made this these edits: [5]

[Is this first one considered an edit or a revert as it is the "first" in the 24 hours window?]

[6]

[7]

[8]

Then, it is three or four depending on counting. Note I always explained in summary and always explained in Talk page between how the reverts where "wrong", sometimes justification being based on policies misapplied. The last one in the page itself was a compromise, not editing the LEAD. That one should stick in the main text but was also reverted. Then I made a final one in the talk page that says in summary "I give up, Do as you think is right." comp.arch (talk) 15:06, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked 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). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Comp.arch (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribs deleted contribscreation log change block settingsunblockfilter log)


Request reason:

Like I said before the block "I give up, Do as you think is right." If I stepped over the bright line (is my revert count four or three), then I'm sorry, but I would like to know. In any case if I did and anyway I could use a Wikibreak for at least 24 hours, but would like "April 2014"-section removed on appeal if it's unfair. I understand what I was blocked for ("the bright line"), if the count is right. I always try to be productive, I always try to respect the line and policies. comp.arch (talk) 15:26, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

The "bright line" is the point at which you'll get blocked for edit warring essentially automatically. However, if you read a bit closer in WP:3RR, it says "even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring"; and indeed, you were edit warring regardless of any 24-hour window. --jpgordon::==( o ) 15:49, 7 April 2014 (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.

Jpgordon, since it has come to this, me getting blocked for adding this sourced information I tried to get a "content resolution" but can't post it since I'm blocked:

Location of dispute

Windows XP Dispute overview

I ask for content resolution on the [removal from an APPROPRIATE place in the main text.] of: On March 10, 2014, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security's US-CERT advised, as support ends on April 8, 2014, not using unsupported Windows XP without mitigation; users "may mitigate some risks [regarding Windows XP] by using a web browser other than Internet Explorer"[1][2] or by other means. Others had given similar advise before and Microsoft also advises people not use Windows XP anymore. This is not an "how-to". It is good advise, but not a hatnote, not a disclaimer, not breaking any of the policies that objections had been made about. It was my last attempt at getting important information in the article removing the possible "systematic bias" I could think of. Since it has come to me being blocked for adding this sourced information. Does it belong in the article? Does it belong there in the article? Does it also belong in the LEAD? I do not need a resolution on the LEAD. My edit: [[9]] Users involved

Comp.arch, Resolving the dispute Other steps if any, you have tried to resolve this dispute

It started with I added a different text as a hatnote, and realizing it was against policy I tried to change the text and to comply with all policies. It took too many reverts from others and my to trying to comply by making changes to comply. This text belongs in the final destination if not also somwhere in the LEAD. How you think we can help resolve the dispute?

Is a consensus needed at least for including in the main text?

You can address these issues on the article talk page when your block expires. --jpgordon::==( o ) 18:51, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Ok, Jpgordon, already have, but to no avail. I can force a resolution there, but I guess it can wait. Would I be vindicated for the 3RR-rule after the fact? I'm not sure I want to delete this section myself from the page if not. comp.arch (talk) 19:00, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
There is no "vindication for the 3RR-rule". Nobody gets to edit war; it doesn't matter if you're 100% correct. The problem is behavior, not content. And you cannot "force a resolution". --jpgordon::==( o ) 22:31, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
To clarify, I asked about consensus, and responded to that answer with "force a resolution", meaning I can ask for it about the content addition, wasn't talking about an unblock. If the content gets in it might be a "moral vindication", at least, for me regarding some of my reverts. Never intended to edit war, was always commenting on talk page in between. I thought that was the requirement, not reverting without. Believed I was taking criticisim into account in between.
I know I have to convince an admin to unblock if I want the unblock. I do not care about being blocked for a while if I deserve it and even if I didn't go over the bright line. I'm not sure I did. Even if I broke the rule, by misunderstanding, two of the rules that allow unblocking apply. comp.arch (talk) 00:03, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
By the way, the block is now expired. You should be able to edit normally now. --jpgordon::==( o ) 17:51, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Alert (TA14-069A): Microsoft Ending Support for Windows XP and Office 2003"". March 11, 2014. Retrieved April 6, 2014. Computer systems running unsupported software are exposed to an elevated risk to cybersecurity dangers, such as malicious attacks or electronic data loss. 
  2. ^ Keizer, Gregg (March 11, 2014). "US-CERT urges XP users to dump IE: If customers must run XP after April 8, switch to alternate browser that still gets patches, advises team from Dept. of Homeland Security". Retrieved April 4, 2014. 

Need a pair of eyes[edit]

Hi, Guy Harris, or anyone else (uninvolved with my edits on the Windows XP page). I value your input. Please if you can take a look at the "public service announcment" at the top of my page to review it content wise. Your personal view on running unsupported software and in particular that is proprietary software to boot. Then does the specific text belong in your view in the article. Or where? Possibly a little modified. Then I admit I was edit warring, not on purpose, and possibly going over the "bright line" first the first time, by accident, always trying to explain in summary and on the talk page. Didn't realize you need consensus before moving on. I have to reflect on that. Please be honest, if you will. Have you found me obsessive on other occasion, and what about this one? Is it bad to be obsessed about what you feel is right? Any advise other than what I already know, trying to control it and be more careful regarding policies and people's opinions. Maybe I need "conflict resolution" about content, but it seems like a hostile way. Do you find the tone at the top of the page hostile? I'm not sure I want to/should edit Wikipedia anymore (for the first time). At least some parts. comp.arch (talk) 12:33, 8 April 2014 (UTC) P.S. I was going to discuss your last revert of my edit :)

No victory[edit]

"fine. You win". I feel no victory, I feel sad or something, mixed feelings. Hope the other person doesn't feel he lost. Should I go to his talk page? Avoid it and the page he edits? Will sleep on this. comp.arch (talk) 17:57, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Quotes[edit]

Hi! Thanks for putting more info into Android (operating system) article. One thing to note though: you really shouldn't put as much quotations, particularly when they can be paraphrased. See WP:QUOTEFARM for details. Basicly they should only be used when the original wording is important per se. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 15:11, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Your submission at AfC Template:Unix internals was accepted[edit]

AFC-Logo.svg
Template:Unix internals, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Template-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Fiddle Faddle 22:52, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Timtrent. Regarding the notice, I can't however see that I could have done this myself. Checking the Wizard again, it seems I can go either way when starting a regular article, but not for a template. I'm not too worried about it (maybe the above notice could be amended), I know this applies for regular articles (that I would have done myself), I'm will not be making many templates I think.. comp.arch (talk) 10:24, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Life is always a mystery. Very few of us make templates. We just know when one is needed and make it :) Fiddle Faddle 21:08, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

May 2014[edit]

