User talk:LjL/Archive 8

WDNNY
This happened to give me a really good chuckle. Thanks. — Andy W.  ( talk  · ctb) 00:08, 5 July 2016 (UTC)


 * that page needed a little poking. It was asking for it. ;-) LjL (talk) 01:37, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Piping
Regading this edit. I don't think it's really an problem. It's a bit like if someone was heard saying "Mary full of grace, the Lord is with thee" and linking it to Hail Mary. Timothy Joseph Wood 18:04, 15 July 2016 (UTC)


 * maybe it's not a big "problem", but 1) there is a redirect, so it's just redundant to pipe it 2) there is a clear guideline asking us not to pipe it. So why on earth would we pipe it? LjL (talk) 18:07, 15 July 2016 (UTC)


 * ja;sdjfa;sdjfkads...I was thinking you were talking about an EGG issue. I'm dumb. Timothy Joseph Wood  18:12, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Misunderstanding
I'm sorry, I didn't mean that 3RR warning in the way that you took it. I completely understand where you were coming from, and it is great that you did go to the talk page. My only concern, and I know you know better, is that you did take that section out four times in less than an hour. Looking back, especially from my past experiences, it is always better to start a discussion after the first exchange of reversions. Whether you are correct or not, or whether you are on the constructive or deconstructive side of the edit war, there is still no reason to revert that much. Again, this was in very good faith, and I hope you don't take it the wrong way. Thanks and sorry for the trouble, United States Man (talk) 03:23, 15 July 2016 (UTC)


 * four times? I am sure, unless I'm gone crazy, by that you must be including the time I've self-reverted due to having doneitwrong. Surely that doesn't count as an additional revert since I undid it immediately, in order to make the narrower revert I had actually intended to make. Even then, I thought I had only reverted twice, but I guess I might have been taken by the heat of the moment and not realized it was three times. LjL (talk) 13:49, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, I do see that one time you self-reverted, but, as you said, it was three times and you may have just not noticed it in the heat of the moment. All is good now anyway, man. United States Man (talk) 12:41, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection policy RfC
You are receiving this notification because you participated in a past RfC related to the use of extended confirmed protection levels. There is currently a discussion ongoing about two specific use cases of extended confirmed protection. You are invited to participate. ~ Rob 13 Talk (sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:31, 22 December 2016 (UTC))

Reference errors on 16 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) 00:25, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * On the Yew Kam Keong page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=765885628 your edit] caused a broken reference name (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%2F765885628%7CYew Kam Keong%5D%5D Ask for help])

Wikiproject Spoken Wikipedia Revival
Hello, I'm Jamesjpk. I wanted to let you know that the Wikiproject Spoken Wikipedia, has been tagged with a semi-active tag. I am messaging you about this because you are listed under the wiki-project's list of active participants. Please contribute to the WikiProject if you want to keep it alive! I hope that it becomes active again! Jamesjpk (talk) 22:25, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

RfC Announce: Wikimedia referrer policy
In February of 2016 the Wikimedia foundation started sending information to all of the websites we link to that allow the owner of the website (or someone who hacks the website, or law enforcement with a search warrant / subpoena) to figure out what Wikipedia page the user was reading when they clicked on the external link.

The WMF is not bound by Wikipedia RfCs, but we can use an advisory-only RfC to decide what information, if any, we want to send to websites we link to and then put in a request to the WMF. I have posted such an advisory-only RfC, which may be found here:

Village pump (policy)

Please comment so that we can determine the consensus of the Wikipedia community on this matter. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:33, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

RfC you might be interested in
Hi LjL,

There is an RfC on Talk:Iran that you might be interested in.

Thanks,

Genealogizer (talk) 04:46, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Lufei Kui
Recently there is suggestion that Lufei Kui should be pronounced Lubi Kui. This is incorrect. First, Lufei Kui himself as well as his family use Lufei Kui, not Lubi Kui. I am his grandson. I spoke to his two daughters, my mother and my aunt about this. They are against changing the family name to Lubi. Second, none of the relatives with Lufei as the last name use Lubi. I asked in a family social network. Third, Lufei is a Chinese last name appeared 500 years ago, there is no record of anyone ever used Lubi since then. There are many prominent people in Lufei family, no historic record of anyone used this. Cihai, Zhong Hua Book Company all still use Lufei as the last name. So is the Lufei Kui Library in Tongxiang. We request that we change back to Lufei Kui. Daqingzhao (talk) 19:40, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

