User talk:Jeh/Archives/2010/February

Saint
I don't have any of the MP3s of the Saint radio shows, however you can download shows via a link in the External Links section of the Simon Templar article. Cheers. 23skidoo 06:35, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

64-bit Windows
You seem to have some incorrect information on 64-bit versions of Windows XP. The Itanium version is named 64-bit Edition, not Professional for Itanium. The x64 version is named Professional x64 Edition, not Professional for x64. "Original" is to distinguish the first release of Windows XP 64-bit Edition (5.1) from Windows XP 64-bit Edition 2003 (5.2). For these reasons, I'm going to revert most of your last 2 edits to Windows NT. - Josh (talk | contribs) 01:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not finding any discussion of this on any talk page with the exception of my above comments. By the way,here is evidence of Windows XP 64-bit Edition Version 2003's existence. - Josh (talk | contribs) 02:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Somehow I dropped an edit. See the talk page there in a few moments. :) Jeh (talk) 03:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

...which is why I said I knew I was going to regret this...
In the sentence

"There are a small number of differences between the two instruction sets."

"a small number of differences" is the implicit subject. The actual noun is "number". What kind of number? A number of differences. "of differences" modifies the noun "number".

Try this one:

"There are a bucket of chicken legs sitting on the table."

This is not right because we're not talking about chicken legs, we're talking about a bucket. Similarly, the verb in the original sentence is not about the differences, it's about the number. Regards,--NapoliRoma (talk) 20:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry but that is not correct. If we said "there are differences between...", "are" would clearly be appropriate, yes? Similarly if we said "there are two differences" or "there are fifty differences" or "there are many differences" or "there not many differences".


 * "A number" is a collective noun. You would not say "there is a dozen differences" just because you have only one dozen.


 * Or... let's try removing pieces. "There are differences between..." would be a perfectly valid sentence; the meaning is changed only slightly. But  if you remove what you claim is the adjective, you're left with "There is a small number between the two instruction sets", which  makes no sense at all.  Therefore, clearly, the object of the sentence is "differences", not "number". See?  Jeh (talk) 21:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * This is admittedly a tricky one, because both
 * "number of differences"
 * and
 * "differences"
 * serve as nouns, and it appears as though "number of"—by the fact that it can be removed without apparently changing the meaning in this case—is a modifier of "differences".


 * However, consider my example above: both
 * "bucket of chicken legs"
 * and
 * "chicken legs"
 * stand as nouns, but the meaning very clearly changes if you remove "bucket of". This is because "of chicken legs" modifies bucket, not the other way around.  The sentence "There is a bucket sitting on the table" would be saying exactly the same thing as "There is a bucket of chicken legs sitting on the table", short the description of exactly what is in the bucket.
 * "'A number' is a collective noun."
 * Which is pretty much my point. "Number" is a collective noun, and American English considers collective nouns to be singular.  "The team is sitting on the bench".  "ABC is proud to present".
 * "You would not say 'there is a dozen differences' just because you have only one dozen."
 * If this were British English, yes, we would say "a murder of crows are perched in the oak tree." You would not say "there is a dozen differences" not because "dozen" is a collective noun—it's an adjective—but because "differences" is a plural noun.
 * "''But if you remove what you claim is the adjective, you're left with 'There is a small number between the two instruction sets', which makes no sense at all. Therefore, clearly, the object of the sentence is 'differences', not 'number'."
 * Nope. The sentence is syntactically correct; it only makes no sense because you've removed the modifier explaining which number you're talking about.  Similarly, "Don't go to house, go to house" is syntactically correct but nonsensical unless I include modifiers clarifying which two houses I'm talking about.--NapoliRoma (talk) 21:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * "However, consider my example above" -- that's the problem; your example is not parallel. This sentence is about "differences", not "number". What if we said "There are between 12 and 20 differences"?  "A number" still strongly suggests that the number is greater than one, hence plural.


 * Even if (for sake of argument) I accept that the object here is "number", from the 1992 Gregg Reference Manual: "The expression the number has a singular meaning and requires a singular verb; a number has a plural meaning and requires a plural verb." Now I have to admit that someone on the site where I found that claims this isn't applicable, but I don't see why not. I'm sticking with this and we will have to agree to disagree.


 * This particular point does seem to be a matter of non-consensus; if you google for

"there are a number of" "there is a number of" grammar


 * you'll find a large number of (heh) pages discussing the issue. And not a few pages that use BOTH expressions, on a page discussing other topics of grammar! Googling each phrase individually reveals that "is a number of" has a very, very small edge in usage count. Jeh (talk) 22:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Now see what you've done? When you said "I'm sticking with this", I thought, "Gee, so much more I could say, but I'll respect his wishes and drop it..."
 * So: I still think the example is parallel. Your comment that "the sentence is about..." is irrelevant.  The sentence about a bucket of chicken legs is, at its heart, about chicken legs; nevertheless, the object is still, irrevocably, "bucket" and "chicken legs" the modifier.  When you say "between 12 and 20 differences", the object is "differences" and the modifier is "between 12 and 20".  When I say "the team of squamish players", the object is "team" and the modifier is "of squamish players", and here in Amurrica we would say that team is sitting on the bench.
 * So, I firmly stand behind number being the object in question, and stand behind it being a collective noun. However...
 * The Chicago Manual of Style agrees with the Gregg Manual: the preceding article defines whether or not number is plural. Seems like a cop-out to me, but there we are.  I gave up on fighting hopefully a long time ago, too. :-)  Cheers,--NapoliRoma (talk) 23:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * If you mean e.g. "Hopefully, we have settled this matter" not meaning "We hope we have settled this matter", I agree. Cheers, Jeh (talk) 23:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Followup
This discussion is closed AFAI am concerned, but I had some more thoughts I wanted to write down, and this seems as good a place as any.

