User talk:Fmadd

April 2016
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=715128211 your edit] to Flight control surfaces 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:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:04, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * File:ControlSurfaces.gif|thumb|alt=Moving the [control stick to the left moves the aileron in the

Your contributed article, Compute kernel


Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Compute kernel. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Kernel (operating system). Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Kernel (operating system) – you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, 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 from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. John from Idegon (talk) 22:23, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 15
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.


 * Compute kernel
 * added links pointing to DSP and Language independent


 * Flight control surfaces
 * added links pointing to Control surfaces and Flight controls


 * Alexey Volkonsky
 * added a link pointing to European


 * Anders Södergren
 * added a link pointing to National champion


 * CD20-like family
 * added a link pointing to Alpha subunit


 * Otto Schnepp
 * added a link pointing to Science and technology


 * SAPO (computer)
 * added a link pointing to Word (computing)


 * Shader
 * added a link pointing to RenderMan


 * The Battle of the Champions (boxing)
 * added a link pointing to Media


 * Tim Vega
 * added a link pointing to World Trade Center

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:19, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 22
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.


 * Reduced instruction set computing
 * added links pointing to MIPS and ARM


 * Desktop computer
 * added a link pointing to ATI


 * Electronic design automation
 * added a link pointing to Electronic systems


 * Graphic (TV series)
 * added a link pointing to Current affairs


 * Knowledge extraction
 * added a link pointing to Relational schema


 * Load/store architecture
 * added a link pointing to CISC


 * Partial differential equation
 * added a link pointing to Functions


 * PlayStation
 * added a link pointing to Media center


 * Rendering (computer graphics)
 * added a link pointing to Realtime


 * Sofía Bassi
 * added a link pointing to Municipal building


 * Solar eclipse of September 8, 1885
 * added a link pointing to Totality


 * Vision Processing Unit
 * added a link pointing to DSP

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:47, 22 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Knowledge extraction
 * added links pointing to Images and Text


 * Bit plane
 * added a link pointing to Population count


 * First Party
 * added a link pointing to Opposition


 * PlayStation
 * added a link pointing to Social gaming


 * Silicon
 * added a link pointing to Solid state

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:10, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

k-means clustering
Two of the three additional references you added do not talk about hierarchical k-means at all. The third does not give a reference of which variant it is talking about. Moore is one of the authors of X-means, which is one of the widely known hierarchical k-means variants (already in the article!). I don't doubt that hierarchical k-means variations exist (they are already there), but that the particular one that you added (which appears to lack peer-review) is notable - it is a 2004 reinvention of a wheel already discussed in 1997 and 2000 by others. The most notable version is probably x-means, from 2000, because it contributes some novel ideas beyond non-notable ideas such as "hey, I can run k-means multiple times". HelpUsStopSpam (talk) 07:44, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Uncited additions to Fractal
Hi, sorry to trouble you, but I've had to roll back your edits to this article as they are both uncited, and wikilinked to an article which does not seem to provide a ready source of citations for the claim made, or I'd have put in a citation for you. Do recall, please, that WP:V and WP:RS apply to all claims in all articles, even mathematical ones, and that a bluelink, even to a well-cited article, is not a substitute for an identifiable source. Many thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:53, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Slow down, please
Looking at your edit history - it appears you've only been here since April? I suggest that you slow down and learn the "culture" and the infrastructure a little better before making so many organizational changes and what-you-see-as improvements.

For example - a term that previously did not have its own article should not be newly represented as an entry in a glossary and a redirect thereto. Instead of a redirect, create a stub article. The stub category will (should) attract editors to help fill it out, where a glossary entry will not. Jeh (talk) 17:51, 11 June 2016 (UTC)


 * [1] I learned to focus on the glossary: stubs were more likely to get deleted. There's also much more chance of argument if I try to re-organize other peoples articles putting definitions there.  Simple terms either don't deserve an article, or are destined for merge.  [2] "it appears you've only been here since April?" I've done edits here and there going back to 2006/2007, it's only recently that I bothered to make an account. Fmadd (talk) 17:54, 11 June 2016 (UTC)


 * (2) Exactly the reason - well, one of the reasons - you're encouraged to create an account. (And somehow in ten years you never encountered the requirements for merging articles?) (1) Stubs seldom get deleted right away. Jeh (talk) 19:03, 11 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I didn't merge anything before (and wasn't on such a spree as in the past few weeks). I only did so here because I took an interest in that page. I already have it in my head from experience that i'm going to run into notability guidelines or overlap with existing material, when all I'm really trying to do here often is explain a specific term more directly .. and I've already had people complain if I add a glossary to an existing article. I jumped in there because I saw a clear reply "go ahead.."