Information icon Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give User:Aunva6/HSAdraft a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut-and-paste-move repair holding pen. Thank you. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 02:03, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry Aunva6, I thought I was doing you a favor, not a disservice.. Hope no harm done. It seems from the edit history everything is ok now (and I think I get this now). Didn't mean to take credit from you, thought "Copied from" then your page gave that. Maybe that is ok for article space (only). I've never moved from "user space" before. I've moved/rename whole articles before with the right mechanism. But I've also just copied parts of/merged some Internet Explorer versions (can't recall anything else), eg. [[10]]. comp.arch (talk) 17:50, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
no harm, just letting you know. the CSD was so that the existing page could be deleted and the new one moved into the same place. this needs to be done by a sysop, hence the CSD tag, which puts it into a category for deletion and move. next time, just let the speedy deletion go through, and the admin will move it. I think that merging just uses tags on the talk page, so you're fine there. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 18:38, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Input on image decision[edit]

Hi you are invited to vote for the image to be used on the LG G2 infobox page at Talk:LG G2. Thanks! GadgetsGuy (talk) 06:28, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Unix internals[edit]

Template:Unix internals has been nominated for merging with Template:Unix. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 09:33, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

date format[edit]

Hi, Regarding yout date Format changes in the android article for consistency: you did it wrong. You should have used the preferable yyyy-mm-dd iso format. Infact, this ugly middle endian Format makes not only ME sick as it is not used by 95% of the world. Addirionally, i cant reuse your mm-dd-yyyy Formated refs directly in other language WPs. Please don't do. Shaddim (talk) 15:36, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

@Shaddim: Thanks for stopping by. Yes, isn't inconsistency irritating. It seems to me I didn't do it wrong. The date format for this article was decided in 2007 it seems. An illegal date format "06-September-2007" had been used before - never YMD date format. The rules are (with exception - that do not apply here) that "first use" decides. I had to go through several pages of the oldest changes to find first use for you to make sure. Then in fact MDY was the only correct date format according to the WP:MOS rules. I would support you in finding a better way to find/decide the correct date format for articles. YMD doesn't sound bad, I wouldn't even have changed if that was consistently used in refs. I can live with MDY in article and YMD in refs (that I believe is allowed). There has to be consistency within article and in refs, and makes sense between though I'm not wedded to that. I doubt you can convince people otherwise but you can try in the article talk page (I assume it's allowed, but not sure, with consensus). I've already been thanked for the change by a regular there.. :) comp.arch (talk) 16:38, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
@Shaddim:, note I used a script to change date formats. As I edit my own language (DMY) WP sometimes, I wander if the script (or some other) can't help? I rarely copy links between, they should be changed anyway - say "(English)" (that this script doesn't do). Look up the rules and if there is a script that does it for you. You may let me know if you find a good one. I'll try to think of you if I see one. comp.arch (talk) 16:47, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:MOSNUMscript. Guy Harris (talk) 20:42, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

DASHbot[edit]

See User:DASHBot. The comment is presumably either an indication that it did something to the reference or a note to itself about the reference. Guy Harris (talk) 21:55, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Raspberry Pi -- thanks![edit]

Hi Comp, thanks so much for fixing the errors that came up as a byproduct of my editing Raspberry Pi. Also, are you good with wikitables? I'd like to split the video output row into subrows to accommodate the fact that composite vid is available across the different versions. Apparently there's a rowspan param but I can't quite get the hang of it --Cornellier (talk) 21:58, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Uncontroversial move[edit]

Please see this edit, where I declined your proposed move of Gimlé. The target, Gimli, already contains a DAB page and Gimlé is already mentioned there. If you check the corresponding articles on the French, Spanish and German Wikipedias they always end this word with an 'e' though not always with an accent. On the Norwegian wikipedia the article is at no:Gimle (mytologi). If you have a further idea of how to rename this you might consider a formal move discussion. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:01, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

ok, I see. Gimle might be better than Gimlé though. comp.arch (talk) 17:08, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
The best plan is to use the most common spelling in English-speaking sources. The article itself doesn't link to any sources that are available online, but there should be books. This search in Google Books finds somewhat more hits for gimle than gimli. EdJohnston (talk) 17:18, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I know. Original term (even if that is Gimli) may not be best. I can't see for sure if Gimle is more used then Gimé so I'm not pressing for any change and let others decide. I thought Gimlé was plain wrong but turns out some Icelandic sources use it. é seemed strange for English source considering é isn't even in Norse. Not sure if it was in (in Old Norse) and was dropped. Or when Icelandic got it. comp.arch (talk) 17:26, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

"Sci Fi"[edit]

I knew Forrest J Ackerman, the guy who coined the term. He was the first fanboy: an enthusiast, but notorious for being utterly without taste or discrimination. From Perry Rhodan to Ursula K. LeGuin, it was all good to him. The term was coined as a bit of hip, trendy slang back when "hi-fi" was cutting-edge sound technology. A small but outspoken segment of the science fiction community remains bitterly opposed to it, as carrying overtones of childish and unthinking spectacle, as exemplified by most of the programming on the SyFy Channel. Even among those who do not oppose it so bitterly, or those outside the field who remain unaware of or indifferent to the controversy, the term remains slang, and thus unsuited for use in an encyclopedic project such as this one. It was always slang, and remains so. --Orange Mike | Talk 12:53, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

October 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Julia (programming language) 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:38, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Software patents[edit]

Yo dude, regarding your question of October 10 in the comment to your edit of Software patents, about Oracle being a licensee -- Oracle isn't the licensee, Oracle now owns the patents, so it is (probably) properly the assignee. It's possible that they are having the patents held by another company, such as an offshore subsidiary in Ireland, to work a tax dodge, though, in which case they might "license" the patents back from the subsidiary, paying huge license fees to the offshore entity, deducting them from their U.S. tax statements, and (because Ireland and other countries have lower corporate taxes) thus paying a lower effective tax rate. (Very common nowadays, hence the mention of it.) In this latter case, Oracle is technically a "licensee", even though it is really "licensing" its own IP back from itself.

Anyway, I don't think it affects the article itself, but since you asked, I figured I'd let you know. 60.248.2.163 (talk) 21:26, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Unidentified murder victims[edit]

Hi, I noticed some of your comments on the page history on pages listing unidentified murder victims. I agree with your opinion about the date format's being inconsistent, which is probably a result of different editor's preferences. The anchors being added above the headers ensures that the redirects to the page show the title of the entry, as placing the anchors below redirect readers underneath the title, which could cause some confusion, as a lot of the cases are known by different names. Thanks! --GouramiWatcherpride 00:38, 8 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)

ff at Olive Branch[edit]

"ff." after a page number means "and following pages". "p." means page and "pp." means pages. Pelarmian (talk) 18:07, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

A discussion on the Linux distribution talk page[edit]

Hello! There's a somewhat lengthy content-related discussion in Talk:Linux distribution § Information on GNU/Linux that would really need input from more editors. It's about an ongoing disagreement on how should a Linux distribution be described, required level of coverage by references, and partially about the way article's lead section should reflect the article content. If you could provide any input there, I'd really appreciate it! — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 02:56, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Request for comment[edit]

Hi. I noticed that "Comparison of current ARM cores" is a subset of "Comparison of ARMv7-A cores", except for the ARM11 column, thus I consider it redundant and put in a request to DELETE the "Comparison of current ARM cores" article. If you are interested, please comment at "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of current ARM cores". Thanks in advance. • SbmeirowTalk • 20:40, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of STOPzilla/sandbox[edit]

Hello Comp.arch,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged STOPzilla/sandbox for deletion, because it seems to be promotional, rather than an encyclopedia article.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. One life to live (talk) 11:34, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I moved it into userspace and removed the speedy tag. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:27, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, I wasn't aware the sandbox should be at User:Comp.arch/STOPzilla/sandbox. It may even not be true. The location isn't too important to me. I assume I can point to my sandbox from STOPzilla's talk page (and maybe point CNET to it). comp.arch (talk) 13:40, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Comp.arch. You have new messages at Template talk:Talk page stalker.
Message added 15:33, 24 February 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

NeilN talk to me 15:33, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Publisher vs. work[edit]

Hi.

