User talk:John Sauter

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! RJFJR (talk) 20:14, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Categorization of articles
An article is not considered to be "categorized" just because it has a stub template on it, because stub templates are for maintenance purposes and are meant to be removed as soon as the article is no longer of stub length. An article is correctly tagged as being uncategorized, no matter how many stub "categories" are present, if it doesn't also have at least one real, permanent content category on it in addition to the stub templates. Bearcat (talk) 02:40, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Request for favor - coordination
I maintain a list of references at User:Chatul/References that I copy from when editing other articles. I'd appreciate it if whenever you added a citation of an IBM publication to an article in User:Chatul or added a url to an existing citation, you could make the same addition in User:Chatul/References. IAC, I appreciate your taking the time to add the url for A22-6843 to User:Chatul/IBM System/360 architecture.

Thanks. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 16:16, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Foonly discussion
Hi! I just posted in the discussion thread on Talk:Foonly where you posted in 2008. Could I email-interview you? Kragen Javier Sitaker (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:25, 3 January 2012 (UTC).

Did the 2311-11 use CKD
I think if you carefully read the 2311 reference manual (e.g., p, 1-10) u will find that the controller for the S/360 M20 did write the individual sectors in a CKD format with the Count field having KL=0 and DL=270. In the S/360 version the record starts with an address mark while in the M20 version the record starts with a sector mark, otherwise they are the same (excepting end of record Gap 4). My recollection is that this enabled one way compatibility, probably allowing the 2841 to read S/360 M20 written 1316 packs, but to be honest I don't recall which way (depends upon address marks and gaps aligned to sector marks). It's probably in one of the controller references or maybe a M20 reference. So the material u deleted was correct but not particularly relevant to the section so I didn't put it back. Your call Tom94022 (talk) 17:52, 24 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I have moved this discussion to the talk page of IBM System/360 model 20. John Sauter (talk) 20:57, 24 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Talk pages are not private so u could have moved the whole thing without paraphrasing. Tom94022 (talk) 00:38, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

MOS:TENSE
Yes the idea goes on even if no machines exist. The books and plans describing it still exist, so present. But if no other reason, MOS:TENSE says so. Events, such as designed, built, and such are often past tense. I started discussion about this sitting next to a running PDP-10 and reading the article in past tense. More specifically, VAX is the architecture, independent of any specific implementations, but even the specific models are still present tense. Only individual serial numbers would be passed tense. Gah4 (talk) 07:46, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Apologies for the extra work I caused you on the IBM 2780/3780 page regards tense. I was unaware of the tense style guide, so am glad your talk page set me on the right track... AVandewerdt (talk) 08:33, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks!
Hi John

Just wanted to say thanks for the constructive and helpful way you worked to improve the IBM Batch terminals article. It's appreciated! AVandewerdt (talk) 08:36, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Anomalous leap seconds
I'm intrigued to know why you would consider that 23:59:60 doesn't match "Deviating from the normal; marked by incongruity or contradiction; aberrant or abnormal" (Wiktionary). It only arises in these rare circumstances. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 00:36, 18 March 2022 (UTC)


