User talk:Electron9/2013-01-22

Speedy deletion nomination of MikeOS
A tag has been placed on MikeOS, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Pcap ping  08:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

February 2010
Please do not remove speedy deletion notices from pages you have created yourself, as you did with Chip carrier drawings. Please use the template on the page instead if you disagree with the deletion, and make your case on the page's talk page. Thank you. Fabrictramp |  talk to me  18:36, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to grab and reuse your attempt IEEE 802.3az page
Hi I'm grabbing your stub IEEE 802.3az page. IMO, it shouldn't have been PRODed, though I am going to move it to Energy Efficient Ethernet and begin expanding it. Thanks for starting it. -- KelleyCook (talk) 16:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Nice it had some use ;), better make copy thoe, Some people suffer from deletism.. Interesting that the standard has speed reduction mode for 10 Gbps, but not for 1 Gbps or 100 Mbps. As the general rule that higher frequency usually means more energy content. Electron9 (talk) 20:50, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed is on article probation. -- TS 20:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Insertion Mount Technology (IMT)
I used to work for Universal Instruments Corporation who is the global leader in the IMT and SMT industry and that is what they refer to as through-hole. In the 16+ years of working in the industry they have always referred to through hole as IMT. Paly 1 (talk) 02:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC) http://www4.uic.com/wcms/wcms2.nsf/9d77f80a90bd656c8525692700744d90/afcd533e93b6d0f1852575e500691418?OpenDocument 3rd Paragraph  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paly 1 (talk • contribs) 02:15, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

http://news.thomasnet.com/companystory/491560 6th Paragraph http://news.thomasnet.com/companystory/491067 3rd Paragraph  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paly 1 (talk • contribs) 02:20, 7 April 2010 (UTC) http://www4.uic.com/wcms/WCMS2.nsf/index/News_Events_384.html last paragraph  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paly 1 (talk • contribs) 02:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Through hole: A hole connecting the two surfaces of a printed circuit structure.

Through hole technology: also referred to as "insertion mount," where electronic components are inserted into holes in the PCB.

Tie bars: Polyimide strips, or bars, connecting an inner ring at its corners to the remainder of the TAB tape site. Also referred to as suspenders. From UIC's internal site via customer portal on their glossary of terms page.

IM Host Interface An optional feature on the IM (Insertion Mount) Machine supports the GEMstandard implementation of SECS II. This is an industry standard communications protocol which allows any host computer system that uses the same industry standard protocol to communicate with the IM Machine. From another document on their website.

Insertion Mount (IM) Safety Rules The following rules are specific to IM equipment (also known as Through Hole) : • Whenever powering the IM machine down for maintenance, follow the next two procedures: • On the AC power panel, push the breakers to the OFF position. Also, at the AC power panel, turn the key to the OFF position and remove. • Attach a warning notice to the AC power panel showing the machine is not operational and only the maintenance technician is authorized to restore power. From another document on their website —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paly 1 (talk • contribs) 02:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC) Paly 1 (talk) 02:45, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Do you have any references at credible universities that refer to this with the same name? Just as with D-subminiature DB9 is an industry wide misnomer. There's some with RS, that should be EIA.. So this type of thing has occoured before. That's why I ask for more references. Electron9 (talk) 12:26, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, universities that teach about electronic assembly. Nope, there are no such universities. Can't imagine why a university would teach anything about electronic assembly. I have a BSEET degree and they did not teach me anything about electronic assembly. I was hired in by a electronic assembly manufacturer and that is what they call it. Paly 1 (talk) 14:24, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It might not been so central when you left university. But assembly technique is certainly something that is of interest now when there are several methods and high volume production. Electron9 (talk) 15:15, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Unnecessary HTML?
Just asking, why are these edits necessary? Using HTML instead of typing a bracket is anything but tidy.  Sp in ni ng  Spark  18:37, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


 * In some cases the wiki engine may misinterpretate the text as wikicode. Thus using and-#-number; makes sure it works in 100% of the cases. Electron9 (talk) 18:44, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


