User talk:MrCellular

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

MrCellular, you are invited to the Teahouse[edit]

Teahouse logo

Hi MrCellular! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Please join other people who edit Wikipedia at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space on Wikipedia where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Theopolisme (I'm a Teahouse host)

This message was delivered automatically by your friendly neighborhood HostBot (talk) 01:13, 3 October 2012 (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) 05:59, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Question about 4G edit[edit]

Hi. Thanks for helping to improve Wikipedia! I have a question about this edit. You added a ref tag pointing to a reference named "4G Licenses RU". Did you mean this to be the name of the following reference, or another one that you haven't added, yet? I ask because an error message says the reference doesn't exist, and I'm not sure if I should try to fix it if you are working on it. Thanks again. —PC-XT+ 04:33, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Was added by mistake. I removed it. MrCellular (talk) 05:13, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Re: iOS 8 & Windows 8[edit]

You didn't agree with my proposal to remove the extensive product info fr/ the iOS 8 article. My point is that Wikipedia is not a venue for product promotion a la--What Wikipedia Is Not. All that information about any commercial product strikes me as a violation of the (good and useful) rules. Regards, Tapered (talk) 01:22, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Whatever... MrCellular (talk) 11:33, 22 July 2014 (UTC)


4G § Technical understanding: 100 or 300 Mbit/s[edit]

I don't understand the reason for your revert of my edit on 4G. I also don't understand the comment "300 with LTE-A". The paragraph in question covers IMT-Advanced, and M.2134 clearly defines a required peak datarate of 100 MBit/s for "high mobility" communication. I don't see how the peak data rate of LTE-A is relevant in a paragraph that summarizes IMT-Advanced. Can you please clarify why you reverted my edit? Thanks. Conquerist (talk) 16:51, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Either this document is false, not up-to-date anymore and/or this section should be improved because even without Carrier Aggregation LTE does support 150 Mbps on category 4 by using 20 MHz of spectrum. MrCellular (talk) 14:15, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Please note that the cited 100 Mbit/s requirement is for high mobility, which M.2134 defines as 120 to 350 km/h (section 4.6). The requirement for a stationary (low mobility) scenario is 1 Gbit/s. There is no mention of 300 Mbit/s anywhere in the IMT-Advanced requirements. If I understand your point correctly, you are saying that LTE-A (marketing term for 3GPP Releases 10-11?), and even LTE without carrier aggregation, already surpass 100 Mbit/s, so they should fulfill IMT-Advanced, however they don't, so the 100 Mbit/s requirement must be incorrect. However that reasoning that doesn't take into consideration the low/high mobility distinction, as well as the various other requirements for an IMT-Advanced radio interface that M.2134 defines.
I propose changing 300 Mbit/s back to 100 Mbit/s (see history) to properly reflect the IMT-Advanced requirements. Conquerist (talk) 22:56, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Citation Barnstar Hires.png The Citation Barnstar
Hi MrCellular. I think it is now more than overdue in time to thank you very much for your great effort in editing and improving the articles / tables List of LTE networks, List of planned LTE networks and List of CDMA2000 networks. Even if there are a few differences on rare occasions, I am very pleased that we always find a suitable solution in any case that seems to cover all (public) interest. We should continue like this and keep this in mind as beeing one of the main aims of wikipedia. I must clearly say that I'm happy to work together with you on wikipedia. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 19:53, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

List of HSUPA networks[edit]

Hi MrCellular. The deletion discussion for this article has come to an end, and it was decided to keep the information. Keeping that in mind I propose to merge the content into List of UMTS networks in form of a separate column with the year of the HSUPA-launch (where available) (including a citation in the "notes" column). I would leave out all information on uplink speeds as they are very likely to be out of date, as well as all information on sold hardware. We could also place a redirect from List of HSUPA networks to List of UMTS networks which would result in less work and maintenance by having all the information together in one list. (This could also be an option for the article List of HSDPA networks, but here it is preferable to wait until the deletion discussion has ended. What do you think about this idea? Nightwalker-87 (talk) 18:22, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

LOL! I don't think it's an good idea at all to merge with the List of UMTS networks. This would ruin the page even based on a colume. In my option it's also the wrong way to deal with the List of HSDPA networks as there can be more sources found! (As I discovered during my research for the List of HSPA+ networks) If you just don't want to do the research leave the page alone. My guess Wikipedia is running out of server space or why are you doing this with such an obsession/ pressure? If you are so obsseds with those merge thing do me a favor and merge the List of HSUPA networks with the List of HSDPA networks plus change the name to List of HSPA networks. I think that's the better way to deal with this situation you come up with instead of ruin the List of UMTS networks. However I still don't get it what's this all about?! Maybe you should bring (more) light into the 'my' darkness. Anyway thanks for your notification. MrCellular (talk) 20:30, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