 * You don't have to have actually merged anything before; I'm surprised that in ten years you've never even seen it happen and noticed how it's been done. Another thing I'm surprised you haven't absorbed in ten years is the fact that one positive comment in a discussion does not a consensus make. Jeh (talk) 19:28, 11 June 2016 (UTC)


 * memory access pattern. Here we go, the friction I run into if I try to make pages. Aren't glossary entries better for simple definitions? I'm pretty sure this will eventually be merged into 'locality of reference' article. Fmadd (talk) 16:26, 13 June 2016 (UTC)


 * There nothing inherently wrong with 10 paragraphs about Memory access patterns at Memory access pattern.
 * If they were split into 10 pages, they will be as stub for prolonged periods of time.
 * 10 small pages will make reading one big topic (Memory access patterns) hard, they will WP:OVERCAT every single category they are placed in.
 * There 211 stubs already Category:Computer storage stubs, we don't need more stubs. We need real articles.
 * Category:Computer storage is huge and contains WP:DUP articles or sections.
 * It is bad idea to split Type systems or Memory characteristics or Memory hierarchy unless you plan to write a full page (not a stub) with multiple sections (at least 3-5) Ushkin N (talk) 03:06, 29 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Volatile memory is a stub for 10 years already while only Non-volatile memory is well written.
 * Same goes about memory access pattern; random or sequential will be understood by wide audience of readers, when specialized and research-level articles will be "stubs" and hidden from main categorization, because they pollute huge topics like Category:Computer storage. Ushkin N (talk) 03:25, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

June 2016
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), 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. -- Red rose64 (talk) 18:27, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I see that you continue to fail to sign your posts. You are also going against WP:BOTTOMPOST in some cases; please make yourself familiar with WP:TPG. -- Red rose64 (talk) 22:34, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes people forget things all the time. Maybe wikipedia's version control engine could automatically determine who wrote what, and auto sign in it's rendering of talk pages. Fmadd (talk) 22:56, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 13 June
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that some edits performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check these pages and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:26, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * On the 4D vector page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=725164106 your edit] caused an unnamed parameter error (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F725164106%7C4D vector%5D%5D Ask for help])
 * On the Word embedding page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=725147054 your edit] caused an unnamed parameter error (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F725147054%7CWord embedding%5D%5D Ask for help])

Category:Practical disciplines has been nominated for discussion
Category:Practical disciplines, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. fgnievinski (talk) 21:41, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Rendering APIs listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Rendering APIs. Since you had some involvement with the Rendering APIs redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Stefan2 (talk) 22:23, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

AI accelerator listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect AI accelerator. Since you had some involvement with the AI accelerator redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Stefan2 (talk) 11:15, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 18
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.


 * 4D vector
 * added a link pointing to Relativity


 * Glossary of computer graphics
 * added a link pointing to Control points


 * Glossary of computer hardware terms
 * added a link pointing to Parallel processing


 * List of AI accelerators
 * added a link pointing to ARM


 * List of rendering APIs
 * added a link pointing to SDL


 * Memory access pattern
 * added a link pointing to Prefetching


 * Posterization
 * added a link pointing to Bit depth


 * Static dispatch
 * added a link pointing to Polymorphism

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:43, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

