User talk:voidxor

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

Refactor / removing others !votes[edit]

A !vote is not a vote. Re Talk:USB 3.0#Proposed merge with USB 3.1, IPs can comment. Also, per WP:REFACTOR please be aware that a contested refactor shouldn't be repeated. Stop now, else it may be seen as disruption, you're already at 2 contested refactors within 24hrs. Widefox; talk 21:09, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

@Widefox: "Vote" is too synonymous with "!vote". We just typically say "!vote" around here to remind ourselves that such discussions are more about the merit of the argument than actual count of votes.[1]
I'm not sure that scratching a disallowed vote counts as "refactoring", but if it does, then you have "refactored" twice too ([1], [2]), even though contested ([3], [4]). If you're going to come to my talk page to lecture me, please ensure you're not being hypocritical. – voidxor 22:09, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
See WP:REFACTOR "If another editor objects to refactoring then the changes should be reverted.". It's contested. Two editors are waiting for you to withdraw AGF. Restoring others opinions can be done by me, or I suggest you ask a third opinion / admin (2nd request). Until then, you are against consensus and this minute considered disruptive. This is not a moment for moral relativism. Widefox; talk 22:35, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
So I'm "disruptive" and in bad faith because I disagree with you?! I've reverted twice and you've reverted twice. Again, hypocrisy. And I don't need a third-party opinion; I'm perfectly capable of reading and citing policies and guidelines. I'm waiting on you to show me where it says that IP addresses can vote. The one time you attempted to do that, you accidentally cited an essay that says that IPs can't vote, ergo proving my point and thus I reverted again. I was reverting because policy is on my side; you're simply edit warring. Don't want me to "refactor"? You could have just asked. Saying "please hold off on striking that vote until we figure out the relevant policy" would have sufficed, but instead you chose to start a parallel argument. – voidxor 22:52, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Come on, you know how it works around here - by consensus. Two others don't agree with you. Also, it's BRD not BRRD. If you want to clear up the bad faith accusations then we're waiting for a strike (a common approach here when one realises one's in such a situation). Taking this up on your talk is not to duplicate, but simply behavioural is offtopic there. Widefox; talk 07:20, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Actually, two versus one is as close to 50-50 as you can get with only three opinions. That's not a consensus; that's a contested issue. The wider consensus (the one that matters) is expressed in the essay, which I believe is pretty clear that IPs can't vote. I've given you ample opportunity to cite a policy, guideline, or essay that says that IPs can vote, but you haven't. Instead you mount a Chewbacca defense. Sad.
How many times do I have to explain to you that I didn't accuse you of anything?! You're a bully; you beat people over the head with threats (e.g. "You're in violation! Stop now.") and demands (e.g. to censor my illustrative example) until they cave in and you ultimately get your way. Never mind the merit of the argument. Unfortunately, the harassment situation on Wikipedia is way out of control. I would appreciate if you leave my talk page now. You're obviously not here to discuss whether or not IP users can vote. – voidxor 17:04, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Where is it explicitly stated that IPs can't vote? I am only aware of two such places:
  • Requests for Adminship, which at Expressing opinions says "All Wikipedians—including those without an account or not logged in ("anons")—are welcome to comment and ask questions in an RfA but numerical (#) "votes" in the Support, Oppose, and Neutral sections may only be placed by editors while logged in to their account."
  • Arbcom elections, where the use of the "SecurePoll" extension necessarily restricts participation to those who are logged in; see for example Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015#Timeline, item 2.
There are many discussions (for merges, deletions, etc.) where IPs have !voted and their comments have not just been left unstricken, they have been taken into account by the closing admin. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:08, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Timeline of the formation of the Universe[edit]

On Timeline of the formation of the Universe, you put Grand Unification Epoch related to Planck Epoch. I fixed that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.198.8.22 (talk) 11:56, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Actually, all you did was revert to the incorrect syntax. If you want to promote a level 4 heading to a level 3 heading, remove one of the equals signs before the section name, and one from after it. See Help:Section#Creation and numbering of sections. – voidxor 05:24, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Voidxor. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Some baklava for you![edit]

Baklava - Turkish special, 80-ply.JPEG For your work on Vagus nerve, keeping it focused on referenced content is much appreciated. Tom (LT) (talk) 23:14, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Tom. It's nice to feel appreciated! – voidxor 00:56, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

UUID[edit]

I do not know why there is a separate article for GUID and UUID. Probably it is for the proverbial "historical reasons", and if it were up to me, there would be only one article. I haven't worked on the GUID article, and in fact it has several problems, by the way.

The history here is that UUID's were invented by a team at Apollo in the 1980's for Apollo's Network Computing System. In the late 1980's and early 1990's, Paul Leach and others used a development of UUIDs in the Open Group's Distributed Computing Environment (DCE). A little later, Salz and others at Microsoft adopted the DCE UUIDs essentially without change for the Component Object Model and the Windows Registry, but decided to call them GUIDs. The only change made by Microsoft was to change the byte order from network byte order to little-endian byte order. Leach and Salz came together and wrote an Internet Draft spelling them out, including network byte order as "variant 1" and little-endian "native" byte order as "variant 2". Variant 2 in that Internet Draft was referred to as the "Microsoft GUID" variant, but apart from byte order and variant bits, Variant 1 DCE UUIDs and Variant 2 Microsoft GUIDs are identical. The Internet Draft eventually turned into RFC 4122.

