User talk:Kubanczyk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
  • Please continue any conversation where it was started.
Thus if I have left a message on your talk page please DO NOT post a reply here (and vice versa).
I will have your talk page on watch and will note when you have replied.
  • To initiate a conversation, please use the above new section button to start your section at the end of page. Please continue the conversation under its header.


OS Development Wikiproject proposal[edit]

Just to add something else to your talk page. I have just put a proposal for a wikiproject on OS development, see

Wondering if you'd interested?


Jatos 09:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

No sorry, presently I feel I rather need to quit wikipedia. --Kubanczyk 09:18, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Ok, np. Still, if you know anyone who might interested, couldn't point them in my direction please? Jatos 20:26, 7 October 2007 (UTC)



I noticed you've been editing the wikipedia article on memory segmentation. See as your editing as the same time as me, i'll let you know I am going to be making a few edits to paging.

Jatos 21:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Go on then, I'm tired anyway, going to finish work tomorrow. --Kubanczyk 21:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Ok. I have finished the editing on paging for now. If you get a chance, would you be able to look at my edits to see if theres anything you need changing? I made several edits including some removal of inaccuracies and general making some info clear. Also somebody largely said that paging is used seperating processes, well it can be but it isn't always. Personally, I wouldn't use the methods that where mentioned to write an OS, though thats not entirely related to the article.
Also, do you have IM? I use MSN, AIM, Yahoo, GTalk, Jabber and Skype. If your ok with giving me your IMs, you can email them to me as to avoid posting these publically on your talk page.
Anyway, I am off to bed, tired as well.
Thanks, Jamie
Jatos 22:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Your help[edit]

Not at all, Kubanczyk - and as I've just noticed, since you seem to have arrived recently, welcome to Wikipedia! I think your comments are helpful, and maybe I could title the page Dominance and monopoly law? It's also a matter of trying to set it up with the law on mergers and acquisitions and that on collusion and cartels - but maybe they could all follow the format of that in the first...

Enough said, glad to have your input. Happy editting! Wikidea 12:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Glad to read that. Now I see your article was an elevated section (a split) of Competition law and the title was copied from the section title. Not a best naming practice, I must say. See my edit, eventually move the page :) --Kubanczyk 20:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

About mod to 3705 comm ctrl[edit]

You state that the 3705 is the *first* comm ctrl, etc..

However, the 3705 was preceded by the 3704 and prior to that, by 2701 and 2703 which can also be viewed as communication controller front ends..

Just curious..


Ivan Scott Warren 22:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not my statement. Any changes I did were cleanup/merge. Can't remeber the details. My knowledge about 3705 is close to zero, so any such statements would be probably because of my mistake or misunderstanding. Feel free to correct. --Kubanczyk 06:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I am not sure about this, but I thought the 3705 came first, and the 3704 was the reduced price version. I might say that the 2701 isn't a controller, as it doesn't do any controlling. In modern terms, it is dumb. The 3705 has a processor and software, but for the 2701 all processing is done on the host. Gah4 (talk) 17:02, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Editprotected on {{disambig}}[edit]

There's an editrequested request on {{disambig}} based on a discussion you were part of; you may want to comment on Template talk:Disambig#Admin action requested. --ais523 11:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the info! --Kubanczyk 14:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

History of IBM mainframe operating systems[edit]

Sorry to hear you don't like the way the structure of History of IBM mainframe operating systems is developing - and we (naively?) thought we had agreed it.

Of course you're free to edit - any one is, and you're part of the "project".

I think from now on we should discuss this in Talk:History of IBM mainframe operating systems: it should be public; we can't keep using Talk:MVS, as that would impede people who only want to discuss MVS, and would lead to both MVS-specific discussions and the wider ones being archived because Talk:MVS would grow very quickly. So I've copied all the "rewrite" discussion to Talk:History of IBM mainframe operating systems and pointed this out in Talk:MVS.

I've posted in Talk:History of IBM mainframe operating systems an explanation of the current structure so it's public - please reply there.Philcha 12:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect edit[edit]

I left feedback to your inquiry here: [Link]

Thanks for removing the dispute of SMP[edit]

I wanted to thank you for removing the disputed tag off of SMP. I have hoped I have addressed any controversy, and covered all the bases for now. Not that it will ever come up again, but at least for now, I can start further work on the article to bring it along so that it no longer is a 'requires cleanup' article. Thanks! 06:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

No problem, I generally tend to remove any "stalled" tags. I treat tags as a normal article content, so if they violate Wikipedia criteria of verifiability or notability—bye bye! --Kubanczyk 07:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

History of IBM mainframe operating systems - where next?[edit]

I've added as much as I think is sensible, and we need to decide where to go next - see Talk:History of IBM mainframe operating systems . Philcha (talk) 17:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Merging into OS/360 and successors[edit]

Hi. I'm surprised you oppose merging OS/VS1 into OS/360 and successors. Our objective in starting the restructure of articles about IBM mainframe OSs was to reduce duplication. OS/360 and successors already presents more info about OS/VS1 but concisely, because it builds on the info about MFT. The same will be true for merging in MVS etc., except that I currently expect to keep a separate article about z/OS because it's the current member of the OS/360 lineage.

I think Wikipedia:Summary Style is more relevant to topics that are common to multiple lineages, e.g. VSAM and SNA in the OS/360, DOS/360 and VM lineages. I suspect these topics should be part of articles "IBM mainframe file access methods" and "IBM data communications facilities". I know this is not exactly what we discussed in Talk: History of IBM mainframe operating systems, at that stage we didn't know that OS/360 and successors would be able to give so much info so concisely.

I think "DOS/360 and successors" should go the same way. At present I'm less sure about the article on IBM virtual machine and timesharing OSs, because the pre-VM/370 history is fairly complex. From VM/370 onwards I expect it to be fairly simple.

By the way, why is Philcha in your list of "links to check if I'm bored"? Philcha (talk) 09:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

"I'm surprised you oppose merging" - well don't be, I provided some clear reasons. I think Wikipedia:Summary style applies perfectly; if you read it, there is a guideline there when it is advisable to use it.
I'm not opposing of "cutting some fat" from those articles, to reduce the duplication almost to zero; in fact I support it. But most notable operating systems should have their own articles—maybe short ones, maybe even {{stub}}s. There are many MVS links spread over Wikipedia, if a user clicks it he expects a quick explanation first, he does not usually want to read a whole history starting from 1966 just to answer "what the heck is this MVS?".
"why ... links to check if I'm bored" - well, it seems like you write some interesting texts from time to time :)) Definately not because I want to stalk you! If I seem to be picky sometimes, this is because I have mainly WP improvement on my mind. --Kubanczyk (talk) 11:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I also have mainly WP improvement on my mind. OS/360 and successors presents comprehensive information very concisely because each new section builds on a previous one, and it also enables a reader to see what were the main differences between adjacent members of the lineage. The article's TOC will guide a reader who simply wants to know what was different about e.g. MVS/ESA. A separate article about some version of MVS would either: (a) just state the differences, in which case it would be marked as a stub with an invitation to expand it (duplicating content) and would not help a reader with no knowledge of previous versions; or (b) it would be about the size of the current MVS article, with most of its content duplicated elsewhere. Philcha (talk) 18:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Re merging MVS, etc. into OS/360 and successors can you think of any other sources besides the ones I've listed in Talk:OS/360 and successors#Merge with MVS?