The Verge is a website name and goes into |website= (or |work= if you prefer a shorter alias). |publisher= is Vox Media.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 00:15, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Decimals[edit]

Hi,

I recently edited an addition you made to Supercomputer. You listed a number as 3,76 MFLOPS/W. Refer to Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers#Decimals.

Sorry, I know it's tough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.141.169.24 (talk) 03:30, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Windows and memory compression[edit]

Hello! Regarding your addition to the zram article, it would fit well in the Virtual memory compression article, which describes the concept in general; the Virtual memory compression § Recent developments section would be an almost perfect fit. :) On the other side, the zram article is devoted to a Linux kernel feature, so mentioning other operating systems is pretty much out of place. Hope you agree. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 13:29, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Regarding your question, zram and zswap are quite different and fit different usage scenarios. It's all described in the articles, and comparing them is up to the readers; there would be next to no point in having some kind of a "dedicated" comparison. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 14:00, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, I just saw it now, and it's all coming back to me.. I've seen this before. Seems fine what's already in the article. What I was really after - just hadn't started reading.. :) Seems all editing is done [for now, it never is, on this or other issues..] comp.arch (talk) 14:04, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Totally forgot that I've already described the differences between zram and zswap in zswap § Alternatives. :) — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 14:09, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm having second thoughts about this revert, maybe I've misjudged it – are you Ok with that? — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 14:29, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
It's probably best that you reverted my DMY-change. I'm sure I just did a an MDY-change and explained in edit summary, but it just vaporized.. Maybe I got an edit conflict because you were already editing and I missed it.. If you are still doing this by hand (as I did for months (or years?) as I hate inconsistency, before I discovered the script), you should stop that right now.. :) comp.arch (talk) 14:40, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll have a look at WP:MOSNUMscript. :) — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 14:44, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 21[edit]

Time Reborn
not sure how to fix this, see Talk:Time Reborn, of this physics book.
Thanks, I wasn't sure Duality (mathematics), still isn't sure.. but have no better idea, so leave that in. comp.arch (talk) 16:43, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

NeoOffice[edit]

As far as I know, all versions of NeoOffice since 3.1 are based on Go-oo 3.1, whatever the NeoOffice version number is - it forked there, and everything since has just been patches and tweaks. There should be at least primary sources to this effect, if not third-party ones ... I think NeoOffice more-or-less sorta-tracked OOo/Go-oo up to then - David Gerard (talk) 15:58, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Digital rights management/Sandbox[edit]

Did you mean to make this in your own sandbox?--Savonneux (talk) 12:42, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Fine with me if there is a policy against.. (I want others being also able to change the proposed copy and automatically be allowed). Not sure how to move except by copying. I thought sandboxes where used in article space, maybe that is no longer done..
I thought this was automatic, you had a bot, or you were just very fast :) comp.arch (talk) 12:48, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Special:NewPages if you were every curious how they catch new pages so fast :P --Savonneux (talk) 11:05, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. RHaworth, I was kind of expecting it would stay as not a "test page", but part of a discussion at the talk page (I was getting reverted and wanted to develop an alternative lead up for discussion). I only thought the capital S had triggered some auto-delete-process. I was hoping the page would be userified, as has happened before as User:Comp.arch/Digital rights management/sandbox, but it and later edits are just gone.. This was userified User:Comp.arch/STOPzilla/sandbox earlier, but the grounds where different. Any way to recover/userify? An ancient proposal I made is still staying at Template:Unix/sandbox.. it didn't gain consensus; I stopped pushing for it. I liked more people to see it, however, from the talk page (those discussions are however now archived). comp.arch (talk) 11:14, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

"Digital rights management" is a POV violation?[edit]

So hold on, the acronym DRM is NPOV, but once you expand it, it's suddenly non-neutral?

"digital rights management" is a POV, another is POV for DRM is "digital restrictions management", using DRM and linking, keeping controversy there (to be explained).

"Digital rights management" is the title of the article. In fact, "digital restrictions management" is a POV term used by the FSF. ViperSnake151  Talk  16:10, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

For the article itself: No, expanding is ok, so is expanding it as the synonym and/or explaining the restrictions. Not, saying much about the downsides or explaining well is not ok.
I would rather not explain the issues on every page or provide a source, the quote above, was about DRM on other pages. You, do not agree that DRM is a WP:COMMONNAME by now?
And I didn't say "Digital rights management" is a POV violation (in it's page), just that it is a POV, meaning that rights need to be managed by software on somebodies else computer. comp.arch (talk) 16:12, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion that we disengage[edit]

Hello, Comp.arch. Thanks for contributing to the discussions at Talk:Digital rights management. I note that most of the recent traffic on that page is between you and Objective3000. However, after having tried conversing with this user myself, I am not sure that there is any point in continuing to reply to them. They continue making the same claims over and over again, even after being presented with contradictory evidence; I strongly suspect now that no new facts or arguments are going to change their opinions. I think this behaviour is obvious to any third parties reading the discussion, so continuing to engage with Objective3000 is only serving to bury the evidence and more cogent arguments and analyses presented by both sides. (The problem is compounded by the fact that they don't seem to understand where and how to format their replies; two or three times now they've confusingly replied to one of my comments with a message for you. Ironically, they've now taken to lecturing you on how to use talk pages.)

Please keep in mind that Objective3000 is just one editor; they aren't the sole arbiter of content in the article. Any given change to the article need only achieve a rough consensus, not unanimity, so it's not always helpful (and sometimes even harmful) to spend so much effort convincing a single participant. —Psychonaut (talk) 16:19, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Right.. what I've been thinking.. That I should just stop. Maybe put this up for a vote (I'm just not experienced with that). I've mostly been reading his replies, but also yours. Do you like the sandbox version? Better? Worse? now than the original? Feel free to edit it. I hate for there being sides in this, but this article seems it will always be one of the hot-button ones.. I thought a compromize could be reached.. by validating both sides. comp.arch (talk) 16:24, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I think that if we both just stop responding to this user for a few days, that might give others reading the page a chance to see what's been presented and evaluate the arguments and evidence. (I know it's hard to resist, but let's try to commit!) At that point we might see whether a rough consensus is evident. If not, I'm happy to set up an informal straw poll or formal RFC—these can usually be structured so that the discussion doesn't derail the !voting. In the meantime, I'll check over your sandbox version once I get a chance and get back to you with my opinions. —Psychonaut (talk) 16:32, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

IMPI isn't a typo for TIMI in System/38 and AS/400[edit]

TIMI, or just MI, as IBM now calls it, is a very-high-level instruction set, but it's not ever executed by any processor. Instead, it's translated, the first time an MI program is run, into the native machine code of the machine on which it's running.

