User talk:Dsimic/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Dsimic. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Re: List of M.2 SSDs as a section in the M.2 article

By this logic, the following pages should also be removed, correct?

The list goes on ad nauseam, and that's only the computer related things! The fact is these drives are extremely hard to find information on, instead of removing a list that's a challenge to maintain, we should allow everyone to help grow the list like all these others... Isn't that the spirit of Wikipedia anyway? I created this list out of frustration over not being able to find a good list that shows all available, or even most of the available M.2 SSDs, which I'm currently in the market for. My original plan was to put the list on one of the forums I frequent, but then I thought 'this list would best serve everyone if it was available on an unbiased site where anyone can contribute to it'... There is only one place I know of like that — Preceding unsigned comment added by DracoDan82 (talk • contribs) 15:17, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Personally I agree with the removal and I think most of the above articles should go as well. Wikipedia should not be a product catalog. WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a valid argument for retention. Jeh (talk) 18:02, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

So what about lists like the following?

Where do you draw the line? There are literally thousands of articles that are either lists or contain lists of products.

I guess it also depends on which definition of "encyclopedic" you use, I grabbed the following from google:

en·cy·clo·pe·dic

adjective:

comprehensive in terms of information.
relating to or containing names of famous people and places and information about words that is not simply linguistic.

If you use the first definition then a list is absolutely encyclopedic, assuming the effort has been put forward to make the list as complete as possible.

If you use the second (vague) definition then it could be argued that the list I created isn't encyclopedic, but then neither would half the other articles on Wikipedia that millions of people benefit from on a daily basis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DracoDan82 (talk • contribs) 19:38, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, those lists should go too. The one of "Dell PowerEdge servers" is particularly egregious. Google's first definition is belied by every encyclopedia on the planet. Tell me with a straight face that any encyclopedia includes "comprehensive" information about any subject it covers. If it did, then no other books or reference material would be necessary for any of those subjects! Can you learn all there is to know about, say, radio design or quantum mechanics or Egyptology from an encyclopedia? Of course not. You learn the history of the field, the key discoverers, the key theories and maybe a few of their implications. We don't need to have a list of m.2 products to provide similar information about the product category. Where do YOU draw the line? Should there be a List of machine screw-threaded fasteners, to include every combination of diameter, thread pitch, head drive type, core material, finish, etc., etc., from every manufacturer who's ever made them? If not, why not? Again, "WP:ITSUSEFUL to you" is not an accepted argument. Jeh (talk) 19:54, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Hey everyone! DracoDan82, trust me, I understand your intentions and associated confusion, so please allow me to explain a bit further. Oh, and by the way, please sign your posts on talk pages. :)

Let's start with the definition of "encyclopedic"... As we know, Wikipedia has grown into a medium-sized :) monster when it comes to its Manual of Style and the set of rules articles need to follow, thus it's important what those rules say, not what a dictionary definition of "encyclopedic" might be. :) That's how every system works, and one must play by the rules of a system; luckily, Wikipedia's rules are truly awesome when you compare them to the rules of many other systems. Also, Wikipedia's rules can always be discussed, improved and potentially changed by the principle of establishing a consensus.

Regarding the first batch of "List of XYZ" articles, I totally agree with Jeh that almost all of them are clear candidates to be nominated for deletion. Let's just have a look at the Comparison of stackable switches article, for example – that article looks almost like a bad joke, as not even 25% of the available stackable switches are covered there. At the same time, that article should be called Comparison of stackable Ethernet switches instead, as there are also things like FibreChannel switches, for example – not all switches are Ethernet switches. It's always better not to have a list-of-XYZ at all, rather than having an incomplete and outdated list. On the other hand, lists are almost always badly updated, so they eventually become outdated.

At the same time, when a certain manufacturer (or even a model) is left out from the List of microwave owens, for example, such a list clearly becomes a favoring of other manufacturers (or models), what slowly creeps into the field of adertising. And, we're not here to advertise anything. :)

Let's have a look at more examples from the above. Comparison of Linux distributions is also a true mess, filled with pretty much outdated information; I've tried to clean it up once, and gave up quickly as I by no means have internal knowledge of 50+ Linux distributions, while becoming familiar enough (and staying familiar, for later updates) with each of them would be a very time-consuming (and pretty much pointless) thing to do. Of course, there are people on Wikipedia who have deep knowledge of all those Linux distributions‍—‌such people wrote the associated articles‍—‌but they either don't care about updating the Comparison of Linux distributions article or don't even know that it exists. Thus, sooner or later, all those lists turn into a mess.

Now, let's have a look at the second batch of "List of XYZ" articles, and compare it to the batch #1. The second batch has a much better reason for its existence, as each of the articles lists products coming from a single manufacturer, or a single line of products made by a specific manufacturer. Thus, even if a product or two are missing from such lists, that doesn't turn into advertising, what's a good thing. However, I'd never rely solely on the data available from the List of Dell PowerEdge Servers, for example, and instead I'd always go to the manufacturer's website; however, sometimes even the manufacturer introduces various changes to available server models that aren't even available on its website (and you become aware of them only after you've purchased a server – BTDT). With all that in mind, it's quite hard to expect "List of XYZ" articles to be always up-to-date. However, I'd say that the batch #2 doesn't deserve to be nominated for deletion, as it serves the purpose of an initial look-up for a particular product line.

Then, how does all that apply to the List of M.2 SSDs? Of course, that would be a good question. :) Well, if we had List of Crucial M.2 SSDs (or even List of Crucial SSDs) instead, I might vote for having such an article; though, it would be a quite short article. :) With the List of M.2 SSDs, there's simply too much room for turning it into advertising, especially as M.2 SSDs are currently a somewhat "hot topic" and a few manufacturers (as always) are trying to dominate the market.

Thoughts? — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 06:32, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

OK, you have some points. Let's start by proposing one of those articles for deletion and see what'd happen. I proposed "Comparison of stackable switches" for WP:AFD, the discussion is open here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of stackable switches. All of you are welcome to join that discussion and say again your arguments for or against deletion. Vanjagenije (talk) 10:25, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, we'll see how the deletion nomination develops and what the other editors think about the whole thing. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 14:01, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

The first discussion is over and the consensus was reached to delete "Comparison of stackable switches". I've continued by nominating "List of displays by pixel density" for deletion. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:50, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Great, thank you very much! List of displays by pixel density is a really bad article, and Comparison of smartphones might be later a good candidate for the next nomination round. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 03:33, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

My feeling is that the base articles for these things (like Network switch in this case) could well mention the most significant products in the field, the ones that represent significant advances, all put into historical context. But a list that includes all of the "me too" products doesn't serve the purposes of an encyclopedia. Jeh (talk) 06:08, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Totally agreed. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 06:14, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

As an example of what product coverage should be, look at History of IBM magnetic disk drives. Although many models there represent only incremental development, each is put into historical context, the fundamental enabling technologies are described, etc. IBM was long a leader in disk storage; many many advances in the field came from their labs, so this article is entirely appropriate for WP. That doesn't mean we should have exhaustive coverage of the myriad "plug-compatible", "work-alike" drives that were made by other companies. Jeh (talk) 01:27, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Exactly, History of IBM magnetic disk drives is a very good product line coverage article. At the same time, it reflects what I was referring to above while comparing the nature of List of M.2 SSDs and List of Crucial M.2 SSDs (or even List of Crucial SSDs) articles – even if some of the IBM's magnetic disk drives aren't included, that provides no room for turning it into anything similar to advertising. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 14:35, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