  • If you can, please add them to my notes.
  • If not, I think we need to decide whether we should treat MVS... a long history and subsequernt pages as a reliable source - both technically and in terms of permanence.
    • If we treat it as a reliable source, I think it has enough material for MVS to stay separate, but I'd then merge all the later MVS versions including OS/390 into MVS.
    • If we don't treat MVS... a long history etc. as a reliable source, we have a problem since I've found very little citable material. So either:
      • We use the material anyway and hope someone else can find good sources. In this case I'd keep MVS separate, but merge all the later MVS versions including OS/390 into MVS.
      • We say only what we can support by citations, in which case there's so little that I'd want to merrge MVS etc. into OS/360 and successors. Philcha (talk) 08:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I need some time to think about the sources... Certainly the author of the MVS... a long history put some tought into researching his own sources. I don't know. --Kubanczyk (talk) 22:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi, have you reached a conclusion about whether we should cite MVS... a long history? As far as I can see that's the key to whether we should merge MVS and articles about its successors (excluding z/OS until that is replaced) into OS/360 and successors. Without it I don't think there's enough usable material about MVS etc. to justify separate articles because even IBM's site seems to have taken offline or thoroughly hidden anything we'd want to cite. And I'm reluctant to start on DOS/360 etc. or VM/370 etc. until the OS/360 etc. situation is resolved. I suggest we discuss this on our Talk pages. I look forward to hearing from you soon. Philcha (talk) 13:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Nice to see that you're back. Hope you had a good Christmas and New Year. We need to make some progress with History of IBM Mainframs OSs project. I've asked for some other input on how far we we can merge all the articles on OS variants (including MVS and successors), but I's still like to hear from you about it. Philcha (talk) 17:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Nah, I'm not really back, just fooling around. Please don't expect any serious contributions from me in the foreseeable future :)) --Kubanczyk (talk) 21:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I see you're happy to use DOS/360 and successors to cover that lineage (except probably keeping a separate article for z/VSE). Have you reached a conclusion about whether we should cite MVS... a long history? As far as I can see that's the key to whether we should merge MVS and articles about its successors (excluding z/OS until that is replaced) into OS/360 and successors. Philcha (talk) 13:37, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello, Philcha. No, I've only quickly merged DOS/VS, because it contained only little meaningful content. I think we can use "MVS a long history", but with a bit of reserve. This is not a well-established source, it's just the readily available one. Btw. I still oppose complete merge of MVS (etc...) into OS/360 and successors, for reasons already mentioned. --Kubanczyk (talk) 07:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
We agree that MVS... a long history is "not a well-established source, it's just the readily available one" (although it looks like it's written by a very competent person). Meanwhile rationilising the IBM mainframe OS articles has stalled because of the merger issue. I think we should invite comments from Wikipedia:WikiProject Computing, and am doing that now. Philcha (talk) 08:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Nice. I (still) have all the relevant talk pages in my watchlist, so see you there. --Kubanczyk (talk) 09:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

paging and swapping[edit]

The point of the edit was to make that distinction early on (it is sometime incorrectly called swapping) without being preachy, and to provide a very brief explanation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, but this was discussed earlier, see talk page. The word "swapping" means a special kind of paging on *some* systems. On other systems it isn't. --Kubanczyk (talk) 21:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I guess my roots are showing; VM/CMS, paging OK, swapping BAD. -- (talk) 18:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I see. On Unix-like terminology is: paging = swapping + disk_IO_caching --Kubanczyk (talk) 18:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

For the PDP-10, the KA-10 does swapping of whole segments, (there are two per task), where later models page appropriate fixed sized units. Protected mode 80286 allows swapping of segments (1 to 65536 bytes), while the 80386 adds, in addition, paging. Where it matters, paging is usually fixed size, where swapping isn't. And the paging file is sometimes called swap. Gah4 (talk) 20:53, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Neologism template[edit]

Responded! Thanks. asenine t/c 13:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


Thanks for helping out with the goregrind article. Kameejl (Talk) 14:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

My notes[edit]

Important to fix:

To monitor:

If a guideline needs a fix, consult:

Move/copy to gaming wiki[edit]

Moved this conversation to Template talk:Copy to gaming wiki --Kubanczyk (talk) 16:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Types of companies[edit]

Please would you explain why you removed Industrial and Provident Society from Category:Types of companies? You replaced that with Category:Business organizations which I don't think is appropriate at all. - Fayenatic (talk) 08:42, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

My mistake! --Kubanczyk (talk) 09:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Transwiki template[edit]

If you don't think {{Transwiki}} should be used, perhaps you should take it to TFD. Personally I think it's much more useful that a generic prod, seeing as how WP:DICT has already been outlined and enforced through the copying process itself. Thoughts? --Closedmouth (talk) 15:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

What is so useful about it, comparing to {{prod}}? Am I missing something? It seems much less automated, less informative and less maintained than {{prod}}. A huge disadvantage is that it provides "transwikied" as a reason for deletion which is wrong. This is not a criterium for deleting article. An article may be deleted because it cannot be expanded beyond dictionary definition, or is original research, is unencyclopedic, etc. But completion of transwiki is not an argument for deletion. So, why use two separate templates if one is sufficient? TfD is not an option, as I don't want to break existing articles. --Kubanczyk (talk) 16:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia template help and guideline pages[edit]

Hi Kubanczyk! I saw today that you are doing lots of good clean-up and fixes to template related "Wikipedia:" pages. Thanks a lot! It is very much needed!

I also saw that you asked about some things over at Wikipedia talk:Navigational templates#Right-side templates to which I had the answer. Since you are probably also fixing such pages I am not watching, feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you need a second opinion on something. That is, link me to the public discussion on a "Wikipedia talk:" page. I prefer public discussions since then we can sometimes get more input from other editors and our conclusions will be available for future editors of those pages.