I did miswrite earlier when I used the term "collective noun." "A number of differences" is a plural, not collective, just as "23 differences" or whatever other non-1 number would be. So the British vs. American usage rule for collectives doesn't apply.

Another way to recast the sentence: From "There are a number of differences", we could go to "A number of differences exist..." or "Differences exist..." or "32 differences exist..." Clearly the subject here is "differences", not "a number".

The bucket of chicken legs example is not parallel. In "There is a bucket of chicken legs sitting on the table," it is the bucket that is doing the sitting. The chicken legs are not sitting directly on the table, as they are contained by the bucket. Hence the subject of that sentence is the bucket. Not so with "There are a number of differences..." "Differences" can exist, but "a number" cannot in this sense exist on its own and cannot in this usage be the subject of a sentence -- it has to be a number of something.

I think what is tricky here is the ordering: We are used to seeing constructs like "of somethings" being used as adjectives to a preceding noun, as in "bucket of chicken legs". But "A number of differences" or even "A number of chicken legs" is not the same sort of construct, even though it looks the same. The reason is that "A number of" is really just like "Numerous" or "some" or "many": "There are numerous differences between..." It is even less precise than those but it's a plural just the same, even though it has a singular article in front. Jeh (talk) 18:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm.
Did you ever have a user ID starting with a Q, which of course would stand for "San Diego"?--NapoliRoma (talk) 20:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Boy, that's going back aways! Yes. No idea who you might be, though. Jeh (talk) 21:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * R ("as in Northridge"), wrote Cyber BBS. No worries if that doesn't ring a bell... .--NapoliRoma (talk) 21:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmm... I knew a few R's in those days. I'm afraid I have no idea which of them might have become NapoliRoma.  If you want to email, I'm easy enough to find, or I can create a throwaway gmail account. Jeh (talk) 22:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Morse code tapping
Thanks Jeh. I suspect what happened is that you used the "undo" option, and the original change (to add the comment about tapping) was done in two parts. The result was that you undid only the second part. No problem, of course. "Show preview" helps to catch this kind of thing, but then again for a small change in a big article I find myself overlooking things even with that button. "Show changes" can help in that case. Paul Koning (talk) 15:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

About sandboxes
Is it permissible and desirable to create a sandbox under an article talk page? For collaboration purposes on a major section of the main article page? e.g.

talk:some_Subject/sandbox/proposed_revision_to_second_section

?

Thanks in advance for any reply! Jeh (talk) 06:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately it's imposable to do so, see here for reference. I suggest you create a sub page of your user page and do it there. You can provide a link to it on the Article talk page. Hope this help, Tiddly  -  Tom  06:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * See also Category:Wikipedia workpages. Bovlb (talk) 07:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Hm. It seems to me that that actually says you CAN use them that way:

Writing drafts of major article revisions, e.g Example Article/Temp in the main namespace, as you can get there accidentally using special:randompage -- write these in the talk namespace, e.g. Talk:Example Article/Temp.

No? Jeh (talk) 07:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * So basically, yes, you can create a subpage either on your User: space or in the article Talk space for working with major revisions (e.g., it's okay to create Talk:Cat/Hugerevision. Just don't redirect anything from the main article space into the talk workspace (like pointing Cat to Talk:Cat/Hugerevision.  Cheers =) -- slakr  \ talk / 10:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * ok, thank you! This seems a lot less "owning", i.e. better, than putting such in my own sandbox. Jeh (talk) 12:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Conventions in discussion threads
I ignore the convention because it makes discussions quickly unreadable. I also think there's no reason to indent each comment when you're not straying from a quite linear discussion and you're actually addressing the person you respond to. Threaded display of discussions isn't bad per se but Wikipedia simply does not provide the necessary tools unlike e-mail clients for example. I respond to this here because there's already enough off-topic talk over there. I don't mind adding the extra colon though. I'm just telling you, so that you know my reasons. --217.87.90.29 (talk) 18:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

np, thanks! Jeh (talk) 18:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Deletion warning
Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia without explaining the valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Justpassin (talk) 21:47, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * You are perhaps unaware that this particular template exists as a sandbox. Please note that: its name includes the word "draft"; this template is in the talk namespace; the text on talk:MOSNUM where GregL created this "template", saying "So… To Jimp and Thunderbird2. Go to town on this version. Make it something you would sign on to." Well, I'm neither Jimp or Thunderbird2 but I don't see why I, as an ongoing (though sporadic) participant in that discussion, should be excluded from the list of those allowed to edit. If yuo are familiar with the issue, you should see that there is ample evidence to support the notion that GregL created this whole "follow current literature" business as a way to get the example of prohibiting IEC prefixes into MOSNUM, as his efforts on that point alone never achieved consensus. Jeh (talk) 22:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Greenbox
There's been a Complete rewrite of section 4 (greenbox) of the MOSNUM in the last few days. Could you give feedback and vote?

While your at it, check out the bluebox and purplebox proposals.