@Vanjagenije: Just checking, do you intend to continue with nominating these articles for deletion? Both nominations you've performed so far ended up in deletion, so it must be that we were right there. :) — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 09:57, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually, Comparison of smartphones ended with "no consensus" (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of smartphones), and newly created Comparison of Music Education Software is also going towards keeping (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of Music Education Software). I'm little bit tired of this. Would you continue with nominating? Vanjagenije (talk) 11:13, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out those already existing nominations for deletion. However, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of smartphones is a nomination back from 2010, and it's quite possible that points of view have been changed since then, especially when it comes to smartphones and such related articles. I'll see to nominate Comparison of smartphones for deletion a bit later. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 07:47, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, just saw the actual nomination you've referred to, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of smartphones (3rd nomination). As that was article's third nomination for deletion, which also was closed just three days ago, there's simply no point in nominating it again. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 07:59, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say that this effort is pretty unappreciated by me, especially since it makes some of my IT research much more difficult. Glad that the comparison of smartphones deletion seems to have (hopefully) taken some of the steam out. Categorical removal of most of our (admittedly prolific) Wikipedia technology lists, which are a widely-used resource across the internet, based on let's just say a vigorously interpreted approach to rules, is a bad trend (in my opinion). Actionslike this are why so many people roll their eyes or express frustration at the idea of contributing to Wikipedia. – ImperfectlyInformed (talk) 03:23, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Sorry but WP:ITSUSEFUL is not considered a valid reason to keep an article that should otherwise be deleted. In my opinion, "sorry to say" but Wikipedia articles should not be parts or product catalogs. Such "articles" contribute nothing to understanding of the product category, of the progression of technologies, etc. An encyclopedia article should be more than just a table of unexplained, context-less facts, however useful the table might be to some. I think that one of the things that makes many people roll their eyes at the idea of contributing to Wikipedia is the presence of such low-grade articles, and the accompanying notion that anybody with a distributor's product list or product specs handy can "contribute to the encyclopedia" by copying product names, model numbers, and basic specs into yet another table-heavy article. Such articles also attract linkspam, new product announcements, etc., which further degrade WP's reputation. See my comments above about the History of IBM magnetic disk drives article, which I hold up as an example of a product-centric article that does belong here. If the "Comparison of smartphones" had that kind of contextual information, that would be a different matter. Jeh (talk) 05:01, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

For a longer, more thorough explanation of what's wrong with this sort of stuff in WP, please see this unpublished draft. Jeh (talk) 05:09, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello there, ImperfectlyInformed! As Jeh already explained it, plain product lists usually end up as not-so-good articles. Beside going pretty much below from what the encyclopedic content should be, they almost always end up unmaintained and outdated; such articles usually don't attract many editors, what makes them prone to spam, advertisements, bias, and false or unreviewed information. In other words, creating a good article of that kind (History of IBM magnetic disk drives is a good example, while it's an article whose growth has ended) requires significant and continuous efforts; IMHO, the majority of "product list" articles simply don't attract the editors willing to put in required amounts of elbow grease.

Another example of a similar type of article might be Android version history, which had engulfed significant amounts of work put in by multiple editors. At some points in time, working on it was so tedious and time-consuming that I've almost removed it from my watchlist and stopped contributing to it – and I'm a quite dedicated and determined type of person. :) — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 08:54, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

What we are creating with Wikipedia is not set in stone. It is an evolving standard defined by what its editors determine to be acceptable, and personally I don't agree with the view that the priority is to write lengthy prose in the style of Encyclopedia Britannica. I've been around since 2007, Jeh has been around since 2005, and Dsimic has been editing a lot since 2013 (in other words, enough to get a very good idea of how Wikipedia's anarchist system works). I'm glad that Jeh prefaced his statement with "in my opinion" because that's what Wikipedia is about, and no personal statement (or even an essay such as commonly-cited arguments to avoid essay) is law. We debate a lot. I know just how much sucks but it's the way it is. Now, whether or not product lists are not-so-good articles is (debatably, if you you're axiologically inclined) an empirical and subjective question which could be most reliably answered by surveying our users, or our editors if they're not your priority. In my experience, lists are great for their purpose, and as a power Wikipedia user and editor, I've derived enormous benefit from them - and our users probably derive much more benefit from an article like Comparison of smartphones than the benefit which is derived from, say, the dozens of references I've added to articles like Tort, Trust law, or Economics and hundreds of much lower traffic niche topics. Lists in general are not easy candidates for "good articles"; as I recall, back around 2008 or so there was a campaign by a couple people to to delete a lot of list articles on that basis and on the duplication with categories, but when I pointed to WP:CSL, the steam was taken out even though that didn't change the sensibility of the decisions. In any case, you are welcome to boldly make and advocate for changes, and I reserve the right to express my own opposition within the limits of my available free time. :)

As an aside, I mention the views of users seriously - it has been pretty well empirically shown that oldtimers like myself are actively hostile to newcomers (as documented by Aaron Halfaker, User:EpochFail). I'm pretty sure most prospective editors are more bothered by the detailed and voluminous rules than maintaining the style of an old-school encyclopedia. I realize I'm channeling this a bit myself in my approach here, but oh well! II | (t - c) 10:34, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Sure thing, Wikipedia is by no means set in stone and it's never going to be perfect, just as WP:IMPERFECT says – what's actually one of its strong points. At the same time, I don't think that the way Wikipedia works sucks; the debate is the key, and I always find open environments to be much better. The whole thing is very similar to how and why enterprises and startups differ, and why enterprises always need fresh blood in form of acquired startups: form eats function and kills innovation very quickly. Then again, having no rules at all also isn't good, and balancing the whole thing is a quite delicate act. And, of course, all that I've said (and what I'm saying right now) is just my opinion, nothing more. :)

Please don't get me wrong, but I totally understand why the oldtimers may be hostile to the newcomers: newcomers usually don't show enough respect and take things too easy. That's why I didn't simply start to poke around randomly back in 2013; instead, I've invested a lot of time into reading many of the guidelines and policies first. Sure thing, it took me a few months to get a solid grasp of everything (we all know how long the MOS is, for example), but I've always listened to corrections from more experienced editors and continued to expand my knowledge. I'm sure you'll agree that not so many people are ready to invest a few months into the flat portion of a learning curve, no matter how beneficial the whole thing might be; learning LaTeX vs. using Microsoft Word is a good example outside Wikipedia. In a few words, newcomers usually bring in new ideas and that's excellent, but they tend to behave too cocky or lazy, even to the extent of not wanting to learn how to properly use the Wiki markup language; I've always been humble, and I don't intend to become cocky. :) To sum up my thoughts, breaking the rules is good, but one must know a lot to break them in a widely beneficial way.