The actual intention behind this idea is that wiki ends up with more and more useless tables dealing with the topic "List of "x" networks", which nobody reads and if somebody does, he'll get outdated information when we talk about content. This is because any of these tables, except the following: List of LTE networks, List of planned LTE networks and List of TD-SCDMA networks are up to date and maintained on a regular basis by (to be honest) mainly by two editors. In the recent months a few improvements have been made @ List of UMTS networks which I really appreciate. Mainly that's it. All other lists namely List of HSDPA networks, List of HSUPA networks, List of HSPA+ networks, List of EDGE networks are neither up to date, nor attract the merest spark of interest by any reader (see wiki page stats). (Is this because nobody finds them or because they are "useless" ?!?) When we look at the maintained pages mentioned before the picture is totally different. I mean it's like "light and shadow" ;-) from my point of view. So why not "collect" information that fits/belongs together into a few maintained tables instead. Another point is: Do we even need all that information - for exampe look at LTE we have two tables here that suit all needs: active LTE networks and planned LTE networks, but we don't create lists like "List of Cat.3 LTE networks" or "List of LTE Advanced networks" or "List of VoLTE networks" simply because there is neither a demand for it nor any interest. Your idea with for the HSPA network list could be a first step to deal with this issue. Don't you think a few general and therefore maintained lists are better than let's say 10 outdated lists with content related and cited edits every once in a while (we're talking about months and years here)? It's all about actuality, invested time, effort, sense, need and quality vs. quantity (and not about server space, which is indeed a funny input to this discussion :-D) Do you understand what I mean? Nightwalker-87 (talk) 22:16, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

First of all you haven't watched the List of HSPA+ networks for few days I guess because I didn't receive my second Barnstar. ;-) So don't put this list togther with the outdated lists. Gee, I wasn't aware that people even created a List of EDGE networks. :-D Now I've to protect this list from you too. So no holidays for the rest of the year. :-( Just kidding, I don't really care about such a lame technology. I'm still about to release an article about VoLTE which will also include some deployment table. :-p Talking of - up to date - lists we could also create a List of Cat 4 LTE networks which makes more sense or simply add this kind of information to the note section of the already available List of LTE networks. ;-) Now I got your point but I only share a few of them with you. How do we end up with those three lists which caused an so called issue? Honestly, I don't really have an answer for that question. If you want to merger all these three list you can simply delete such lists as List of mobile network operators of Europe which people actully care more about. MrCellular (talk) 01:25, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I must admit, that the last time I had a look @ List of HSPA+ networks was around the end of last month without having the page in my watchlist. In fact I can see that you again contributed a lot with much effort. Thank you very much! (but I don't issue barnstars by request :-P) I can read out the following points as a compromise from this discussion:

  • Merge the HSDPA and HSUPA lists to the wonderful and nicely done List of HSPA+ networks together with redirects from both old articles to the HSPA+ list. (Quite a bit of work for the first, but later easier to maintain.)
  • Don't care about the EDGE list (hopefully the running deletion discussion concludes with "delete")
  • Include a list directly in the VoLTE article you set up.
  • Deletion proposal for List of mobile network operators of Europe
  • Add information about Cat.4 (Cat.6) networks in the List of LTE networks (Suggestion: Yes/No column)

This means we would end up with the following article structure:

