User talk:Aclassifier

001: Making a new page on an idea published by myself
I wonder if I am allowed to make an article about a special, deadlock free software pattern. I would look much towards the wiki:Bakery algorithm article, also see wiki:Deadlock.

The problem is that I have published this pattern, see chapter 10 of From message queue to ready queue by Øyvind Teig. I have also discussed it in two newer, published papers. A dr. student at the university here asked me the other day if that pattern was something I had invented, because he had not seen it documented. I don't know, and I will be very careful indeed, about that question.

However, that pattern is valuable for software designers, as one out of several building blocks for concurrent systems. I urge to say that this is not research, it's a patterns that has been used for several years. I would imagine that this pattern must have been used many times in the life of concurrent or multi-threaded systems - since the sixties?

I am thinking about giving it a name.

Am I allowed to start such an article?

Øyvind Teig (talk) 07:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I would advise against it, as per WP:NOT. As you have only provided links to which you have either created and not widely accepted/published by a third-party, your article may be deleted.  As I just linked Wikipedia should not be used as a publisher of original thought.  We are not used to publish academic works, theses, or original research.  I hope this gives you a better understanding of what's involved here.  If you are unsure about original research, reliable sources, or related topics, they are conveniently located near the top right corner of my user page, under List of Wikipedia Policies and Guidelines.  Have a good day.   - Jameson L. Tai   talk  ♦  guestbook  ♦  contribs  08:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, that's why I asked. Maybe it would better be an entry in my Tech Blog? But I would still not call it research. But if some other wiki user made an article, would that be different? Anyhow, with a Tech Blog, it's a good start? But then, a Tech Blog could not be cited in Wikipedia? So it's a catch-22 inside the Wikipedia system? (All systems are self-referential, so where does this start?) Øyvind Teig (talk) 08:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

002: Possible conflict of interest links
See User_talk:Beetstra

July 2024
Hi Aclassifier! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor&#32;at Tony Hoare that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Thank you. —⁠andrybak (talk) 17:21, 10 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Thank you! Is there any way to make it "major edit" then? Øyvind Teig (talk) 17:22, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Minor edit.png
 * Just disable the checkbox " This is a minor edit" under the editor on the left. —⁠andrybak (talk) 17:50, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but I didn't find any way to do this on an already saved edit(?) Øyvind Teig (talk) 19:04, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
 * That's not possible, no. —⁠andrybak (talk) 21:37, 10 July 2024 (UTC)