Thanks. Headbomb (ταλκ · κοντριβς) 02:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

thanx
Thanks for speaking out – I appreciate it. Your views on this list are welcome. Thunderbird2 (talk) 12:49, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

request for comment

 * Hello. I would appreciate your comments here and here. Thank you. Thunderbird2 (talk) 18:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

ATA
If you are going to rename the article to something other than Advanced Technology Attachment, please move it to "AT Attachment with Packet Interface". "AT attachment" is not a good name, since it's neither the common usage, nor the official name.

The Wikipedia naming convention is that we should in general use the common name of a thing as its article title, or, if there is sufficiently good reason, or a class exception to the general rule, the official name.

For example, the article on North Korea should either be called North Korea (which is the name almost universally used by others), or Democratic People's Republic of Korea (the official name of the country). "DPR Korea" (for example) would not be a good name, since it is neither.

Thus, we should either call ATA "Advanced Technology Attachment", or "AT Attachment with Packet Interface." Even though it's officially incorrect, almost everyone reads ATA as meaning Advanced Technology Attachment -- not unreasonably, since "AT" originally stood for "Advanced Technology", and I believe the article should stay with that name, according to the standard naming convention.

To try to clarify this, I've now started the intro in the article with: "AT Attachment with Packet Interface, commonly known as Advanced Technology Attachment (ATA)..." -- The Anome (talk) 08:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)


 * FWIW the T13 committee home page begins "Technical Committee T13 is responsible for all interface standards relating to the popular AT Attachment (ATA) storage interface utilized as the disk drive interface on most personal and mobile computers today." so the article probably should be "AT Attachment" and not "Advanced Technology Attachment." While version 7 of specification is "AT Attachment with Packet Interface," historically it hasn't always been so and it looks like it will revert to "AT Attachment" in version 8.  I think most people will better understand AT Attachment (ATA) as the article title and we should drop "with Packet Interface" except where relevant. JEH, BTW see my other comments on my talk page Tom94022 (talk) 17:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

In yr current problems on the AT Attachment page, perhaps you should link each device type to a vendor purporting to offer such a device, rather than linking the SSD to the ATA spec. Just a thought. Probably won't stop Ramu50. I did post a comment at the Noticeboard for whatever good it will do. Tom94022 (talk) 11:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Alas he'll likely just say they're not "really" supported. Jeh (talk) 17:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Jeh, I saw your appeal of the move of AT Attachment. Can you reply to my new question over at WT:RM? If the closer of the move did not fully understand the move discussion, he might be willing to change his mind.  Now that I have read over the arguments given, the case for 'Advanced Technology Attachment' seems weak. But summing up the views of all the participants in the very long move discussion would not be easy. EdJohnston (talk) 16:02, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Done. Thanks. Jeh (talk) 01:08, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Request for mediation at MOSNUM
I have completed a request for cabal mediation here. Thunderbird2 (talk) 15:33, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

AT Attachement
Just revert it back normal, Iterator12n only talk about the naming of the article, he didn't mention anything in regards to talk page organization, why are you even changing again. --Ramu50 (talk) 16:39, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It's back to normal now. Iterator12n is not the complainer I'm talking about. There was an IP editor and two people in the move review discussion. Both of those are admins and were really quite definite that the "refactoring" (reorg) made it worse. And you're supposed to revert a "refactoring" after just one complaint (WP:REFACTOR). I'm going to clean it up instead by addressing some of the long dead threads, starting with the cable photo. PLEASE DO NOT ARCHIVE ANYTHING MORE as having two people archiving with different ideas makes a mess of the archives. It isn't that one set of ideas is better or worse, it's just that consistency is important. Thanks. Jeh (talk) 17:49, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Well I didn't notice anybody menitioning WP policy or archiving beside me. Did you not see the short summary I made, it explain the reason for archive or what is in the archive of the archivees I made, anyhow somebody deleted I don't know, but not going to edit ATA/ATAPI today, my mouse it acting very weird and I think my BIOS is nearly dying. --Ramu50 (talk) 00:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Integrated banner for WikiProject Software
Greetings,I have made a proposal for a integrated banner for the project here . I invite you for your valuable comments in the discussion. You are receiving this note as you are a member of the project. Thanks --  Tinu  Cherian  - 11:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Merger of WikiProject Malware and WikiProject Software
Greetings, I have made a proposal for the merger of WikiProject Malware and WikiProject Software here. I invite you for your valuable comments in the discussion. You are receiving this note as you are a member of the project. Thanks, ---  Tyw7, leading innovation ‍ ‍‍ (Talk  ●  Contributions) 11:02, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Disagree that terminals should be redundantly categorized
Talk:HP 2640 Tedickey (talk) 21:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

HP 2640
I was sort of waiting to see if you had anything further to discuss in that topic. Thanks Tedickey (talk) 14:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh... sorry, I've been busy with Real Work. I've said my piece; do whatever you feel is best. Jeh (talk) 02:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

New Leadership Organization
Greetings, I have proposed a new organization for the WikiProject Software have been proposed. I invite you for your valuable comments in the discussion here. You are receiving this note as you are a member of the project. Thanks -- Tyw7, leading innovation ‍ ‍‍ (Talk  ●  Contributions) 13:55, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

test
just testing.