--David Göthberg (talk) 23:07, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Great, nice to meet you. I'll notify you as often as my weak memory allows. --Kubanczyk (talk) 08:13, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

CENT conclusions[edit]

I've stumbled upon Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Conclusions, and my first thought was to make it {{historical}}. But, I've noticed you are a single person still updating it, so I would like to ask: why? Conclusions will be always looked upon on the original talk pages anyway, nobody will search in a such well-hidden place. --Kubanczyk (talk) 19:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, the page is there more with the intention of having a link to the old pages that have been taken off {{cent}}. It doesn't particularly need to include conclusions, but if someone wants to make a new centralized discussion topic and can see that a previous discussion of the same topic failed, they might be able to save their time. Stifle (talk) 10:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I had no idea the Conclusions page existed. It seems like a good idea! EdJohnston (talk) 14:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
It seems obvious that when anyone adds anything to WP:CENT they first should check the Talk page and archives, it is unlikely that they look at Conclusions page because (a) hard to find (b) the conclusions can be safely assumed as outdated, because no synchronization is kept with the primary source. If you insist on keeping it for archival reasons, I would suggest naming it Archive instead of Conclusions. This would be the obvious name. --Kubanczyk (talk) 11:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Just my personal observation, but the postings on CENT often appear to be well-intentioned but a waste of time, since these discussions are often long and inconclusive. Having a 'scoresheet' that shows that some of them have a good outcome might be a positive thing. EdJohnston (talk) 16:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I think I can agree with that, Ed. Kubanczyk, feel free to move the page or nominate it for MFD. Stifle (talk) 09:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Reverting edits[edit]

On User talk:Bobo192, Kubanczyk said:
Hi, when reverting vandalism could you mark edit as non-minor? This helps, because some users configure watchlists to filter minor edits. Nevertheless, you are doing a good job here - thanks.

Hi there. I'm afraid if I directly use the revert link, it automatically marks my edit as minor - there's not much I can do about that save for installing TWINKLE where I can configure a markeditasminor string of some description. Sorry. If there are any problems please let me know and I will attempt to fix them. Bobo. 12:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Supplement at P&G page[edit]

While I agree that policy should be implemented through rigorous application of the consensus process, I also believe that they should reflect practice. While I don't support the supplement tag or concept, the tag has been "approved" and is in use. Therefore it seems that it must be described at the policy page just like essay, guideline and policy are. It seems that the discussion and approval already happened at the tag's talk page. How should we proceed? Thanks! --Kevin Murray (talk) 14:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Let me start with the most important thing. Policy pages are already overloaded and I believe there are too many of them. Not every custom tag needs to be described there (and most of them are not). Now, at this point both the Template:Supplement and Template talk:Supplement indicate that the whole concept of "supplement" is not very clear. Frankly, I would gladly delete it. I don't think the tag has been "approved" on the talk page. Was it? I agree it has a limited use in Wikipedia, but is far from "standard community practice" that needs codifying as the policy text. --Kubanczyk (talk) 17:27, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
It was not deleted by the MfD, which gives it some level of "approval." Is it a "custom tag"? It seems to have gone beyond that including a page which monitors where it is used. I don't like this tag, because it implies that a page is more than it is. It was an outgrowth of disputes at the Consensus page, where proponents of silence=consent tried to further legitimize an essay on that topic. I defiantly oppose creep, but if we set precedent for policy related tags existing without being acknowledged at WP:Policy I think that we set a dangerous precedent for problems like we are having at WP:ATT, where a failed policy proposal is being propped up by pseudo-policy custom tagging. Since you have expressed concern over excessive policy pages, you might want to consider the discussion at WP:FICTION and some of the other notability subpages. --Kevin Murray (talk) 18:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Ha, I see we share exactly the same opinion about the tag. I think this is better that it is not mentioned at WP:PG. If you recognize it there - in any way, be it "supplement: just ignore it" - you have in fact just acknowledged the existence of such concept in Wikipedia. This opens a way for further "enhancement" and, in the end, more creep. So why should opposers make the first step? This is sort of a WP:BEANS issue for me. Per analogy, WP:ATT could only get worse if we actually had "Summary" mentioned in any way as a separate entity in WP:PG. This would immediately spread the edit war to the second page, and ultimately increase the creep level on both.
So, I guess it is far better to contain the issue on Template:Supplement, firstly clarifying the situation there. Because it is far from being clear, at least for me. First of all the name itself is misleading. Please keep that place on your watchlist. --Kubanczyk (talk) 19:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
I felt that bringing it into the light of day at Policy would bring further and braoder discussion, where it could be attacked head on, instead of a policy hiding in a template. But, I'll follow your lead. Cheers! --Kevin Murray (talk) 20:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Memory-mapped I/O[edit]

Hi, this is just a (much) belated reply to a comment you put on Talk:Memory-mapped I/O. Since this is in reply to the "Off-topic WP:OR" part of your comment, I'm putting it here and not in the article talk page. But here goes.

Regarding your comment:

Also, come to think of it, memory-mapped I/O formally re-defines primary storage (aka main memory) in a very interesting way. Traditionally, primary storage is defined as the one that is directly addressable via CPU. What if... What if there are some registers in a sound card? Do they become my primary storage, too? Obviously, to a program they cannot be easily distinguished from memory locations. To go further... What if I would make a hard drive with entire capacity linearly memory-mapped? The idea of file system suddenly becomes somewhat less useful, since I have uniform pointers-to-RAM and pointers-to-disk now, doesn't it?

Here's my reply:

The I/O registers that are mapped into memory aren't necessarily "storage" in the same sense as the computer's memory. Their values might be changed by the I/O hardware, or they might do something different on read versus write. The value might not even matter -- there might just be a side effect to the act of accessing that address (on the Apple II series of 8-bit computers, reading from a certain location would result in a "click" from the loudspeaker; that was how you generated sounds). Now, memory-mapping the contents of a hard drive does happen. But I think it's done via virtual memory -- attempts to access a page from the disk, that isn't currently cached in RAM, result in I/O (and the page being cached in RAM). And that I/O might take place via any mechanism (though DMA is probably the most common). Mapping a disk into memory is done in for example OS/400 (and I presume they're mapping it into virtual memory) (UNIX/Linux can also do this, and I would be surprised if Windows couldn't, but I don't suppose either does so as part of "normal" operation). It doesn't actually make the filesystem that much less useful -- you've still got the need to keep track of the objects you've stored, and share them between different programs, and provide a way for the user to refer to them. But you could conceivably have a system in which everything is in the file system ("memory" as well as "disk" files); see Multics. -- Why Not A Duck 22:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I was well aware about all these things when I've posted the remark. This was not the request for clarification, but a what-if speculation that I noted. I didn't suggest that I/O registers are necessarily "storage", I didn't suggest that mmap cannot share the mechanism with the virtual memory. I suggested a possible (although not practical) scenario, in which you have disk mapped via hardware (not via mmap) as the primary storage (the storage directly addressable by a CPU instruction). Exactly in the same way as you have RAM modules mapped as the primary storage. To be perfectly clear, I don't think this idea is wise at all. --Kubanczyk (talk) 11:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Slovak Koruna[edit]

Your edit (thankfully updated once again in the meantime), quot.: "koruna does not mean anything in English".