Speaking about the list-style articles, you've probably noticed that I'm putting emphasis on the long-term quality of such articles. From what I've seen so far, slapping them together quickly usually doesn't produce a good and reliable article a few months or years later. Please, let's have a look at another example, List of PHP accelerators article; it covers a quite popular topic, but it's so outdated and badly written that it might be better if we didn't have it at all. I've tried more than once to collect enough energy to do a complete rewrite of that article, but after looking at it for more than ten minutes all the interest simply faded away each time. That pretty much complies with the "first broken window" syndrome: usually, people like to improve already good things, but not so much to polish turds :) or to rebuild things from the ground up. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 13:48, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Hey folks. Got the ping. It doesn't look like there's much for me to comment on here. I just wanted to hop in to agree with II. The media coverage of the Rise and Decline work is kind of crappy (as often happens with coverage of scientific work). I don't believe that we have any evidence that Wikipedia editors are jerks -- to the contrary actually. However, we have plenty of evidence that rule enforcement tends to scare newcomers away and the situation of rule enforcement tends to be old-timer vs. newcomer. We report on this carefully in the paper in question and much of our follow-up work has not been to seek and destroy mean old Wikipedians (or take away their tools), but to explore ways to improve old-timers/newcomer interactions (e.g. WP:Teahouse and WP:Snuggle). --EpochFail (talk) 16:39, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello! I also have no reasons to think that people here are bad; my own experience shows that (if I exclude only a few unconstructive or incompetent editors encountered so far) people are here with very good intentions. Regarding the rules, every system has its own set of those, and it's the duty of newcomers to learn them – as simple as that. If you want to drive a car, you have to learn how, learn the traffic signs, make a few (hopefully smaller) mistakes and learn from them, etc.; pretty much the same drill applies to Wikipedia. In other words, a common misconception is that teachers are evil jerks, but they simply aren't. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 16:55, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed response, although I'm sorry to consume your time. Sorry, meant to include a link to Halfaker's Rise and Decline article, and I should clarify that I'm not picking on you guys in particular as being harsh to newbies but Jeh's offhand comment that "that one of the things that makes many people roll their eyes at the idea of contributing to Wikipedia is the presence of such low-grade articles" struck me as the opposite of my personal experience and the conclusion I would draw from that research. In terms of the low-quality and outdated articles, most articles on Wikipedia are hardly even in decent shape, but that by itself is clearly not a good reason to delete them. It makes me feel better to avoid looking at articles in terms of wholesale rewrites and through a lens of perfection, as that can make the messiness less frustrating. It's not realistic to expect Wikipedia to be without broken windows. You say that these articles are deserted and outdated, but that's an empirical question and a glance at, say, the edit history of the Comparison of smartphones shows dozens of different editors incrementally adding their improvements. The four AfDs to that article give an indication of the community's view towards deleting such articles (see, e.g., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of smartphones (2nd nomination)). And in some ways it is problematic to keep pushing for deletion as the prior commenters may not notice the re-raised issue. In that case User:DGG and User:Cyclopia are still highly-active, made strong arguments, and may be willing to reaffirm those arguments if they noticed the issue come up again. As far as I know, our system doesn't make it convenient to set an alert to be reminded when, in particular, an AfD proposal hits an article but I may set up an RSS feed on a few of these articles as a workaround. II | (t - c) 20:15, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

No worries, this isn't wasting anyone's time; sweeping any issues or concerns under the carpet is never a substitute for discussing them openly. Sure thing, no system or environment is without broken windows; instead, it's more about how much time passes between the repairs. :) While looking at various articles, at least at over one thousand articles I've contributed to and watched over so far, it all depends on the editors interested in particular articles. IMHO, another big issue is how changes to the articles are reviewed; raw spam patrol is only one part of the whole thing and it works very well, but sometimes there are over three or four days before more subtle errors are fixed or improved.

Based on comparing Wikipedia with my own experience in commercial environments, it's‍—‌as always‍—‌all about the people. As a system becomes more complex, it becomes tougher to introduce changes or new features into it without breaking already existing functionality. That's why systems tend to become more and more inert as they grow, as people simply can't track everyhing that accumulates over time. Of course, that affects the newcomers even harder, and hurts the oldtimers as they need to clean up the mess while repeating the same things over and over. But, that's probably the way the cookie crumbles. :) — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 22:02, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Pinging User:Vanjagenije as an fyi since he was also heavily involved; no to pressure to comment. I've said all I have to say; thanks for the hard work and I hope to get active here again when my life has settled down. II | (t - c) 06:04, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Just take your time, there's no hurry – we'll take good care of Wikipedia without deleting too many articles. :) — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 06:39, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Your revert of my changes in ZFS

Thanks for pointing me to WP:NOTBROKEN. I remember when people insisted to avoid all redirects but it was years ago and I see that things have changed since then. I'll keep that in mind. Thanks and best regards. —Rafał Pocztarski, Rfl (talk | contribs) 19:20, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello there! You're welcome, and I'm glad you're back to editing Wikipedia. :) Of course, it wasn't absolutely necessary to revert your changes, but that's simply how the guidelines mandate the usage of redirects. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 19:28, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Linux distribution—Third opinion request declined

Sorry I couldn't be of any help. @Chealer didn't seem to be interested in providing a concise viewpoint or participating in the process. With this being the case, I doubt a third opinion would have been any help.
I hope this can be resolved as you both continue to have a discussion. If not perhaps another route of dispute resolution would be more helpful.
Anyhow, I've enjoyed the correspondence I've had with you, and hope it all works out.
—Lightgodsy^(TALK_CONT) 09:54, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Lightgodsy, thank you very much for your good will and time invested into this, and I also really hope that Chealer and I will be able to reach some kind of a compromise soon, which I've already offered, avoiding that way the need to reach out for an official dispute resolution. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 19:45, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring

Your recent editing history at Linux distribution shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

Suggesting that the behavior of other editors constitutes "trolling" may be interpreted as a personal attack. Working towards a resolution usually yields better results. Thank you for your contribution to Wikipedia. --Chealer (talk) 02:43, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for nothing, and there you go. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 02:51, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

PC/104

Hi Dsimic (whoever you are...)

The PC/104 Consortium's Specifications are FREE...- not like PICMG and others, but currently (and getting this changed is effort by the Board of Directors, as a change to the byelaws!) they require a REGISTRATION.

You have actually uploaded a document that you are not really allowed to share, but I can't be bothered to change this - AGAIN!

I also do not really agree that HyperLink to a HISTORIAL - for PC/104 - important person, like Rick is "SPAM", but then I am a newbie to Wiki edits.

I only landed on the PC/104 Wiki page by mistake. However, it would make sense to spend some more time on this. You seems to be interested in PC/104, so would you possible be interested in adding more information to this??

All the best

Flemming@Sundance (talk) 09:46, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Flemming Christensen Flemming.C@Sundance.com Managing Director Tel: +44 7 850 911 417 Skype: Flemming_Sundance Web: www.sundance.com

Sundance Multiprocessor Technology is a limited company registered in England and Wales. Registered number: 2440991. Registered office: Chiltern House, Waterside, Chesham, Bucks, HP5 1PS, England

Hello there! Well, please allow me to explain...

Regarding this edit I've performed on the PC/104 article, I haven't uploaded anything anywhere; instead, I've used Google search to find that document. In general, references that require registration are dicouraged unless it's impossible to provide a directly accessible copy. Speaking of the particular PDF file, which is available as http://www.pc104.org/specifications/PCI104-Express%20v2_10.pdf, it resides on the same domain (pc104.org) as the registration page, http://www.pc104.org/pci104e_specs.php. Thus, it's clearly visible that I haven't uploaded anything. :) As you can see, the PDF file is actually directly accessible without a registration, and the registration lockdown isn't functioning properly for some reason. However, if you insist, reverting back to using registration page as a reference is perfectly doable.