POWER ISA vs. PowerPC/Power ISA
There are, in fact, some parts of the IBM POWER instruction set architecture that are not in the PowerPC/Power ISA. See, for example, "Appendix A. Incompatibilities with the POWER Architecture" in the Power ISA Version 2.07B. The original POWER processors implemented only the POWER ISA (because PowerPC didn't exist yet); I think the POWER3 processor supported both POWER and PowerPC (i.e., the union of the two), except for cases where the behavior of an instruction changed (e.g., if an instruction that was privileged in POWER was made non-privileged in PowerPC, it was probably unprivileged in POWER3) but that the support for the parts of POWER not in PowerPC/Power ISA were dropped at some point in later POWER processors.

The GCC 2.95 manual indicates, in the "IBM RS/6000 and PowerPC Options" section, that if you specify both -mno-power and -mno-powerpc options, the compiler will "use only the instructions in the common subset of both architectures plus some special AIX common-mode calls, and will not use the MQ register", so, yes, there is a common subset that can be used for code that needs to run on both POWER ISA and PowerPC ISA processors. However, code compiled with -mpower will not work on those PowerPC processors that don't also implement all of the POWER ISA (such as, I think, newer POWERn processors), and code compiled with -mpowerpc will not work on those POWER processors that don't implement PowerPC (such as the original POWER1, the RSC, and the POWER2).

But I'm not sure the note you removed from IBM POWER microprocessors really added much to the article, so I'm not inclined to put back a version that more clearly states what the issue is. Guy Harris (talk) 04:48, 6 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes, I do understand that some instructions are missing, that's why in the comment I talked about "an intersection" of the instruction set. But you're basically saying the intersection is substantial yourself, while the sentence I removed had more the sound of "they're actually unrelated except for the name"... so this could be elaborated on in a better way, maybe, but not in the lead paragraph probably. LjL (talk) 05:43, 6 January 2018 (UTC)


 * "Today, only the naming scheme remains the same; modern POWER processors do not use the POWER ISA." could be read as saying:


 * there are two instruction sets, one named "POWER" and one that used to be called "PowerPC" and is now called "Power";
 * there is a line of processors with names that begin with "POWER";
 * newer processors in the POWER line implement the PowerPC instruction set rather than the POWER instruction set, the use of "POWER" in both names notwithstanding;


 * which doesn't explicitly say that the instruction sets of the older and newer POWER processors have nothing in common even though the processors all have the name "POWER". The problem there is that IBM POWER microprocessors just says that the POWER instruction set "evolved into" the PowerPC instruction set, without explicitly indicating that this means that a lot of the POWER instruction set remains in the PowerPC/Power instruction set. Guy Harris (talk) 10:34, 6 January 2018 (UTC)


 * it doesn't explicitly say it but wouldn't you think that "only the name remains the same" has a strong tendency to make one think they reused the name for something completely unrelated? We could say something like "Modern POWER processors, despite keeping the name, use a related but partly different ISA". But then as you say there is some other stuff further down that would benefit from being clarified/fine-tuned. LjL (talk) 16:32, 6 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I'd say "strong" - I could also read it as saying just "they're still called "POWER", but they don't implement the POWER instruction set" - but it is, indeed, unclear what "Only the name remains the same" means; a better phrasing should be used, such as the one you suggest. Guy Harris (talk) 18:38, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Edit-warring discussion re. User:FF-UK
Hello LjL, I thought you would be interested to know that I have reported User:FF-UK for edit-warring on Mains electricity by country (see Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit warring), but really this is encompassing all of his past behaviour. I noticed he was his charming self in a discussion at Talk:Amazon (company)/Archive 2 about 10 months ago. Please comment as you see fit. Thanks. CplDHicks2 (talk) 06:03, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Invite to Join WikiProject for Spoken Wikipedia
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia at 11:42, 16 May 2020 (UTC).

Updates to Spoken Wikipedia
Hello ! I hope this message finds you well and healthy! I am working this weekend on the Spoken Wikipedia project pages to get them in line with other projects. I just wanted to inform you in advance that some pages may be created. deleted, moved, or otherwise. If you have any questions, please feel free to post them on my talk page. Thanks, Galendalia (talk) 16:26, 23 May 2020 (UTC) WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia Coordinator

"Business Information System" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Business Information System. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 11 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:48, 11 April 2021 (UTC)