Yep it does. As most other words btw. Or "translates as". Just check your nearest SK/ENG ENG/SK dictionary or read the text properly before editing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin Gazdík (talkcontribs) 20:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I made no such edit. You quote my edit's comment. But thanks for correction. --Kubanczyk (talk) 16:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


Hi! Why did you mark Template:Interwikiconflict as historical [1]? Was this discussed anywhere? --Maxxicum (talk) 00:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

No, it has not been discussed. I'm sorry but I don't remember the exact reason now. I think I marked the main page historical first, because it seemed dead (no activity). I treat "historical" tag as a warning for a wandering editor, saying: "you are alone here, this place has been abandoned by wikipedians long time ago". Probable, I marked the template as a follow up. Feel free to change. --Kubanczyk (talk) 08:41, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

DAB link on Virtual[edit]

Hi, the reason I removed the link to the dab page virtualization from virtual is that it violates WP:DPL. Specifically: "Ideally, article namespace pages should not link to disambiguation pages, with rare exceptions in which the ambiguity of a term is being discussed; instead, links should go directly to the appropriate article." I'm sorry that I left this ref out of the edit summary. There are already 9 specific links to various types of virtual things in the body. I don't see any need to confuse the matter by linking to virtualization. UncleDouggie (talk) 21:02, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

  • I think there is a problem with this reasoning if it forbids article "Virtual" to link to "Virtualization". It just does not make sense and it does not benefit reader. --Kubanczyk (talk) 08:22, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
    • The logic is that it doesn't benefit the reader to point them to a bunch of other links when you mean to point them to a specific link. The problem really is that virtual should be a dab page, not an article. I'm in the process of making this change. Once it's complete, it will be more logical to interlink both the virtualization and virtual dabs. UncleDouggie (talk) 09:51, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:D-beat (candidate 2).ogg[edit]

File:D-beat (candidate 2).ogg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:D-beat (candidate 2).ogg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:D-beat (candidate 2).ogg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 19:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:D-beat (candidate 1).ogg[edit]

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:D-beat (candidate 1).ogg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

  • make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
  • Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NW (Talk) 21:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand. I am the creator of the file, Wikipedia is the original place of the publication. Therefore I've already made what you've requested: "make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license at the site of the original publication". I've already added a note that I've released this work to public domain, so it can be reused. If Wikipedia does not accept public domain works, something went wrong somewhere. By the way, I don't have "email address associated with the original publication", i.e. I don't have e-mail account @Wikipedia. --Kubanczyk (talk) 07:29, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:D-beat (candidate 2).ogg[edit]

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:D-beat (candidate 2).ogg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

  • make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
  • Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NW (Talk) 21:39, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand. I am the creator of the file, Wikipedia is the original place of the publication. Therefore I've already made what you've requested: "make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license at the site of the original publication". I've already added a note that I've released this work to public domain, so it can be reused. If Wikipedia does not accept public domain works, something went wrong somewhere. By the way, I don't have "email address associated with the original publication", i.e. I don't have e-mail account @Wikipedia. --Kubanczyk (talk) 07:30, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Should be fixed now. Sorry about all of that. NW (Talk) 15:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrated Loop and Fibre Channel[edit]

Your claim that "More than 2 ports on the loop can communicate at the same time" on an arbitrated loop is not correct. From the time of the OPN primitive to the CLS primitive, only one pair of ports may communicate. See the fibre channel specification FC_AL-3:

"FC-AL features enhanced Ports, called L_Ports, which arbitrate to access an Arbitrated Loop. Once an L_Port wins arbitration, a second L_Port may be opened to complete a single point-to-point circuit (i.e., com- munication path between two L_Ports). When two connected L_Ports release control of the Arbitrated Loop, another point-to-point circuit may be established."

Smallpond (talk) 21:54, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

You are 100% right! Thank you for the correction, I was damn sure it was not the case (undoubtedly the first signs of dementia). --Kubanczyk (talk) 22:17, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Will you restore the changes that you reverted on Fibre Channel and Arbitrated Loop? Smallpond (talk) 20:15, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 Done --Kubanczyk (talk) 17:06, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


Wikipedia Reviewer.svg

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

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

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

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. -- œ 17:31, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks/dzięki. --Kubanczyk (talk) 13:39, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage[edit]

Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:39, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Input requested on article you reviewed[edit]

Howdy from Texas. I'm working on a page about a living person; saw your input and tags and was hoping for some deeper input. Please see talk page at

FYI: Thank you for the input; article revised[edit]

Hi Kubancyzk. I revised and edited my article on Bill Conner to improve the sourcing of the article, per your input and tags.

   * I reviewed all the reference cites
   * Deleted 5 references
   * Added or revised 17 references all for third-party, secondary sources.

The majority of the article's links are now to verifiable third-party sources; a few secondary references to Entrust website are included along with clearly stated text "Entrust reports that ..." or "Entrust states that ..." Thank you!

Casey Miller, Dallas, TX 15:33, 5 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by CAMiller62 (talkcontribs)

Talk:Night fighter[edit]

See my response FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:00, 1 February 2011 (UTC).

Tank classification[edit]

I've noted your concerns on Medium tank and Heavy tank and the circular logic of the opening sentences of the lede. I doubt for the moment that I can offer an improved lede other than to refer to tank classification. Give us an opinion on how bad it reads after I've had a go. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:46, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

It is still circular :) But now the circle is much larger, so it's an improvement :) --Kubanczyk (talk) 22:10, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Pteryx UAV[edit]

Hi, your inputs is appreciated, but please don't dump the data that is work under progress like links page. If you want to clean it up 2 weeks before me - OK, just don't cut. Also you have written 'this is not flying model this is pre-programmed'. Actually, in some countries it is in some it is not; this is why it was not stated. It is not that I 'own' the page somehow, it is that among 80% nice syntax corrections, you put 20% that is highly misleading, and cutting the links is basically like a sabotage when I am trying to convince the guys running processing services: "c'mon you are not visible on wiki, let's fix this so the basic facts will be kept in straight and accessible manner". At the same moment you perform 'backdoor sbotage' by cutting the section while ignoring what is written there. UAV community uses groundstation as a single world, only ppl relying on MS Word checking put it separate. We use it as a special word for a new item. But ok nevermind. If you want to help, understand, then rearrange. Don't cut. Or let me do it.