Oh, and could you please do me a favor as well and rip out the deployments listed in Evolved HSPA? This conflicts with the List of HSPA+ networks you recently improved. We have a list for deployment dates there already. Thanks in advance. I'll see what I can do concerning the mentioned improvements, but keep in mind: Rome wasn't built in a day. ;-) Nightwalker-87 (talk) 09:52, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Now it's getting from bad to worse. I wasn't talking about a merger of those three HSPA related lists. Please get rid of this idea. I think it's enough to merge the List of HSDPA networks with the List of HSUPA networks to build the List of HSPA networks. I guess the deletion vote for the List of EDGE networks will probably end up the same way as the List of HSUPA networks did. :-p Deletion proposal for List of mobile network operators of Europe?! Seriously? What's the matter with you? I mean it's one thing to delete the shitty List of EDGE networks but with this kind of suggestion you're getting beyond unreasonable. Like I said before it's getting from bad to worse. In my opinion there's no need to ask people about to add information like Cat. 4/ Cat. 6. Just do it. How could possibly compare to build a city with such lists on WP? Such an utterly bad comparison... MrCellular (talk) 12:33, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I seem to have misunderstood you with the HSDPA and HSUPA list merger. You meant to create a list similar to List of HSPA+ networks named List of HSPA networks. Sry for that. I still would consider that a favourable idea of yours. Your point with EDGE might be right, we'll see... What I don't understand is the point with List of mobile network operators of Europe. I only picked up YOUR suggestion. I don't mind keeping this specific list. I didn't understand that as being ironic. What is still unclear to me is what you mean with your last two sentences. Apart from that I think we've found a common ground. I saw that you took action on the Evolved HSPA. Great! :-) Nightwalker-87 (talk) 20:54, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I didn't suggest to delete the List of mobile network operators of Europe either did mean the ironic way. I just made an example. Which part of my didn't you understand? MrCellular (talk) 22:01, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I meant this: "How could possibly compare to build a city with such lists on WP? Such an utterly bad comparison..." As you've seen, I've started to prepare the LTE list for upcoming future developments (medium term). Looks like you're doing well in qualifing again for a barnstar as I see that you've been very very busy again on UMTS networks! Oh, snap! Oh well it looks like we've found our way back in track again... :-) But I really don't have the impression that anybody cares about what we do here... :-( Nightwalker-87 (talk) 22:31, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I know what you mean but I can't explain myself further. I guess we leave it that way. I'm aware of your progress with the List of LTE networks. Hopefully you don't run out of barnstars. :-D Have we ever lost our way?? Since when do you think about what other people care about? It's probably not the page itself it's more about people don't care about the technology they use. Anyway can you integrate something which only allow registered people to edit both Lists of LTE networks? Would be awesome! MrCellular (talk) 23:10, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I would like to, but as far as I know the feature "sighted article edits" (aka: every edit has to be sighted by a main article editor who has qualified for this "job" by the number and spread of edits he made) is only available on the German wikipedia. I don't know the reason for this actually... Nightwalker-87 (talk) 17:52, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Too bad. I wonder if or when we also consider Cat. 6 LTE networks? MrCellular (talk) 18:35, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Quite soon, I shall think, but first we need to think about how we can save some more space. Maybe we can cut the month names to 3 letters that would do a lot together with 3 lines in the column header. Does that work out with wiki formatting? I would prefer that over outsourcing information. I don't expect much to come above Cat. 6 for at least a while because most operators don't have enough spectrum available to combine. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 20:11, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

According to wikipedia the 3 letter month formatting works and is an accepted format where brevity is required (e.g. in tables). We shall be fine by sticking to this format. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 20:25, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. MrCellular (talk) 20:31, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
I've saved enough space for a Cat. 6 column, you can start straight away if you wish to do so :-) Nightwalker-87 (talk) 20:50, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
Done. MrCellular (talk) 05:32, 19 August 2014 (UTC)


LTE-Categories[edit]

Hi MrCellular. I'm starting this topic to shift the discussion away from the edit history of List of LTE networks. You mentioned: "E-Plus didn't launch a Cat 4 LTE network. 10MHz @Cat4 -> max. 75MBit/s is wrong. That's still Cat 3. Given source ≠ evidence for that"