 * What cases? The only thing I can think of is if the bracket is followed by http:// or something that causes it to be interpreted as a link. In any case, it was not being misinterpreted in that article, and in any any case the brackets were round rather than square before you edited.  You seem to be fixing a problem that doesn't exist.  Usually, we replace HTML codes with the plain text symbol where we can to aid readability in edit mode, not the other way round.  Sp in ni  ng  Spark  19:14, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll try it next time ;) Electron9 (talk) 20:20, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Xilinx ISE


The article Xilinx ISE has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Software with no evidence of notability.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 03:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

August 2010
Please do not remove speedy deletion notices from pages you have created yourself. Please use the template on the page instead if you disagree with the deletion, and make your case on the page's talk page. Thank you. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 09:48, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Xilinx ISE
An article that you have been involved in editing, Xilinx ISE, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. --  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 13:24, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Please see further discussion at Articles_for_deletion/Xilinx_ISE. Electron9 (talk) 00:51, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Total size of pictures actually used in articles?
Hi, you asked recently at the Village pump what is the total size of images used on the English Wikipedia. According to my counting, 2,197,487 different images are used, totaling 1,197 GB. There was about 188,000 image links I couldn't find any image for, but some of those are image redirects, so the actual total size is probably slightly larger. Svick (talk) 06:07, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks!, any idea how much that would be if only thumbsize would be counted? Electron9 (talk) 09:46, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't know about any reasonable way to figure that out. Svick (talk) 23:28, 16 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I can think of one method, but it takes some serious data processing. If a list with picture name and size is compiled. By then evaluate each image reference in the wiki code for each article. And sending a HTTP request the header response will contain "Content-Length: 12345". That number can then be added, and then proceed with the next reference and request. Nothing of the image data in the HTTP request needs to be retrieved. The load should be minimal as all requests can be made to the cache servers. A coarse alternative is to evaluate thumb to 250 width and corresponding aspect ratio height, and assuming raw image is reduced to 90%. Electron9 (talk) 14:20, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


 * That's why I said I don't know about any reasonable way to do it. I don't think making over 2 millions requests (even if they were just HEAD requests) to get that number is worth it. Svick (talk) 14:45, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Fiber focus infrared soldering


The article Fiber focus infrared soldering has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Non-notable. The one reference only mentions this process in passing.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Wizard191 (talk) 22:13, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

List of display mode data
So why not add a couple of columns to the big table in Computer display standard instead of starting a content fork article?--Wtshymanski (talk) 22:16, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It's so full of clutter. Especially long comments and a long table. Makes it hard to get an overview. Electron9 (talk) 23:00, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Autopatrolled
Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the "autopatrolled" permission. This won't affect your editing, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Please remember:
 * This permission does not give you any special status or authority
 * Submission of inappropriate material may lead to its removal
 * You may wish to display the Autopatrolled top icon and/or the User wikipedia/autopatrolled userbox on your user page
 * If, for any reason, you decide you do not want the permission, let me know and I can remove it
 * If you have any questions about the permission, don't hesitate to ask. Otherwise, happy editing! Acalamari 11:54, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

BPP
Hi, now that BPP redirects to a disambig, please don't forget to WP:FIXDABLINKS. This tool makes the job a lot easier. Thanks, -- Ja Ga talk 05:40, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the tip. I think I got them all now. But isn't there any tool to do this completly automaticly? Electron9 (talk) 11:01, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Display examples for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Display examples is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Display examples until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Whpq (talk) 17:23, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of .cbp


The article .cbp has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * This article is about a non-notable file extension. There is no coverage about this specific file extension beyond directories which identify a list of software that uses this extension.  The none of the software using the extension is notable of itself so there is no need for a redirect or conversion to a disambiguation page.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Whpq (talk) 14:12, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of .cbp for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article .cbp is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/.cbp until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Whpq (talk) 16:39, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

International Space Station
Hi Electron9 !!