SW26010
Hi. You have added a number of cites in the SW26010 article, but have used only lowercase letters in their titles. It would help greatly if you could preserve the original case conventions of text used in citations. -- Markshale (talk) 14:30, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 26
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited R-Type, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Air-to-air. 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) 09:31, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 3
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited European Union, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nuclear energy. 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) 10:26, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Memory access pattern, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages DMA and Scratchpad. 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) 10:22, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 29
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Multiprocessing, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Processing unit. 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) 09:39, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Request
Osama Chandio Art and Aquevix Sahil1894 (talk) 10:31, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Reminder about proper noun capitalization
Hi there! While editing the page Texture mapping recently, I noticed that you had added a lot of text that had proper nouns that weren't capitalized. In English, things like names and places must have the first letter capitalized, for example Adobe Photoshop, or Sega Saturn. Thanks! A ir ♠ C ombat  What'sup, dog? 19:45, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * fair enough, I might not always "dot i's and cross t's" so diligently, but I know it has some value.Fmadd (talk) 19:47, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

List of British computers
I expect some logic/sources behind the list. ZX81 Xx236 (talk) 07:18, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * after creating the list I thought it was better to make a category, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:British_computers, I prefer the automated mechanism to collect these. Lets see what people prefer. On reflection I might need to qualify with 'british *microcomputers*' there. Feel free to improve.  Fmadd (talk) 14:15, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Please stop adding inappropriate wikilinks
Please stop making edits like, , , , , where you created wp:wikilinks to non-existing articles. See Manual of Style/Linking. And please see also wp:OVERLINKING. Thank you. - DVdm (talk) 12:08, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Additionally, please stop creating random redirects. If you want to link to an article, use the PIPE trick (i.e. link to Minkowski space by typing, which appears as four-dimensional space-time. Primefac (talk) 14:56, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
 * But using the pipe trick, please make sure that you don't create so-called wp:EASTEREGGS, requiring the puzzled reader to actually click the link to go and find out why the link was put there to begin with. Tricky! - DVdm (talk) 15:26, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Your contributed article, General relativity and quantum mechanics


Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, General relativity and quantum mechanics. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Quantum gravity. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Quantum gravity – you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, 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 from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. - DVdm (talk) 15:47, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Anchor on General relativity
Just a head's up that in this edit you accidentally broke a redirect to the vanchor because the first field of the vanchor was linking to  instead of. In general the vanchor and anchor templates act as you'd expect but in some cases act really oddly, and I can't list all the ways they can act oddly. If you check Rdcheck (which can be found from clicking what links here then show redirects only) after editing any anchors or section titles, you can make sure you notice if you break one. Banak (talk) 20:46, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Library function
Hello, Fmadd. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Library function, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:


 * 1) edit the page
 * 2) remove the text that looks like this:
 * 3) save the page

Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 13:06, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Minor edits and edit summaries
An edit like this, which completely restructures an article, it should not be marked as minor, and must at a minimum be accompanied by an edit summary. Ordinarily such edits are usually also accompanied by an explanation on the talk page. Furthermore, leads are not supposed to be this short. The lead should be several paragraphs long, and can serve as an independent capsule version of the article that summarizes its main points. See WP:LEAD. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:25, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Please provide edit summaries.
Guidelines on edit summaries can be found here. Thank you. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 19:44, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I second this. Additionally, as mentioned previously, please only mark minor edits when they truly are minor edits; adding anchors, headings, or otherwise modifying the content of an article does not count as a minor edit. Primefac (talk) 19:47, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Given that you haven't responded to these requests from your fellow editors to please supply edit summaries:, I ask you, again, to please provide edit summaries. I also suggest that you slow down and try to make more meaningful and thoughtful contributions to Wikipedia. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 13:59, 11 February 2017 (UTC)


 * This is the kind of stuff that gets noticed and earns oppose votes if you ever want to be an admin. Cabayi (talk) 13:49, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I dont want to be an admin. How about this, Village_pump_(idea_lab), that'll make it easier for all to use.Fmadd (talk) 13:56, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I dont want to be an admin. How about this, Village_pump_(idea_lab), that'll make it easier for all to use.Fmadd (talk) 13:56, 12 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Nonsense. There is an admin who seldom leaves edit summaries, and seldom left them before being made an admin.  See here for the full story.  Edit summaries are not, and never have been, compulsory.  It is true that they help others to see what has been edited.  It is also true that vandals rarely leave edit summaries so the lack of one is likely to attract extra attention.  But they still ain't compulsory. HasAnyoneSeenMyMarbles (talk) 19:00, 12 February 2017 (UTC)


