User talk:Applist

This is my talk page

MESSAGES
.

COMMENTS
First off, I strongly recommend removing the subsections on this; most people use the 'new section' button and may not even see it. Secondly, whenever editing a user page you need to use an edit summary (you may have done so in the second and third edits, but not on the first which is the one I got an eMail notification for) to prevent some of the more jumpy vandal fighters from reverting and templating you.-- Laun  chba  ller  06:37, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

WARNING
WARNING: DO NOT POST BAD WORDS/LANGUAGE, SPAM, XXX, OR NOT I WILL REPORT!

Talkback
♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ Talk ♪  ߷  ♀ Contribs ♀ 12:19, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
A kitten for being an Apple nerd :-)

♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ Talk ♪  ߷  ♀ Contribs ♀ 12:19, 4 April 2013 (UTC) 

Your recent edits
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either: This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
 * 1) Add four tildes  ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment; or
 * 2) With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (Insert-signature.png or Signature icon.png) located above the edit window.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 03:31, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Fine
Just found out the logo on a hardware..so..it's fine! :) Thanks!  TheStrike  Σagle   06:52, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

April 2013
Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to give IPad (3rd generation) a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. Themeparkgc  Talk  07:14, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Do not threaten other users as you did with the edit summary here. GSK ● ✉ ✓ 07:39, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to move pages to bad titles contrary to naming conventions or consensus, as you did at The new iPad, you may be blocked from editing. GSK ● ✉ ✓ 07:40, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for trying to keep Wikipedia free of vandalism. However, one or more edits you labeled as vandalism, such as the edit at Apple Corporation, are not considered vandalism under Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia has a stricter definition of the word "vandalism" than common usage, and mislabeling edits as vandalism can discourage newer editors. Please read NOTVAND for more information on what is and is not considered vandalism. Thank you. YuMaNuMa Contrib 14:04, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
GSK ● ✉ ✓ 07:46, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

ANI discussion
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. GSK ● ✉ ✓ 07:24, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you move a page disruptively, as you did at Intel Core, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 08:47, 13 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello - I have undone the Intel Core move. That page didn't need a disambiguation page, because far more people are looking for that page than the microarchitecture page, and therefore this can be dealt with using a hatnote.  If you think about it, this is logical, because by using a dab page you are forcing everyone looking for either article to click twice, whereas previously the majority of users went straight to the article they wished to find.  Article titles can be contentious, and whilst changing them boldly is sometimes OK, when the article is a busy one or the move is likely to be contentious you should follow the process shown in requesting a potentially controversial move.  Changing article titles without consensus, especially when they violate our naming guidelines, can be disruptive and you could find yourself blocked if you continue to do this. Black Kite (talk) 09:14, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Regarding POWER
Haven't we've already gone through this? POWER8 is only "POWER" in name, it's a PowerPC (which was renamed in 2006 to Power Architecture) in architecture as have ALL processors named POWER-something been since the POWER3 in the late 1990s. POWER as an instruction set architecture only lasted for two generations; POWER1 and POWER2. After that, it's been PowerPC all the way in every processor from IBM. That's why we split the old IBM POWER article into two, the IBM POWER Instruction Set Architecture and the IBM POWER microprocessors articles. POWER8 does belong in the second, and it's mentioned there, but it's not a part of the former, and it's not mentioned there. The POWER ISA article is certainly historical since nothing new has come of it since 1997, and the corresponding article for the current instruction set is Power Architecture in which POWER8 is mentioned. -- Henriok (talk) 13:04, 28 August 2013 (UTC) -- Henriok (talk) 13:04, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Notification of redirects for discussion
FYI, a redirect you created has been nominated at WP:RFD. You can participate in the discussion at Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2017_January_14. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 02:15, 16 January 2017 (UTC)