The other edit, as described in the edit summary, removed an external link to a LinkedIn profile and deleted an external link to a specification that didn't mention 2.10 as the latest PCI/104-Express version, and which also wasn't described as leading to further documentation that requires registration. In general, external links in article bodies are discouraged, and there's even a specific guideline against including links to LinkedIn profiles; please see WP:LINKSTOAVOID for more information.

At the same time, just as a side note, people associated with an organization that an article describes should be (quoted from a guideline) "careful to make sure that their external relationships in that field do not interfere with their primary role on Wikipedia"; please see WP:EXTERNALREL for more information.

Hope this clears the situation a bit. :) — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 10:58, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

List of distributed computing projects

I was glad to be able to help you the other day. If you don't mind returning the favor, I made a call for comments over at List of distributed computing projects. Thanks for any input you're willing to provide! – voidxor ^{(talk | contrib)} 05:59, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello! Sure thing, I'm already looking into it. That list really requires some attention. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 06:06, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring on Heartbleed article

Chealer continues to edit-war[1][2] on the Heartbleed article, even though I've asked them numerous times to discuss their changes on the article talk page, yet they still refuse. I'm not sure what to do next. Do you have any ideas? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:44, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello there! Situations like this one are always a bit tacky; if an editor repeatedly refuses to discuss his/her edits, requesting a Wikipedia:Third opinion or reporting that on the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard or Wikipedia:Requests for mediation are the only remaining options. Of course, reporting other editors isn't the nicest thing to do, but that's pretty much what remains if there's no possibility for a discussion. However, as this content dispute is currently about the section title ("Source code patch" / "Code patch" vs. "Resolution") and associated differences in the meaning, and as the whole thing has been somewhat discussed already, it would probably be much better to try discussing that with Chealer once again before reaching out to other mechanisms.

At the same time, please have a look at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and Help:Wikipedia: The Missing Manual/Collaborating with Other Editors/Resolving Content Disputes for more information. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 06:13, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

A Quest For Knowledge, you might want to have a look at Talk:Linux distribution § Information on GNU/Linux for my own lengthy, hair-pulling crusade with Chealer. Did you have other issues with this editor since August 2014? — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 16:51, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Microcode

Hi. You asked why assembly language was delinked in Microcode. I gave the reason in my edit summary, WP:OVERLINK, because it already has a link further up the article in the "The reason for microprogramming" section. -Lopifalko (talk)

Hello! Please, have a look at my edit, which linked it again and asked the question; it clearly shows that's the first occurrence of "assembly language" in the article. Moreover, that's the link in Microcode § The reason for microprogramming section you've unlinked earlier, probably by a mistake as that diff shows that Microcode had no other links to the Assembly language article. Hope it makes sense. :) — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 15:42, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry to split hairs, I've double checked and the first occurrence appears to be "assembly" in Microcode#Overview. That's why I considered it WP:OVERLINK. -Lopifalko (talk)

No worries, in my book being meticulous is a good thing. :) To me, it's Ok to have repeated piped links as they may appear completely different to the reader. That's somewhat similar to the deduplication between "See also" sections and piped links in the article body; you might want to have a look at an earlier discussion in Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Layout § "See also" and piped links. Hope you agree. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 16:40, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for linking to that discussion, it's useful for me to be aware of those nuances. I think we're done here. -Lopifalko (talk)

Yeah, we're fine. Thank you for stopping by, it's always good to discuss anything that might seem like an issue. :) — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 02:36, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Strange text in the dd article

Please have a look at Talk:Dd (Unix) § Non encyclopedical text in section Data recovery and check the remarks about the content about the "Data recovery" section as you have been a co-author of that section. Schily (talk) 15:07, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello there, and thank you for bringing it to my attention. I've adjusted the article a bit so it follows available sources as closely as possible, and provided my comment on the article's talk page. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 05:27, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Calling convention

The other OSes aren't listed below. The example is OS only, DOS is similar, but CMS is different, IIRC. Peter Flass (talk) 17:08, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello there! Thank you for pointing it out; if I got it right, you're referring to the edit I've performed on the Calling convention article? I haven't thought those are examples for other operating systems, that's pretty much obvious, :) but somewhow I've managed to make it read so. My bad, sorry, these changes should make it more clear by rectifying the mess I've made in the opening paragraph of Calling convention § IBM System/360 section. Please check it out. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 07:18, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good. Peter Flass (talk) 12:10, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 15:28, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Transmeta processors

If you are not that busy, if you think it worthy answering me. So would please tell me why you think Transmeta should be sorted with Pentium 4? Of course I believe that you have enough reasons. Computerfaner (talk) 12:40, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

OK, I've return that table to its previous revision with modifications from Guy Harris. Yeah, this time is fare for everyone to make a new start. Thank you for your response, and you are free to deal with it on your own behalf. Computerfaner (talk) 12:58, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello! Well, I can't be that busy not to have enough time to respond in a timely manner. :) Regarding my response on Talk:x86, please have a look at pages 7 and 21 in this PDF file, for example. It confirms that Transmeta Crusoe and Efficeon are virtually compatible with the Pentium 4; thus, if we split the table by generations and associated architectural and ISA advancements, Transmeta processors should be in the same slot as Pentium 4. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 13:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, you are right, and they are much more convincible. Thank you! Computerfaner (talk) 13:12, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

I got all busy down a twisty road, in the cold, cold world of raw encyclopedic maintenance, and I forgot all about what a wonderful person you are. You deserve some kindness, and to never question whether your overall efforts are admired and appreciated.

— Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 11:53, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much for kind words! Please don't get me wrong, but that might even sound just a bit too benevolent – or perhaps I'm overly humble. :) Knowing that someone somewhere cares about all the hard work creates a really warm and fuzzy feeling. :) — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 12:49, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Shaddap, ur overly humble. And you've got mail. <3 — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 13:57, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. :) Will reply to the email with a delay, just so you know what's going on. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 14:14, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Hm, how can you be so friendly and kind here, and so hostile and aggravated in the User talk:Smuckola § "External links" sections thread? If we disagree on something, that's perfectly fine and we're here to discuss it and find a solution with no need for personal attacks. Sorry, but the whole thing is somewhat confusing and doesn't make much sense. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 10:42, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Smuckola, I'm still puzzled why have you reacted like that, especially as working with you later shows a completely different and friendly approach from your side? Please don't get me wrong, but I'd really appreciate if we could discuss it a bit. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 01:40, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Neutral statements

Thanks for cleaning up my language. One thing I've seen done (required?): "[m]obile.." vs. "Mobile.." or "mobile".