 * - the only person using the word "compulsory" is you. The generally accepted view is, as you acknowledge, that they help others to see what has been edited, as you have in 15 of your 16 edits.
 * If you want to cite an admin or their RfA it would be better to choose one that isn't over 12 years old..
 * The edit count link found at the foot your Special:Contributions page shows your use of edit summaries, and it's automatically included as part of an RfA - check the latest RfA - Requests for adminship/Amortias.
 * Fmadd, It's fine if you're not harbouring an ambition to be an admin, but I hope you're OK with the idea of helping other editors to work with you. Happy editing, Cabayi (talk) 14:21, 13 February 2017 (UTC)


 * What are you on about? The admin in question last made 23 edits (out of a total of 23 edits) without leaving an edit summary in the last 24 hours, the last of which was just over 2 hours ago not '12 years' as you claim.  I did not cite any RfA so that point is invalid.  Your link to some random RfA does not even discuss the subject (though was mentioned in passing).  Oh and edit summaries are not automatically included in an RfA.


 * Your first paragraph more or less agrees with me. My usage of the word 'compulsory' was as in "Edit summaries are not ... compulsory".  What is wrong with that?  Or did you not actually read what I wrote?


 * But as I did say: edit summaries are helpful to other editors. And that is as far as it goes. HasAnyoneSeenMyMarbles (talk) 17:32, 13 February 2017 (UTC)


 * you seem to be confusing being an admin with becoming an admin. There are no requirements except occasional activity for being. There are many for becoming which have changed over time. Cabayi (talk) 14:18, 14 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Please point to the policy that states that leaving edit summaries is a pre-requisite to being appointed to admin status. HasAnyoneSeenMyMarbles (talk) 14:36, 15 February 2017 (UTC)


 * This conversation would go much more smoothly if you asked me to justify what I said, not what you want me to have said. I said it . Cabayi (talk) 16:03, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Reference errors on 11 February
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:28, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * On the Polygon page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=764949141 your edit] caused an unnamed parameter error (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F764949141%7CPolygon%5D%5D Ask for help])

About storage capacity
I see that you have made a lot of links on the subject. I created the article because in energy parlance there are definitions not so obvious (if you are in computing, you could think about the difference between 1K=1024 and 1000). After I moved the definition to a more specific page, making place for a disambiguation page. Adding definitions as you made: depression storage capacity, water storage capacity, computer data storage capacity is fine. But you started to overlink, as here and here. I would like you to take a look at your last edits about that, and reverse if not relevant. Thank you. --Robertiki (talk) 18:50, 12 February 2017 (UTC)


 * yeah, thats kind of why I thought 'storage capacity' should be disambiguation, incase it carries specific connotations. in retrospect maybe I shouldn't have blitzed a load of links. But what's was going through my mind is: that when you see a phrase from another domain, you might carry across the 'connotations' and get misled. Or vica versa, are there any decent parallels *between* the domains (which are why similar terms get chosen). Making a disambiguation was kind of a question to the community: "please clarify if there are interesting similarities or differences between these uses of the term"   Fmadd (talk) 19:58, 12 February 2017 (UTC)