Some years later, Microsoft changed its documentation, and started referring to variant 2 as the "legacy GUID format". Microsoft software now generates "GUIDs" which are just straight-up variant 1 UUID's, while continuing to use variant 2 as well, sometimes referring to those as "legacy" GUIDs. The current version of Microsoft's guidgen tool generates bog-standard Variant 1, Version 4 UUID's. Both variants are referred to as GUIDs in the Microsoft world. I tried to capture all this in the sentence which you reverted, which is that the term GUID is either a synonym for UUID, or sometimes refers to one particular variant of UUID. Apparently a legacy variant, though I didn't mention this, because I don't have good sources for it being entirely "legacy".

It isn't my fault that the GUID article exists and that it is confusing, and the existence of the GUID article shouldn't be a reason for anyone to think that GUIDs are somehow different from UUIDs. There is no real difference, other than terminological.

I am going to try to cover some of this in the article and I ask you kindly not to undo it again, because it is correct, and the wording which you apparently prefer does not capture the situation: "GUID" is not just a variant of UUID. Many of them, perhaps all the recently-generated ones, are in fact UUID's.

If you think I am wrong about all this (I'm not), please start a discussion on the Talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.253.110.94 (talk) 21:09, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't think you're wrong, but as long as GUID and UUID are separate articles, their introductions should not say that the two terms are synonymous. So rather than confusing the reader (which is what I just fixed) or lecturing me about it, the thing to do would be to propose a merger between the two articles. – voidxor 22:38, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

The Talk page for the GUID article discussed merger a couple of years ago, and that seemed to be the consensus. I am just an anonymous person interested in UUIDs and in making that article better. The article needs to say that UUIDs and GUIDs are the same thing, because that is the case, and it would be confusing not to say it. The GUID article needs to say the same, because what is true in the UUID article is true in the GUID article. It is not my problem that the two articles exist on Wikipedia, despite UUID and GUID being synonymous. If you want to propose the merger of the articles in some inner Wikipedia sanctum, and argue with people about it, have fun. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.253.110.94 (talk) 01:39, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Okay, as you've probably seen by now, I just closed that old merge discussion and performed the merge. Thank you for pointing out that discussion.
I sense your frustration, and agree that GUID and UUID are more or less synonymous. However, rewording the introductions of those articles to say as much was the wrong way to go about it; I said so (above) and partially reverted your changes. I even advised you on the correct way to deal with two articles about the same thing (a merger), but you impatiently didn't wait for that discussion to play out, and reverted my revert.
Wikipedia has been around a while, and has lots of processes to keep things running smoothly. It's not sanctimonious; it's just experience. Process is important! Ignoring it, as you did, tends to waste everybody's time, including your own. For instance, you just spent hours working on an article that even you were arguing needed to go away. – voidxor 00:12, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the paragraph which you reverted about randomly-generated node ids, as the paragraph itself stated, this is directly from RFC 4122 itself, as are almost all the rest of the details about UUIDs currently in the article. Having mentioned the RFC and provided links to it (wiki automatically makes any mention of "RFC 4122" a link) the article is not citing particular sections of the RFC for the various technical details. But if you would like to check, the section on randomly-generated node ids (including the detail about the multicast bit), is 4.1.6. This then refers to Section 4.5 which sets out how the random node ids can be generated. 4.1.6 says that random node ids should be used when there is no MAC address. 4.5 expands on this a bit by adding that random generation can be used when there is no IEEE 802 address (i.e. a MAC address), "or its use is not desired". 73.253.110.94 (talk) 02:29, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

You're right; I'm sorry. I viewed your diff in wikicode form, and thus didn't see the links. I'll self revert and add overt footnote-type citations to the RFC. – voidxor 04:06, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm putting this here, because it seems like you don't read the UUID talk page. Regarding version 1 UUID rollover, the time is a 60-bit number in 100-nanosecond intervals since 15 Oct, 1582 00:00:00.0 UTC. 60 bits of 100 nanosecond intervals is 3653.3877 years. Add that to the 1582 AD and you get 5235.39 AD The uuid program on Linux, when displaying v1 UUIDs, rolls over at March 31, 5236 AD, which is consistent. Surely, doing simple calculations is not "original research". Is it? Oddly, RFC 1422 states that the time rolls over in 3400 AD, "depending on the algorithm". This is an odd statement because (1) there is only one algorithm for time in the RFC, so it is hard to see what other algorithms it could depend upon; and (2) according to the one algorithm mentioned in the RFC, the rollover is 5236 AD not 3400 AD. It looks like at some point there was a different, or more than one, time algorithm, and the RFC was never updated. 73.253.110.94 (talk) 14:30, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

In trying to reconcile 5236 AD versus 3400 AD, I realized that 3400 AD is what you get if the 60 bit timestamp is a signed number, rather than unsigned. 73.253.110.94 (talk) 14:45, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't know. Obviously Wikipedia has lots of worked examples, particularly in math-related articles, and those needn't be cited. But the way you'd written it looked more like a fact than a derived example when I reverted it. Regardless, I like the way that you just redid it, attributing the rollover date to the RFC.
And I do read the talk page; I'm just less of a subject-matter expert than you and Andy. So I'm letting you guys direct the evolution of the article. My interest is more that Wikipedia policies are adhered to, and you are now doing a much better job of that. Speaking of which, thank you for all of your hard work on the article. – voidxor 17:43, 25 January 2017 (UTC)