User talk:voidxor

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

Your revert on 10 Gigabit Ethernet[edit]

I understand your motives on just using "hub" for a repeater device as it's common and usually used for a multiport repeater. However, the term "switching hub" is also very common. Literally, "hub" is just a central network device with no distinction to its inner workings – many times it just isn't important at all. But it is here and I think WP should be a bit more precise than people might be in daily life. --Zac67 (talk) 20:28, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Self reverted. Fine. In my experience in the United States, simply saying "hub" or "switch" is enough to make that distinction. But I'll yield that two words that are mutually exclusive in my jurisdiction might be synonymous or ambiguous in yours. – voidxor 20:39, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Re: Edit Summary[edit]

Redrose64 added "..especially on First Great Western ('Worst Late Western')" First Great Western has been re-branded as Great Western Railway so this sentence fragment is outdated. Mainline421 (talk) 23:59, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

No! As we've been trying to tell you, that was already there. – voidxor 00:18, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
No it wasn't! [[1]] Mainline421 (talk) 12:44, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
@Mainline421: you're talking nonsense again. The revision of the article you just linked does in fact contain the text, "...especially on First Great Western ('Worst Late Western')." – voidxor 20:17, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
@Mainline421: I did not add that text, and I can prove it. Just ask. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:00, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Blank lines in discussions[edit]

Please do not insert blank lines in threaded discussions, as you did here. It goes against WP:INDENTGAP, and is an accessibility issue. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:00, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I saw your edit summary and self reverted nearly immediately. I'll follow the guideline but should point out that it makes the wikicode harder to read and makes paragraph breaks within a given comment virtually nonexistent. – voidxor 00:59, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Allegra Versace[edit]

If you want to, you can take a look at the article about Allegra Versace. That article is this weeks TAFI.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:15, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done. I made a couple small tweaks, but it generally looks good. – voidxor 22:12, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Alleged violation of MOS:LINUX[edit]

Hi, I don't really want to get into the specifics of whether the edit you reverted was "right" in calling software distributions like Trisquel "GNU/Linux", but I should point out that MOS:LINUX doesn't really apply in the way you claimed in those edit summaries. What it says is that The Linux name alone should not be changed to GNU/Linux, but it specifically states that this practice does not apply to proper names of individual operating system; e.g. "Debian GNU/Linux". Trisquel's official name is, in fact, "Trisquel GNU/Linux", so it would seem to fall exactly under the explicit exception that MOS:LINUX specifies. LjL (talk) 01:23, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

@LjL: As you point out, Debian is a very notable example of this. Yet the article's not at Debian GNU/Linux; it's at Debian. The boldface mention of Debian in the lede sentence omits the official "GNU/Linux" as well. Why? Because sometimes the formatting guidelines on Wikipedia differ from what's official. MOS:LINUX is one such guideline. Others include MOS:TMRULES, which says to omit the official "Inc." or "LLC" from mentions of companies and their article titles, and WP:COMMONNAME, which says to select what to name articles based on how the topic is most commonly written. The standard test for that is Google search results. While a search for "Trisquel" gets 408,000 results, "Trisquel GNU/Linux" gets only 75,100. Of course, every webpage that has "Trisquel GNU/Linux" will be in the search results for "Trisquel" as well, so we'll subtract 75,100 from the former. That's still 333k versus 75k. So per WP:COMMONNAME, just as with Debian, the article should be at Trisquel regardless of what is technically the official name. – voidxor 02:07, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
The "standard test" is flawed in many ways, as innumerable debates on article moves have shown; in any case, yes, WP:COMMONNAME may very well apply here. It's just that MOS:LINUX doesn't; in fact, it says almost the exact opposite. All I'm saying is, if we're going to revert someone's edits with a Wikipedia policy or guideline as rationale, it would be best if it were the right policy. LjL (talk) 02:10, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
@LjL: Likewise, "it would be best" if an endless army of Stallwarts [sic] didn't join Wikipedia purely to drive a unilateral agenda. Trisquel and other Linux-related articles have had long history of such edits, and I was simply following the precedents established in the history of that article, which cited MOS:LINUX in their edit summaries. If you want to hang me for moving quickly when cleaning up after such editors, go ahead, but it's not helpful. The correct forum for gaining consensus is the article's talk page. That way everybody gets a change to weigh in and guidelines can be reviewed, rather than arguing with each and every editor individually. – voidxor 21:44, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
If you want me to make a ruckus on the talk page for you citing a bogus reason for undoing edits, fine, but I thought since in the end your edit is good - just the cited reason for it isn't - I would mention it here. Rationales matter, bogus rationales don't help anyone. MOS:LINUX is patently not the right rationale for this, it spells out as much. LjL (talk) 21:49, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
@LjL: The heck do you want from me? As you say, my edit was good. Hindsight's 20/20, but I can't go back and change my edit summary.
Look at the article's history, buddy. I'm not the only one who has cited MOS:LINUX. Clearly several editors have done so, of which I am just one. If you want to address that precedent, then make your argument in a common forum where all participants can see it, rather than singling out individual editors and using inflammatory weasel words like "bogus" and "alleged". Make your argument based on facts, not by hurling insults along the lines of, "You did it wrong!" It's in the past; stop lecturing me about the past and start worrying about the future of the article. – voidxor 21:59, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
I lectured you once, by pointing out that your rationale was wrong. You were expected to acknowledge it and move on. You're the one now dragging the situation on. You could, like, chose to accept that you made a mistake (which was the only thing I wanted to make you aware of it the first place), and stop placing the blame on me for pointing it out. The fact that other people made the same mistake before, by the way, doesn't justify going along without reading the actual policy. LjL (talk) 22:02, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
I'd read the policy, of course. Why would I cite it without knowing what it is? A mistake is an error you refuse to correct. I didn't make a mistake; I made an error. I don't deserve to be lectured because of an error. Nor am I required to do whatever you say I am "expected" to do. Nor are other editors.
I am not the one dragging this out; you are. You incessantly point out others' errors on their talk pages and don't let up until they confess to their "crimes". This is my talk page, and you keep coming here to defame me. For every lecture you post on my talk page, I am entitled to a reply. Ergo, stop lecturing me and others and these arguments will cease. – voidxor 22:23, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
DEFAME you! You are sounding ridiculous... yeah, I will stop, you're not worth my time. LjL (talk) 22:33, 11 November 2015 (UTC)