 * We agree. Good work. --Robertiki (talk) 20:05, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Adding wikilinks
I see that you have added many wikilinks to a number of articles. Whilst adding useful links to articles is generally welcome, you may wish to review WP:OVERLINK. Adding wikilinks for well understood words and phrases is undesirable. This is particularly the case if the link takes you to an article that does not further the reader's understanding of the original article's subject. Even if a link is appropriate, it should not take the reader to a disambiguation page but direct to the appropriate article or, if appropriate, section within an article. 86.186.169.144 (talk) 19:31, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * ok, but what is "well understood"?  links to Disambiguation seem useful as 'work in progress', because people can clarify the context. I'm going through physics etc articles which have huge amounts of jargon.  Would it be possible to handle 'overlinking' hazard another way, by some weighting of the links. My 'itch' is that the links are data-labels that make wikipedia more valuable as a resource for training AI.. this is a massive, popular data-set available to all. Also going through finding links is a great way for me to explore Fmadd (talk) 16:29, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * As I said, a wikilink should aim to further the reader's understanding of an article subject. To take a topical example, a link to [Storage capacity] from an article about computer storage systems is inappropriate as the meaning of storage capacity is fairly self evident.  However, a link to (say) [Digital versatile disk] in the same article would be appropriate as an example of a computer storage system.  A more extreme example might be linking to [United States] in an article discussing some geographical feature within the US (in fact such links are specifically frowned upon by policy).  Obviously, in between these examples there are going to be numerous examples of where the link should be obviously appropriate or inappropriate, but in between there will be examples that could be construed as a grey area.  In such cases, if you do not believe it to be inappropriate, add it but accept others judgement if you are reverted.  You will probably find that borderline inappropriate often goes unchallenged - at least for some time.  86.186.169.144 (talk) 17:16, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Hugely grey area: you just said [storage capacity] is self evident but there's a distinction between 'native' and 'apparent' capacity, which can be clarified at the link. The existing term 'storage capacity' seems to have existing use in other circles. Instead of fretting about overlinking, shouldn't we be coming up with a way to prioritize links in this platform. The links themselves give the system more information to work with (natural language text is hugely difficult for machines to deal with, and these links are free labels which should help).   Surely creating link are an interesting means of discovery, *both ways* ('what links here'). There is emergent intelligence beyond our direct, individual input. Fmadd (talk) 17:22, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Internal line


A tag has been placed on Internal line 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 this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, 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 from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Qaei  &#9742;   16:24, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Thermomagnetic for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Thermomagnetic 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/Thermomagnetic 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 high-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 notice from the top of the article. Primefac (talk) 18:09, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Bicycle rider listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Bicycle rider. Since you had some involvement with the Bicycle rider redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Primefac (talk) 18:21, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Organic dye listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Organic dye. Since you had some involvement with the Organic dye redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Primefac (talk) 19:10, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Stellar explosion for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Stellar explosion 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/Stellar explosion 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 high-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 notice from the top of the article. Primefac (talk) 19:33, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation links
As you've seen many, many times in notices on your talk page so far, please stop creating links to disambiguation pages per WP:INTDAB. The point of a DAB is when the target isn't known. Intentionally linking to a DAB is not appropriate, and should be avoided. Primefac (talk) 21:52, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * in the case of 'stellar explosion', is a category another solution? The point is exploratory. Don't you like the ability to surf wikipedia? Also, disambiguation links can be made temporarily, awaiting clarification. Why is this all so hard? Fmadd (talk) 21:54, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * And if there is clarification, the DAB link to should be changed to the proper target. So far, I have yet to see you follow up on that. Primefac (talk) 21:56, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * There's often ambiguity as to where the best target for the link is. By deleting the disambiguation etc, you're making it harder to go back and refine it Fmadd (talk) 22:03, 13 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Primefac is absolutely right. Please do stop this incorrect use of disambiguation notices for page deletions. With the Supernova page, clearly 'stellar explosion' is a general simplification to account for the great plethora of differing mechanisms and outcomes. I.e. "A supernova is a type of stellar explosion." Absolute fact. Is there a more fundamental or simpler definition?
 * As for saying 'astronomical event' is also a simplification for the Introduction. The reasoning appears here, and I have explained in full my edits. Both these statements were chosen very carefully to counteract the continuous unnecessary edits (mostly by either novices or unregistered users) and make the page stable. Furthermore, if you do wish to change this, you must discuss it on the Talkpage, and also need to gain consensus to do so. (So far, you have not engaged with this adopted policy of basic editing processes.) Thanks. Arianewiki1 (talk) 00:53, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I dont want to change the structure. I just like the ability to surf wikipedia (and the fact links label the text for AI training). The more links the better. Can't we have a way of prioritizing or deprioritizing, if they think there is such a think as 'overlinking' ... imagine if links to disambiguations & lists were displayed in a different (less obtrusive) shade - like they're just there for navigation Fmadd (talk) 01:02, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I am utterly amazed that this is controversial. Fmadd (talk) 01:02, 14 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not here to satisfy the way you like to use it or believe it should be used. It is a community project and whatever format anything takes has to be achieved by consensus.  That is why controversial changes must be discussed on article talk pages.  There are lots of things Wikipedia could do better, in my opinion, but none of them are going to happen because most people disagree with me. 86.186.169.144 (talk) 14:15, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * ok, but any controversy points to ways in which a system can be improved. Can you help get behind suggestions to alleviate this supposed 'overlinking' hazard automatically; if it could be quantified, the edit could warn you, or even reject changes. ("too many links in this region"). Just imagine how much effort goes into arguing, when that effort could go into software improvements. Fmadd (talk) 14:26, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Scattering event listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Scattering event. Since you had some involvement with the Scattering event redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dukwon (talk • contribs) 15:08, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Talkback
Tarl N. ( discuss ) 18:49, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Overlinking to industrial civilization
Hello Fmadd -- You have created many new internal links for the term industrial civilization, which is simply a redirect to industrialization. I know you are editing in good faith, but "industrial civilization" (a kind of society) does not have the same meaning as "industrialization" (a historical process). The concepts are related, but many of the links you are creating to the redirect page are probably inappropriate. It is especially inappropriate to create a link within the title of a book, without having read that book to be sure that you know what the author means, precisely, by "industrial civilization". And after creating all these links, it is not really fair to go, as you have done, to the industrialization article and rewrite the lede to shoehorn the term "industrial civilization" into it. You should consider reverting many of these edits. Respectfully -- WikiPedant (talk) 22:10, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * i've changed the redirect to Industrial society. unfortunately no single page has the exact right meaning (society!=civilization), and i bet if we try to make 'industrial civilization' an actual page people will delete it. civ/soc have different connotations to me.. one is more about social/culture/economucs, the other more about big scale technological systems, industrial agriculture, etc. Take a look at the talk page on the redirect. Fmadd (talk) 22:52, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * You might also have a look at WP:OVERLINK, it might change your expectations. In some cases you are ending up with sentences that are almost completely composed of links, which is not good.
 * Specifically, "simply adding more links does not increase the overall number of clicks taken from a page. Instead, links compete with each other for user attention." Tarl N.  ( discuss ) 23:05, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * fair enough, but I would hope this platform can gain an ability to prioritize links (they could be rendered in different shades). Imagine a formal way of specifying 'pre-requisites' for articles, with something in user profiles to track which ones you say you're already familiar with. ('you should understand these before you understand this article' vs 'these are other interesting things').  Also bear in mind the hovercards feature - it's really easy to just glide around and get an preview. Fmadd (talk) 00:04, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * @ user:WikiPedant ok, take a look at Industrial civilization, I have followed through on my impulse - it seemed to me wikipedia should have somewhere describing this directly; I was not satisfied with any redirects, as explained, and we replicate excessive material if we try to work a definition into each potential target. Fmadd (talk) 12:57, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