In the System/38 and the "CISC" AS/400's, that native machine code was called IMPI, which originally stood for Internal Microprogrammed Interface; it's System/360-ish, although some document I saw said it didn't have indexed addressing modes (perhaps it only had base+register rather than base+register+register). In the "RISC" AS/400s and later machines with different names, it's 64-bit PowerPC, with a few extensions such as tag bits and, at least in some versions, apparently some fixed-point-decimal-assist instructions.

Frank Soltis' books on AS/400 discuss this. In Inside the AS/400 (ISBN 1-882419-66-9), he says that the "vertical microcode" of the System/38 and CISC AS/400 - i.e., the low-level OS code compiled into IMPI - was called that because IBM didn't want to have to unbundle it as they had to do with System/370 OSes and allow clone makers to use it. The team that wrote the low-level OS code, which includes the code that translates TIMI into IMPI, was put into the hardware group, and given the task of writing something called "microcode", so, for legal reasons, they could pretend it wasn't OS software and thus didn't have to be unbundled. (The "horizontal microcode" was real microcode that implemented IMPI on the hardware.)

According to this USENET post, there was, at one point, an IMPI manual, "System/38 Internal Microprogramming Instructions, Formats and Functions Reference Manual", with IBM manual number SC21-9037; I haven't been able to find it online anywhere. Hopefully somebody will give a copy to the bitsavers.org people so they can scan it in. Guy Harris (talk) 22:08, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I just did a minor edit and you noticed.. As I said "assumed" (and had some vague recollection it was just true, and would have seen both, just by looking at the article on AS/400). Thanks, for writing this detailed info, just for my benefit.. Looking at the article I saw: "AIX XL C/C++/C# compiler". I didn't know IBM had an C# compiler, could be. But for AIX and/or AS/400, wasn't expected. There is no need to convince me and give detailed info (here). You just silently fix if you know this to be false. comp.arch (talk) 08:55, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Android browser[edit]

Android browser is almost dead. Chrome the default browser mostly. I don't think Android browser should even be grouped with it. --Pmsyyz (talk) 15:20, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Pmsyyz, thanks for dropping by, but note, that Android browser isn't dead and statistics should sum up to 100%. First for some other statistics, the worldwide one from StatCounter: Android is still at 6.3%. Yes, in the US part of the world, it's 2.86%, close too what the government site statistics says, on their sites 2.7%. I didn't bother to move the government statistics down, as reverse chronological order is also better and by getting newer statistics for the world they would go above. Possibly the US statistics are redundant, from government sites or otherwise. Still that is not just one site (recently webschools was thrown out on that grounds). A table for each country is too much and singling one out, the US, may not be appropriate. Still an argument for, would be that statistics differ there or in the developed world.. but good luck with defining that. I've added some things on countries in prose, but try to start with continents at least.
It's ok for you to drop by here, but really, this could have also gone to the talk page directly (I read it, not only mine). comp.arch (talk) 15:39, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Reverts in Julia (programming language)[edit]

Please read MOS:HYPHEN, which says that compound modifiers should be hyphenated (this applies to "floating-point types", "SIMD-style registers" and similar). Ranges must use an en dash (that is, "20–30 times"; unless you can find any reliable source saying that "20~30 times" is a commonly accepted notation). Do not use the ™ and ® symbols. What is the purpose of the comma that you put in "...in a package, Decimals.jl."?

Regarding the fear of changing quotations, MOS:QUOTE says: "trivial spelling and typographic errors should simply be corrected without comment", so there is no need to keep silly punctuation (including square brackets instead of parentheses) and stylistical errors. I would also suggest rewriting that list of "main features" to incorporate it into the text and make it more homogeneous ("Call C functions directly", "Powerful shell-like capabilities" and "Designed for parallelism" are not in the same grammatical form) or at least putting its header inside the quote, so that it does not look like just a poor formatting.

Please revert you reverts according to the MOS.

Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 19:33, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Mikhail Ryazanov, about "silly punctuation (including square brackets instead of parentheses)", I put the brackets in to clarify at the same place. I didn't put the list in myself, but at some point I put in the blockquote, becuase that is what it is, a quote. Then I think brackets are more appropriate as the text in is was mine (maybe it's just inappropriate to but it into the list at all..). Maybe I'm wrong. You can revert the blockquote, but then I think this would have to be rewritten, not using their words? While I think "powerful" is completely true, that is something I might have avoided putting in, without a quote. While I did revert you, that is something I do to signal, that I just did revert, but in your case, I didn't revert much, just a small part, but said something more in the edit summary. Feel free to edit, there is no big disagreement. About the hyphens, I guess target articles should use them in their titles, and I was just conflicted about using them unchanged. I'll be sure to look into this soon. comp.arch (talk) 11:55, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Without your explanation about the brackets, it was quite impossible to understand what they actually mean, which is another indication that all this quote needs rewriting... ;–) I've put other punctuation corrections back. The article title "Floating point" is not hyphenated because it is "point" modified by "floating", whereas in "floating-point type" the hyphen is required to indicate that "type" is modified by "floating point" rather than "point type" is modified by "floating" (English is right-associative). — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 04:08, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Hello! Just as an additional explanation, in "floating point" as a noun phrase we have "floating" that serves as an adjective that modifies "type", while in "floating-point type" it is that "floating-point" serves as a compound adjective that, as a whole, modifies "type" and, as such, requires a hyphen to indicate that "floating" modifies "point". Just my two cents. :) — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 04:29, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Thinking about this more, I think the brackets where a mistake, and I see now that a footnote, that I put instead, is even better. About floating-point, that is a redirect but the title doesn't use a hyphen and I guess that may be ok in that case (but also linking to it through the redirect). comp.arch (talk) 09:27, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
The very purpose of the "floating-point" redirect is to be able to link this adjective form easily, as explained in Wikipedia:Redirect#Purposes of redirects. And as WP:NOTBROKEN says further, using the "redirect" [[floating-point]] is better than "direct" [[Floating point|floating-point]]. — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 06:56, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Piping to redirects[edit]

