User talk:50504F

Unblock request
, I almost never believe claims like these, but in this case I think it warrants consideration. Particularly when combined with the SPI finding this particular account (but not Ll928) is unrelated. As such, I'd like to suggest an unblock would be appropriate here. As the blocking admin, what do you think? --Yamla (talk) 12:16, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * , this was a behavioural block (I wasn't even going to bring it to SPI since I knew they weren't technically related). Looking at Special:Contributions/Ll928 and Special:Contributions/50504F they're almost identical, and given that the majority of the redirects edited by 50504F were created/modified by Fmadd (which is how they popped up on my radar) I'm disinclined to feel charitable. It's just entirely too coincidental that two brand-new users pop up within a day of Fmadd being blocked and start editing in the same manner. However, if you feel otherwise, then I will not interfere. Primefac (talk) 14:09, 23 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment: The following is a chronology of the relevant events:


 * At 02:43 on 2017-02-16 UTC, User:50504F (me) was created:
 * At 02:48 on 2017-02-16 UTC, User:Beeblebrox blocks User:Fmadd:
 * At 04:20 on 2017-02-16 UTC, I make my first edit, which was to a talk page:
 * At 10:22 on 2017-02-17 UTC, User:Ll928, a confirmed sockpuppet of User:Fmadd is created:
 * At 10:23 on 2017-02-17 UTC, User:Ll928, makes their first edit: ; which follows the exactly the same pattern of behaviour as Special:Contributions/Fmadd, as pointed out by User:DoRD (documented at the last point)
 * At 13:34 on 2017-02-17 UTC, User:Arjayay initiates a sockpuppet investigation into User:Ll928
 * At 14:00 on 2017-02-21 UTC, User:Primefac, an administrator, blocks me as a sockpuppet of User:Ll928 before the sockpuppet investigation had completed:
 * At 17:54 on 2017-02-21 UTC, User:86.186.169.144 alleges that I am a sockpuppet of User:Fmadd:
 * At 13:58 on 2017‎-02-22 UTC, User:DoRD, a CheckUser, finds that I am unrelated to User:Fmadd:


 * My account was created before Fmadd was blocked and before Ll928 was created. I didn't even have any idea that there was drama involving Fmadd and their sockpuppet(s) until I found out I was blocked. I made my account to raise an issue at Talk:Microarchitecture, which has since been removed by User:86.186.169.144 , because I discovered that Computer organization redirects to Microarchitecture, which I felt was problematic. It is my understanding that the reason why Fmadd/Ll928 have been blocked is because they made incomprehensible and unexplained/poorly explained edits to redirects on a massive scale without concensus. While my issue is to do with a redirect, I believe that my concern with this redirect is not incomprehensible or unexplained; I believe that the reliable sources that I've mentioned at Talk:Microarchitecture support my concern, and that can be independently verified by others (which was the point of my edit, to draw attention to an issue and start the consensus process. My large edit to Talk:Microarchitecture took nearly two hours to research, to type, and to edit to an acceptable quality (I started it almost immediately after I'd created my account. This isn't the case with Ll928, who made an edit one minute after creating their account.
 * User:Primefac claims that my behaviour is identical to that of Fmadd/Ll928, that I've made a tremendous number of edits to redirects like Fmadd/Ll928. I've haven't. I've only edited four redirects since I've registered:, , , ,.
 * The first redirect was edited in relation to this edit, which corrected an error; the article claimed Krait to be a "microprocessor architecture", which at the time of this edit, was a redirect to Comparison of instruction set architectures, but Krait is a CPU in the SnapDragon platform, and all SnapDragon CPUs are implementations of the ARM architecture. After I edited the SnapDragon article, I decided that "microprocessor architecture" is very ambiguous, but given that the usage in the article was confused it with an implementation of an architecture (a microarchitecture), then "microprocessor architecture" would be better off redirected to Microarchitecture. It should be noted that Fmadd's now erased manifesto at their user page , that outlined their vision of what redirects should be, is entirely contrary to my edit to this redirect. Also note the stylistic differences between Fmadd's writing and mine.
 * Regarding the last three redirects, they were in relation to a move I made ("Branch predication" to "Predication (computer architecture)") - - to fix double redirects. I admit that I unilaterally moved this article, but not to provide an excuse to edit redirects. Whilst I acknowledge that the guidelines recommend that moves should be discussed before they are made so consensus can be found, I felt that to await consensus would have been detrimental. This is because the article has had very few edits since 2013, despite its importance in computer architecture, so it could be more easily found by readers if its title was the subject's common name (predication). This claim can be verified in Computer Architecture: A Quantitative Approach (3rd ed.) pp. 260-264, the now removed reference to a paper, and the article's own Fisher 2005 reference (pp. 170-173).
 * I don't understand how Primefac can say that my behaviour is identical to that of Fmadd/Ll928. I've made relatively few edits. My edits are more spaced out. What edits I've made in groups within a short span is driven by previous edits, which required further edits to cleanup and to fix mistakes. The only similarity between my edits and Fmadd's is that we've both edited Branch predication. It really is just coincidence that my edits and this Fmadd business are so temporally close. Further more, I cannot understand why Primefac can know before the CheckUser was performed that my account would be technically unrelated to those of Fmadd/Ll928. 50504F (talk) 04:31, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Redirects
Hi.