ANI notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Primefac (talk) 13:58, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * instead of fretting about overlinking (with all this manual policing and argument), why cant we extend the software to prioritize links. Fmadd (talk) 14:05, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Because everyone else does not want such a facility. Of course: if you believe other users could be persuaded that such a change would be a good idea, then the correct course of action is to open an appropriate discussion at a suitable venue and garner consensus rather than just blunder ahead and try to implement it. I would suggest that the village pump might be a good starting point. 86.186.169.144 (talk) 14:24, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * That thing you showed me is quite interesting. Why didn't you show me it earlier? I've seen it can hide links to 'articles marked for deletion'. It does seem driven by category (because you can highlight stubs, 'seti-indices'). There could be a category for 'trivial jargon' in various domains (e.g. "chemistry-jargon", "physics-jargon", "computing-jargon") which all those redirects could be classified under .. they could be neutralised in the default colour-scheme.  I'm not a webdev, I haven't looked how wikipedia's underlying software works .. I'm sure way more could be done server-side, and you could make something that adapts to a user's own knowledge base Fmadd (talk) 19:01, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Because colour-coding links isn't the issue. Primefac (talk) 19:14, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm told 'overlinking' is a hazard because 'it distracts the user from significant links'. If the links that 'offend' were blanked out by default, we wouldn't have a problem. Fmadd (talk) 19:15, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * And if we're pretending the links aren't there in the first place, then we might as well just remove the links entirely. We're going around in circles, because I've definitely said this a few times. Primefac (talk) 19:18, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * d e f a u l t. You dont want 'the average user' to see them, great. that is possible.  But I don't see why that should limit the exploratory, future-proofing, structural anotation etc. that we can record in wikipedia. Fmadd (talk) 19:21, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Ways to improve Particle-antiparticle pair
Hi, I'm Mduvekot. Fmadd, thanks for creating Particle-antiparticle pair!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Wikibooks is not a reliable source.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Mduvekot (talk) 22:26, 15 February 2017 (UTC)