Piping to redirects is pointless. It doesn't matter whether you pipe to Remote code execution or Arbitrary code execution, in the article you still see "remotely exploitable" and you still see the same thing at the target. Linking to redirects, as distinct from piping, is for use when you need to write Bruce Jenner but want to end up at Caitlyn Jenner without wanting to have to pipe. --AussieLegend () 11:47, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hello! While that generally is true, there are exceptions as always. If there's a chance that a redirect is going to be expanded into a separate article (such as with the redirects tagged with {{R with possibilities}}), it's actually better to use a redirect in a piped link. Hope you agree. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 11:53, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
That is true but in this case, it's not likely since remote code execution is simply arbitrary code execution on a remote machine. --AussieLegend () 12:01, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
If you make a Trojan horse then it runs on a "remote" machine from your point of view, to the "user" it is his "local" machine. In that a case "locally exploitable" security hole will do (what arbitrary code execution describes). The even more dangerous security hole is "remotely exploitable". I'm not even sure it should stay at the same article. comp.arch (talk) 12:12, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
@AussieLegend: I really don't know the whole context in which this is used, but remote code execution is a special case of arbitrary code execution, so piping a link using Remote code execution as a redirect should be beneficial. At some point in time, Remote code execution might be turned into a separate article, or, which is more likely, changed into a redirect to a specific section of the Arbitrary code execution article it currently redirects to. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 12:43, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes, could also be a section, good point. Anyway here is the [context. comp.arch (talk) 13:23, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Remote code execution has been a redirect and nothing else since it was created 7 years ago. The likelihood of it ever becoming an article is extremely low.
If you make a Trojan horse then it runs on a "remote" machine from your point of view, to the "user" it is his "local" machine. If you say a machine is "remotely exploitable, it means that a local machine is exploitable from a remote location, but I don't understand where you're going with this. --AussieLegend () 15:43, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
The age of the redirect is a valid argument. Though, remote code execution is a special case of arbitrary code execution, so it shouldn't hurt to pipe a redirect. However, if you really insist on not piping a redirect, I'd be fine with doing it the other way. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 16:09, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Dsimic, it seems you may agree with the piping I did (and content? at least you Aussie) at Windows XP. What I'm thinking (often) when I use redirects, is if the user hovers over a link. I know in this case, it doesn't really add much to see Remote code execution at the bottom of your browser (at least if you know what "remotely exploitable" means.. but then you wouldn't click or hover..). Note also, that hovering only shows "Arbitrary", not "Remote", (and the latter is worse). You actually have to click to see Remote in bold in the lead, and why it is bad. I also wander if I should have linked exploit.. comp.arch (talk) 12:12, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
"It doesn't matter whether you pipe to Remote code execution or Arbitrary code execution, in the article you still see "remotely exploitable" ". If it doesn't matter then why the change? As I said, you do not see by hovering only.. comp.arch (talk) 12:13, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
You actually have to click to see Remote in bold in the lead - Why is that a problem? Why do you need to see "remote" bolded? What does it add? I don't understand this argument.
If it doesn't matter then why the change? I could ask the same thing given this edit, but I've actually already answered this in my opening sentence. It's pointless. Why is seeing the actual article that is being targeted such a problem? --AussieLegend () 15:43, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
This isn't such a big deal to me, but anyway, the target article is for more than one concept, as indicated by more the redirect and bolding in the lead. Hovering over shown only one of those, that actually applies true, but if you do not click you might think the arbitrary part is the main thing. As Dsimic said, the ridirect could point to the more specific thing, if not an actual separate article later. Then I wouldn't have to go back and fix. The one who reverted you last time (not me!) had some pointer about this not being wrong. comp.arch (talk) 18:31, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Laplet[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Laplet. Thanks. ViperSnake151  Talk  15:52, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Byte: The Small Systems Journal[edit]

Regarding this edit, the name of the magazine was Byte: The Small Systems Journal. [11] --bp0 (talk) 17:47, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank You[edit]

I just realised that you had already copied my previous version of that table onto the main article, and reverted by Guy Harris, with "no, that table reflects some weird confused ideas". I am so thankful that you did it, I just realised a bit too late. It does not really matter! I have made three different versions of that table on talk page of Talk:OS X, if you are interested in, then I wish you get involved into it! So many thanks in advance!

Best Regards,

Aaron Janagewen

P.S.

On 7th of November, 2015, the tables mentioned above have already done by me. I know there are much room to improve it, but I think it is already to take place the table in the main article. If you think it worthy, then pick up your favourite one, improve and replace. Thank you in advance!

Best Regards,

 Done

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 17:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

This is the first time I see this and "may nominate themselves", I'm not sure if I "should".. Or about voting for others, I see no names I know, anyone I know have been involved in this or any other role? I might vote for you, for this or otherwise if I knew of your role.. comp.arch (talk) 11:59, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

RFC notice[edit]

As someone interested in the List of ministers of the Universal Life Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), I thought I'd let you know an RFC has been started over reliable sources. Please join in Talk:List_of_ministers_of_the_Universal_Life_Church#RFC:_Reliable_sources here. Me-123567-Me (talk) 23:20, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Display resolutions at Surface Pro 3[edit]

My edit summary was truncated, so I'll clarify here.

First, per WP:COMMONMATH, lowercase unspaced "x" is permitted for specific uses, which by existing consensus includes display resolutions. On the other hand, unspaced "×" is explicitly forbidden (binary operators need to be spaced on both sides, as well as accompanied by units). Of course, since display resolutions aren't multiplication operations, there's no actual reason to prefer the "×" sign.

Secondly, per WP:BRD you should not redo an edit that was reverted, even if partially. Instead, discuss the issue on the applicable talk page. I've actually been involved in several discussions about this issue in multiple articles, and have repeatedly suggested that someone take this to WT:MOSDATE if they want to change the style guidelines, but so far no one has done so. If you want to be the first one, by all means go ahead.

Regards, Indrek (talk) 17:47, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I may be in the wrong on this. I see "However, an unspaced x may be used as a substitute for "by" in common terms such as 4x4." that isn't strictly saying you should use x(?). It would be best if the MOS where clear either way as I've "corrected" a lot.. Yes, BRD is good, revert (w/edit summary) gets the point across (both ways), in this case a minor thing between the two of us, and maybe nobody else needs to be involved..? comp.arch (talk) 17:52, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
You're right in that the MOS doesn't specifically mandate "x". And yes, the language could certainly be more specific. There's been at least one discussion where it was suggested to explicitly allow or disallow "x" for resolutions, but if I recall correctly the idea was shot down as not worth the effort. Which is perhaps fair - the difference between "x" vs. "×" is certainly minor and doesn't really affect readability. For that reason I've decided not to go out of my way to change articles from one style to another, so long as they stick to one of them consistently (including the technically disallowed unspaced "×"). I do revert blanket changes that I come across, though, if they're away from a MOS-accepted style (even if the new style is also accepted, as such edits are explicitly forbidden).
As for the current case, I would suggest that this minor thing, as you put it, is not worth more of our time. If you disagree and do want to debate further, though, I would still recommend taking it to WT:MOSDATE, as this affects many articles on Wikipedia. In any case, let me know how you wish to proceed. Indrek (talk) 21:22, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Not taking sides, just keeping status quo at unrelated, with ×, film article Full-frame digital SLR. comp.arch (talk) 13:14, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Operating system as a service[edit]

Hi.