 * The words aberrant and abnormal have negative connotations, and thus constitute a point of view towards leap seconds, and so should not be used. On the other side, a word like rare has positive connotations, and thus also should not be used.  A neutral point of view would state the number of days since January 1, 1972, and say that 27 of them ended in a leap second.  That can be stated without adjectives that express either approval or disapproval for those 27 seconds. John Sauter (talk) 05:29, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I fail to see how any value judgement is being made. The sexigesimal counting system used for seconds (and minutes) doesn't have a 60. 1:59:59 plus one second = 2:00:00. That 60 is the equivalent in decimal of writing 19+1=1A rather than 20. To write the leap second in this way is a pragmatic device that is outside the normal counting, meaning by definition that it is abnormal. But since the word "abnormal" has acquired value association from other contexts, 'anomalous' seems to be the least value-laden word available that fits the circumstances. To omit any recognition of the extra-systemic nature of that 60 is a far more 'pointy' act. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 08:46, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I do not agree that we use a sexigesimal counting system for seconds and minutes, since leap seconds exist. The system we use today for time is based on the Babylonian system, but has departed considerably since Babylonian times.  For example, units higher than hours are days, months and years.  Units lower than seconds are decimal fractions of a second--we do not call 60ths of a second "thirds".
 * We have departed so far from any simple counting system that I prefer to think that seconds are named rather than counted. An example of the name of a second is 2022-03-18:13:49:10Z.  If you are going to do any sort of arithmetic with such a set of names you must first map them to numbers.  A mapping between numbers and the names of seconds which maps the same numbner to two different seconds, such as 23:59:60 and the following second, 00:00:00, is defective and should be rejected.  By way of example, a good mapping would map the name of a second to the number of seconds (including leap seconds) since January 1, 1970.  That would give each name a unique number and each number would map to a unique name. John Sauter (talk) 13:56, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is a rather more convincing argument, thank you. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:06, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Do you mind if I vent to you for a second?
This entire thing about the 4th phase is really stressing me out. I made that page on the 'be bold' assertion (WP:BOLD) and now it's being second guessed because you reverted the transfer edit i made (not trying to attack you or anything) and because I didn't start a consensus, the only reason I didn't was because I knew it would've been rejected. I didn't re-revert your revert only because I found myself incredibly busy immediately after I published my edit and was too tired to address it until the next day. Then I come back from a day trip yesterday only to find out the page has been nominated for deletion. what can I even do at this point?! I feel as if I can't win. I've spent literal days checking the talk page to try and justify my split and now it could very much all be in vain, I can't take it I wish people could've just accepted it. what do I even do? Great Mercian (talk) 17:48, 20 January 2023 (UTC)


 * To be bold when editing is good, but the risk you take when being bold is that somebody with a contrary opion will also be bold. The normal way to resolve such a dispute is by the consensus process, which is in progress.
 * Nominating a page for deletion does not mean that it will necessarily be deleted, only that somebody thinks it should be deleted. There is a mechanism within the nomination procedure for suggesting how the page should be handled, and giving your reasons.  I have stated that the phase 4 page should be merged into the phase 3 page and then deleted.  On the Talk page I have justified this opinion by giving the lengths of the phase 1, 2 and 3 pages.  You can also provide your opinion, and if you give a persuasive justification you can prevent the page from being deleted.
 * I am sorry that this process causes you stress. I have two suggestions.  First, don't take it too seriously.  It's just a page in Wikipdeia, not somebody's life or health.  Second, take it slowly.  If you have an opinion to give or a response to provide, don't type while you are upset but wait until you feel better, even if that is overnight.  That will reduce your stress and probably result in better prose. John Sauter (talk) 18:07, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Updates from the titles
I'm supporting your responses to my note about the invasion article name changes. If you could go ahead with the name changes for the various sibling articles involved in the invasion, then I'll be able to go ahead and update the main pages and then start a thread at one of the main articles for determining the best course for the future of the TOC for the main articles. Try to remember to add redirects to the old page names after you move them to the new articles with the new names as discussed; ping me from any of the sibling pages if other editors have any questions or inquiries and I'll try to support you edits. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:36, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Both Andrevan and myself are somewhat surprised by the editors responses on those 2 timeline move requests being closed ineffectively and unexpectedly. The next best option would be to list them as a merge back into the Phase 3 Timeline, if you would be ready to try it. That would make the sibling articles consistent with the main page once again. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:07, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Because the phase 3 article was divided based on a Reliable Source, I do not think it is reasonable to merge phase 4 back into phase 3. I think a better way to resolve the inconsistency would be to revise the articles that refer to the timeline pages.  That would require changing some dates and perhaps moving some events around. John Sauter (talk) 17:28, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I've already opened that thread on the 2022 Russian invasion Talk page, and you can state your viewpoint in your own words. Michael has already answered (he Opposed the rename requests previously) with his current comments as well. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:27, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 28 November 2023 (UTC)