If you want to, take a look at the article about Marie Serneholt which is this weeks TAFI article. Regards.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:43, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Sure, I'll take a quick look. Although I generally don't mind being asked to weigh in on something, you're getting in the habit of asking me weekly. With all due respect, please note that I didn't sign up for TAFI, and unfortunately cannot commit the time, so this week's will be the last. Thanks for your understanding. – voidxor 21:47, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

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

Hey. Are you aware that {{Cite web}} and {{Cite news}} have become 99.99% similar? So, the rule of thumb is: Unless your source is offline, use "Cite web" instead. Fleet Command (talk) 21:11, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

@FleetCommand: Can you cite a policy or a guideline that says that? If so, I'll gladly change my practice. Also, I don't follow the, "Because A and B are similar, you must use A," implication. – voidxor 21:40, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
In terms of rendering, a choice between {{Cite web}} and {{Cite news}}, when the source is online, is just as meaningful as a choice between lowercase "cite" and first-caps "Cite". I just thought you might enjoy having one less decision to make. If you don't feel comfortable changing your practice and keep making the extra albeit inconsequential decision, please be my guest! The only policy that will force you to choose one of the two consistently is WP:FACR. This was just an FYI comment from a friend to a friend. Fleet Command (talk) 21:58, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
P.S. I wouldn't have made this edit if, when I did it, knew that you had made a dedicated opposite change. I assure, I won't revert you over trivial matters like this ever again. Fleet Command (talk) 22:01, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
@FleetCommand: I'm always game for constructive criticism from my peers, so I appreciate you having my back. However, your original comment (above) and edit summary allude to {{Cite web}} being a requirement over its sister templates whenever |url= is used. Had you cited such a requirement, I wouldn't have reverted. If you cite such a policy, I'll self revert. Can you be more specific as to the location within WP:FACR? I can't find anything in there. And there is a rendered difference between the two templates, by the way: the parenthesis around the location and publisher. – voidxor 22:24, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Oh, yes, that. The main difference is when a |url= is absent, {{Cite web}} returns an error. {{Cite news}} renders alright. There is one other difference too; something about |date=, which I forgot. (I think in {{Cite news}}, the placement of date is different depending on the presence or absence of a publisher.)
WP:FACR part 2c, says "consistent citations: where required by criterion 1c, consistently formatted [~snip~]". That's it; the slight negligible difference between the two template is now so negligible that it is considered a mere inconsistency and ground for FA rejection. (It happened to me.) I think this was not the case before 2012; back then, people cared a lot about choosing them properly. FA is supposed to be strict you know. FA process can reject your article unless it "exemplifies our very best work and is distinguished by professional standards of writing, presentation, and sourcing".
My edit in the article was a so-called educational edit: To inform my pals that, if they want to, they can have an easier time not having a dilemma. But you don't need to self-revert or anything. Your comfort was my only concern. Fleet Command (talk) 23:22, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Although we don't see the answer in policy, I'll defer to your FA experience (of which I have none). I've self reverted and certainly don't want to leave any feeling of ill will. Can you link me to that FA rejection please? I believe you, but would like more insight into why {{Cite web}} is suddenly preferred for nearly every situation. To answer your original question, yes, I was aware that the templates have grown more and more alike. I wish they'd get the deed done and over with and just merge them already. But for the moment, they are still two different templates and the ref toolbar lists them separately. I've even schooled new users on when to use which template at editathons. – voidxor 02:07, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Sure, here are the links:
Of course, it was 2012 back then and Malleus resorted to disposing of |work= instead to achieve the consistency and to get the clearance for FA. (You can't find a single |work= in this revision: [2]) It wasn't until seven days later when Codename Lisa completed more negotiations and discovered that the solution was to move to the unified use of {{Cite web}}. ([3]) The article was already FA at this time but it received an FA review 23 days later. If you look at the rendering result of the first diff, you see that in retrospect, Codename Lisa was right to move to Cite web, because the Malleus's hack is no longer generates consistent results with today's templates.
If I am not mistaken, Lua came to being in February 2013 and it was then that the unification efforts started.
As a matter of fact, if you wish, you can uniformly use {{Cite news}} instead of {{Cite web}} in an article and still achieve this consistency score in FA. After all, these two support all of one another's parameters. The problem starts with the newcomers who come, look at the sources, say "this is not a news site" and replace it with "cite web". As you can see, the only concern here is common sense. But maybe I should give the ultimate unification idea a nudge.
Fleet Command (talk) 03:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
@FleetCommand: Splitting hairs like this is exactly why I've never attempted to push an article through the FA process. Yes, consistency is generally a good thing, but why dumb down our templates in order to achieve a few characters more consistency? I don't get it personally. Thank you for the info, though. Going forward I'll just use {{Cite web}} unless there's no URL. However, I'm not going to "correct" such existing inconsistencies without a policy to tell me to do so. If these editors are so bugged by it, they can fix it. Happy editing (and Thanksgiving, if you're in the U.S.)! – voidxor 22:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
I agree with 100% of that! Fleet Command (talk) 04:03, 25 November 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) 13:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)