Thanks for the interest in the article. The image you've inserted is the same as the one above it ! you were too busy to notice ! anyhow, I'll leave it to you to work out which one you think is better. Please don't forget to put in an alt description for the blind. Thanks. I'm also a fan of the NE555 timer IC, lolz, small world ! Penyulap  talk 21:58, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Done! Electron9 (talk) 00:04, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Not just yet, check the text .. Penyulap   talk 01:42, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

European Installation Bus listed at Redirects for discussion
I started a discussion about the redirect European Installation Bus which redirects to KNX (standard). I just want to inform you because you are quite active at the target article. Merlissimo 17:31, 24 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Thx Electron9 (talk) 01:57, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Scaffold (execution site)
-- Jac 16888 Talk 13:49, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I use machine translation sometimes as the basis. And proof read / copy edit it subsequently. The final version is a human version. so don't judge it by the first edit comment.Electron9 (talk) 14:57, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I would not call the article as it stands now anywhere near useful, half of it is meaningless-- Jac 16888 Talk 20:48, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you fix it?Electron9 (talk) 22:12, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Not without a great deal of effort. Machine translations are a very thing difficult to fix, often actually harder than just translating it. Category:Wikipedia articles needing cleanup after translation is filled with very poor articles that people ran through google translate then left for someone else to fix-- Jac 16888 Talk 13:27, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Talkback: your problem at Icariin
-- Red rose64 (talk) 08:57, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Secure Digital "homebrew hack"
Hello. On your revert of my change to Secure Digital: My change summary was not to claim that low price is a deciding factor; rather, the existence of commercial solutions (to the problem of getting SD cards onto a local-area network) means that the reader--the user of SD cards--has a better solution than the "hack" described in the article. The hack is technically innovative, but the average person should not actually do such a thing. Am I missing the point? Spike-from-NH (talk) 15:44, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * One of the points is that interfacing to SD-cards is simple enought to accomplish with normal 3,3V TTL GPIO. Something that can't be said about S-ATA for instance. The entry also shows an physical example of how SD-cards can be interfaced with. The technique is used in the Minimig and so on. And also serves a somewhat historical purpose (ie pre-cheap-usb-routers). Electron9 (talk) 15:59, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, the article doesn't make that point; the wording is more a sort of "Look at what we did once." I won't insist but will mention it to possible third parties on the talk page. Spike-from-NH (talk) 21:23, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I rewritten the section. But the facts remain.Electron9 (talk) 00:35, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, now I see the point of this paragraph. I'll massage the English a bit. Spike-from-NH (talk) 01:04, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Sugar
It was a nice article link you added to the page. Most of the clarification required for this page is around the reason why some research points to no links to heart disease and some point to clear links. There appear to be two schools of thought: micro-nutrients and the different effect on the body of changes in blood sugar. The article you cite mentions micro-nutrients, but I only have the abstract. One point that would be useful would be to understand in the study what they mean by "sugar". I have amended your contribution slightly to match this, but the definition in the abstract does not state if they differentiated between unrefined sugars (in their natural form) and free sugars. If you have the full article, it would be great to know what is said. I only have easy access to the abstract. Thanks. --Ged Sparrowhawk (talk) 07:57, 27 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I used an article that used the same source. And presumed that the content matched the publication. The point seems anyway to be that sugar is significantly bad for the heart. I read something years ago that sugar makes the veins "rust" in biochemical sense. This publication match that. In any case the wikipedia text should match the publication. The publication contents can be had in a university library. There is mention of "sugar" with no differentiation between natural and free ones. I read that "fast carbohydrates" is the source cullprint, and sugar in any form certainly match that. Electron9 (talk) 13:24, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I'll check a university copy, since that is where I normally get my articles from in full, but I don't have direct access to this one electronically. I just want to check that the source hasn't been overly summarised by the initial article you read. I don't disagree with what you say, but the wording could create some friction on the page where you added it as it stands, so I want to make sure it stands up to scrutiny before someone tries to remove it. --Ged Sparrowhawk (talk) 22:27, 27 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Maybe you could rewrite a new brief based on the abstract in the meantime? But the conclusion is that heart and vascular problems may arise from high suger consumption from the summaries I read. Combined with suger additives to just about anything, it makes one to wonder. Electron9 (talk) 00:12, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