Would you please stop replacing redirects with direct links? You must not do that. Doing it once or twice in a blue moon is probably okay but if you keep doing it at this rate, you may get blocked from imposing wasteful load on Wikipedia servers.

Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 08:17, 27 April 2017 (UTC)


 * User:Codename Lisa, there's more to the replacement of the "MIPS instruction set" redirect with a direct link to "MIPS architecture" than it seems. The Redirect guideline states: "It may be appropriate to make this kind of change if the hint that appears when a user hovers over the link is misleading." This is the reason behind my edits. Most instances of "MIPS instruction set" in Wikipedia are errors because they intend to mean the MIPS architecture, not the MIPS instruction set ("architecture" and "instruction set" are not synonyms in the context of the MIPS architecture). Additionally, links to "MIPS instruction set" were part of the prose in some cases, which meant they were a part of the factual errors within the article text. I accept that I didn't communicate any this in the edit summaries, but my edits were not busywork. 50504F (talk) 05:15, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 2
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited MIPS architecture, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bitwise. 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) 09:45, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Somebody doesn't like your introductory paragraph in Instruction set
A person who appears to be User:Janagewen, editing from an IP address, replaced your introductory paragraph on instruction set with

"An instruction set architecture (ISA) is the interface between software and hardware of a computing system."

and, when I reverted it, repeatedly went back to his version, referring to your version as "stupid". Feel free to revert back to your version if you don't consider his version an improvement. Guy Harris (talk) 01:36, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * , for what it's worth, while I don't find the old version stupid I do find the new version a LOT more straightforward (and one could also say incredibly less convoluted). While it could maybe use some expansion to tie it in better to the next paragraph, I think it's a better opening than the old version. Primefac (talk) 01:41, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * - An ISA is not necessarily an interface between the software and hardware; it's an abstract model of a computer. Thus, an imaginary computer with no hardware realization still has an ISA. To say that an ISA is an interface between SW and HW is not the most general definition of an ISA. It is only when an ISA is realized as hardware (implemented) that it serves as such an interface. And I despite your claim that my contributions are "convoluted". It's precise, and necessarily so, because ISAs are not a basic topic some would like to imagine. As an encyclopedia, we have to summarize all viewpoints (pragmatists should read this as: the  notable viewpoints only), not just the ones that we prefer because we find them simple or understandable. Remember, understanding is sometimes illusionary. The ISA lead could do a lot worse: some computer scientists describe an ISA as an information-theoretic communications channel. You'll need a degree in information theory to understand their definition! 50504F (talk) 10:27, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * - Thanks for the heads up. I was aware that there was an objection to my contributions soon after it was raised, but I decided not to respond to it after I had seen that person's conduct at the talk pages of x86 et al. 50504F (talk) 10:27, 27 May 2017 (UTC)