User talk:Trevayne08

 Hi Trevayne08, and Please excuse this intrusion as you have been around a bit already but if no one has said it before: Welcome to Wikipedia!  Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page — I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

--- Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia... Finding your way around:


 * Table of Contents


 * Department directory

Need help?


 * Questions — a guide on where to ask questions.
 * Cheatsheet — quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes.


 * Wikipedia's 5 pillars — an overview of Wikipedia's foundations
 * The Simplified Ruleset — a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules.

How you can help:


 * Contributing to Wikipedia — a guide on how you can help.


 * Community Portal — Wikipedia's hub of activity.

Additional tips...


 * Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes ( ~ ). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The [[Image:Signature_icon.png]] button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.


 * If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.

 Good luck, and have fun. FWIW, Bzuk (talk) 17:19, 22 September 2011 (UTC).

Sgt. Pepper straw poll
There is currently a straw poll taking place here. Your input would be appreciated. ~ GabeMc  (talk 23:49, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

In a recent edit, you changed one or more words or styles from one national variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.

For a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to another English-speaking country, such as Canada, Australia, or New Zealand, use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the original author used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any questions about this, you can ask me on my talk page or visit the help desk. Thank you. madkayaker (talk) 00:29, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Possessive form of words ending in -s
Unfortunately, the situation is not as simplistic as you claim... AnonMoos (talk) 02:45, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 12
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lobopodia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Greek (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 08:56, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 18
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Radio telescope, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Antenna (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 08:56, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 25
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Local Group, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Andromeda (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 08:58, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

features of 1553B
I undid you addition to the list of features of 1553 because it didn't improve the list as it was. Graham.Fountain | Talk 12:36, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Don't see it as an improvment to this highly technical article, but can't be arsed to edit war over it.Graham.Fountain | Talk 19:08, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your responses.

Who is engaging in an "edit war"? Not I.

Regarding "this highly technical article": one does not need highly technical skills or particularly detailed knowledge of the 1553 bus architecture to recognize when a Wiki about it demonstrates lazy (or faulty) cognition and flawed sentence structure, as this otherwise excellent write-up did. One simply needs good proof-reading skills.

It would be like saying that people who are not experts in laser theory and operation would have no business correcting the following sentence: "Diode-Pumped Alkali Lasers (DPAL) owe there high efficiency ratings to the very small quantum defects between the upper level spin-orbit states of Rubidium and Cesium, at 2% and 5% efficiency, respectably." ("their" and "respectively" are obviously the correct and intended words).

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) 16:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Links
When correcting pluralisations, please do not change links from working links to (pluralized) redlinks and then remove the link as not-existing. This is what piped links (example: leading edges ) are for. Converting a valid link to a variant-spelling/pluralisation redlink and then removing the redlink for being a redlink can be considered disruptive, so please in the future pipe links when you are making edits like this. Thank you. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:39, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Only
Is there a grammatical rule you're following here? It is not obvious to me that these changes are an improvement. ~Kvng (talk) 14:54, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Kvng - thanks for the response.

No, there's no grammatical rule that I'm following, with regard to the "misplaced only" issue. I usually overlook the misplacement of the word "only" in casual speech, but it seems to me that Wikipedia articles deserve a bit more formality and precision.

Example:

"I only have two hours to complete the project.", which is imprecise and improper, but acceptable in casual speech.

- versus -

"I have only two hours to complete the project." - which is more precise, and therefore more proper.


 * Your work on Virtual LAN involves something a bit more complicated:
 * Original
 * can only partition per physical port (if at all)
 * Yours
 * can partition per physical port only (if at all)
 * Another alternative
 * can partition only per physical port (if at all)
 * I'm having a hard time determining which of these is best and don't understand why you consider the original imprecise. I'm just trying to determine whether these changes are improvements or just changes or changes that have the potential of unintentionally changing the meaning of sentences. ~Kvng (talk) 14:10, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Kvng -

To clarify, the phrase "can only partition..." in the original context is awkward, imprecise, and bordering on the nonsensical. In this instance, the word "only" (which is an "auxiliary modifier"), when placed immediately before the word "partition", pointlessly restricts action to "partitioning", when it's clear that the subject, "physical port" is what is intended to be restricted. In other words, the intent seems to be along these lines: "make sure to partition per physical port, and only per physical port" (as opposed to, say, groups of physical ports, or even "per virtual port"(?), or "per software port").

If "can only partition" was indeed intended, the intent here would be to caution against doing something other than partitioning the physical port (such as pouring steak sauce on it, for example). I am highly dubious that this was the intent. Trevayne08 (talk) 18:39, 20 July 2016 (UTC)


 * By the way, "per physical port, only" is equivalent to "only per physical port", and just as proper, but its usage in that manner is a bit stilted, and is becoming obsolete, it seems.  **   Trevayne08 (talk) 18:39, 20 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the explanation. To summarize, your improvement is to place the modifier closer to the subject it intends to modify. ~Kvng (talk) 13:43, 28 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree completely, Kvng. I wish I had put it the way you just did, at the outset. Placing the modifier as close as possible to the subject it intends to modify makes for clean, clear and tight sentences.