E-Plus indeed did directly launch with Cat4. The (indirect) "evidence" is in the source which you deleted. There speeds much higher than 50 MBit/s were achieved in DL. That is NOT possible with Cat.3 in combination with a spectrum bandwidth of only 10 MHz. The situation is comparable to the 800 MHz Digital Dividend band (b20) with the German spectrum allocation (3x 10 MHz). Here every operator (Telekom, Vodafone, O2) picked up 10MHz each. All launched with Cat.3 and could therfore each only offer 50MBit/s in DL. Telekom also uses 20 MHz @1800 MHz (b3). Here they launched with Cat.3 resulting in 100 MBit/s. Later they upgraded to Cat.4, which allowed them to offer 150 MBit/s with this 20 MHz block. If Telekom only had 10 MHz @1800MHz they would only be able to offer 50MBit/s with Cat.3 or 75 MBit/s with Cat.4, because the number of subcarriers contained in the 20 MHz exactly halves. Further Telekom plans to offer Cat.6 in the countryside by combining band 20 and band 3. They will offer 225 MBit/s what also means Cat.6 (less than 300 MBit/s, but Carrier Aggregation). This is how that works: This aggregation consists of 75 MBit/s from band 20 (10 MHz @ Cat.4) + 150 MBit/s from band 3 (20 MHz @ Cat.4). All mentioned values are theoretical maximum speeds. I have sources for this as well: [[1]] [[2]] [[3]]. I agree that the source for e-plus doesn't mention Cat.4 directly, but by reaching 67 MBit/s > 50 Mbit/s this can definitely not be Cat.3 with only 10 MHz available. To be precise, the category only gives the information how much speed can be achieved per carrier. This is done by improving coding schemes (or by increasing the number of simultaneously used antennas). When a 20 MHz carrier is used this results in the numbers you know and mostly read: Cat.3 100 MBit/s and Cat.4 150 MBit/s. For 10 MHz, each is devided by two. I hope you see the point and that this helped. I must admit I'm 100% sure that this explanation is correct, because I've read this in literature. Would you be so kind and restore the e-plus source, at least preliminary until we found a better one? Thanks. ;-) Nightwalker-87 (talk) 23:32, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

No they did't launch cat 4 and your mentioned article isn't evidence for that. You also get more than 50 MBit/s on 800 MHz LTE. You better get some field experience... So it's still cat 3 and they didn't launched cat 4 by March. I don't know were you get the 75 MBit/s cat 4 stuff. Still wrong. Cat 4 = 20 MHz or CA = up to 150 MBit/s. I wonder why you put in the cat 6 stuff. No need for that. MrCellular (talk) 14:02, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

"You also get more than 50 MBit/s on 800 MHz LTE." --> Yes, exactly it is 51,024 MBit/s with Cat.3 according to 3GPP. I'm sorry for not beeing precise enough... But following your explanation I could now argue, that the E-Plus deployment is not even Cat.3 because it is not possible to achieve 100 MBit/s with 10 MHz (as far as it is known they only use 10 MHz) in combination with 64QAM, 2x2 MIMO. Therefore a 20 MHz carrier would be necessary. It would still be the same like with the deployments at 800 MHz, as there is no 20 MHz carrier possible (because of the current spectrum allocation at 800 MHz). In Austria for example operator A1 indeed achieves 100 MHz because they have a contigous 20 MHz block at 800 MHz. What is your explanation for E-Plus achieving 67 MBit/s with 10 MHz? Nightwalker-87 (talk) 22:18, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

You really don’t get it, do you? How would you explain that I achieved 68 Mbit/s on a LTE800 site of Telekom and Vodafone with a cat 3 device? And please don't put words in my mouth. MrCellular (talk) 22:19, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Obviously it is possible, that's not what I'm concerned about right now. I also don't doubt that you did achieve these speeds (although I don't have any evidence for it), but how does that work on a technical basis (2x2MIMO, QAM, bandwidth, code rate) ? So far I have found several sources, but following this discussion I'm no longer sure if they provide correct information. I haven't found a good 3gpp source yet, what would be ideal of course. I would like to really get an idea HOW this is achieved technically. Understanding this would also improve our work here. Maybe we should collect some trustable information and sources together and have this topic moved to the "Talk" section of the article "List of LTE networks", because I don't really want to continue filling your personal talk page with this discussion which is still open. Do you agree? (I would prefer if you move it because this is your personal Talk page.) Nightwalker-87 (talk) 15:50, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure. As no valid reason applies for moving this topic to the List of LTE networks talk page. Why didn't you use the List of LTE Talk page in the first place? Anyway I'm not the one who is after a reasonable source for such claims so don't put this down on me and use such phrases as "we". MrCellular (talk) 18:04, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi MrCellular, I'm back on this topic due to the recent mistake at the Beeline Russia entry. I don't think it is that easy really... I have the strong impression that the relation between device categories and the LTE category supported on network side should be clarified. I think can by now contribute to this topic as well:
For both networking and UE this should be the case: [[4]] & [[5]]
This would result in the following:

  • Cat.6: DL 40MHz, 2x2MIMO, 64QAM / UL 20MHz, SISO, 16QAM (max. 301,5 MBit/s)
    • Cat.6 can also be archieved by CA as long as the 40MHz are available for DL and a contiguous 20MHz block is available for UL
    • All Cat.6 UE support CA
  • Cat.4: DL 20MHz, 2x2MIMO, 64QAM / UL 20MHz, SISO, 16QAM (max. 150,8 MBit/s)
    • Cat.4 can also be archieved by CA as long as the 20MHz are available for DL and a contiguous 20MHz block is available for UL
    • Cat.4 UE is available with and without CA capability
    • Cat.4 UE without CA results in less achievable max. speeds if network equipment uses CA to achieve Cat.4 (10+10 MHz) (case for LG U+ in South Korea)
  • Cat.3: DL 20MHz, 2x2MIMO, 16QAM / UL 20MHz, SISO, 16QAM (max. 102 MBit/s)

Ok, so far, but the question I raise (e.g. concerning the Beeline deployment) is: How can spectrum be aggregated with Cat3? As far as I know CA was defined in "3GPP Release 10", but first introduced (in South Korea) with Cat4 (and higher) UE that had been defined in "3GPP Release 8" already. I other words: The feature of CA from Rel.10 was added to the existing UE Cat4 defined in Rel.8 (there without CA). You can see this in the report you recently added for South Korea [[6]] (CA for LG U+ b1_b5). According to "3GPP Release 10" the first and only combination was just this single combination of b1 and b5. All other possible CA-schemes were introduced from Release 11 onwards with Release 12 beeing the first to introduce 3-band CA schemes. Your source for South Korea (see above) also indicates that 225 MBit/s is also Cat6 if CA is utilized though the theoretical max. of 300 MBit/s is not achievable due to less than 40 MHz available. This also implies that Cat.4 devices are able to archieve 75 MBit/s with only 10 MHz available, because they are able to use 64QAM Edit: this is not the reason, just as Cat6 UE does. Cat3 UE is limited to 16QAM modulation what results in that they can only reach 100 MBit/s on a 20 MHz carrier. If only 10 MHz are available this results in a max speed of 50 MBit/s. That does not fit together with the reports of 73 MBit/s reached on a 10 MHz carrier, but in front of this technical background it is not to explain with the argument "it's less than 100 MBit/s so it must be Cat.3". That just to simple and in conflict with the source above.Edit: With Cat.3 it is possible to use 64QAM. See explanation below.
I consider it useful to have the correct explanation posted and clarified somewhere on wiki. This may also help users to "do the right thing". Can you or may I move this topic to the Talk page of the article "List of LTE networks"? Nightwalker-87 (talk) 13:52, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok, and after this here is now the detailled technical explanation and conclusive evidence for the UE categories and their achievable throughput: The calculation of the theoretical DL throughput in MBit/s according to the largest available carrier bandwidth of 20 MHz is as follows: A 20 MHz carrier consists of 100 Ressource Blocks (RB). Each RB consists of 12 Subcarriers (SC), which can be divided into 2 time slots (TS) each that carry 7 ODFM-Symbols each. Further we have a QAM modulation scheme. The maximum QAM specified is 64QAM, which means there are 6 bits/symbol. Additionally we have 2x2 MIMO antenna technology which allows two parallel data layers (L). In total this results in: 100 RB * 12 SC * 2 TS * 7 ODFM-Symbols * 6 bit/Symbol * 2 L = 201,6 MBit/s (Absolute theoretical technical maximum DL data rate per 20 MHz carrier). [[7]] (page 3).

Now let's take a look at the UE categories. This information derives from the specification document 3GPP TS 36.213 [[8]] (page 25 to 34): Let's take a look at table 7.1.7.1-1:

  • Cat4 Devices use coding schemes up to MCS28 for DL and MCS23 for UL. This leads to TBS Index 26 for DL and 21 for UL. Looking at table 7.1.7.2.1 we now look at N_PRB (# of Ressource Blocks) = 100 (corresponds to 20 MHz carrier). For the TCS indices above we find 75376 and 51024 respectively. This results in 51,024 MBit/s for the UL. For the downlink we have 2x2 MIMO, so there are 2 Layers. Corresponding to table 7.1.7.2.2: The available number of ressource blocks 75376 (SISO) translates to 149776 for 2x2 MIMO resulting in 149,776 MBit/s ~ 150 MBit/s. As can be seen this ist a bit less than the 2*75,376=150,752 MBit/s which are stated in the 3GPP UE table Table 4.1-1 in TS 36.306.
  • Cat3 Devices use coding schemes up to MCS23 for DL and UL. So with the explanation above we find: 51024 resulting in 51,024 MBit/s for UL again and with 2x2 MIMO for DL 101,8 MBit/s or simply 2*51,024=102,048 MBit/s (Table 4.1-1 in TS 36.306).