test2

test 3 tst 4 5

68.9.165.151
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on 68.9.165.151, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because 68.9.165.151 is a test page. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting 68.9.165.151, please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that '''this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here''' CSDWarnBot (talk) 02:20, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry mate, you created the page in the mainspace rather in the user talk space, and another editor came and tagged it. I have moved it now to the correct place, and removed the speedy tag, so all should be okay now.  Please make sure that you put these notices on the user talk page rather than in the mainspace, as people are liable to be confused that way (but don't worry too much, as I've made that mistake myself more than once)  Lankiveil (speak to me) 02:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC).
 * Thanks. Funny, I thought I did put it on the talk page. In fact my user contribs history says "2008-09-06T02:13:18 (hist) (diff) N User talk:68.9.165.151 ‎ (WQA notice) ". But as long as all is ok now... Jeh (talk) 02:44, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Aye, that's because I moved it (rather than just cut and pasted it) to preserve the edit history. When you move a page, any edits that occured under the old name show up under the new name in contribs.  See .  Lankiveil (speak to me) 02:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC).
 * Thank you! Jeh (talk) 02:58, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

ATA
Why keep old threads? if there no discussion in them there meant to be archived--Andrewcrawford (talk) 14:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Old threads are kept as reminders of work to be done on the article. Jeh (talk) 14:29, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * If you bothered to look i moved the old thread to archive thread which means anything old can be easily looked at the talk page is for current discussion, i dnt know about you but that talk page is to large and will put people off discussing things.--Andrewcrawford (talk) 14:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I did look. If you had looked at the archive1 page already established you would have seen that the pattern being used is that threads that are "done" are archived, threads that discuss or imply needed work on the page are left on the main page. The trouble with archiving older but still open threads is that things not on the main talk page tend never to get looked at again. I'm busy this week, but next week I am going to archive all the Ramu50 threads, which are closed as far as both the participants and any pending work on the main page are concerned. Jeh (talk) 15:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Hotplug ata
ATA and ide are hot pluggable at the software level. You must have a software like Driveswap {google it} though because IDE hot plug is not natively implemented into the os because so few people have use for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajmoonz1 (talk • contribs) 19:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Sure, you can put a filter driver on top of just about any device to make it "hot pluggable at the software level." However the article describes ATA as described in the ATA standards docs. The specifications describe, among other things, the hardware interface - the electrical characteristics of the signals and the mechanical characteristics of the connectors. And these aspects of ATA simply do not permit ATA devices to be safely hot-plugged. A hot-pluggable device interface has many well known characteristics. Typically the contacts are staggered and the connector designed so that upon connection ground mates first, then power, then the data signals. ATA is not like that and as a result you stand a good chance of electrically damaging either the device or the host interface if you try it. There are of course "mobile racks" and similar things that work around this, mostly by mechanically requiring that the drive be powered off during insertion or removal, but they are not covered or allowed for by the ATA spec; in fact, they violate it, as the ATA spec does not allow for any "intermediate" connectors between the host controller and the device. The fact that these devices sometimes do work (and, in my direct experience, sometimes not) is beside the point; the article is referenced to the ATA specs. Jeh (talk) 00:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for standing up to F&G and their ridiculous inquisition. I appreciate it. Thunderbird2 (talk) 17:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * We all do what we can. I wish I'd been able to continue with the binary prefix debate, but the real world calls. I'm promoting binary prefixes through other avenues. How many people has Fnagaton accused of sockpuppetry, anyway? Jeh (talk) 20:35, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The binary prefixes are a small fish in a big ocean. For me this is about the incivil behaviour of a small number of opinionated editors, who continually discourage debate with their rudeness, and the failure of the mediation process to curtail that behaviour. I honestly believed that consensus was considered important here, and that a mediator would come along to ensure fair play.  But for as long as potential mediators look on saying “we cannot (or will not) mediate because the bullies have asked us not to”, the bullies will continue to have the upper hand.  If that is WP wants, that is fine by, but I do not wish to participate – it seems that Omegatron left for the same reason.  Anyway, like you say, real life beckons.  Happy editing. Thunderbird2 (talk) 07:08, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

RE: deletion of "asynchronous procedure call" article
There was no discussion as it was Speedily deleted for being a copyright violation. Because of this reason, I cannot restore the text. However, you are welcome to recreate the article if you wish. - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Diablo 630 and letter quality printing
Just to let you know your second recent edit resolves the issue nicely. When I saw your first edit I grimaced and though an edit war was coming on. I don't dispute the dominance of the Selectric, but that article asserted that the term "letter quality" was defined in terms of a particular product. That is a notion I would think it impossible to sustain. CrispMuncher (talk) 21:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know. I'll bet I could find magazine articles from the time making that exact comparison. But I'm far from motivated to do so! Jeh (talk) 05:24, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

sup
So just want to ask, have you done OS kernel engineering before? Because I trying to look for universities that offer that programs, but most them seems pretty shitty, you got any suggestions?

I already know A+ is like Desktop Technician, Help Support Technician...etc. I haven't touch Cisco for a VERY long time.
 * HTML, XHTML, CSS, Client / Server side scripts, Java, Visual Basics, SOA, REST, SOAP, AJAX, The Semantic Web Semantic SOA Cloud Computing Search Engine Optimization (simply put it, I work on enviroment where the server infrastrucutre is built in a Semantic Web), where the Search Engine is using SOA. But I haven't touch on the Ontology programming language before. CompTIA (A+, Network+, Security+)
 * RDBMS, Parallel Computing + Cloud Computing, basic UML.
 * Some BI (Buisness Intelligence) MIS, by that I mean ALM / PLM (application lifecycle management = short cycle application developement, Product Lifecycle Management = corporate products (e.g. Adobe, Microsoft Office, Visual Studio, Expression Studio, OpenOffice.org or any "suite" software)
 * I am just starting things like Agile, RAD (application developement)
 * Haven't really touch on RIA (rich internet application like Silverlight)
 * Basic Instruction Set Architecture.

