User talk:Wgsimon

William Wegman (photographer)
thanks for the note, the page has been reverted, and the images have been listed on Category:Images with unknown copyright status, so they can be deleted in seven days.

--Duk 00:56, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Incorrect Label of Line in Image:Wgsimonmooreslaw001.jpg
A careful examination of this graph reveals that it contains a serious error. The line labeled "Number of transistors doubling every 24 months" is, in fact, a line showing the number of transistors doubling every 20 months.

I took into account whether the graph was "level" -- that is, whether the x-axis is exactly horizontal in the image, and I found that it is.

I used the exact pixel location of the y-axis points labeled 1,000,000,000 and 10,000,000,000, and found that the point representing 2004 in the line in question is just about exactly one-third of the way between 1,000,000,000 and 10,000,000,000. On a logarithmic scale, this is about 2,180,000,000. This number represents a 948,000-fold increase from 2300 in 1971. 948,000 is about 2^19.8, which means that by 2004, the point represented by the line in question depicts a number of transistors that had doubled 19.8 times over 33 years. Dividing 33 years by 19.8 doublings gives the result 1 2/3 years, or 20 months for each doubling.

I suggest that the person who created and/or uploaded the image revise it to correct this error. Thank you.--GraemeMcRaetalk 01:33, 24 October 2005 (UTC)


 * You are quite right. The position on the vertical axis corresponds to approximately 10^9.3. it should be 10^8.3. Thanks for pointing it out. -- Wgsimon 18:20, 24 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Glad to help.--GraemeMcRaetalk 19:59, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Graphics Lab
I saw your name listed on Wikiproject Illustration or  the list of graphic artists, and I thought I'd let you know that a Graphics Lab has been created on EN. Based on the highly successful French and German graphics labs, it seeks to better organise and coordinate our graphic design and photo-editing efforts. Up until now, there has been no common space on EN where users could ask for maps, charts and other SVG files to be created. What's more, the Graphics Lab has discussion boards, tips, tools and links; in sum, a good common workspace. Come help us out! The infrastucture is already in place, and now we need participants. :) -- Zantastik  talk  00:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:Wgsimonmooreslaw002.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Wgsimonmooreslaw002.jpg, has been listed at. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. MECU ≈ talk 20:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Graphics Lab Announcement


Attention All Wikigraphists!
A new Wikigraphist Abilities Page has been created within the Graphics Lab so graphists can specify their graphics skills. To add your entry to the page, simply go the template documentation page and follow the instructions there. If you have any trouble please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Have Fun !

> Rugby471 talk &#9876;

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Warhammerab.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Warhammerab.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 03:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Moore's Law
Hello, my name is Richard (this is an outdated wikipedia account) and I'm using your graph of Moore's Law for one of my undergrad. projects.

I was wondering how to attribute credit under the licensing you released it with, CC Attribution Share-Alike 3.0 or GNU.

Also is the current image accurate?

04:30, 3 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Purplekhanabooze (talk • contribs)


 * Hi. I have no idea about attribution - you are free to do what you think is best. The image is as accurate as I could make it but I suggest you double check it against the source, Transistor count, before you use it. - Wgsimon (talk) 14:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Moore's law image
Shouldn't this graph have equidistant numerical labeling? The number of transistors scale is exponential, so that the growth looks linear, rather than exponential. Since the growth is exponential, and the whole point of having a line graph for this is to show that, the line itself shouldn't be straight. Just a thought. Conical Johnson (talk) 05:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you mean the labels which say 2,300 and 2,000,000,000? They are positioned correctly on vertical axis and show the top and bottom limits of the data. The other labels are equidistant. I could have either ommitted the top and bottom labels or added labels for 1,000 or 10,000,000,000 which would be equidistant from the other labels. Do you think one of these options would be clearer? Notice also the horizontal axis has start and end dates which are not equidistant. - Wgsimon (talk) 14:58, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, to me, the labels should be regularly periodic, so that when the graphed, the line is an exponential curve. I think the point of a line graph is to show change over time visually, and since the change in this case is exponential, the line should be as well, in my opinion.Conical Johnson (talk) 05:46, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting the graph should have a linear vertical scale? It's common practice to plot exponential curves on a logarithmic scale because it's a lot easier to judge whether a line is straight than whether a curve is exponential. You may want to raise this question on the Moore's Law talk page to see what other people think. Otherwise it's simply a case of relabelling the vertical axis - the line stays the same. - Wgsimon (talk) 11:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I just mean this: at a glance, this graph shows that over time, we are able to fit more transistors into a given space. It shows that perfectly well, but it doesn't show that, not only is the number of transistors fit into a given space growing over time, but the rate of growth is accelerating. For example, the page for exponential growth shows an exponential curve. The point of having a line graph there is to show this exponentiality, right? Seems like the same should apply to Moore's law, which is exponential. Conical Johnson (talk) 19:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It's true that for people who are not used to the idea of a logarithmic scale the graph could be confusing. Perhaps we should have two graphs on the page. I suggest you bring this up on the talk page as it is a good point. - Wgsimon (talk) 22:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Below is a rough version with a linear scale. You see how this graph is not useful until about 1995. - Wgsimon (talk) 15:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC) [[Image:Transistor_Count_and_Moore's_Law_-_2008_-_Linear_II.png]]

