User talk:Eyeofcore

November 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=583373369 your edit] to Espresso (microprocessor) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:04, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * *15 GFLOPS of computational power comparable to;

Original Research
Hi! Regarding your edits to Espresso (microprocessor). Much of what you've contributed is regarded "original research" and isn't allowed on Wikipedia and will be mersilessly removed. Please do some reading up on the matter, and especially this section Synthesis of published material that advances a position. Your justification is exactly what's not allowed. You took a couple readily available pieces of information and drew your own conclusion. That's original research. Just adhere to Wikipedia's process and your edits will be accepted and welcome. The primary thing is getting good sources. That's the key. And not drawing conclusions of your own even if they are obvious. I know it's frustrating in the beginning but once you get up to speed, you'll hate original research and edits without sources just as much as a seasoned editor do. Keep up the good work! -- Henriok (talk) 19:34, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry to inform you that you have no excuse for vandalism nor labeling things as "original research" even if they look like that though they are based from sources on Wikipedia. Vandalism can not be tolerated and you should be moderated for your own actions! -- Eyeofcore (talk) 20:59, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Feel free to call on an admin to resolve any gripe you have with me. I must also inform you that Wikipedia can't be a source for information on Wikipedia, so your argumentation that your edits are legitimate falls flat on this point too. You need a primary, good source for your edits. You can't be one, Wikipedia cant't be one. Find a source that is. That's your job as an editor. If you can't then you should refrain from adding information to articles. -- Henriok (talk) 09:48, 2 December 2013 (UTC)


 * On top of being original research, some of the information is also plain wrong. I just stumbled upon Latte_(graphics_chip) where Eyeofcore describes the Starbuck CPU as an ARM Cortex-A8 @ 1GHz when it has been documented by Wii U hacking teams that it is actually an ARM926EJ-S (same as Starbuck to keep Wii compatibility). Someone already fixed that in the article, then you reverted that edit. That behavior is not ok in my book. Delroth (talk) 11:39, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Stop with the fallacy and vandalism also tt is plain wrong for you because it is not in your own interest. I have not described Starbuck CPU as ARM Cortex A8(I forgot to remove it as I was replacing and mvoing some text) also Wii U hacking team does not have any/full access to native Wii U mode(only vWii mode) thus they will only detect an that old ARM CPU used for backward compatibility, please learn to read. Your behaviour is not okay and that individual did not like the information that I have put because it was not in his interest while my interest is just the truth. Individual that reverted my edit was a vandal, he put "Radeon HD 4000" even when Beyond 3D and NeoGAF debunked it which is further proven by Latte's die shot where you can see that there is no interpolator which is present in 4000 series plus SRAM cells are in vastly different configurations. -- Eyeofcore (talk) 20:44, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You're misleading yourself into fallacy of selfdenial. Instead of true original research into publications (http://fail0verflow.com/), presentations (https://events.ccc.de/congress/2013/wiki/Assembly:Fail0verflow) etc of afforementioned group, you are blinding the public by a single handpicked public release over a year ago (http://www.youtube.com/user/0xf0f). You are (intentionally?) ignoring the public showcases that dispute and disprove your lies. There is a solution though: escape your Plato's Cave by actual/factual research or stay there and stick to articles only limited to your cave. Pick one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.171.207.17 (talk) 16:54, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Your accusation is baseless and incorrect as you presume/assume about me as a person which shows your failure as a person. I don't share my research and if I consider that is ready then I will publish it(which I do in forums) yet they would be ignored by the masses that have predetermined opinion based around lies/fallacy of individuals that are extreme fans of certain company thus they may/will spread Fear, Doubt and Uncertainty with misinformation even when evidence is there(eg. die shot of a chip or codes). I am not ignoring anything and I consider everything if there is (some) truth to it and if there is a chance to be proven, it is lies to you because your opinion is easily affected by masses which proves that you lack individuality and that you personally prefer a collective of some kind that shares your own opinion, agenda and/or interest that proves that you operate purely as a beast than a human as you allow for "flaws" in our brain influence your reactions/opinions. Our brain tries to simplify everything and of course you will reach for path of least resistance then one that is harder that is more challenging for your brain. Call it "lies" if you want as I won't deny your right for your opinion that is flawed by nature of logic, rationality and mentality. If you don't like actual research then move on, people like you only restrict progress, don't be like those medieval priests in Russia that claimed to the masses that a printing machine is made by devil and not human thus in the end they destroy it. People like you that will/likely sabotage and vandalize articles with information that conflicts their personal interest are in the end be exposed by very articles that will publish information's that are against their interest. I do the research that you are asking for with several people and when the time is right it will get published on the web on a website. That is all for now. I don't have anything to gain from those "lies" that you claim, my only interest is the truth and if people don't like it then I can feel sorry for them because those people are the same people that could be easily manipulated in real life. -- Eyeofcore (talk) 20:54, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

December 2013
Hi there. I've seen some of your edits around the project. There are some things you really ought to be aware of:
 * "No personal attacks" - I've seen you call people "ignorant" and a "barbarian". Name-calling like this is unacceptable.
 * Please read up on identifying reliable sources that are useable by Wikipedia's definition. You've proposed using things like Neogaf messageboards or other wiki's - they cannot be used because they violate WP:SPS - it can be written and changed by anyone, and there's no editorial oversight. Correct or not, they're not useable here.
 * In general, please try to assume good faith. You seem to meet just about any opposing opinions rather aggressively. It'd probably be easier/more effective for you if you didn't assume the worst out of people.

Continual failure to recognize things could lead to a block, so I do hope you'll take this seriously. Thanks! Sergecross73  msg me   22:02, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

February 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=594801085 your edit] to List of Wii U games may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 09:57, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * | class="wikitable sortable" style="width:100%; font-size:95%;"

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)