Haven't really look into Grid, Distributed and Cluster Computing.

Future
 * Thinking of looking into Mac OS X desktop technician.
 * Also looking into some Multimedia and audio frameworks, since I have some experience in multiemdia.
 * Multimedia skills
 * Adobe Premiere Pro, Blender (similar to AutoCAD)
 * Virtual Studio (kind of like audio mixing for DJs)
 * I touch on some basic OpenGL before.


 * Also looking into Linden (programming language), use for Second Life behavioural, I am thinking of getting a fun degree on AutoCAD modeling and possibly using the graphic programming skills into some game programmnig if possible, since I am already know programming to a degree.

I am not sure but have I ask this you before. But if you can help, I thank beforehand.

See Ja.

Lets the conflict of the past be the past. --Ramu50 (talk) 18:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I really don't think I can help you. Jeh (talk) 08:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Template:CPU technologies
Hi! I thought that I should let you know that it would seem that your detailed explanations of why DMA is not a CPU technology at Template:CPU technologies has not been effective. I doubt that even Richard L. Sites (the chief architect of the Alpha ISA at DEC) would be able to convince Ramu50 otherwise. "False" misinterpreted evidence has been provided by the editor in question to support this outrageous scheme of categorization. Anyways, I'll see how this goes. Thank you for explaining DMA as I would have not bothered to do so in such detail (given the history of Ramu50 ignoring any meaningful discussion about his edits). Rilak (talk) 05:07, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I've responded to him. Also I've updated the (now archived) ANI discussion here. Jeh (talk) 07:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * p.s. Sites would indeed be too polite. Dave Cutler otoh... :D Jeh (talk) 08:28, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

To Jeh and Rilak

Regarding the DMA. I think the template is almost too big. I am not going to discuss DMA further, because the CPU technologies seems a bit too technical for this template, even though should be included, but it would just make the template look more messy. I will try to come up with something that will hopeful includes the technical that people are interested, hopefully. --Ramu50 (talk) 22:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Actual discussion about the template content should go on the template talk page; I will not reply to this point here. Jeh (talk) 22:37, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

It was only a notification, not meant to be discussed. --Ramu50 (talk) 04:28, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * This is my own talk page and I will post followup comments as I please, thank you very much. Again: If you have something to say about the template, discuss it on the template talk page. If you have something to say personally to Rilak (not about the tempalte) I suggest you do that on his talk page. Jeh (talk) 04:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

replies
The tone of this comment ("your so-called skills," "in case you didn't know") reveals your attitude for all to see, and it is not a pretty sight. You do not seem interested in working cooperatively with other editors here and certainly not in learning when you have things to learn. For this, from the beinning when you come into the talk page, I've seen absoutely no respect from you, instead I see you more like teaming up with Rilak against my point of view. --Ramu50 (talk) 21:42, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Although we do "assume good faith" on WP, once you have made as many mistakes both technical and civil on WP as you have, I'm afraid that respect does have to be earned back. You are indeed starting from considerably behind the usual "starting line" in that regard. As I said, when I see your username in an edit history, I groan. It is clear to me that at least half a dozen other editors do so as well. Is that really how you want to be thought of on Wikipedia? Do you really think we're all just biased against you? Do you really think we're all wrong? Jeh (talk) 22:36, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Almost every single talk page I've seen you involve, you seems to have a habit of bragging every single skills you have ever done, pointing out you've been on involve or professional skilled at whatever the topics is. --Ramu50 (talk) 21:42, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Um, so what? Do you not think that the personal experience of an editor is relevant? But it's far from "every single skill", it's only what's relevant at each point. Jeh (talk) 22:36, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

And in regards to that why I would listen to your junk and as said before, on the adminstrators talk page, your lack of creditability of misuing the Wikipedia policy.--Ramu50 (talk) 21:42, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * As I noted in my followup to I didn't misuse anything. WP:BRD may not have "guideline" status, let alone policy, but it is to be treated as an adjunct to WP:CON and you are not following that either. Jeh (talk) 22:36, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