That is the consensus on the page. The issue is that some sugar appears naturally in food, while some sugar is "added" (the WHO distinguish the added kind as Free Sugar). The abstract doesn't say how they distinguished between free sugar and naturally-occurring sugar, so when I get the full article I'll try and clarify that. I have left your piece in but re-worded it the best I can on that basis from the abstract. --Ged Sparrowhawk (talk) 20:04, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

File:T-pad.png listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:T-pad.png, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 04:31, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Jet lag
Please try to find some better sources. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 16:42, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

1963 mouse
From what I can tell, that mouse was probably made in 1964. If you want to tie it to a date, find a source that does that, and write a sensible caption. Dicklyon (talk) 01:06, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Rapid Exchange of Information System, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cosmetic (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) 10:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Poly Implant Prothèse, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Deputy (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) 11:55, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 29
Hi. When you recently edited Alcoholic beverage, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stress (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) 10:37, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

May 2012
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Theobromine poisoning, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use your sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Riley Huntley (talk) 00:04, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Silicon Image
Hi Electron,

After I saw the extensive Talk page discussion on this, I had pinged UsersManual regarding this section, realizing some discussion was needed. I also want to draw your attention to my comment at the bottom of the Talk page of the Silicon Image article. I generally agree with Zelphar, but from my perspective am more focused on the lack of reliable sources. I agree that the content may be of value, but not that an encyclopedia is the appropriate place for it. There are some tools for us to use when several editors disagree, to get a third party opinion from veteran and uninvolved editors. We can use the Reliable Sources Noticeboard to discuss whether the forum posts could be considered reliable sources or just get a 3PO (third party opinion). User:King4057 14:42, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't find the discussion in question, but I have now added another reference. The point is to make users aware that these controllers can corrupt their data, I were personally affected so I can confirm the bug exists. It also serves as a feedback on the release of faulty products. Electron9 (talk) 19:28, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I find the information of high quality and reasonably informative, but not compliant with many of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, particularly the rules for reliable sources. In particular, this policy includes a section that identifies "sources that are not usually reliable" and includes forums under "self-published sources." My interpretation from the Talk page is that there are multiple editors attached to this content, in particular due to the misbehavior of a presumed SPA/COI. I wonder if you would be willing to get a second opinion from the veteran editors on the reliable sources noticeboard, a community board for sorting out different points of view regarding the application of WP:RS such as this. Getting community feedback is an excellent way to sort out potential disputes between editors, favor discussion instead of edit-warring, and develop community consensus. User:King4057 02:04, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The source code of a major operating system ought to be qualified source? You need committer access to even change one byte there. Electron9 (talk) 02:30, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that would be original research. The most common reliable sources are news organizations and scholarly works. For example, if it had been reported in the EE Times or a similar publication (maybe it has?). I could be wrong - reliable sources is a tricky thing - but I see at least one other editor was of a similar opinion, so it's worth hashing out. User:King4057 03:30, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * How can source code that is developed and scrutinized by many specially privileged source code committers considered original research? I would consider that more reliable than news articles at least. Many wrongs slip into news articles, source code that is wrong won't simple work. Electron9 (talk) 09:05, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Generally the idea is that something like source code may be a reliable source to someone who is confident in their interpretation of it, but I can't verify it. In any case, I note that multiple editors have commented on the need to take it out, while other editors are very committed to including it. In such a case where multiple editors have opposing viewpoints, it becomes necessary to get additional opinions to establish consensus among experienced Wikipedians. In academic debate they teach you that participants with opposing viewpoints never change their mind, but they merely present their dispute to an informed audience. User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 14:24, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * On second thought - maybe there is an opportunity to compromise. Can you elaborate what is in the source code that you want to add to the article? For example, if the sourcecode was numbered and someone used it as a source to say it has XYZ lines of code - I would not consider that original research. Or if the sourcecode contains a specific line of code or message. User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 14:32, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but to evaluate references you must acquire the knowledge to interpretate what's in them. C-sources ain't anything new. And for any qualified debate it's a minimum requirement. Otherwise it becomes a layman opinion count, where headcount becomes the truth, not reality.

