User talk:Guy Harris/Archives/2021/04

Suggestion of logged out editing
An editor is suggesting that you have engaged in inappropriate logged out editing on Talk:Motorola 68000. Meters (talk) 21:02, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Red links
First, thank you for your many years of contributing to Wikipedia as an editor and administrator. I understand from a series of reverts of my edits that you disapprove of red links. I checked out the essay, ""Write the article first". This helped me understand that there are quite a few people who also dislike red links. Apparently there has been a discussion, with diverging opinions, that has been going on at least since January 3, 2008. At that time, this user said that red links had been constructively used in Wikipedia's early years but by 2008, they were over-used in lists and as I understood later in See also lists etc. For many years I disliked red links mainly because they were unsightly errors. I think I removed a lot of them. The red link campaign was intended to encourage the creation of articles that at least one editor thought notable. I began to leave them in other articles and even in my own articles. I add them in edit mode when I assume there might be an article already because it seems notable, not as a signifier to start a new article. The essay "Write the article first" has a template explaining that, this essay "contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints." I also checked out the Wikipedia:Red link. This "documents an English Wikipedia editing guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." This says: "This page in a nutshell: Red links for subjects that should have articles but do not, are not only acceptable, but needed in the articles. They serve as a clear indication of which articles are in need of creation, and encourage it. Do not remove red links unless you are certain that Wikipedia should not have an article on that subject." So I will continue to leave some of my red links but might be a little more selective to respond courteously to your red link sensitivities. I see our numbers are not increasing enough. There is so much to be done so I do not want to engage in a lengthy talk page discussion.Oceanflynn (talk) 19:12, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you
...for updating all the pages with the Apple silicon template. Where do you take the energy from? Cheers, Andibrema (talk) 21:50, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Do you think the Z8015 exists?
Hi Guy! I saw your improvement to the Memory management unit page. I suggest to remove the reference to the chip Z8015. I think that the MMU chip of Z8000 is only the Z8010. I cannot find any document about the chip Z8015. I suppose it didn't existed at all! Federicodisante (talk) 22:03, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I updated that page with a Bitsavers reference to a Zilog data book that mentions the Z8015. The only question remains is whether they shipped the Z8015 or whether it never got to that stage.  The data book doesn't say anything about the Z8015 pages being preliminary information, which suggests that it might well have shipped.
 * Further discussion should take place on Talk:Memory management unit. Guy Harris (talk) 23:36, 27 April 2021 (UTC)