"It might be better to leave out such comparisons and stay with as neutral statements as possible", I assume you mean ×4 and ×3. I'm just not sure people realize this. What I really want to include is someone saying Android's installed base is more than all others, not just more popular in a given year. Given these numbers it probably is but no one checks. Just comparing is not, not neutral I think, and allowed "basic calculations". Based on the next previous source. Not sure I should make a big deal of this, posting here and not at the talk page. comp.arch (talk) 11:14, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello! Yes, that's what I've meant by the edit summary of my edit on the Android (operating system) article. However, after having another look at the provided reference, I realized that it was my mistake to remove that statement. Sorry for that – I was under false impression that the reference provided some 2014–2016 market forecasts in that area, instead of a 2014 market analysis, and that misguided me into disregarding it as a reliable source for such a comparison. Thank you for bringing it here so I could see my mistake; I've re-added the shipment comparison back into the article, in a reworded form. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 12:39, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

And, I've fixed my addition a bit later. :) That was totally a brainfart but at least I've caught it. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 13:02, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	For your numerous citation contributions to RAID, Standard RAID levels, Nested RAID levels, Non-standard RAID levels, and Non-RAID drive architectures, as well as your energetic copy-editing of those articles, I gladly award you the Editor's Barnstar! Way to go and keep up the good work! – voidxor ^{(talk \| contrib)} 06:19, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much, voidxor! Receiving a barnstar from a fellow editor, after a significant amount of contributions we've made together to these articles, creates a true warm and fuzzy feeling. :) Let's keep making Wikipedia better! — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 06:35, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Re: "Upright" parameter for images

Hello, Dsimic. You have new messages at Voidxor's talk page.
Message added 01:23, 3 February 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks for the notification, but I've already seen your reply on my watchlist and will respond shortly. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 02:07, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

New article help request

Hey Dsimic, I created the pages GNU Guix and Guix System Distribution. Do mind contributing to them when you get a chance? -- WikiTryHardDieHard (talk) 13:54, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello! Thank you for bringing it to my attention, I'll have a look at those a little bit later. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 16:09, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Edits to PXE article

My friend; You might not like what I have added but (as I've said with my last edit). I appreciate very much if we discuss first at the talk page and you edit later. Please undo your last editing and lets discuss; That's how things are done here at WP right? ;-) Pxe 213 37 84 214 (talk) 14:36, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello! Regarding one of my edits on Preboot Execution Environment, if you agree it would be the best to keep the discussion within Talk:Preboot Execution Environment § PXE chosen for professional/large scale OS boot/Install deployment (References), so other editors can also provide their opinions. Sorry for my delayed response, I'll comment there in a few minutes. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 21:39, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

BIOS: acronym or initialism

You say that BIOS is "clearly an initialism." But the OED says that an initialism has "each letter...pronounced separately" which is not true of BIOS. Even if there are definitions of "initialism" that do not require that, there is still an ambiguity between those definitions and the OED definition. The word "acronym" has no such ambiguity and is thus superior. --Jtle515 (talk) 01:41, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello! Regarding my edit on the BIOS article, I stand corrected. Thank you for bringing it here; as described in Acronym § Nomenclature, the distinction between an acronym and initialism "hinges on whether the abbreviation is pronounced as a word or as a string of individual letters", meaning that, for example, "NATO" is an acronym, while "FBI" is an initialism. Thus, "BIOS" is clearly not an initialism. My bad, sorry. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 21:58, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Office 2016?

Hi.

I think I should let a few (hopefully) interested editors, such as yourself, know about Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 January 31 § Microsoft Office 2016 because the RfD tag was deleted and the discussion is about to be closed in a day.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 04:40, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello! Thank you for bringing it to my attention, I've cast my vote there. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 05:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

ATX connector drawing fixed

I fixed File:ATX PS signals.svg drawing. It is shown in ATX and Power supply unit (computer) in English Wikipedia. It took me numerous hours to fix it, since it was the first time I used a SVG editor. I listed detailed changes in the photo upload history. Anyway, I noticed that you previously edited these articles, thus is why I'm letting you know. If you see any technical mistakes, please let me know. You don't need to reply nor contact me, unless there are problems. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 16:16, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello there, Sbmeirow, and thank you for fixing the drawing! BTDT, so I know very well how time-consuming such seemingly simple changes can be, especially when they're one's first steps in editing SVG files. I've checked your updated version against page 26 in a reference and actual 24-pin and "P4" power connectors, and everything is now correctly oriented and labeled. Good job! — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 17:21, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Sbmeirow, I've just slightly adjusted the File:ATX PS signals.svg drawing so individual pins are square-shaped as they should be, what was the only remaining inaccuracy. Hope you're fine with that. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 14:53, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Request for comment (ARM cores)

Hi. I noticed that "Comparison of current ARM cores" is a subset of "Comparison of ARMv7-A cores", except for the ARM11 column, thus I consider it redundant and put in a request to DELETE the "Comparison of current ARM cores" article. If you are interested, please comment at "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of current ARM cores". Thanks in advance. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 20:40, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello! Thank you for bringing it to my attention, I've cast my vote there. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 09:11, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Manual of Style re: Shingled magnetic recording

Hi, I believe your recent edits to the article shingled magnetic recording go against the Wikipedia Manual of Style. Specifically:

Text-source intergrity. The citations should not be bundled together at the end of the paragraph; instead, each citation should follow the sentence or paragraph it supports.
External links. The two external links you included are technical discussions of SMR on the Linux storage subsystem. The article is not about the Linux storage subsystem, the external links are not useful in the context of the article.

I would like consensus to be reached about these edits. I side with the MoS as outlined above. IsaacAA (talk) 14:00, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello! Regarding my recent edits on Shingled magnetic recording, here are my comments on your concerns:

Placement of references should be as you've described it, of course, but only in case when there's a clear distinction in what each reference covers. In this case, we have a few partially overlapping references, so none of them can (or should) be clearly selected for specific parts of the paragraph; if we wanted to do so, we'd end up with something like "...^[1] ... ...^[2] ... ...^[1][2]", and reusing references like that really wouldn't be that much useful. On top of that, the paragraph is rather simple and short, so the readers should be easily able to see which reference covers what. However, this placement might be some kind of a compromise.
Including a link to an LWN.net article is actually rather fine, as it shows how specifics of the SMR can be used (or better said, covered) in particular operating systems. The fact is that SMR as a recording technology isn't free of drawbacks, so it's rather important to cover those aspects as well. Right now we have that only as an external link, but in the future and as SMR gains more traction, the article actually should be expanded with more detailed descriptions of operating-system-specific handling of SMR's non-transparent features.

Hope you agree. Of course, I'm more than open to discussing this further. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 20:46, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Edit war on page Android version history

There seems to be an edit war going on user. Kapibada is adamant that 5.1 is unofficial however does not give any significant proof that it is unofficial. I will re-add 5.1 segment. Looking for your advise as you seem to manage that page for long. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Debasish Dey (talk • contribs) 21:46, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello! I wouldn't say that I've been "managing" anything – I've just spent a lot of time so far contributing to the Android version history article and cleaning it up. :) Regarding Kapibada's edit that removed Android 5.1 version from the article, I'd suggest that we start a discusson on Talk:Android version history and use it to decide whether there are enough WP:RELIABLE sources to have Android 5.1 as part of the article; many sources seem to treat 5.1 as not yet officially announced by Google, so we should seek for opinions from more editors. By the way, that isn't an WP:EDITWAR and there are no reasons for it to become one – we're all here to discuss things and find the best possible solutions. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 02:20, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello! I understand you aren't managing things and thank you for your response. However there are many many sources out there which prove 5.1 does exist. There are no sources that disprove it's existence. The reason why I am asking for your help is because I was banned once for edit war and I don't want to start another one. Thank you for your understanding. best regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Debasish Dey (talk • contribs) 16:04, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Totally understood. With that in mind, why don't you just start a discussion on Talk:Android version history, and I'm sure there will be at least a few editors willing to provide their opinions on including Android 5.1 into the article? — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 20:57, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

File:DHCP session en.svg

Hi, I noticed that a beginner user (Gelmo96) was edited the page Dhcp and now you are reverted his editing. Perhaps the procedure followed by Gelmo96 is not correct, but reading the textual content of the page Dhcp you can see that every DHCP message has the broadcast destination (Dest=255.255.255.255) although in the image file:DHCP_session_en.svg some messages are "unicast". Thanks for your kind help. Fabuio (talk) 20:28, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello there, Fabuio! Thank you for bringing here my revert of Gelmo96's edit on the Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol article. Actually, I've reverted the edit based on the fact that there's no "DORA protocol" as DORA is just an abbreviation for different DHCP stages, and back at the time I haven't compared the content of File:DHCP session.svg and File:DHCP session en.svg illustrations. My bad, sorry for that – let's analyze them now.