 88	ata_sii_probe(device_t dev) . . 96	    { ATA_SII3512,   0x00, SII_MEMIO, SII_BUG,    ATA_SA150, "3512" }, 97	    { ATA_SII3112,   0x00, SII_MEMIO, SII_BUG,    ATA_SA150, "3112" }, 98	    { ATA_SII3112_1, 0x00, SII_MEMIO, SII_BUG,    ATA_SA150, "3112" }, . . 325	   if (ctlr->chip->cfg2 & SII_BUG) { 326	       /* work around errata in early chips */ 327	       ch->dma.boundary = 8192; 328	       ch->dma.segsize = 15 * DEV_BSIZE; 329	   } 
 * Correspond to "larger than 8 kByte" and "to the disk to 15 sectors at a time" etc.. This code isn't there by chance. It's engineering around a chip that is actually faulty in the reality. Tip: check for the SII 3112 datasheet, provided it hasn't been "edited". Electron9 (talk) 14:54, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Hmmm.... I think we may be on to something. Are you referring to this phrase "/*work around errata in early chips*/"? and can you provide a link to a copy of the source code we can reasonably trust? I would go for something like "Silicon Image's source code includes a work around to a bug in early errata chips."


 * Requiring expertise to interpret the source is the Hallmark of original research. I'm sorry, but there are reasons Wikipedia works this way. It's also why - unfortunately - many subject-matter experts become frustrated with the process. :-D User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 18:09, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


 * It's not that hard to interpretate source code in C. Just like ohms law is "good to know" when dealing with electronics. Same goes for C-source and operating system source. The code snippet in question is from one of the references in the Silicon Image article. It's also mirrored on many places as well. It's however the FreeBSD foundations source, not SIIs. Electron9 (talk) 04:15, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I've reviewed the article statements and the referenced code file; while it's clear that there was a bug in some versions of the chip, and there's a workaround in this BSD source file, it also seems clear that this is not what WP means by a WP:RS, and that's it's fair to classify it as WP:OR. If you have to read source code to know about this bug, rather than find a statement by an author who said there's such a bug, then it's not appropriate matter for WP. Dicklyon (talk) 05:37, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The same workaround exists in the Linux kernel and so on. So manufacturers that produce flawed chips in critical data storage technology can do so without any risk of informed consumers? This seems like a hair splitting effort to discredit any sources. And makes you wonder who has the interest in that, this isn't public. I did find out about the bug the hard(ware) way, and read up on it through discussion groups and kernel sources. Electron9 (talk) 13:49, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

June 2012
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is invited to contribute, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to XML, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. ''I think you should gain consensus before doing such controvercial page moves as this. It seems your edit went back to a previous less desirable name.'' Widefox (talk) 14:31, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Petrol engine articale and your ref desk question "Petrol engine horsepower rating?"
Hi Electron,

I was suprised to see my answer appearing almost word for word inserted as part of your petrol engine article. I answer questions based on knowledge gained in my career, however probably half my posts on Ref Desk attract refutations and even abuse! Perhaps that is because I have (in good faith) refuted other posts.

I must say I have mixed feelings about my Ref Desk words ending up in a formal article. If I had known that was your intent, I would have crafted my prose more carefully, and I might have even tracked down a citation. Also, the article elsewhere contains or supports some common misconceptions about petrol engines. I answered a Ref Desk question on engines some months ago, and this prompted a post from an editor asking me to register and revise/rework the internal combustion article. I declined because I considered it a mess, with a lot of errors, misconceptions, and poor explanations. I declined because I could see that it would be a at least couple of week's solid work to knock it into shape, and then some peanut could come along later and revert it or mess it all up again.