Hello. I am here to help, not to "sabotage". I think I might have a better general understanding of Wikipedia than you, on the other hand, you have a better general understanding of UAVs. Nevermind that, I will not tinker with your article - simply because of WP:CIVIL (my own little policy). I apologize for any factual errors, they were not intentional. That's all, best regards. --Kubanczyk (talk) 17:18, 1 April 2011 (UTC)


Thanks for fixing that flag order on the Fourth generation jet fighters, totally forgot that the focus was on the ADV variant which was a true fighter and not the IDS which is a multi-role combat aircraft. Keep up the good work! Semi-Lobster (talk) 16:54, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

AEG G.IV[edit]

See my comments: talk page. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:25, 15 April 2011 (UTC).

Aircraft superchargers[edit]

Your point about the dates of the first "series production" superchargers, and whether these were for cars or aircraft, is interesting. To fend off the inevitable questions over this (I thought aircraft were first myself), could you please add a footnote, explaining just which series production cars we refer to. I can think of several racing cars that pre-date the A-S Jaguar, but none of those that I know were production cars.

Thanks Andy Dingley (talk) 12:27, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

 Done Added the explanation to the article. And a source. --Kubanczyk (talk) 12:43, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Dyott's Gnome[edit]

Afternoon Kubanczyk: thanks for removing the circumflexes. Don't know if I put them there because there is one in Rhône, or because one of my sources does (wrongly, I agree) have one in Gnome. Re the Omega: this was a 50 hp engine but so were the first Gnomes, which were not given type names. There might have been some retrospective labelling, but you would not call your first engine Omega. So it's hard to known whether it's an Omega or not and I think we should not guess, in the absence of a citable source. Both of my "early Brits" books (Lewis and Goodall & Tagg) describe the engine as a 50 hp Gnome, with no name. The Dyott does not appear on Lumsden's list of Omega users, though it's not on any of his lists. I'm not sure if all his Gnome users ran UK built Gnomes, or if French ones are included.TSRL (talk) 13:39, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Are you sure the "first (50 hp) Gnomes" had "no given type names"? This would be quite significant news for me. Quite contrary, all sources I've seen recently leave no doubt that the very first 50 hp Gnome engine ever created was called "Omega" (no retrospection). Cf Rotary engine#Gnome. --Kubanczyk (talk) 13:58, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
The Smithsonian placard is very sure that the early Gnomes were called Omegas, so that probably settles it, though I'd be 100% convinced by a near-contemporary use. Their version of its first flight differs from Gunston. Maybe there is something in the early Flight records. Oddly, Gunston does not use the name at all; the only Greek labelled Gnome he has is the Lambda. Lumsden lists the Omega, without a header date but says production 8/1914 - 12/1918. However, several of the aircraft he says were powered by it are, from memory, pre-1914. Perhaps the production he refers to is UK only, but he gives no manufacturers. Anyway, it sounds as if you have the Smithsonian with you, so are probably right. I'll have a look in the Flight files. Cheers,TSRL (talk) 19:41, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Hmm... Ive searched Flight 1909-20 for Omega and there is no reference to such an engine. 1909 might be a little late, but that's when Flight started! Doesn't mean that the first, 50 hp Gnomes, were not called Omega, of course but the name does not seem to have been widely used, for the engine itself was common. Everywhere it's "60 hp 7-cylinder Gnome" or similar. Tellingly, perhaps, the 1913 Jane's All the World's Aircraft (the first), though it lists 6 different Gnome types does not name any of them. Gunston does say "by 1914 Gnome ... assigned Greek letters ...". Wonder where the Smithonian got the name from.TSRL (talk) 20:18, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
OK, two conflicting versions: retrospective naming or not-widely-known naming. Both sourced. I don't like leaving such stuff over the talk pages - do you feel like including this information in the Gnome Omega? (i.e. that sources differ whether the first engine was called Omega) --Kubanczyk (talk) 16:40, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
I'd be inclined to move this to the Gnome Omega discussion page, then point to it with a brief note on the engine project discussion page. That would alert, eg, Nimbus227 who started the page and named it, as well as other engine experts (I'm not one) who may know more about Gnomes and other early engines and their nomenclature problems (acute, often!). When we have some sort of consensus we can tweak the article if necessary. What do you think?TSRL (talk) 18:44, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Copied to Talk:Gnome Omega, please continue there. --Kubanczyk (talk) 08:31, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Microsoft DPM is replication based technology[edit]

Noticed your comment on Microsoft DPM. Microsoft sell the DPM solution as a backup solution and it certainly provides this. However, what DPM actually does is faithfully replicates data from a machine to a centralised machine. This is a clone of the orginal data represented on the DPM server on a filesystem. What makes DPM eventually a backup solution is that it periodically creates snapshots on the DPM server thereby providing historical copies of the data. This added functionality however doesnt negate the fact that data was transfered and stored from source to destination in a replication fashion.

In fact, Microsoft even promote the use of DPM for replication. Check . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fabkins (talkcontribs) 10:22, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I was not aware of that and the DPM article did not provide this information. --Kubanczyk (talk) 11:05, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Battle of Brody page[edit]

Hi, I am the anonymous user I did most of the main body of the recent 2011 additions to the text.

Like your contribution of the table for tank forces. From there we should actually be able to do a good estimate of the actual number of Soviet Tanks engaged in the battle of Dubno. We know for example that the 4th and 22nd Corps only contributed one division each to the battle. The other 4 corps 19th, 16th, 8th and 15th were fully engaged. The 8th had lost half of its older tanks before reaching Dubno.

Also, properly its 22nd Corps not "22th" Corps in English. And you seem to have listed the 19th Corps twice, with different numbers.

Contribution is good though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:02, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Good to know. I'd really recommend to watch for Solonin's book - it will get translated to English sooner or later. Substantial part of the book is about Battle of Dubno, approx. 150 pages, and the author really tries to be balanced (the exact opposite of Suvorov). He examines and compares zillions of little sources. He eventually manages – through elimination – to get the answer for the big question "why the Red Army was defeated in Operation Barbarossa?". Quite an accomplishment. If time permits I hope to add more details from the same book. I understand that you would like to see a similarly formatted data, but counting only tank formations that actually fought in the Dubno area, right? --Kubanczyk (talk) 19:55, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

2011 China Floods[edit]

Hi, I completely see your point about simple minded folk not seeing that the image pertains to average rainfall - I don't know where to get a free image just showing flooded areas, nor how to change the image that is there to a 'current rainfall compared to expected rainfall' map. Almost al the areas that were dark blue on the average rainfall map have had some flooding, so it wouldn't be much different in that regard. No attempt to heat up the issue - I'd really like a well sourced good quality flooding map - as you would see if you check out the discussion page. Can you help, this is my first attempt to actively create an important event as an article. EdwardLane (talk) 15:24, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Have you tried searching People often publish recent photos there under Wiki-compliant license. This would make a great header of the event page. I have no idea where to get a map of rainfall data. --Kubanczyk (talk) 08:52, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Access time [edit]