Here are two excerpts from the section 4.1 of the RFC 2131 (titled "Constructing and sending DHCP messages"):

If the 'giaddr' field in a DHCP message from a client is non-zero, the server sends any return messages to the 'DHCP server' port on the BOOTP relay agent whose address appears in 'giaddr'. If the 'giaddr' field is zero and the 'ciaddr' field is nonzero, then the server unicasts DHCPOFFER and DHCPACK messages to the address in 'ciaddr'. If 'giaddr' is zero and 'ciaddr' is zero, and the broadcast bit is set, then the server broadcasts DHCPOFFER and DHCPACK messages to 0xffffffff. If the broadcast bit is not set and 'giaddr' is zero and 'ciaddr' is zero, then the server unicasts DHCPOFFER and DHCPACK messages to the client's hardware address and 'yiaddr' address. In all cases, when 'giaddr' is zero, the server broadcasts any DHCPNAK messages to 0xffffffff.

[...]

A client that cannot receive unicast IP datagrams until its protocol software has been configured with an IP address SHOULD set the BROADCAST bit in the 'flags' field to 1 in any DHCPDISCOVER or DHCPREQUEST messages that client sends. The BROADCAST bit will provide a hint to the DHCP server and BOOTP relay agent to broadcast any messages to the client on the client's subnet. A client that can receive unicast IP datagrams before its protocol software has been configured SHOULD clear the BROADCAST bit to 0.

And, here's a paraphrased excerpt from the section 2 of the RFC 2131 (titled "Protocol Summary"):

ciaddr: Client IP address; only filled in if client is in BOUND, RENEW or REBINDING state and can respond to ARP requests.

yiaddr: 'Your' (client) IP address.

giaddr: Relay agent IP address, used in booting via a relay agent.

Following the protocol descriptions above, DHCPOFFER messages in a typical non-renewing DHCP session with no relays (that is, both "ciaddr" and "giaddr" fields are zero) can be both unicasts and broadcasts (0xffffffff is the IP broadcast address), what depends on a particular DHCP client and its abilities to receive unicast IP traffic before its IP stack has been fully configured. Moreover, even DHCPACK messages can be unicasts. At the same time, even the DHCPDISCOVER and DHCPREQUEST broadcast messages may be replaced with unicasts in case the DHCP client already knows the DHCP server's IP address, as described in section 4.4.4 of the RFC 2131 (titled "Use of broadcast and unicast").

With all that in mind, I went ahead and deleted all "unicast" and "broadcast" labels in the File:DHCP session.svg drawing and redirected File:DHCP session en.svg to it, and clarified it a bit in the article. Marking any messages as unicasts or broadcasts would require a lengthy explanation that simply wouldn't make sense in image captions. Hope you and Gelmo96 agree on that. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 19:09, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the deep discussion and the excerpts from the RFC. I greatly appreciate your precise response. Perhaps we have to upload a new version of File:DHCP_session_en.svg (because it is also used in wikibooks.org, in wikiversity.org, etc.) and after we can remove File:DHCP_session.svg. What do you think? Fabuio (talk) 23:09, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome, and thank you very much for bringing the issue here so we can discuss it and make the article and drawings more accurate. :) I'd say that File:DHCP session.svg should be left as it has a shorter name, while File:DHCP session en.svg should be deleted, of course after all pages using it are modified to use File:DHCP session.svg. Currently, the File:DHCP session en.svg → File:DHCP session.svg redirect takes care of accuracy, but that makes File:DHCP session en.svg pretty much redundant. Hope you agree. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 14:12, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you, but there is something that I don't understand, because in this page wikibooks I can still see the old image File:DHCP session en.svg. I suppose that currently still there is not automatic redirection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fabuio (talk • contribs) 19:38, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

You're right, it really seems that the File:DHCP session en.svg → File:DHCP session.svg redirect doesn't work despite being placed as instructed in Help:File redirect – a quote from that Commons help page explains why:

Technically, file redirects are ordinary redirects on File: pages, and they can be created manually. However, this only works where there is no file of that name (if there is a file, any uses of the redirect show the redirect's file, and not the target file - Bugzilla:14928).

With that in mind, I've tagged File:DHCP session en.svg with a speedy deletion request and a note that it should be redirected to File:DHCP session.svg afterwards, what should yield the desired outcome. We'll see whether the admins on Commons will agree to that. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 08:45, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion proposal for File:DHCP session en.svg was rejected, so I've instead tagged it with a note that a more correct version is available. Sorry, but I really don't have the time and energy for going into a lengthy discussion that would probably follow a nomination for deletion. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 20:12, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. If the deletion is too time consuming, after the next week I would try yo update the old image. Fabuio (talk) 19:30, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

If you're willing to invest some time into it, maybe you could nominate the old image for deletion instead? The nomination itself isn't too complicated, as described in Commons:Deletion requests. The reason why I'm suggesting deletion instead of updating the old image is just to reduce the duplication of content in Commons; variety is a good thing in general, but the old and the new image are pretty much the same what can only create confusion and increase clutter – if you agree. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 20:14, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks to User:Dsimic for the research. I removed the labels and uploaded a new version of the file. I object to deleting my original work because the proposed replacement slaps a CC-SA license over a minor modification of my PD-licensed original. While that is legally OK, I find it unethical (because of the attempt to remove the more liberally licensed original) and want to keep the PD-licensed file accessible. ~~helix84 14:21, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello, and thank you for updating File:DHCP session en.svg! Unfortunately, I really haven't paid attention to the licensing of these two drawings, and my deletion proposal was based solely on used file names – File:DHCP session.svg is just simpler. Though, with your updates and explanation of different licensing, I'd say that there should be no reasons to delete File:DHCP session en.svg. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 20:53, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. ~~helix84 10:25, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome, and thank you for creating the File:DHCP session en.svg drawing in the first place. :) Also, I've untagged the file as those tags no longer applied, and slightly improved the description at the same time. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 18:29, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Instruction set

Sounds better. Peter Flass (talk) 13:16, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello! Once again, sorry for reverting your edit, but the formatting was pretty much against MOS:BOLD, and the additional wording was slightly confusing. Of course, I'm glad that you like subsequent improvements I've made to the Instruction set article. :) — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 18:38, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Kilometres per hour

Hello,
I reverted your edit again. As I explained in my previous edit summary, per MOS:SERIAL, articles should be internally consistent in their use (or disuse) of the serial comma. There's no ambiguity in the original wording that would necessitate a serial comma, so your change does not make the article "better" or "more readable" in any way. In essence, you're changing that sentence from one style to another based on nothing but your own personal preference, which is expressly forbidden by WP:MOS.
If you wish to make a case for the use of a serial comma in that sentence, please do so here (or on the article's talk page, if you wish). Re-doing an edit after it gets reverted is strongly discouraged (WP:BRD).
Regards, Indrek (talk) 23:28, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello! To me, having something like "in alpha, beta, and gamma slang and formal use" is significantly more readable than "in alpha, beta and gamma slang and formal use", simply because the additional comma adds a pause that distinguishes one "and" from another. Following the MOS:SERIAL blindly isn't what it or any of the guidelines suggests. Moreover, could you please explain why did you change the format of references in the Kilometres per hour article? That's also just a personal preference, this time yours, and also shouldn't be a practice – in case we want to follow the guidelines blindly. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 00:42, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

First, I'm not suggesting that we follow MOS:SERIAL blindly, and I'll thank you not to throw around such baseless accusations. I'm suggesting that we follow it because in this particular case there's no good reason not to.