It seems everyone has equal rights in WP, whether they know anything or not, whether they have good intentions or not. That has been WP's advantage but also its greatest disadvantage. And I can see that squawking on the Administrator's Noticeboard, or inserting suggestions there pretty much only attracts comments about trolls, comments totally inapplicable, discussions on banning me (one reason why I've never registered), and discussions on whether I am the same person as some other poster they don't like.

However, I will monitor your talk page for 3 days, so if you would like some help/discussion on improving the petrol engine article, you can so indicate. I don't think a Ref Desk post is appropriate for this.

Ratbone121.221.227.92 (talk) 02:26, 13 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi!, I'm very sorry if using your answer on the Petrol engine page upset you. My intention from the start were to find out what the power rating really meant. But found your answer so good. I felt it would be something others would miss out on by not including it. It may not be perfect, but that's why there are many editors to fix it. If it's wrong, just go ahead and edit the article. Again sorry if this did upset you.
 * As for "dumb" people just copy the article to your user space, edit up to a good standard. And then replace it. Others will do bad edits, but again others will find your version both in history and your user page and revert it to your version. In other cases the search engines find your user page version. Electron9 (talk) 04:28, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You did not upset me. Normally, such usage is the most sincere form of compliment.  But I did have mixed feelings.  I actually thought it was not possible to edit Wikipedia articles without editing - this was, if I recall correctly, a policy brought into effect some time ago. That is why I offered to assist you via discussion on your talk page.  I found the attitude of folks on the Administrators Noticeboard very discouraging.  However, I just checked, and an Edit tab is present, so I have clarified ignition.  If this sticks or another person improves it still further, I'll move on to correct the errors about high octane fuel.  Ratbone120.145.53.76 (talk) 12:44, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Not intruding at all
Re: "Sorry if I intrude", I welcome any discussion of Wtshymanski. A while back several people commented that he deletes any criticism from his talk page, so I made a section on my talk page where we can coordinate our responses. Feel free to post there any time (just look for Wtshymanski in my table of contents). --Guy Macon (talk) 18:21, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

"Link trashing" at Amiga
Hi,

Regarding this edit, I have a number of concerns. Firstly, you've re-piped unambiguous links to Zorro II and Zorro III: per WP:NOTBROKEN, it is not necessary to pipe working redirects and is discouraged. Secondly, you've re-added a date outside of the cite tag for the Amiga Hardware Database link: the date is useless without some context indicating what it is for, so if it is an access or publication date it needs to be added to the citation template properly. (the same with the latter readdition of an "uploaded" statement for a YouTube clip.) Lastly, you've readded a statement regarding the developers knowing Spanish, but the source that is attached to the sentence makes no such statement and I've been unable to find a reliable source which backs it up. Thanks for re-adding the titles to the dead links: I should have done that myself. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:59, 24 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The dates added to the "cite" tag were present in the original reference. So either keep it as it is or include the dates in the proper way. There are usually two dates to keep an eye on, the stated date in the source and the date when that information were accessed. If the last one is missing it can be found within the history information of the article. You removed the statement regarding the developers "NB yes there are several other languages that use the same word, but the Amiga developers only knew Spanish and so.." so there was information regarding this. In general keep things as they are unless you are certain you get all data right. I have seen the scenario where first references are marked "dead", and later title etc is removed, and then the reference is removed because there is no info besides the dead url, in the final step the statement is claimed "unsourced" and removed alltogether. Electron9 (talk) 13:14, 24 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I know the dates were in the original reference, but they were not within the citation template, and so I had no obvious way of knowing whether they were publication dates or access dates. You're right that I should have checked that myself: I'll go through and correct these later. The statement that the Amiga developers "only knew Spanish" was in this HTML comment: "NB yes there are several other languages that use the same word, but the Amiga developers only knew Spanish and so that's the derivation. Please don't add a list of other languages here" However, that isn't backed up by any source. We cannot include information in articles that is derived from unsourced HTML comments in the markup, as neither readers nor editors can be expected to know how reliable the person who added said comments was. (I understand that there may be some loss of communication here: the sentiment behind "only knew Spanish" is that a reliable source says the word "Amiga" came from Spanish as opposed to any other language, but that still doesn't mean that the authors spoke Spanish: all it means is that they took the word from the Spanish language.) As for the tagging of the dead links, I am firmly opposed to removal of dead links myself and was planning (in a later run) to find archived copies of the pages in question, but it was important to first go through and tag them so that I knew which sources were dead. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:43, 24 August 2012 (UTC)


