Talk:Interrupts in 65xx processors

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This article was nominated for deletion on 15 October 2008. The result of the discussion was keep.

Notability

Wikipedia is not a compendium of miscellaneous information. How interrupts work on a randomly selected microprocessor chip is minutia for a parts catalog data sheet. We already have an article Interrupt to discuss the use of interrupts in general; if you need parts list specifications, you would consult the manufacturer's data sheet, not an encyclopedia. --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:20, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like an opinion to me. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which by definition, is a compendium of miscellaneous information (check out a print version if you are uncertain of this fact):

Definition of ENCYCLOPEDIA

a work that contains information on all branches of knowledge or treats comprehensively a particular branch of knowledge usually in articles arranged alphabetically often by subject (definition at http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/encyclopedia with emphasis added)

Incidentally, if you examine the editing history you will see that this article has been around for quite some time and was nominated for deletion in 2008, but obviously was not (please peruse the transcript). Why is it suddenly a problem for you?

Bigdumbdinosaur (talk) 06:11, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't read or looked at all the four million articles, so I tag 'em as I find 'em. In your redacted comment, you are concerned about my credentials. Rest assured that I have the same credentials as any other Wikipedia editor, namely, I have access to the Internet. While we're making insulting suggestions to each other about our lack of knowledge, have you looked at WP:NOT lately, which in the nutshell at the top says "...Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and does not aim to contain all data or expression found elsewhere on the Internet." Of course the nutshell summaries are changed to reflect the current prejudices of the last editor motivated to tinker with them. Given the flawless accuracy and impeccable editorial execution of Wikipedia, just because something passed an AfD discussion once doesn't mean it's not deletion worthy. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:40, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. The article BRK was deleted. This one is certainly fair game, using the same arguments that got BRK nominated. --Wtshymanski

(talk) 14:43, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cool? You think it's cool to delete articles? Why not delete every one of them and then you won't have anything about which to complain. You, sir, are a menace to Wikipedia, which opinion evidently has been formed by many others here. Here's an example:

As noted under 'evidence', Wtshymanski himself posted this response on his own talk page, "Most editors are here to hurt the encyclopedia, not to help it."

My general decorum prevents me from using...er...more descriptive language in this regard. I strongly suggest you back off. With your history of disruptive editing, as well as your holier-than-thou attitude, I wouldn't be surprised if one day you suddenly find yourself frozen out of Wikipedia.

Meanwhile, I have been placing watches on articles that you have disruptively edited, including this one. If I see any changes to them by you I will revert your edits and flag them as vandalism. Any questions, mister?

Bigdumbdinosaur (talk) 04:56, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've been contacted about this on my talk page, for some reason, and am reproducing my answer here: I see nothing actionable here. Editors can legitimately disagree about whether an article such as Interrupts in 65xx processors meets the guideline WP:N. It is however unhelpful to repeatedly add or remove notability tags; rather, if doubts persist, somebody should start a merger or deletion discussion to settle the matter. But, Bigdumbdinosaur, your own conduct is out of line. Comments such as "You, sir, are a menace to Wikipedia" or "If I see any changes to them by you I will revert your edits and flag them as vandalism. Any questions, mister?" are by no means compatible with the standards of civility and collegiality editors should hold themselves to. For further dispute resolution advice, please see WP:DR. Sandstein 09:09, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]