Edit: Cat3 supports up to MCS28 for DL as well, but there is a restriction: Only for a single 10 MHz carrier it is possible to use the amount of 75376 ressource blocks. It is not possible to adress 2 x 10 MHz = 20 MHz with 2x 75376 ressource blocks (RB) - this would end up in 149776 RB like in Cat4. Instead with Cat3 it is only possible to use a 20 MHz block with 75376 (@ MCS28) + 25456 (@ MCS14) = 100832 RB resulting in 100,832 MBit/s. This configuration uses two non equally coded MIMO layers. Alternatively as stated before, two equally coded MIMO layers with 51024 RB each can be combined to 20 MHz with 102048 RB @ MCS 23 respectively 102,048 MBit/s [[9]]. If we now reduce the carrier block size to 10 MHz - what happens? The amount of ressource blocks reduces from 100 to 50 - that's all. The MCS coding scheme stays the same. The conclusion is that a Cat4 device is able to achieve a theoretical troughput of 73,712 MBit/s with 10 MHz (50 RB) (Tables 7.1.7.2.1 & 7.1.7.2.2) of spectrum. Subsequently a Cat3 device in contrast can only reach 50,024 MBit/s according to these two tables and not around 75 MBit/s as previously discussed. I hope this clarified the issue so far. Edit: This also explains why you can achieve around 73 MBit/s with a Cat3 device on the E-plus LTE network utilizing only 10 MHz of spectrum. I doubt, that the development group is wrong here in their own specification. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 20:26, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Geez, quite a lot to read. I thought we introduced those new gaps in order to separate achievable speed classes? MrCellular (talk) 20:39, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

... it would have been much easier. :-/ But as you can see the UE classes mainly depend on modulation, coding schemes and the number of adressable ressource blocks, the different ways of combining the latter (with 2x2 MIMO) and not only on achievable speeds. Another good example is that you can reach 100 MBit/s with only 15 MHz and Cat.3 UE. Before I thought that this was solely possible with a 20 MHz carrier. I propose to move this whole stuff away from here to the "Talk page" and then I'll try to sort the whole stuff somehow. I think we WILL need it as soon as it comes to carrier aggregation of special block sizes for certain operators that don't have enough spectrum ressources to combine 20 MHz. Believe me - it will become even worse from the technical side... :-( Nightwalker-87 (talk) 22:51, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Adressing the columns for Cat4 and Cat6 in the table: We should keep everything as it is. The only thing that is going to change is that we will have to take a closer look at the size of the aggregated spectrum blocks when an operator introduces CA, and we should provide the amount of aggregated spectrum for every case. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 23:03, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
I checked the amount of spectrum all the time... MrCellular (talk) 23:09, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Whatever... Nightwalker-87 (talk) 23:14, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Nice try :p MrCellular (talk) 23:16, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 1 November[edit]

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

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:33, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Passbook (application)[edit]

Multile editors have disagreed with you on whether the Passbook (application) article should contain the list of companies that have Passbook apps. Repeatedly reverting them without joining a discussion on the talk page could be seen as edit warring. We have explained why we feel that list should not be in the article, based on Wikipedia's guidelines and policies; please provide a rationale why we're all mistaken. "It's useful" by itself is not a good rationale. Huon (talk) 19:17, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

And the same thing for Apple Pay. The Banner talk 02:49, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 25[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of mobile network operators of the Middle East and Africa, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page HSPA. 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) 10:27, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

November 2014[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm The Banner. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Apple Pay that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. The Banner talk 19:09, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 2[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of UMTS networks, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vala. 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) 10:16, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

December 2014[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm The Banner. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Apple Pay that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. The Banner talk 14:27, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I have to agree with that; I don't really appreciate my edits being called "vandalism" merely because you disagree with them. You should take a look at what is not vandalism. Your entire conduct is anything but collaborative, and sooner or later such a confrontational approach will have consequences. Please join talk page discussions instead of arguing via edit summary (not that "vandalism" is a good argument in a content dispute). Huon (talk) 15:27, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:List of devices with LTE Advanced[edit]

Hello MrCellular. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "List of devices with LTE Advanced".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Draft:List of devices with LTE Advanced}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save page", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. JMHamo (talk) 11:30, 2 January 2015 (UTC)