 * If dates or other information isn't within any structure. Find out what they mean, it tend to be quite easy althought it may take some time. Electron9 (talk) 13:48, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

BPL
I've removed them again. Please see WP:DAB. And at the bottom of the page it says "This disambiguation page lists articles associated with the same title." Dougweller (talk) 16:31, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 31
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tuner (radio), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Carrier frequency and Bandwidth (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) 17:08, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Googleplex... Googolplex
So what? They talk about LOTS and LOTS of things during the trilogy. Why should we specifically mention that Doc talks about googolplex? there's nothing special about that. Furthermore, how can that word be relevant to "Cultural references"? -- Lyverbe (talk) 10:40, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of semiconductor scale examples, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page I5 (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) 10:57, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Changes to NiMH page
Hi,

You reverted a change I made to the NiMH page and I wanted to know exactly why. My edit was made because the references I deleted were all basically junk pages or sites parroting information available from reputable manufacturers. One of the links you restored with your copy-paste has been broken since 2009 (looking at archive.org). It is to an obscure reseller of marine batteries. If you look, you will see that the text of the article didn't change significantly with either of our edits. In fact, my edit just removed some repetition and one unsourced (and implausible!) claim.

Your change of reference name to "duracell_charge" seems completely reasonable.

So basically, I'll redo the edit I made in the next couple of days, since I think it improves the article significantly. If you disagree with me about this, could you explain your reasoning here please?

Many thanks, Rswarbrick (talk) 09:46, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The statements in the beginning of the section "Self-discharge" is backuped up by the references below. If they are removed the next editor might claim the statements are without any references and sequentially remove the statements. This applies even if the references happens to be "junk". So please find some reputable source to replace them with that backs up the statements.


 * I have removed the duplicated statement on storage, temperature vs discharge rate.


 * I looked into the reference "duracell_charge" and found no claim to the 45 °C gives 3x discharge, except for a diagram at page 10 (figure 5.8.1), but the diagram gives a 2.5 times value so it seems resonable it's located somewhere else in the document. Electron9 (talk) 01:18, 14 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Wow, thanks for going to the effort to find the archive.org URLs. I intended to do that myself, but got discouraged when I took ages to find the seabird.com one. Regarding the 2.5 / 3 times value: you're right that I was using the graph on page 10. Looking at the 30 days mark, there is a drop of maybe 58-80% at 45°C and a drop of about 12-25% at 20°C. Since 58 > 3 × 12 and 80 > 3 × 25, I think the multiple of 3 claim is justified. Assuming I haven't messed up the arithmetic (please check!), I don't know what the correct Wikipedia etiquette is here: should I replace the current comment with a comment referring to the relevant graph? Alternatively, I could alter the page to follow the Help:Shortened_footnotes style?


 * I'll see if I can find slightly less dubious references over the next few days as you suggest. Thank you for the feedback. Rswarbrick (talk) 20:03, 18 September 2012 (UTC)


 * There's supposedly a parameter to the references tag that can be added. That points out the specific page that is refered to. But if this is done then that reference has to have it's own name because the other usage of the same document may refer to other pages. Maybe there's a reference parameter for comments too. Electron9 (talk) 22:35, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Naegleria fowleri, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ablution (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) 11:52, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of .clb


A tag has been placed on .clb requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G6 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an orphaned disambiguation page which either
 * disambiguates two or fewer extant Wikipedia pages and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic); or
 * disambiguates no (zero) extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Keφr (talk) 05:33, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 24
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pantalk, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page .clb (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) 15:07, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 7
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited DDR2 SDRAM, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ATI (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) 11:16, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 15
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited ZX Interface 1, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Daisy-chain (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) 11:28, 15 January 2013 (UTC)