And by the way go use ATAPI as an example, whenever you feel like it, because all its doing is you are trying to make excuses for yourself by being protective and showing other respect. I don't even see you edit maturing any further since you like to point ever single minor details of others and never overlooking at the positive side of the story, not that you need to, but it just shows a different level of knowledge and in case you don't believe me. I will tell you that my knowledge of computer maybe weak in your case of consideration, but in the industry I've been invited by more than 12 major video makers and comedians of YouTube (each with over 100,000 subscribers), made an encyclopedia about online gaming, and earn creditability in major reviews industries. This info I didn't want to point out, because it is too much of a bragging, but I only point out to show that your ideas of expertise in you consider, in the case of "society", society doesn't care about you, because it is useless or old-fahsion other may deem upon. Though maybe you think I am only forseeing your negatives.--Ramu50 (talk) 21:42, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Everybody gets "invited" by lots of people on YouTube, it's no big deal. As for creditability (sic - the word you want there is "credibility") I have achieved the highest merit ranking ("Senator") on the best technical forum on the web, episteme.arstechnica.com, and my opinions there are extremely well respected. (No doubt that is partly because I don't venture forth opinions about things I know very little about.) Maybe I should put that on my user page, but I don't like to brag. I won't put my Ars nickname there either. Jeh (talk) 22:36, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok if I turned the situtation around, your positive achievements has only been but a few foundations contributions as shown your user page, and who would care, for god's sake a lot of people from Sun Microsystems and IBM employees have done so too, what have you got to say on that note. Telling me to learn from you, you are the one that need to change some behaviour attitude, because I am already successful in the industry while you aren't. My knowledge already exceeds you. --Ramu50 (talk) 21:42, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't put everything about me on my user page. But really, who do you think you are, claiming that you're "successful" and I'm not? I'm not going to post details here (I have no way of proving them, after all) but I'll just say this: you have no way of knowing how successful or influential I am. Jeh (talk) 22:36, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * otoh it's actually quite probable that you do have a wider breadth of technologies under your belt, at least at the "familiarity" level, than I do; I've always been a "narrow but deep niche" person. But what I do know, I know very well and very thoroughly. Jeh (talk) 22:36, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * (And just to point out that I do get out of "ring 0" sometimes, this week I'm finishing up a largish video editing project, combining two hours of footage from each of four cameras and eight-channel audio pickup for a full AC3 5.1 result. Using Sony Vegas, with the Excalibur plugin.) Jeh (talk) 22:36, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

For the other concerns you have regarding Wikipedia policies, discuss on that admin talk page or my talk page and let the administrators who is right in the behavior problem, because I personally don't feel you are being in any way legitimate or even acting mature. --Ramu50 (talk) 21:42, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Of course I intend to let the administrators decide who is right re the behavior issue. However they cannot do that without information, and this I have no compunction about supplying while also pointing out the technical issues with your claims. Such discussion would therefore logically go on the talk page relevant to the technical issues. I am not, however, going to go out of my way to complain to an admin for every edit of yours that is merely a WP:CIVIL vio. (Some, perhaps, in extreme cases. But not every one.) As for complaining to you on your talk page, that is obviously useless, as you just take it as more evidence that we're all out to get you. I think you need to take a really big dose of WP:AGF. Jeh (talk) 22:36, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

My whole point being of your behavior concerns is stop using the material from your side of the story, regardless of whether or not they are right or wrong. The fact that you always want to base on your opinion doesn't make the Wikipedia more friendly or even encompass any neutrality (referring to the connotation instead of the purpose of Wikipedia.) What you write on Wikipedia, if you base on your info the tone of article changes too easily, I think you should very well be aware, I have no intention of go with any further, or than just stop it, because the fact is other people in Wikipedia don't do this, or even if they do, for the least it is not encourage by Wikipedia and by your experience of editing I see to it that you understand the policies quite well, thus I suggest don't abuse it, there isn't much to say, but I think the rest of what I am about to say is already implied beforehand and even before I started writing this, thus improve yourself before conflict again, and that go for the same as me as well, thus I take my leave for now, the decision is up to for your part and that is all. --Ramu50 (talk) 23:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry but I do not "always want to base on my opinion". (That's you.) If you will look back I believe you will find very few, perhaps no cases where I have not been able to supply references to back up what I've said. (That's not you.) Now granted, sometimes I get things wrong. But you will also notice that when I'm shown to be wrong, I say ~"hm, you're right, I was mistaken there." (That's not you either.) It's a good thing to do on Wikipedia. I suggest that you try it. Jeh (talk) 04:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

IEC prefixes
You may wish to comment on this discussion at MOSNUM. Thunderbird2 (talk) 18:19, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

It's almost over...
I've reported that Development of Windows XP edit warrior as a sockpuppet: Suspected sock puppets/Fantasy Game Productions - Josh (talk | contribs) 04:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * That'll be nice. Thanks! Jeh (talk) 06:10, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Ahhh, sweet silence. The anon was banned.  I'm sure he'll come back and tell his more about his penis when the block expires, but at least we've got some cover on the issue now.  I've been travelling through the mountains in the eastern U.S. a lot these past few weeks so I hadn't been too quick with doing reversions... have a good day.  Warren -talk- 15:49, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * We all do what we can. :) I'm glad I could help. Jeh (talk) 17:47, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

User:70.79.65.227 blocked
On second thought, per WP:DUCK I have blocked User:70.79.65.227 as User:Ramu50 avoiding his block. If he acknowledges himself, I will remove the protection on Ramu's page so he can ask. I'll still need the checkuser to determine if the IP address is static or rotating. If it rotates, we can't go more than a week at a time. If it's static, longer blocks are fine. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:42, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

RS-232
I appreciate your thank you for the work I did on the RS-232 article. Apparently User:Wtshymanski thought it was all stupid and deleted it all. I'm rather upset. Hpa (talk) 21:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Regarding User:70.79.65.227
Thanks for alerting me about the ANI on User:70.79.65.227. The block has been extended, so I feel that I don't have to comment. I noticed that Ricky81682 has said protection on Ramu50's page will be removed so he can ask to be unblocked if he acknowledges himself. I believe that this link, a diff of Talk:Random-access memory is useful. The anon editor states: "Well I should probably clarify what I said previously." in response to my comment on a comment signed by Ramu50. Rilak (talk) 08:20, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, thanks for the heads-up there - I suspected he wouldn't be able to leave WP alone. Totally support the block - WP can well do without this kind of person. Letdorf (talk) 13:06, 12 December 2008 (UTC).

