User talk:Uncompetence

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

Wikifying Richard D. Gill[edit]

Hi Uncompetence thanks very much for helping me getting the item on myself, Richard D. Gill (mathematician), formerly known as Richard Gill (physicist), (and English not Dutch), in better order. It's obviously improper to write wikipaedia pages on oneself but since the page contained serious errors of fact and even its name perpetuated them I had to fix that. It's looking better now and my more wikixpert son says he'll further wikify it --Gill110951 07:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Vandal Tags[edit]

Thank you for reverting vandalism on Wikipedia!

Be sure to put warning tags on the vandal's user talk page (such as {{subst:test}}, {{subst:test2}}, {{subst:test3}}, {{subst:test4}}). Add each of these tags on the vandal's talk page, in sequential order, after each instance of vandalism. Adding warnings to the talk page assists administrators in determining whether or not the user should be blocked. If the user continues to vandalize pages after you add the {{subst:test4}} tag, request administrator assistance at Request for Intervention. Again, thank you for helping to make Wikipedia better.--NMajdantalk 04:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

VPCI Subpages[edit]

Here's my thought: If the article on instructor John Doe gets created, and he's not notable (which for Wikipedia standards, he most likely isn't), the article's going to get speedily deleted. Too many other eyes are going to see it show up, and one of them's going to be an admin. However, speedy deletion only applies to article namespace, not user. If the page were set up in somebody's userspace, the page would not be subject to speedy deletion, and subpages are allowable. The downside is everybody would have to know where to look, and the linking would be cross namespace, e.g. [[User:Uncompetence/John Doe|John Doe]]. It's a workaround, but the day before deadline, it would at least let the pages get created. —C.Fred (talk) 02:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I was under the impression that the assignment was due tomorrow, and that it would have to be printed/finalized by the start of the class period. If they've got tomorrow's class(es) to work on it, then yes, physically speaking with them is an option. I will not be online during the school day tomorrow, so I won't be available to assist. —C.Fred (talk) 02:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, not literally their user pages, but subpages. Compare my user page, User:C.Fred, with a subpage I have for testing, User:C.Fred/Sandbox. How sure are you the deadline is Sunday? The notice needs updated in that case. —C.Fred (talk) 02:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

That was my thought: let one account hold all the subpages. Then they're in one place and easier remember where to link to. —C.Fred (talk) 03:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Only thing I can think of is the mechanics to create a subpage—create a redlink for it (i.e. link some article text to a non-existent article), then click on that link. Though somebody's figured that out, since at least one instructor redlink is in the article. The key is to give it the name like User:username/instructor's name. The pipe can be used to only show the instructor's name in the article, like I do in my signature. —C.Fred (talk) 03:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


I assume based on the above conversation that leaving a redirect behind was unintended, so it's deletion shouldn't be a problem, but I figured I should let you know I tagged Katsinos which became a redirect to User:Benhu/Katsinos when you did the move for speedy deletion. Boilerplate text follows...

A tag has been placed on Katsinos, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect to an user page from the main/article space. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. - Fordan (talk) 13:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

/* The third readers-writers problem */[edit]

<<Note also that this solution can only satisfy the condition that "no thread shall be allowed to starve" if and only if semaphores preserve first-in first-out ordering when blocking and releasing threads.>>

Pardon me, this is obvious. The same would apply to any concurrency problem in which a mutex pattern is needed. Why not traversing Wikipedia for applying the same note to all of them?

<<Otherwise, a blocked writer, for example, may be continually preempted by newly blocked writers.>> this is utterly wrong: preemption only can take place on a running process, in favor of another running process, not on waiting ones. Please remove — Preceding unsigned comment added by Babobibo (talkcontribs) 14:22, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

The pre-emption wording was poor (and wrong) on my part and what attempting to express writer starvation. It has been updated. I feel that, while obvious, it still merits mentioning in this case as much as how the Readers-writer_lock page mentions the need for a variant. <<To avoid writer starvation, a variant on a readers-writer lock can be constructed which prevents any new readers from acquiring the lock if there is a writer queued and waiting for the lock, so that the writer will acquire the lock as soon as the readers which were already holding the lock are finished with it.>> — Uncompetence (talk) 09:47, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Although I think there must be a way to put this concept as a foreword, as intrinsic fairness of the specific semaphore implementation is also relevant to the first provided solution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Babobibo (talkcontribs) 09:42, 7 July 2011 (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) 16:28, 23 November 2015 (UTC)