Regarding your contribution to Windows 10 article, for a long time now, Microsoft had a software as a service method of income called Microsoft Software Assurance (MS-SA). It is a business model in which Microsoft signs a MS-SA contract with a business and during the contract period, it provides services such as technical support, updates and upgrade in exchange for monthly payment. It provides service in the form of giving software, so software as a service. Exclusive software are distributed as part of this program, like Microsoft Desktop Optimization Pack.

This existed even before Windows 10, since before Windows 2000, as far as I remember. But with Windows 10 software as a service is now provided outside SA too, e.g. as part of the Windows Insider program, as part of OEM agreements and to some extents, as part of the retail sale (which is minuscule).

Oh, look! My notification light turned on! It must be you calling me. (My best guess.)

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 09:36, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Inflation in Interstate Highway System[edit]

There is a very basic reason why I made the changes that I did. First, as you guessed, is that I'm following what the source says. It gives the value in 2003 dollars, so that's what we have to start with. We don't know how they derived that figure, so we can't de-inflate it accurately back to 1956 dollars. They could have inflated actual expenditures from 1956 to 2003, actual expenditures from 1957 to 2003, actual expenditures from 1958... and so on until they had a total in a single year's dollars.

There are two methods in {{inflation}} for handling inflation conversions of US dollars. The base US works off the Consumer Price Index, and it's best for dealing with consumer-level prices. For larger dollar amounts, the economists say we should be using a different index, and we have US-NGDPPC, which is the National Gross Domestic Product per capita. The CPI lags behind only a year or so, but the NGDPPC index has approximately an 18-month lag. Normally I update it for the newest data set on Tax Day, April 15. When I make that update this year, the article will update to 2014 dollars and it will display the updated year. Unless the government starts releasing those datasets faster though, we can't reduce the gap between year displayed and the current year, not even for CPI-based figures. Imzadi 1979  22:22, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 11[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rock Bottom Remainders, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Runaway. 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) 11:19, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

If anyoe can help with this please do.. I do not know the right song, so intentionally linked to the disambiguation page. comp.arch (talk) 10:18, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Cuba date format[edit]

Saw your recent edit on Constitution of Cuba. I've long wondered what format to use for Cuba entries and I've just recently settled on DMY based on the style used by the news agency of the Cuban government, as seen here. I've modified Constitution of Cuba, most of which is my work. Cheers. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 19:32, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Bmclaughlin9, while you're at it you could maybe add to Date format by country. Since Cuba is one, I was a little puzzled why it's not listed. Yes, I believe DMY is (only(?)) used, could maybe have changed under WP:STRONGNAT, just didn't as first use seemed not DMY, and sometimes main authors may not like changes.. comp.arch (talk) 19:53, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Added. I've been finding the Cuban WP entries wildly inconsistent as to date and not monitored by many editors. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 20:28, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

{{Cite news}} vs. {{Cite web}}[edit]

Hello

How do you do?

There are a couple of things I feel I should let you know. First, there is a full article titled theguardian.com. If you don't believe me, click on this link.

Second, effective 2014, it is no longer justifiable to use {{Cite news}} for web material because now {{Cite web}} supports all the parameters that {{Cite news}} has. {{Cite news}} should now be only used for offline news sources. Do you know why?

When I first came to Wikipedia, I nominated an article in WP:FAC. Featured Articles have one devilishly simple requirement: Citation style must be consistent. This requirement has always caused articles that used a mixture of {{Cite web}} and {{Cite news}} for web resources to fail because in reality, {{Cite news}} is nothing more than a slightly different {{Cite web}}. So, an article must use only one of them. Really, there is no magic in either of them. Just an FA-failing difference.

If there is anything else you need to know, please let me know. Also, please feel free to visit User:Codename Lisa/Websites and their publishers.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 12:39, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not fine anymore! :)
I must rethink, my use of "cite news".. Wasn't aware of this ("justifiable", as if it is documented, it is well hidden.. and contradicts Template:Cite_news#URL) or really that they have different citation styles.. Thinking about it more, there must have been a reason to have both. Even if you are right, it seems you run into trouble if an "offline news source" happens to be added later. "cite press" of course has a visible difference, and I assume is still ok.. comp.arch (talk) 13:32, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Believe it or not, discovering it was overwhelming for me too. I was in the middle of a brutal FA nomination and it only got more brutal. To make the matter worse, it landed on me in a time when they were actually different and using both was justifiable. Only, not FA justifiable. (I even got hospitalized during one of those nominations.) They really used to be different. Different people had written them and they had zero idea about what is citation style. There was |issue=, |number= and |agency= in one and not in the other. (I forgot which.)
I went ahead and added the difference to their documentation pages. Waiting for the hammers to fall...
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 13:41, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Mersenne Twister/Sandbox[edit]

Hello. Unforunately, subpages have been disabled in main article space on English Wikipedia. So I've moved your draft to User:Comp.arch/Mersenne Twister so it won't get deleted. Thanks, OnionRing (talk) 14:04, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Dingoo[edit]