Infobox Windows component
I left you a comment on Template talk:Infobox Windows component... see you there. :)  Warren -talk- 00:59, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Moving Mission: Impossible
See recent findings and proposal on Talk:Mission: Impossible. I plan to move the article if nobody objects over the next week. I you do have concerns, please note them on the talk page. Thanks, Aymatth2 (talk) 13:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

AfD of JEDEC memory standards
Hello,

You haven't edited the article in question, but since you are or have been actively involved in the IEC prefix discussion (sorry to remind you of it if you, like me, got tired of the uncivil discussion and wanted to have nothing to do with the issue anymore), I invite you to consider the nomination for deletion of the article JEDEC memory standards, which I believe can fairly be said to have been created only as a hammer for the discussion.

I beg you to try to keep your sentiments about the actual IEC prefix on Wikipedia question out of the deletion discussion and consider the merits of the deletion proposal, namely, notability in the Wikipedia sense (WP:N), regardless of which units you believe Wikipedia should use.

The deletion discussion is at Articles for deletion/JEDEC memory standards. --SLi (talk) 22:22, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

AT Attachment
Hey. Forgot to post. I wanted to ask you if you could give me an uri to the document that says it is not Adv. Tech., but I think I found it myself before submitting.

Viewing http://www.t13.org/Documents/UploadedDocuments/project | d1386r4-EDD.doc

with Word Viewer you can see Advanced Technology striked out.

[...] as "Advanced Technology Attachment" in the official specs. [...]

Where do I find this document?

As for the changes I've made, I've undone them before I read your entry on my talk page.

Apart from that I didn't see the Archive1 the first time.--Nestea Zen (talk) 14:51, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Player or recorder?
I just found your reversion of my edit on Mission: Impossible about the little devices from which Briggs/Phelps listened to their "assignments" (quote marks since he didn't have to accept, of course), and read your edit summary. I have some episodes on vid and will take your advice and look for the button. BTW, do you think it's worth mentioning in this section that in "Old Man Out" Briggs receives his briefing in a movie theater, not from a small playback device in some corner but in the main auditorium on the big screen? I've always found that one pretty outrageous. --Tbrittreid (talk) 19:35, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Thumbs up on UUCP
Good reformulation and clarification on UUCP :-) Electron9 (talk) 09:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, but I think that section needs to be merged into the next section on mail routing. I'm not done yet...! Jeh (talk) 23:11, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

ATA = ATA??
I can kind of see where your coming from saying ATA no longer means Advanced Technology Attachment, but not really. The "AT" in PATA or SATA has GOT to stand for something. If you can give me a current definition without defining an acronym with another acronym, I will admit your superior intelligence and give wiki back to you, but don't tell me my sources are "mistaken" when you have none, correct or otherwise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.198.52.7 (talk) 02:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, you are still mistaken. Not only does it "no longer mean" that, it never did.


 * Your confusion is understandable because this error is so widespread. Nevertheless it is still an error.


 * Why does it "GOT to stand for something"? Hardly a compelling argument. In any case the standards docs disagree.


 * The current - and original! - name, going all the way back to the ATA-1 spec, is simply "AT Attachment."


 * I have no sources, you claim? Ok, here you are crossing the line from being honestly (and understandably) mistaken to, at best, refusing to read what has already been put in front of you. In my last edit summary I said "read the specs." Clearly you have not done so. Even that advisement should not have been necessary as the specs are linked from the article, and have been since long before you made your first edit. All except the most recent version (ATA-8) are freely downloadable from t13.org. And you know something? The last time this issue came up, I searched the latest rev of every version that's there. The term "advanced technology" appears in none of them. They all just say "AT Attachment". Everywhere.


 * And yes, I searched for the individual words "advanced" and "technology", and checked every hit, just in case a line break or something similar had produced a false negative... nope. Nothing. Nada. Oh, each of those words of course appears in other contexts (like "Advanced power management") but there is utterly nothing that can be construed as support for the idea that "AT Attachment" ever meant "Advanced Technology Attachment."


 * So don't try to tell me I have no sources. I have the most authoritative sources possible - the defining documents for the interface, written by the people who created it... and named it. They named it "AT Attachment." Full stop.


 * And, no, that little web site you linked doesn't qualify as a WP:RS. Certainly it cannot be considered more reliable than the t13 committee's own documents.


