User talk:Apeman2001

Welcome to Wikipedia
Welcome!

Hello, Apeman2001, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! . Any relation to Lola? . . . dave souza, talk 11:49, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

Thanks for the welcome! I appreciate you taking the time to do that. I do love the Kinks as you do, but my username has to do with 2001: A space Odyssey. I suppose it is supposed to tie the beginning of the movie to the end. Anyway, I will be dedicated to providing accurate information on many subjects with refined grammar and spelling, as well as professional sources. Cheers Apeman2001 (talk) 19:43, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * A splendid film, even if it did fail to predict that we'd be too impatient and would celebrate the Minellium at the start of 2000. Thanks for helping, look forward to seeing you around, . . dave souza, talk 19:47, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of video game magazines, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Game Developer (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:26, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

November 19 - Thank you, the issue has been resolved. - Apeman2001

Supercomputer
Hi Apeman. Curious why you restored the Titan to the list. It is not much faster than Seqouia and awkwardly shows two entries for 2012 (all other years have a single entry). I guess we could drop Sequoia from the table.

Also, I forgot to update the speed comparison after adding Tianhe-2: should have been 3.4 x 1010 times faster than the CDC 6600 – if we take the Wikipedia citation of its speed as accurate (I looked it up; this is the speed attributed to it by Princeton University). Other citations range from 500 KiloFLOPS to 3 MegaFLOPS.

Lastly, why did you change the dash to a double hyphen? Normally double hyphens are used only if dashes are not available. Patrickwooldridge (talk) 06:30, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

2012 was unique; first Sequoia was on top in the June list, then Titian replaced it in the November list. To my knowledge, it was the first time a supercomputer from a November list topped a new leader from the June list of the same year. I think it is appropriate to show both of them for this reason. If one were to be taken off, I think it should be the Sequoia as it is less powerful.

In regards to the speed comparison, I think it expected too much from the reader. The comparison that was there needed to be thought out by the reader and I am not sure if it was accurate.

Could you please point out where this dash/double hyphen situation is? I am unaware of it.

Apeman2001 (talk) 07:15, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Just since 2008, there have been as many machines that held the crown for 6 months as did for a year (none longer than that). Perhaps a chart or table with 6-month intervals would be a better presentation of the data.


 * Even kids hate it when you dumb things down for them. I think it is an interesting historical fact showing the rapid evolution of supercomputing (which I stated both in scientific notation and as a simple analogy). As to accuracy, as I said, the range of speeds cited for the CDC 6600 are 500 KiloFLOPS (early tests) to 3 MegaFLOPS (later machines); I would be OK with citing the whole range, but I think the Princeton benchmark is both accurate for the first use of the term "supercomputer" and a good average for that machine. If you think the point is not relevant, then OK, but I don't think it was unclear or difficult to understand for anyone researching this subject.


 * I can't find the dash substitution again. If you don't remember it, then I'm guessing it was someone else's edit; sorry. Patrickwooldridge (talk) 07:53, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:15, 24 November 2015 (UTC)