As for that edit you refer to, it mainly consisted of the following:

changed a few freehand references to use citation templates
changed a few citation templates from vertical to horizontal format
changed the format of a few accessdates
fixed a few broken parameters that were throwing errors
added some missing parameters and changed a few others (e.g. to split the names of multiple authors)

These are all fairly routine changes, done for the sake of consistency within the article (per WP:CITESTYLE and MOS:DATEUNIFY), not for personal preference. If you find any of those changes objectionable or think they actively harm the article, please provide some more details and I'll be happy to address any legitimate concerns you may have. Regards, Indrek (talk) 08:48, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. Please don't get me wrong, but your initial description looked like it was following blindly the MOS:SERIAL guideline, without going into the actual content, meaning or readability. Though, I'd say we're on the same page after discussing it further on the article's talk page. Out of curiousity, why haven't you changed the citations from horizontal/compact to vertical/expanded format? Personally, I find the vertical/expanded format far more readable, and I'd always be investing my time into something that also makes the Wiki code more readable on top of improving the article-wide consistency. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 23:31, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Re my initial edit summary, I guess I can see how it could have given the wrong impression, but rest assured I was considering the meaning and readability of the sentence. As you say, it turned out we were on the same page and simply interpreted the sentence differently. I appreciate the feedback, and will try to keep it in mind for future edit summaries.

As for the ref formats, I changed to horizontal simply because there were far more refs already using that format. That's generally how editing for consistency works - you change the few outlying exceptions to use the same format as the majority of the article. Horizontal format does also happen to be my personal preference (I find vertical format somewhat wasteful and breaking the flow of text when reading an article's source), and in fact I've yet to see an article that uses vertical format consistently, but that's neither here nor there.

I hope this clarifies my reasoning. Best regards, Indrek (talk) 05:30, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the additional clarification, everything is fine. As a side note, this just demonstrated how much effort and time creating something like Wikipedia requires, and I bet that majority of the general population simply isn't aware of that. :) Speaking of the edit summaries, no worries, I do know how difficult is to be expressive enough in that limited amount of space.

Yes, I know what you mean – making the article more consistent by converting style of various elements to what's already present in majority is fine, especially if there are only a few of such "irregular" elements. Back at the time, I've considered different formatting styles for references, and here's what I've concluded:

Inline, horizontal formatting – it is very compact, but makes the Wiki code totally unreadble unless there are references only at the ends of paragraphs (what, as we know, isn't the best practice and as such usually isn't the case).
Inline, vertical formatting – it wastes significant amounts of vertical space for sure, but makes the resulting Wiki code much more readable and much more easily editable at some later point in time.
Separated at the end of article, whichever formatting – it is the best-looking style by far, making the resulting Wiki code super lean and very readable. Unfortunately, it has a fatal flaw – this style totally defeats the whole concept of editing sections.

With all that in mind, I've spent some time choosing between (2) and (3), ending up with selecting (2). Speaking of articles that use vertical references format consistently, I happen to know more than a few, and I'll tell you which are those if you promise not to change their formatting. :) — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 06:44, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Piped links (cont.)

Hi Dsimic, Re [3], you asked me to read User talk:Dsimic#Piped links. So your justification for making that edit is that both Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) and I disagree with you, and there's no basis in policy or guideline?! (In fact, articles often suffer with unpiped links incorrectly using a capitalised link, so it is a common thing to fix when unpiped, and a piped one is no justification for using the incorrect case). Because it's so obvious there's no consensus for the principle you believe in, but it is too trivial to edit war over, I suggest you reflect on the sound justification for using the correct case for links that Chris and I agree on, appreciate that the tone is harsh but appropriate, and try to refrain. Keep up the other good work, regards Widefox; talk 11:12, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I started a discussion about undoing most of my edits (including this trivial issue) at Talk:CoreOS. Widefox; talk 12:17, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello! The case of piped links is one of the very few things I've disagreed on with other editors so far; however, it's a rather minor thing. As already explained in § Piped links discussion above, there isn't a single guideline that could turn it into something more than a personal preference; thus, no approach is either correct or incorrect. As a result, once they're placed, it would be the best simply not to change the case of piped links. Also, in the specific case of CoreOS article we could even pull the article-wide consistency argument that would pretty much demand uppercase piping as all other piped links are... uppercase. :) I saw your discussion on the article's talk page; my thoughts are available in my reply there, please have a look. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 01:52, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, let's keep that talk there. If thumperward (Chris Cunningham) would comment there it would also be appreciated, so I'll ping him. Widefox; talk 21:08, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, it's always better to keep specific "streams" of a discussion in one place. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 03:26, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Host card emulation – hijacking by some CardsApp company

Dsimic, I have noticed you were contributing to the post "host card emulation". So thank you as you have helped clean up the post. However, there has been a recent onslaught on the post by a few individuals that seem to really want to promote a company called "CardsApp". I am not as well versed in wikipedia posts as you so I was hoping you could help clear this page up and return it to a previous version where "CardsApp" is not doing self promotion.

Kindly, Theodore9dw (talk) 06:34, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello! I've reverted the Host card emulation article to its version from February 16, 2015 as it contains better wording, and major additions since then (which boil down to Host card emulation § "hCE+" or "hCE2" and Host card emulation § Security sections) were pretty much unsourced. Also, introducing the CardsApp thing was clearly an advertising attempt. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 07:17, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Yahoo! requested move

I created a proposal for moving Yahoo! to Yahoo. If you have a minute, we'd appreciate your input. – voidxor ^{(talk | contrib)} 09:56, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello, and thank you for bringing it to my attention. Sure thing, I've just provided a comment on the article's talk page. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 10:22, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Broadwell memory

Hi Dragan, remember Intelligent Memory and the ECC DRAM discussion we had?

Now I just noticed you also handle the Wikipedia entey for the Broadwell architecture. Per Intel specs the Broadwell-U only supports max 16GB of memory by two memory slots (8GB per memory module). But there is an internal Intel document that explains how this can be doubled. The memory has to fulfill special requirements for that, because the Broadwell-U internal memory controller has a little "bug". A standard memory module with 16GB could be unstable. Intelligent Memory has the first 16GB modules that work in all the new notebooks and laptops that are now coming to the market and use the i3/i5/i7-5xxxU CPUs.