 * I appreciate your eagerness to contribute to WP, but in the future, please keep in mind that an awful lot of what "everybody knows" turns out to be not so... and that when you see something in WP that seems "obviously wrong," perhaps the situation is not that nobody before you has ever noticed the "error", but rather that there is something there that you can learn. Jeh (talk) 03:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Long mode requires PAE
Please see page 128 (PDF page 174) in volume 2 of the AMD64 manual. You will see that long mode requires PAE. Jesse Viviano (talk) 01:21, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I forgot something, the relevant quote showing that PAE is needed is the first paragraph of page 128. Jesse Viviano (talk) 01:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Please look at the address translation diagrams in the same book. Long mode does require that the PAE bit be turned on before transitioning to long mode, and that it remain on while in long mode. But that does not mean that the processor is still in PAE mode while in long mode. To say that PAE (which has only four entries in the PDPT, and which does not have a PML4 table) is in effect during long mode (which has 512 entries in the PDPT, and does have the PML4T) is misleading. They are different translation schemes, at least as different from each other as PAE is from non-PAE in x86. Jeh (talk) 01:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems that AMD was a bit confusing, then. I will grant that AMD64 in long mode does not use PAE as it was exactly defined before AMD64 was defined. However, it does build upon PAE by using previously reserved bits for its own use. Since AMD states "Because PAE is always enabled in long mode, ..." in the fourth paragraph of page 128, my guess is that AMD essentially created versions 2 (add the NX bit for legacy mode) and 3 (add PML4T for long mode PAE) because PAE had already been used in older 32-bit Windows versions for servers and therefore there was some code to be reused, because PAE had reserved bits to use while PSE-36 had none to use, and because AMD did not want to require a change of the paging structure too soon, which would be needed with PSE-36 because PSE-36 can only handle up to 36 bits of physical memory. PAE provided up to 52-bits of potential physical addressing space to use. If AMD had foolishly based long mode translation on PSE-36, it and Intel would have to replace the paging structure in a few years when we hit a 36-bit wall. Using PAE pushes that wall much farther into the future. In summary, AMD based long mode's translation scheme on PAE in order to do hardware reuse (it could use just a subset of the hardware needed for long mode to handle legacy mode PAE, software reuse (the lower levels of translation would be nearly unchanged), and to avoid a 36-bit wall had it based translation on PSE-36.
 * Unfortunately, what we have is a matter of unclear definitions. One could take a design and extend it to do more stuff. Some people would call the result a new design based upon the old design. Other people would call the result a new version of the old design. To me, this could mean that both of us are right because there is no clear break-off point between the two concepts. I am leaning towards the new version of the old design explanation because long mode PAE is the same as old-style PAE except for the addition of the NX bit and the changes needed to enable 64-bit virtual addresses and because AMD stated that PAE is always enabled in long mode, but I will admit that both interpretations could be right. It reminds me of fuzzy logic where there is no clear break-off point in between multiple values.
 * Also, I was writing this reply when I had to look up fuzzy math to make sure I was using the right terms when I got your notice that you thought that I was ignoring your reply. Jesse Viviano (talk) 02:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * One might as well say that PAE requires non-PAE on x86. After all most elements of non-PAE mode are present...
 * Microsoft does not seem confused; see and . Now granted a lot of MSKB articles are written by the intern-of-the-week and I have had reason to rail against them in the past - particularly in their imprecise use of "memory" and even "RAM" in several contexts - but these two seem pretty clear as to what they're saying.
 * Apropos of that, my experience with people learning that "long mode requires PAE" is that they want to know how to put the /PAE switch in boot.ini or in the BCD. Conversely I have been teaching seminars for quite some time now in which I state that PAE and long mode are disjoint, and no one has disagreed, not even engineers from AMD. That of course is OR, but there it is.
 * In cases where sources are confusing or conflicting I believe WP should go with whatever is least for confusing for the reader.
 * I have just finished with another WikiDispute which I think is reaching a very amicable conclusion, but nevertheless I have no energy for another (particularly not with an admin), so I am going to leave this as "I've stated my case, it's up to you."
 * btw, I believe that it would be better practice to begin a discussion like this on the article talk page rather than coming straight to the other user - then the discussion can remain with the article history. All that should have gone here was "please see article talk page".
 * Also btw, and re your edits... use of the IEC prefixes for powers-of-1024 is proscribed by WP:MOSNUM. I personally think the IEC prefixes are a great idea, and I and others argued for their allowance by MOSNUM, but in the end the argument that WP should follow its sources and almost no sources anywhere use IEC prevailed. And I cannot disagree with that argument as far as WP policy is concerned. I am not going to revert your use of MiB, etc., but... fyi. Jeh (talk) 03:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand where you are coming from, and can say that both of us are right due to the fact that there is no clean break-off point. However, the article contradicted itself by discussing long mode PAE in some parts while saying that long mode does not use PAE in other parts before I got to the article, and decided to do something about it. Second, I did research on the topic because I noticed that the article x86-64 needed a state diagram for how an AMD64 processor switches between modes, and found out by accident that PAE was required for long mode. I think that the best way to deal with the boot.ini and BCD stuff is to state thtat the operating system automatically enables PAE if it is booting to long mode, so that the user does not need to deal with setting anything in boot.ini or the BCD. As for the WP:COMPUNITS stuff, I did not know. I thought that the different prefixes were used willy-nilly and I hate that kind of ambiguity. I will fix that. Jesse Viviano (talk) 03:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I forgot to apologize to you about taking the issue to your talk page instead of inviting you to the article's talk page. I am sorry for both failing to invite you to the talk page, and for failing to apologize earlier. Anyways, our rules prohibit us from using administrator's tools where there is a whiff of a conflict of interest, and we must go through the non-admin user channels like posting a request for protection at WP:RFPP instead of protecting a template we heavily were involved in. Also, please challenge administrators that are doing evil to Wikipedia. For example, one highly regaded administrator, Essjay, turned out to be our own Bernard Madoff when his fraudulent credentials were exposed in the Essjay controversy. (Of course, Essjay did not steal money, but he was like Madoff in that he was highly trusted and turned out to be a giant fraudster. Madoff was trusted enough to become the chairman of the NASDAQ stock exchange at one point, and Essjay was trusted enough to gain access to the CheckUser tool on the English Wikipedia.) Jesse Viviano (talk) 17:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I must have overstated things. Communication here rather than on the article talk page did not at all seem to be an "offense" at the level that needs a stated apology! I was just saying... I thought it was better practice that way, but no offense taken. The admin info is great too. Thanks for responding. Jeh (talk) 23:34, 5 February 2010 (UTC)