NowCommons: File:Wgsimonmooreslaw001.jpg
File:Wgsimonmooreslaw001.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Moore Law diagram (2004).jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case:. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 19:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

New image project
Hi. This little form letter is just a courtesy notice to let you know that a proposal to merge the projects WikiProject Free images, WikiProject Fair use, WikiProject Moving free images to Wikimedia Commons and WikiProject Illustration into the newly formed WikiProject Images and Media has met with general support at WikiProject Council/Proposals/Files. Since you're on the rosters of membership in at least one of those projects, I thought you might be interested. Conversation about redirecting those projects is located here. Please participate in that discussion if you have any interest, and if you still have interest in achieving the goals of the original project, we'd love to have you join in. If you aren't interested in either the conversation or the project, please pardon the interruption. :) Thanks. Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference
Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to  in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being 'minor'. The only thing that's changed is that you will no longer have them marked as minor by default.

For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. If you are familiar with the contents of WP:MINOR, and believe that it is still beneficial to the encyclopedia to have all your edits marked as such by default, then this discussion will give you the details you need to continue with this functionality indefinitely. If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 19:36, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

New Version of Transistor Count and Moore's Law Graph


I got the data from Transistor count. There's a lot of text now and I think it looks a bit crowded. On the other hand, people seem to like labels. -- Wgsimon (talk) 15:09, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I like the new graph. One question - do you have sufficient information to add projected info for key yet to be launched products, such as Intel's forthcoming 3D chip design? Rangoon11 (talk) 15:48, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it's best to show only existing chips to be as accurate as possible -- Wgsimon (talk) 16:14, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Per Tufte, could you try replacing the dashed line with a light gray one? Add some non-Intel chips between ~85–95. While non-standard terminology Dual-Core, Quad-Core → 2-Core, 4-Core etc. Unsure about colour coding either the dots or labels by manufacturer.
 * The other "Maximize data ink suggestion" would be to replace the transistor number ticks on the frame with a gap and move the number in closer. Thanks for this. RDBrown (talk) 22:48, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I suggest that the Transistor count page is updated and, after a concensus is reached, the graph is updated to reflect this. Perhaps I should be using the data from Microprocessor chronology. I will modify the curve and the ticks. I think colour coding the chips is not useful as it doesn't have much to do with the trend being illustrated. I would prefer to have no labels too but I seem to remember being asked for labels when I made the original graph. -- Wgsimon (talk) 16:14, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Black userbox
Just so you're aren't alarmed or anything, I edited your User:Wgsimon/Userbox/black template so that the text is easier to read. Cheers! Supertoastfairy (Talk) 15:10, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The idea was to have the text only just visible, it's about the colour black after all! If this text is now just visible to you then let's leave it like that. If you think you could read it if it was darker then let's make it darker. -- Wgsimon (talk) 15:15, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

A request
You wrote "WP:BLP1E seems clear on this matter".

Actually, BLP1E does not apply to all individuals whose notability begins with a single event. Please re-read the policy.

When coverage of an individual transcends the event, as it did with Lazo, BLP1E doesn't apply.

Did you read the article carefully enough to see that Frank Farley, a highly respected Professor of Psychology, used Lazo as an example of what he called a Type T personality? And how would this be coverage of the event, not coverage of Lazo, herself?

We are all volunteers here. No one can force us to use our time and energy in particular ways. I think you and I can expect other contributors to make sure if they decided to begin a task they completed that task in a competent and professional manner, however.

In this particular case, when I have already offered counterarguments to the BLP1E claim, in the AFD, I am sure you can understand how disappointing it is to see a comment, like yours, that looks like it was tossed off after less than a minute's attention, as if you didn't really bother to read the article, read the arguments in the AFD, or conduct your own web search first.

Maybe you did make a competent effort to reach an informed conclusion as to whether the topic of Marisa Lazo measures up to our notability criteria, and you just couldn't be bothered to explain why you discounted my BLP1E counter-arguments? Forgive me for telling you that I think not bothering to explain why you disagreed with my counter-arguments would also have been a mistake.

The wikipedia's rules are complicated, and hard to interpret. Sometimes they seem internally inconsistent... and they are in a constant state of flux. I suggest to you that this means that every disagreement should be seen as an opportunity for education. I may have been here for fourteen years, but I still have things to learn. You, too, no matter how long you have been here, have things to learn. So, I encourage you, if you disagree with someone's arguments, say why you disagree.

Please don't say "It's obvious". If there is one thing fourteen years at the wikipedia have taught me, it is that nothing is obvious.

If this sounds like a lot of work, my advice would be, if an issue doesn't seem important enough for you to explain yourself, then please consider whether you should weigh in, at all. Geo Swan (talk) 13:34, 15 June 2017 (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) 00:22, 28 November 2023 (UTC)