Information.svg An article that you have been involved in editing, Access time , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. § Music Sorter § (talk) 06:19, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Flak Corps article[edit]

Your comment "The course of this reasoning makes little sense." -- is a bit confusing. The Allies had air superiority in 1944-45; in fact, the Luftwaffe was little seen over the battlefields where the Flak Corps were deployed. Thus, the use of anti-aircraft guns for the purpose for which they were originally designed (protection of their own troops from air attack) would seem to be a statement that makes sense -- what makes "little sense" about it? W. B. Wilson (talk) 17:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm let me see. "Considering the degree of Allied air superiority, the corps could have perhaps been better used solely as an air defense weapon". This is not a valid argument at all, because it assumes that Germany's target was to defend against enemy aircraft. That was not the case. The Germany's target was to win the war. So this argument is as true, and as speculative, as this one: "Considering the degree of Allied air superiority, the corps could have perhaps been better used solely as an anti tank weapon". Or try this one: "Considering the degree of Soviet armor superiority, the corps could have perhaps been better used solely as an anti tank weapon". All these are not valid scientific arguments. If you feel that German command used the guns unwisely, the only way to prove it is to somehow predict the impact on actual battles (scenarios). The observation that Allied had (air/tank/whatever) superiority is only background information, not very relevant to the subject. Of course, mind the WP:V as usual. --Kubanczyk (talk) 19:39, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Except that weapons are designed for specific purposes as you well know. Anti-aircraft weapons are designed for defense against air attacks. These AA guns were seconded in a ground support role when they could have been used to defend against air attacks. The statement was never meant to be definitive; it only points out that the choice to use AA weapons for ground support fires in an environment where the Germans were strongly outnumbered in the air was a curious one. As well, considering how often the Germans mentioned constraints on their mobility because of Allied air operations, it is hardly a speculative comment. Your statement that the comment makes "little sense" makes a mountain out of a molehill. W. B. Wilson (talk) 19:53, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't think we understand each other. For the final result of war it is completely irrelevant if you (a) use the weapon "as originally intended" (b) use the weapon to defend where you are being "strongly outnumbered". Perhaps it is better to use the weapon in (a) innovative way, or (b) where you outnumber your enemy (concentration of force). I'm not sure which is true, but surely this is not so obvious, is it? Weapon is a tool, what counts is to make use of the tool in an effective way to win the actual war. If you believe that "Flak corps could have perhaps been better used solely in an anti-aircraft role, as author X predicts this would inflict more damage on overall Allied military effort." please do not hesitate to say it in article. This might be true or false, but at least it makes sense and it is a falsifiable theory. --Kubanczyk (talk) 20:45, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
I understand the point you are making, but I think your reasoning is misplaced here. There is nothing false in stating that anti-aircraft weapons are more expensive than antitank weapons and the employment of AA weapons for antitank purposes was perhaps an inefficient use of the weapons. If you honestly believe the statement is so poorly constructed, then delete it from the article. It is doubtful that one will easily locate published authors making what I believe to be an obvious point about poor use of expensive resources. Leaving the "citation needed" tag in a case where a citation may be difficult to locate does not the improve the article and presents the appearance of gainsaying the text in the article with no benefit to the readers. W. B. Wilson (talk) 06:46, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. --Kubanczyk (talk) 10:23, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

your question on flak units[edit]

Not sure if this level of detail is appropriate to the article, but you're welcome to enter the information, for example for Flak Regiment 103:
I/RGG - mixed
II/RGG - light
I/7. - mixed motorized
II/43. - mixed motorized
IV/RGG - light

More information can be found at this page and similar pages at Michael Holm's site. W. B. Wilson (talk) 17:54, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I know it seems detailed, but it seems to me that reader most often would like to see the approximate number of 8.8 cm guns employed. Thanks a lot. --Kubanczyk (talk) 19:45, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
I understand interest in the detail of these topics, but if we consider the readers of Wikipedia, many of them are probably -not- so interested in which battalion had which sort of gun. If Holm's site is not referenced on the article page, it would be a useful addition for readers wanting in-depth equipment information. Then again, Wikipedia doesn't seem to lack storage resources, so I suppose the researched data might be useful to some of the readers. W. B. Wilson (talk) 20:00, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Also wonder about your "quantify" comment for German army Flak units. If the side note is distracting or otherwise not useful in the article, it should probably be deleted. If you are interested for personal knowledge about how many Flak units the German army had, I may be able to find some information in books I have. W. B. Wilson (talk) 20:12, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Distracting, why? Side notes and tags are standard in Wikipedia... It would be distracting if put in main text, yes. If you think it is completely off-topic, please delete it. My personal knowledge is not very important at all, this is for users' sake. --Kubanczyk (talk) 20:52, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Our ships passed by each other again. You posted the "quantify" note in the article. I wondered if it was somehow distracting to have a note about German army Flak units in an article that is about Luftwaffe Flak units -- that's all. W. B. Wilson (talk) 06:49, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Reverting Replication Edits[edit]

Hello. Please explain your revert (conflict of interest does not seem to fit). I fixed the wording to make it read better, and added the information that latency is a key determinate of network replication choice. Although this is common knowledge to some, others may not realize it. To justify the statement, I've provided a link to an expert blog. If you know of another cite where the point is crystallized as well or better, please add that link. In my view, the article can be improved, and I made a step in that direction. Simply reverting the article erases progress. Instead, I suggest you progress the quality by editing it forward if you disagree with my re-write. So, please improve my improvements, come up with a better cite, and/or dispute my fact about impact of latency on replication.

(cur | prev) 07:45, 21 July 2011 Kubanczyk (talk | contribs) (20,433 bytes) (Reverted to revision 433577630 by revert due to WP:conflict of interest. (TW)) (undo)

regards, David — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:13, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Complete diff guide[edit]

Just found Favonian using these: {{diff2}} for "one-step" diffs and {{diff}} for more general ones. Should they be added to the guide? Dougweller (talk) 08:22, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

If only {{diff2}} would have a more meaningful documentation page... --Kubanczyk (talk) 14:32, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Favonian thought the guide was hard enough to understand without adding this! Dougweller (talk) 11:09, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
This supposed to be the complete guide, not the understandable guide, take a look at this {{3-tier diff}}. --Kubanczyk (talk) 12:47, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

5th Guards Motor Rifle Division[edit]