My bad, I was actually reading the section on the Dingoo OS before but somehow missed it and only saw Linux (easy, considering I only know one who has it and he's porting games to the Dingux Linux distribution). I was curious about how much one million would be in percentage and used the amount of sold units of the mentioned consoles and got about 0.3 %, that really is not significant, though of course giving it a plain 0 (I'm fine with that) but then percentages with two digits after the decimal point when in reality they are not counting any other consoles because they can't, is kind of silly. -- Lightkey (talk) 19:00, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Lightkey, I never heard of this computer (or Pyra), and all small or old computers are intriguing. Still, it has 32 MB so I it wouldn't have gained much market share.. Even if not discontinued, but since it is, I'm not bothered too much as it's not really unfair to anyone.. comp.arch (talk) 19:21, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
I don't know where the amount of RAM comes into play. If it had more RAM, it would have cost more and the price point (you could get it for $70) was the major selling point that made it as popular as it was without any advertising. Just to remind you, when it came out, the Nintendo DS was still the current hardware with all of 4 MB RAM. -- Lightkey (talk) 19:39, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
As I said, it's discontinued, but yes you can do a lot with 32 MB or even kilobytes, I just meant 32 MB is low now and not competitive, compared to e.g. 256 MB of Nintendo 3DS, the current variant. And $70 is also high, compared to Android smartphones you could get. 128 MB was I believe the minimum there, then 256 MB, and I doubt you can get smaller RAM chips anymore, so those bigger chips are not at a cost disadvantage. comp.arch (talk) 20:17, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
You keep comparing with current hardware when you said "wouldn't have" (meaning at the time of release), of course either the price would have dropped or the specifications updated if it was continued now, seven years later. Also smartphones have very simple cases and are thus cheaper to produce, not really fair to compare. -- Lightkey (talk) 04:09, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Cases are what, plastic? Smartphones (especially the more expensive ones) are some of the most advanced technology in the universe. That they are cheap, doesn't have much to do with fair, more just economy of scale. Anyway they didn't keep producing Dingoo (in more advanced versions and/or cheaper), so that discussion is moot. comp.arch (talk) 11:11, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
I like that you keep bringing up examples that have nothing to do with the discussion. Anyway, at least I can concur with the last sentence, it's moot to compare its features with current hardware (I haven't heard of $70 smartphones in 2009), my point all along. -- Lightkey (talk) 08:14, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
I realize the situations back then, and that things could have evolved differently to the present. I'm not sure what the point of the discussion is. I never edited Dingoo and I think, you where ok with my other edits. We can go on, if continuing the discussion is helpful for either of us. comp.arch (talk) 14:11, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Also thanks for tidying up DragonBox Pyra, though I didn't quite understand the explanation for removing smartphone functionality. "Not a [[, and a [[smartphone]]", what is missing there? Did you mean VoIP when you wrote VIOP? Were you talking about the Pandora there or the Pyra? -- Lightkey (talk) 04:14, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes, a typo for VoIP (and extra "[["). Unless I'm mistaken, it doesn't have (all the) phone hardware. [By coincidence I'm looking just now at libimobiledevice6 ("Library for communicating with the iPhone and iPod Touch"). I would guess that library has no separate functionality to access the iPhone (uses the "computer" part of it).] iPod was different but then came iPhone and later a cut-down version iPod Touch that is the same in every way except for the phone hardware and then not a smartphone. Similarily, being able to run Android is not enough to be called a smartphone, not Android is for for e.g. TVs without that hardware. At some point this perspective will get outdated, IPv6 is now used in all newer phones behind the scenes (and no circuit switching or later related telephone tech) so a phone number and the hardware for it (and usually a SIM card) may not be considered the defining factor someday in the future. Smartphone vs tablet (those are not "phones", but bigger and better in every way, also have most (or all?) of the same communication hardware and a "phone number") is also mostly arbitrary distinction. [In the end desktop vs. smartphones will also be arbitrary.] comp.arch (talk) 11:11, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the lengthy explanations. Just to clarify, the question is not whether it's a smartphone but whether it has its functionality, so most of it was irrelevant. I added it back since it does have a proper all-in-one phone chip in the mobile edition which costs as much as one of those cheap smartphones. -- Lightkey (talk) 08:14, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

South Africa central bank[edit]

I think I've fixed it diff. How do you like it? Triplecaña (talk) 09:17, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Dhrystone on ARMv8[edit]

I see you reverted some IP's removal of the Dhrystone comment on the Comparison of ARMv8-A cores article. I agree it should be somewhere, but probably not on a page discussing hardware specs. It might be more relevant to discuss removing the Dhrystone metric entirely. I am starting a discussion on the talk page related to this. Dbsseven (talk) 21:23, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

It probably gives some indication of the speed of the microarchitecture, some, even misleading info, given a disclaimer, seems better than no info.. comp.arch (talk) 09:14, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Revert of your revert[edit]

Hello comp.arch!

I just reverted your revert on the CentOS page. Let me clarify.

In this sentence, there were two usages of the article "the". Quote:

 they work as part of the Red Hat's Open Source and Standards team, which operates separately from the Red Hat Enterprise Linux team.

The first "the" is not correct here, since one has already "Red Hat's" in front of the team's name. One could say the Open Source and Standards team [at Red Hat], but not "the Red Hat's ... team". I'm not exactly sure what the grammatical rule here is, so I cannot provide you with any link, but I think it's because you ask "whose team? Red Hat's". In the second half of the sentence, the "the" is by the way correct since "Red Hat Enterprise Linux" is a name, while "Red Hat's ... team" just showed that this team belongs to Red Hat and hence "Red Hat" is not part of the team's name.

If you've got any more remarks on this, please let me know before any further revert. Cheers! --Shurakai (talk) 20:03, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Z1 Android Watch-Phone for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Z1 Android Watch-Phone is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Z1 Android Watch-Phone until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Daylen (talk) 17:12, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

License of RISC OS[edit]

The problem is that shared source is an article only about Microsoft licenses and that is completely not applicable. And it is the license used for RISC OS is a kind of dual-license. --Egel Reaction? 11:25, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but but not "only", see shared source (should not be upper case) "is an umbrella term covering some of Microsoft's legal mechanisms for software source code distribution." [I do not think it needs to cover them only, even if they coined the term, that article could also be changed to reflect that] I can go with not linking to shared source, but really the concept is the same (and I think RISC OS got that idea from them). I find it similar to linking to OSI (or open source), when that applies, say you made software under the MIT License (or " "Expat License" (used for Expat)[10] or to the "X11 License" (also called "MIT/X Consortium License"), it doesn't imply you have anything to do with MIT, the university. comp.arch (talk) 11:49, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Special:Diff/745296687[edit]

Information icon Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the page Windows Vista has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. Please use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did, and feel free to use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do. Thank you. 80.221.159.67 (talk) 07:39, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

80.221.159.67 (and CodenameLisa), I believe this templated text you put here is in error. I did have an edit summary, an appropriate one, I believe. Maybe you meant to comment on someone else (not sure if there's a feature that does this thruogh the user interface for you..)? comp.arch (talk) 11:17, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

U.S. not US[edit]

Hi Comp.arch. As per the comment you made in the energy efficiency template for electric cars, please check MOS:US. In American English you use U.S. not US. In addition, the article is about ratings from a U.S. agency, so U.S. is just fine. Cheers.--Mariordo (talk) 18:17, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

"you use U.S. not US", it doesn't actually say that (and that template may be American English; but used in a lot of articles); yes it says "dominant" but then "The Chicago Manual of Style (16th ed.), now deprecates U.S. and prefers US (without periods). US is more common in most other national forms of English. [..] that incorporate the country's initials (USN, USAF), do not use periods. When the United States is mentioned with one or more other countries in the same sentence, U.S. or US may be too informal". That is often a problem, when you wan to say "US and UK" in same sentence or article. MOS:NOTUSA redirecets to the same section that only disallows USA; in fact is named "US and U.S." e.g. either (both?) is allowed. comp.arch (talk) 14:43, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Comp.arch. 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)

When did Firefox support for Android 4.0-4.0.2 end?[edit]

I'm getting confused. According to this link here, Firefox requires Android 4.0.3 or later, but in both links, the system requirements for Firefox are only Android 4.0 and above. If this is confusing, then when did Firefox support for Android 4.0-4.0.2 end? --Angeldeb82 (talk) 20:42, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure when exactly. Version x.y.z is a x=major, y=minor, z=even more minor.. At some point they've required 4.0.3 (assumed since they say so). I'm guessing the others 4.0 are just not specific, and shouldn't be taken as 4.0.0. [This doesn't matter to most people, I guess all have the update to 4.0.3 by now, so nobody is thinking of updating, slightly "outdated" info. Maybe I shouldn't have updated WP; it just seemed more accurate was ok..] comp.arch (talk) 21:13, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

"Octal machine"[edit]

If this term is used in relation to the PDP-11 (it doesn't seem to be used inside PDP-11 architecture), it means simply that some of the fields of the instruction are groups of three bits. There is nothing about those instructions that especially tailors the PDP-11 to operate on groups of three bits. (If you want to, it is trivial to isolate such a group, and easy to get them into the low-order position of a byte or a word to operate on them.) Spike-from-NH (talk) 21:21, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, like I thought a misleading misnomer. comp.arch (talk) 21:44, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Replicant COI (Conflict of interest)[edit]

Hi,

Since I only corrected facts and did minor edits on this article, it doesn't constitute a real world example of how to do it properly. I can still describe my general approach though. In the following conflict of interests and neutrality are often mixed together because in this context they can't really be set apart from each other.