 * thanks, i think this page will be deleted eventually anyway, I'm really after a better place to redirect it too.. a glossary entry or something Fmadd (talk) 22:29, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Stattenheim remote control for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Stattenheim remote control 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/Stattenheim remote control 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 high-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 notice from the top of the article. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:14, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Knock it off
If the ANI is any indication, your activities need to STOP (or at least severely slow down) until this gets sorted. Continuing to ignore the requests of everyone at ANI (and here on your talk) to slow down and hold off will result in a block. Primefac (talk) 00:30, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Digital television remote control
I'm really confused by this edit. Is a "digital television remote control" really so different from a regular remote control? I wouldn't think so; in fact, the article "Digital television remote control" is just a redirect to "Remote control". I'm going to undo that. Please let me know if you think that's wrong. J♯m (talk &#124; contribs) 01:55, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It's just a redirect to remote control, so it's largely a useless edit. Primefac (talk) 01:56, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * IMO remote control is a misleading page the lead section makes it sound like it really does just mean 'TV,DVD remote controls (i.e. explicitely short range)', but elsewhere you can find remote control linked by articles on 'remote control locomotives', 'remote control submarines', etc. The article itself clearly started out as 'completely general remote control', then got narrowed down to 'consumer electronics remote' . There's another article "teleoperation", but there's intermediate cases where it's not really clear which you should point at. I wanted these redirects to help organize, if the articles get renamed or shuffled. Fmadd (talk) 02:00, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Option 1.  'remote control' gets renamed to 'remote control (disambiguation)
 * Option 2. 'remote control's lead section is reworked so it really is 'all kinds of remote control' (including TV, Drones, RC cars).
 * (... but reading the history, the reverse already happened - it used to have drones etc, and people narrowed it down!)
 * Option 3. leave it as it is, and you have inaccurate redirects, and more in the future, because the phrase is so ambiguous.
 * by making a redirect, we have fewer places to check. (10's of redirects, instead of 100's of articles). we also get an insight into how many of each context are used. Fmadd (talk) 02:04, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Digital television remote control listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Digital television remote control. Since you had some involvement with the Digital television remote control redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. J♯m (talk &#124; contribs) 01:56, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

February 2017
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for an apparent unwillingness or inability to comply with content policies. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:48, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of List of scattering experiments for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of scattering experiments 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/List of scattering experiments 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 high-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 notice from the top of the article. Primefac (talk) 16:27, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Blood chemistry listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Blood chemistry. Since you had some involvement with the Blood chemistry redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Primefac (talk) 13:28, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Compressed instructions moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, Compressed instructions, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of " " before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please follow the prompts on the Articles for Creation template atop the page. -  The  Magnificentist 11:02, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Polymer solution for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Polymer solution 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/Polymer solution 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 high-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 notice from the top of the article. Salimfadhley (talk) 23:04, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Compressed instructions concern
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Compressed instructions, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:35, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Compressed instructions


Hello, Fmadd. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Compressed instructions".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the, , or  code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot (talk) 12:00, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

LibGCM listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect LibGCM. Since you had some involvement with the LibGCM redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 06:31, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

"First-party titles" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect First-party titles. Since you had some involvement with the First-party titles redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:09, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

"First party software" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect First party software. Since you had some involvement with the First party software redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 08:29, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

"Compressed textures" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Compressed textures. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 28 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 17:21, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

"Astronomical event" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Astronomical event and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 June 9 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:54, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

"Current running thread" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Current_running_thread&redirect=no Current running thread] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 17:02, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Glossary of computer software terms for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Glossary of computer software terms 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/Glossary of computer software terms until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-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 notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.  Delta  space 42 (talk • contribs) 16:10, 25 December 2023 (UTC)