Would you kindly explain why you reduced the most-recent-title version, which is at the right title for the division's operations in Afghanistan, to a redirect? Then you placed all the 5 GMRD's history under an incorrect World War II title for a predecessor formation. I well understand the need to keep the history, but the history is there, correct? There's no need to destroy all my hard work presenting the full history under the most recent title of the formation, in accordance with WP:MILMOS#UNITNAME, just so as to redirect the whole thing to the first page created instead of the second, translation of the ru-article? Buckshot06 (talk) 08:29, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Please read WP:copy and paste move for explanation and justification, and please WP:AGF. (Please request history merge and proper move of a page to have it under a proper title in accordance with WP:MILMOS#UNITNAME). --Kubanczyk (talk) 08:38, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
As I said, I understand the need to preserve the history, and the theory behind copy-and-paste moves. What I'm asking is why you did not make the page history merge yourself to complete the process, and instead did only half the job without informing anyone of the changes you had made that had resulted in a half-completed job. Unless I had had the page watchlisted, the whole thing might have stayed that way for years. This is not just AGF, but common courtesy! Buckshot06 (talk) 10:20, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
OK you've got me, courtesy is not my thing :) --Kubanczyk (talk) 14:11, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Oh, while we're at it... Are you sure your actions of today didn't break anything (again)? --Kubanczyk (talk) 14:14, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
No, I may be partially to blaim as well; you've probably been looking at my edit history as well. I redirected the redirect to the 5 GMRD article, then didn't fix the other page before leaving a note for you. To avoid fouling anything more up while we were talking, I didn't do anything after that, to allow the discussion to conclude. I fully realised that while the discussion was on, the two pages were mutual redirects, but the chances of anyone getting inconvenienced by that while we talked for a couple of hours were quite low - this is a low traffic page. Now that we have talked more, I'll set things up so they point to one page. One other thing - I realise that you may not be technically able to perform the history merge - are you an administrator? Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 14:51, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Nope, I cannot merge page histories. --Kubanczyk (talk) 15:16, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Victor Suvorov's book Беру Свои Слова Обратно english title[edit]

From this article:

This book hasn't been edited in English, so it's hard to translate it's title. I checked in Google Translator and Беру Свои Слова Обратно may mean either: "The words back", "My words back" , "Back his words" (Zhukov's), "Their words back" (communist historians), or "Your words back".

I read this book and it is Suvorov's criticism of Zhukov's memoirs, which according to Suvorov were probably a forgery, ghostwritten by Soviet historians to create a myth of Zhukov as a great commander. Hence the translation "My words back", or "I take my words back" is rather little probable. "the words", "his words" or "their words" would be probably better, although it is hard to determine.

Maybe just leave the Russian original title? (talk) 10:49, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Your assumptions are wrong. Little probable or not, the fact remains the fact. Although I'm not a native Russian, I can assure you that, as much as this translation seems troublesome for Google Translator, it is fairly basic. The word "Свои" could mean "my" or "his" or "your" when standing alone, but here it appears in the context of conjugation of the verb "Беру". So "Беру Свои ..." definitely means "I take my ...", nothing less, nothing more. As you have read the book, as I'm sure you did, you can remember that author ironically says that he takes his (Suvorov's) words back. --Kubanczyk (talk) 11:07, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:BRD misuse[edit]

Wikipedia:BRD misuse, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:BRD misuse and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:BRD misuse during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō Contribs. 19:35, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


I'm not sure that citing Fred Jane's naming of Farman's aircraft as the 'Voisin II' isn't countrproductive. IMO he is simply calling it that because it was the second airframe of the type built, or confusing it with another aircraft. It seemsto be a misleading name in any case: most accounts seem to b agreed that Farman ordered Voisin to build him an aircraft 'justlike Delagrange's'TheLongTone (talk) 20:26, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

In any article, I prefer to enumerate all the names, nicknames, designations, because this is the only way to ensure the person who is searching for an information would end up in a proper place. Maybe you would like to move this "gory detail" to some less visible location in text, feel free to do so. I briefly considered creating standard "Variants" section, which would clear things out. --Kubanczyk (talk) 13:43, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
I agree that all names by which an aircraft should (within reason) be included, & since Jane's is a standard reference work the use of the name there should be mentioned, so I'd classify it as a 'gory detail', may move it when I'm next fiddling about in the article.TheLongTone (talk) 14:09, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
Great. By the way I've tinkered again with Farman II. I don't see any source for tractor biplane of Farman's design, so for me it's a myth or mistake. --Kubanczyk (talk) 14:48, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Season's tidings![edit]

Christmas lights - 1.jpg

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:37, 25 December 2011 (UTC).

Your invitation to participate in a Wikimedia-approved survey in online behavior.[edit]

Hello, my name is Michael Tsikerdekis[2][3], currently involved as a student in full time academic research at Masaryk University. I am writing to you to kindly invite you to participate in an online survey about interface and online collaboration on Wikipedia. The survey has been reviewed and approved by the Wikimedia Foundation Research Committee.

I am contacting you because you were randomly selected from a list of active editors. The survey should take about 7 to 10 minutes to complete, and it is very straightforward.

Wikipedia is an open project by nature. Let’s create new knowledge for everyone! :-)

To take part in the survey please follow the link: (HTTPS).

Best Regards, Michael Tsikerdekis (talk) 08:31, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

PS: The results from the research will become available online for everyone and will be published in an open access journal.

UPDATE: This is the second and final notification for participating in this study. Your help is essential for having concrete results and knowledge that we all can share. I would like to thank you for your time and as always for any questions, comments or ideas do not hesitate to contact me. PS: As a thank you for your efforts and participation in Wikipedia Research you will receive a Research Participation Barnstar after the end of the study. --Michael Tsikerdekis (talk) 07:53, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Parsing at Template:Category diffuse[edit]

Hi, I noticed this edit to Category:Service companies of the United States. At some stage this became a problem; maybe Template:Category diffuse no longer works like it did when you added it there. Please see Template talk:Category diffuse#Problem with parameters. – Fayenatic (talk) 18:50, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I'm glad to see that the problem is fixed, and was unrelated to your edit. All the same, if you understand how the parameters should work, it would be much appreciated if you would document this. Cheers! – Fayenatic (talk) 16:57, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Off-topic-inline[edit]

Template:Off-topic-inline has been nominated for merging with Template:Relevance note. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 17:04, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Article on Churchill and Chemical Weapons in WWII renamed[edit]

The article has been renamed to Chemical weapons and the United Kingdom with the addition of the section from United Kingdom and weapons of mass destruction; possibly this section of the article could be reduced to an outline. Hugo999 (talk) 04:23, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Science2.png Research Participation Barnstar
For your participation in the survey for Anonymity and conformity on the internet. Michael Tsikerdekis (talk) 12:39, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Template:Anchor for redirect listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]


An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:Anchor for redirect. Since you had some involvement with the Template:Anchor for redirect redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Magioladitis (talk) 16:41, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 9[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 7th Rifle Division (Soviet Union), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sverdlovsk (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:38, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


Merry Christmas and sorry for the late reply, --Flominator (talk) 17:49, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Your answer if late is still much of use to me. Thanks and happy New Year! --Kubanczyk (talk) 15:00, 28 December 2012 (UTC)


Editors Barnstar.png The Editor's Barnstar
For your bold merging of Vintage warbird restoration, I hereby award you this Barnstar. YSSYguy (talk) 10:01, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:now and WP:circular[edit]

I agree with you about circular references, but I feel like it would have more bite if we could name a prominent case where this has happened. Thanks for getting involved, good to know I'm not the only one who thinks it actually matters what is on Wikipedia! :) Risingrain (talk) 23:10, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Methinks there are a lot more people who care. As of the prominent case of WP:CIRCULAR, I don't know one (with an acknowledged public impact); this is based on my own small-scale experience. --Kubanczyk (talk) 09:58, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
I found one Risingrain (talk) 11:59, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Tulip mania edit?[edit]

I'll revert your edit at Tulip mania with the comment‎ (re-verified the source, saying what the source says).