Mira Variable
Regarding the "Mira Variable" article: the reason for my inclusion of the etymology of the Latin word "Mira" in this article was simply for the sake of providing detail. It is not at all unusual to see the etymologies of words or terminology in Wikipedia articles; indeed, the practice of citing them ought to be encouraged and more widespread. Summarily deleting my inclusion of this etymology with no explanation or justification is both arbitrary and precipitous. I find it objectionable. Such behavior often results in pointless edit wars, which benefit no one. So let us agree to avoid one. Trevayne08 (talk) 14:28, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

June 2017
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in Joseph Stalin, disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia.  Please do not editorialise as you did here. Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:28, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

December 2017
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at The Good, the Bad and the Ugly. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Dr.  K.  03:30, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Read this too:. Dr.  K.  03:33, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Dr. K. I was wrong. Thanks for setting the record straight.

Ovatoscutum
I have reverted your edit to Ovatoscutum because it was unsourced (WP:Verifiability) speculation (WP:SPECULATION). - Donald Albury 12:21, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Ovatoscutum organic matter analysis will not be carried out. It is rare fossil and its known imprints are not coated with an organic matter. There is no doubt that Ovatoscutum is a Proarticulata and close relative of Andiva and Dickinsonia. We can only wait when Ivantsov or Gehling publish Ovatoscutum redescription... Aleksey (Alnagov (talk) 10:40, 6 November 2018 (UTC))

Dickinsonia
I have reverted your edit to Dickinsonia because it was unsourced speculation. In addition, you removed a citation without explanation, which may be considered vandalism. Please be careful with your edits. - Donald Albury 12:34, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Dickinsonia
My sincerest apologies. My edit did seem like a "driveby", with my wholesale removal of your citations with sources. In my excitement and excess zeal with the recent news from The Australia National University last month re: choesterol in Dickinsonia (it's an animal!), I got carried away. I will be more careful in future. Again, my apologies. You have to admit, though, that this is thrilling news! Trevayne08 (talk) 15:43, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Talk page protocol
Please start a new section when placing a comment on a user's talk page that is not a response to an existing discussion. Also, please sign all comments on a talk page (for either an article or a user) by adding four tildes ( ~ ) at the end. - Donald Albury 16:53, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Please try to understand that an "8-bit" processor like the 8080, 8085 or Z80 has 16-bit registers and 16-bit instructions.
Would be greatly appreciated!! 85.224.252.61 (talk) 12:12, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Nobel Prize controversies
No, i'm sorry, but your rereversion is still wrong. I've come here rather than argue it out on the talk page or through edit summaries because i prefer to try and work through to an understanding with someone in a situation like this a bit out of the public eye, and the explanation is a bit complex for a summary. What the sentence in question wants to say is that the sole circumstances in which an award could be awarded posthumously is that in which the awardee had died after the decision to give the award had been made; what it currently says it that the sole way of awarding it after someone has died is posthumously ~ which is an irrelevance, if not a tautology. In other words, the restriction by "only" needs to be about how a posthumous award could be made, not what kind of award is made after someone dies. Despite your edit summary, then, "only" should (and did, correctly) modify "awarded", not "posthumously". I took the liberty yesterday (and again just now) of looking at some of your other contributions, and i have to say that some of the grammatical edits you make are entirely unnecessary and, possibly even in error, so i urge you to be careful with what you do ~ as a simple example, there was no dangling participle (no participle at all), and the sentence was completely correct as was. I'm going to undo your edit to the Nobel Prizes, so the sentence in question reads as i describe it above; if you still feel it ought to read differently, containing a different meaning, please feel free to bring it up on the talk page. Happy days ~ LindsayHello 16:07, 6 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the feedback, LindsayH. Just for the record, regarding "'...not what kind of award is made after someone dies", at no point did I take issue with the kind of award that Gandhi received (posthumously or otherwise).
 * Further, regarding my edit to the "Proconsul africanus" Wiki article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proconsul_africanus) : The original passage read: "...it was a fruit eater and had a brain larger than a monkey, although probably not as large as a modern ape".  Really?  Its brain was larger than a monkey? An entire monkey? It would be laughable if it wasn't so nonsensical. Do you really think that was what the author of this Wiki article intended? I simply reformulated the sentence to: "It was a fruit eater and its brain was larger than that of a monkey, although probably not as large as that of a modern ape." That is clearly what the author originally intended. Anyone ought to see that edit as a vast improvement.  If not, then they likely have serious reading comprehension problems, if they're not functionally illiterate in the first place. Trevayne08 (talk) 18:15, 7 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) 01:07, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Gracemont
I'm not convinced they are "efficiency" cores, here's a large Intel document where all the instances of Gracemont cores are called "efficient" and not a single one "efficiency". Artem S. Tashkinov (talk) 17:24, 24 September 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) 00:40, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Invitation
I noticed you have been working on some health-related articles recently, and I wanted to invite you to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine. (A WikiProject is a group of editors that want to work together.) You're welcome to join us if it's a subject area that interests you. It's a good place to ask questions about finding good sources for medical content or writing style. Feel free to put the group's page on your watchlist, or stop by to say hello some time. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:37, 19 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for this invitation, Whatamidoing. I am honored, and I gladly accept!  -  Trev Trevayne08 (talk) 16:24, 20 February 2024 (UTC)