  • I gave information on me that is relevant to conflicts of interest on my user page. It might not be totally up to date but it gives a pretty good picture of the projects I contribute to.
  • Describing the change in the edit summary might also help explaining the reason, which will show that it's not done to personally benefit from it at the detriment of the readers.
  • I try, when possible, to stick to facts.
  • Sticking to facts also helps with neutrality: In general, I noticed that Wikipedia has a very specific writing style that is probably the result of its neutrality: If you look at the articles on heavily controverted politicians like this one, you can see that, at the time of writing, that part of the article sticks with facts. It often looks like that: <The politician> has been accused of <something awful> By <a list of named journalists with precise reference to the accusation> or <by a court and has not been condemned> and he responded that: <the illogical response he gave with the reference to the citation>. Here it only presents facts.
  • I try to avoid presenting things that I can't back with facts and judgements. I will avoid telling that "People tend to prefer Android to I/OS" if I can't back it somehow. Even if it is a honest opinion, and that it is not biased by my involvement in free software, it might be biased by other things such as:
    • The wold that I live in (Europe), in other parts of the world, the opposite might be true, but if I don't have any information on the other part of the world, I won't be able to tell. In that case I might instead tell that "In a study<reference> conducted in France, it was found that people tend to prefer the Android interface over the IOS one". The relevance of such information also needs to be taken into account, it might or might not apply depending on the context of the article or the section that is being modified.
    • People living in a specific community like the free software community or heavily using some network services with a Filter_bubble might also have a very strong bias. The free software community started to identify and address many of its bias recently 1. There are several presentations at the Libreplanet conferences that describe and show how to address such biases.

GNUtoo(my point of views(for npov)) | talk 22:30, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! I had long forgotten my question from almost one and a half years ago (that I guess prompted this). First I thought I might have done something wrong. :) comp.arch (talk) 15:35, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Comp.arch![edit]

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

   +       

Links capitalization[edit]

I have not found any section of WP:MOS that explains explicitly how links must be capitalised. But the standard practice is to capitalize when the link refers to the article, and to not capitalize when it refers to the topic of the article. Typically: "For the definition of a sequence, see Sequence." You can convince yourself by reading most good WP articles.

Most of your other edits on sequence consist in adding blank lines before and after displayed formulas. This makes reading the source more difficult, as the paragraph structure is lost. In fact, a displayed formula belongs to a sentence; if blank lines are systematically added before and after every formula, it result that the limits between paragraphs are unclear, and the place where one wants to edit more difficult to find. Moreover, when checking other user edits, the diff presents the modified paragraph and the two neighbour paragraphs. When formulas are separated with blank lines, it results that, often, very few text is displayed in the diff, which makes difficult to use ctrl F for finding the place of the edit in the article. So, please do not do changes that do not change rendering, and may be time consuming for others. D.Lazard (talk) 16:35, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I just know about: MOS:CAPS: "Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization" and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking#Section links (not I just changed latter, lower cased just conservatively, possibly more should be lower cased). For, e.g. "See also:".. then I'm not sure if upper case should follow, yes it's commonly done.., maybe incorrectly, or it should follow because of the colon, and NOT otherwise. comp.arch (talk) 17:47, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
In MOS:TITLE#Capital letters: "However, for names of Wikipedia articles and of section headings in articles and pages, generally only the first word and all proper names are capitalized in titles". This seems clear, even if the syntax is not (I have corrected it). D.Lazard (talk) 18:16, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
No, this page and rule is (only) when you name the article themselves (and you by default can't have first letter lower case), and e.g. iPad and eBay are exceptions (that need the lowercase template, for technical reasons). E.g. generally proper and non-proper nouns are upper case in the actual titles, but you like to coordinate system and Cartesian coordinate system differently. comp.arch (talk) 18:42, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Nissan Leaf GA reassessment[edit]

Nissan Leaf, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:25, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 31[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Free Lossless Image Format, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page PNG. 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) 10:40, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

An AfD entry in need of attention[edit]

Hi.

There is an AfD entry on a software product that I opened a long time ago, but it has received zero responses so far (apparently due to a glitch). I was wondering if you'd be interested in taking a look at it. This discussion is at:

Thanks

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 12:13, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Aside from what you say about it, is this useful software, or no good reason to include (with maybe changed text)? I admit, I hadn't heard of it, and "Apache" is interesting in the name, seems it's for Apache (then ok? and not against their trademark policy? Not sure about their's, but e.g. "Ubuntu[tool]" wouldn't be..). I'm inclusive at least on including math (something that has proofs; less so for physics, but kind of like all candidate theories documented). About someone selling something, I lean against, but for open source, at least it passes WP:V by existing. comp.arch (talk) 14:42, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

A/UX didn't evolve into macOS[edit]

Hey, I've just edited A/UX and noticed that I reverted this edit of yours. So I figured I'd explain my reasoning here, but feel free to move this to Talk:A/UX if you wish.

I sincerely doubt anyone is going to confuse A/UX for anything recent, and I don't see any other reason to have this information in the lead. It seems trivial here. —151.132.206.26 (talk) 18:58, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

And you reverted while I was typing that, ha. That's fine. —151.132.206.26 (talk) 18:58, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Groove Music Pass[edit]

Hi.

Thanks for understanding. Just wanted to give you a heads up as to what has changed. According to "Groove Music and Spotify: FAQ". Support (13 ed.). Microsoft. 13 October 2013. Retrieved 22 October 2017. :

I’m not a Groove Music Pass subscriber. How does this affect me?

Nothing will change for you. You can continue to play your local, OneDrive, or purchased content that you have downloaded to your devices through the built-in Groove Music app. If you want access to tens of millions of streaming songs at no cost, you can try Spotify anytime with Spotify’s free offering.

Microsoft is replacing the Music Pass with Spotify.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 12:37, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Right, I knew about Spotify and the deal with Microsoft. My understanding is that (at least) from beginning of next year Groove is completely gone. I'm in no hurry to get rid of the trivia, to me Groove is an app and we need not mention any on WIndows 10, as not part of the OS?