It doesn't make sense that you re-verified the source and then just left "citation needed" four times in one paragraph. I believe that if you check the source you'll find that the single footnote at the end of the paragraph covers it all. Please do refrain from leaving "citation needed" multiple times in a single paragraph. Smallbones(smalltalk) 02:09, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I mean no harm. This was a clear case of WP:HIJACK; see also User:Piotrus/Wikipedia:Why most sentences should be cited. Please, by all means, do revert if you feel it improves the encyclopedia. --Kubanczyk (talk) 16:10, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Article Feedback deployment[edit]

Hey Kubanczyk; I'm dropping you this note because you've used the article feedback tool in the last month or so. On Thursday and Friday the tool will be down for a major deployment; it should be up by Saturday, failing anything going wrong, and by Monday if something does :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:30, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

DYK-Good Article Request for Comment[edit]

Glad Tidings and all that ...[edit]

Bolas navideñas.jpg FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:46, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

kpatch article[edit]

Hello! I've reverted your edits on the kpatch article because we should wait until Linux kernel 4.0 is actually released. I'm keeping an eye on it, and will get both kpatch and kGraft articles updated once 4.0 is released, what should happen soon. Hope you agree. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 19:35, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

That's ok with me :) Kubanczyk (talk) 09:43, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

7.5 cm Pak 40[edit]

I'm trying to spruce up the 7.5 cm Pak 40 article. Some time ago you (I think) made an edit suggesting that UK and German sources differ on the introduction dates. Can you point me to any of these sources? The article could use more refs in general, and anything useful will improve matters. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:55, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, can't remember a thing now... Good luck. Kubanczyk (talk) 11:44, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Spaceflight history[edit]

Hi there. I really appreciate a lot of your recent edits to clean up and copyedit various articles. But I'd like to discuss a bit of Wiki-philosophy on articles and History first. I'll start a section to discuss on one of the related Talk pages. Cheers. N2e (talk) 17:49, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, no input from me. I see something is broken, I try to fix it; I'll go away soon, never to return; there's not much to discuss. Please note that if one sees a page for the first time, it's easier to spot difficulties/problems. --Kubanczyk (talk) 17:55, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
I got that comment made, finally. Been a busy day with other things going on. My comment is at Talk:Falcon 9 booster landing tests. Cheers. N2e (talk) 18:22, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Template talk:Short pages monitor[edit]

You may be interested in the discussion at Template talk:Short pages monitor#Need to define and possibly rethink this template. —Anomalocaris (talk) 23:46, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

What a drive is, Tape or Disk, and what it is not.[edit]

A lot of confusions persists on what a tape drive is.

Noticed (a bit too late) you faced the plain wrong statement considerin a Tape Drive as a Tape device similar to a Tape recorder... thus defining it as a sequential access device. Suppose that is the result of a didactic reference to tape, which is sequential, then aplyed to a tape drive.

Reason for contact is I tried to correct that situation, just to see the corrections "reverted" to the previous 'pushed' belief. One of the reasons may be the presence of a Commodore Tape Recorder with Modem, that may be (as emotional attachment) the source of the misconception. The page seems to be under it's spell. A nice recorder, a nice entry device, hardly a drive. How to deal with such 'knowledge'?!?

So, Would like to get your advice on to insist or to drop any hope to see correct information here on wikipedia.

Frankly, I have no interest of defending the subject, much less against 'believers'. It's much like the teaching a pig to ride a bicycle joke:

We should not teach a pig to ride because:

  1. It's too hard
  2. It takes too much time being actually useless.
  3. Last but not the least, it annoys the pig!

Check Tape Drive ... the Item/Talk ... and it's Revision History. If you have time.

Factor-h (talk) 02:21, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

These additions are unreadable and should be reverted (again).
Now this "pig" had better get back on his bicycle and go to work (market?). Viam FerreamTalk 09:56, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
The mechanism of the joke is the point. Finally there are some true objections instead of vague objections. Did answer those. But WILL NOT fight over the subject, as wikipedia really is showing to be unreliable, and the needed 'controllers' are abusing that adjective. Offered help, but will not even insist. Such is the lesson from the joke. (It could be a monkey, whatever).


Factor-h, do you take me as the author of the (unsigned) rant right at the top of Talk:Tape drive? Well, I'm not. For me the most important thing is no to lose my energy over someone who disagrees with me. Do your damn edits, and never turn back, and never enter an edit war, and you'll reach eternal wiki-happiness. If a ten years old boy, who doesn't know what a tape drive is, stumbles upon your definition he will be likely very confused learning that disk drive also writes magnetic tape. This kind of confusion is bad for learning. Kubanczyk (talk) 23:42, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Actually, The reference correcting the misclassification. Yes, I did.
About the remaining... Never mind... Accumulating oversimplifications, does create problems. Not mine!
Sorry to bother. More sorry for incorrect information being fed to people.
Factor-h (talk) 01:42, 10 March 2016 (UTC)


'(whoever wants to learn about endianness, typically doesn't understand addressing yet; so lets not confuse them at the very beginning) I suppose, but without it the statement isn't completely accurate. You say "stored first" which, without mentioning addressing, would seem to imply stored at an earlier time. On many machines, the memory path is wide enough that the whole word is written at the same time. Yes, little endian is convenient for simpler processors doing addition and propagating a carry, but you still need to get the address idea in there somewhere. Gah4 (talk) 16:59, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

The terms bit endianness and bit-level endianness are seldom used to describe storing the numerical values in memory, as the order of bits in memory would be only meaningful in the rare computer architectures where each individual bit has a unique address. In all types of systems, the documentation often needs to number the bits to refer readers to them. Again, both ordering conventions are used in various documentations. Some have a

bit set

instruction with a bit index, even though normally one can't address bits. Also, documentation bit numbering can be important for those doing assembly programming, or other low-level work. bit endianness is reasonably often used in such descriptions. Gah4 (talk) 20:42, 24 April 2016 (UTC)