On the Wikipedia page about the Broadwell I find nothing about the memory-support, but maybe you have good reason for that!? One reason could be that the Broadwell-U has the chipset and the CPU together on one SOC, while other Broadwells separate that. The memory support depends on the chipset. Am I right? If that is correct then adding something about the memory-support of the Broadwell-U might be too complex or confusing for readers. Twmemphis (talk) 16:17, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Hey Thorsten! Sure thing I remember our earlier discussion. :) Now you have an account on the English Wikipedia? Regarding the Broadwell-U SoC variant, there actually is a brief description of its memory support – here's what the Broadwell (microarchitecture) § Expected variants section currently says about it (emphasis added):

Broadwell-U: SoC; two TDP classes – 15 W for 2+2 and 2+3 configurations (two cores with a GT2 or GT3 GPU) as well as 28 W for 2+3 configurations. Designed to be used on motherboards with the PCH-LP chipset for Intel's ultrabook and NUC platforms. Maximum supported memory is either 16 GB of DDR3L-1600, or 8 GB of LPDDR3-1600. The 2+2 configuration is scheduled for Q4 2014, while the 2+3 is estimated for Q1 2015.

Do you have some references regarding the availability of supported 16 GB DIMMs, allowing for a total of 32 GB of DDR3 DRAM? If so, the article can be easily expanded to provide that information as well. By the way, memory support depends primarily on the CPU itself, as all modern Intel (and AMD) CPUs have integrated memory controllers (IMCs). The situation is a bit different with ECC memory, in which case support from the chipset is also required; however, that doesn't affect the Broadwell-U CPUs as they have no native support for ECC memory. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 10:03, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikiviewstats utility

Dear Dragan,

you use Wikiviewstats for calculating viewership of your articles. As I know, this tool is offline since months. How have you used it for Feb '15 data?--Kopiersperre (talk) 17:06, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello! You're right, unfortunately Wikiviewstats has been offline for months, but I'm still somewhat reluctant to delete links to it from the User:Dsimic § Created and started articles section of my user page, simply because it is (or was?) such a great utility. Hopefully someone is working on it, so it will become available again.

Since Wikiviewstats became unavailable, and before is became available at all, I used to calculate views statistics by hand, using the statistics data available from stats.grok.se, but that turned into a rather tedious job for 30 articles even when performed only once per month. :) Thus, about a month ago I wrote a PHP program that calculates required monthly statistics using the data available in JSON format from stats.grok.se. It's a rather simple PHP program, and here's an example of the output it generates:

Processing Address generation unit: done. (total 739 views)
Processing UniDIMM: done. (total 1,580 views)
Processing kdump (Linux): done. (total 861 views)
Processing kernfs (BSD): done. (total 220 views)
Processing kernfs (Linux): done. (total 649 views)
Processing ftrace: done. (total 919 views)
Processing Android Runtime: done. (total 10,933 views)
Processing WebScaleSQL: done. (total 802 views)
Processing HipHop Virtual Machine: done. (total 5,003 views)
Processing kpatch: done. (total 1,314 views)
Processing kGraft: done. (total 1,094 views)
Processing CoreOS: done. (total 9,104 views)
Processing ARM Cortex-A17: done. (total 2,167 views)
Processing Port Control Protocol: done. (total 1,174 views)
Processing zswap: done. (total 959 views)
Processing Emdebian Grip: done. (total 324 views)
Processing ThinkPad 8: done. (total 468 views)
Processing Laravel: done. (total 9,352 views)
Processing OpenLMI: done. (total 382 views)
Processing Open vSwitch: done. (total 3,384 views)
Processing Distributed Overlay Virtual Ethernet: done. (total 457 views)
Processing Management Component Transport Protocol: done. (total 562 views)
Processing Buildroot: done. (total 784 views)
Processing dm-cache: done. (total 1,899 views)
Processing bcache: done. (total 1,291 views)
Processing SATA Express: done. (total 14,692 views)
Processing OpenZFS: done. (total 1,511 views)
Processing List of Eurocrem packages: done. (total 120 views)
Processing M.2: done. (total 36,447 views)
Processing Eurocrem: done. (total 702 views)

Stats fetched for February 2015: total 109,893 views, 3,924 views per day (28 days in month).

Of course, you're more than welcome to use this PHP program if it happens to fit your needs. :) — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 04:31, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

This tool would be great. For my 750 stubs in german wikipedia I'm even less prone to do this by hand. May you send me the PHP script by mail?--Kopiersperre (talk) 09:41, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Just copy the PHP program code from the source of User:Dsimic/Traffic stats calculation page (what's between <syntaxhighlight lang="php"> and </syntaxhighlight>) and paste it into a file – that's the latest version of the actual program code. :) The current version might work too slowly when fetching statistics for 750 articles, so please let me know how fast it works once you get it going – it should be possible to make it much faster by using HTTP pipelining through curl_multi_exec(). — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 11:51, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

My internet connection is quite slow, so I think parallelization is not necessary for me. I've ran 770 articles, which needed 596 seconds. My results:

Stats fetched for February 2015: total 73,338 views, 2,619 views per day (28 days in month).

-> Bitter to see, but predicteable, that your 29 english articles have more views than all my small german articles. But – as a german wikipedian wrote – Wikipedia is not for readers--Kopiersperre (talk) 22:14, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually, HTTP pipelining might help significantly when this program runs on slower Internet links, as the program would be reusing TCP connections instead of opening new one for each JSON data pull. Would you be willing to test a version with HTTP pipelining? I could make it available in a day or two. Speaking about how many page views are there, it all depends on the actual articles and how much people are interested in them; the essay you've linked above describes other involved aspects rather well. Oh, and it's 30 articles, and two more should be there soon. :) — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 02:55, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Went ahead and implemented a much faster way of pulling statistics data, together with producing more verbose results that now also include timing information and additional summary in case fetching data failed for some articles. The old version took about 20 seconds to fetch the data for 30 articles, while the new version takes... Well, have a look at the actual output:

Fetching statistics data: ... done.

- Address generation unit: total 739 views
- UniDIMM: total 1,580 views
- kdump (Linux): total 861 views
- kernfs (BSD): total 220 views
- kernfs (Linux): total 649 views
- ftrace: total 919 views
- Android Runtime: total 10,933 views
- WebScaleSQL: total 802 views
- HipHop Virtual Machine: total 5,003 views
- kpatch: total 1,314 views
- kGraft: total 1,094 views
- CoreOS: total 9,104 views
- ARM Cortex-A17: total 2,167 views
- Port Control Protocol: total 1,174 views
- zswap: total 959 views
- Emdebian Grip: total 324 views
- ThinkPad 8: total 468 views
- Laravel: total 9,352 views
- OpenLMI: total 382 views
- Open vSwitch: total 3,384 views
- Distributed Overlay Virtual Ethernet: total 457 views
- Management Component Transport Protocol: total 562 views
- Buildroot: total 784 views
- dm-cache: total 1,899 views
- bcache: total 1,291 views
- SATA Express: total 14,692 views
- OpenZFS: total 1,511 views
- List of Eurocrem packages: total 120 views
- M.2: total 36,447 views
- Eurocrem: total 702 views

Done, February 2015 statistics for 30 articles fetched in 1 second.
Total 109,893 views, averaging in 3,924 views per day (28 days in that month).

Isn't that bad, right? :) Could you please test the new version, which is, as usually, available on User:Dsimic/Traffic stats calculation? — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 08:42, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

With CURLMOPT_MAXCONNECTS = 10 I got too many failures:

Done, February 2015 statistics for 144 articles fetched in 14 seconds.
Fetching the views statistics failed for 618 articles.

With 2 parallel connections, I still get 478 failures. Cool feature, but useless for me, I live with high ping.

I've sorted my results with sort -n, because I want to know, which are my top articles. Could you sort the JSON before outputting?--Kopiersperre (talk) 14:31, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much for testing! I'll see if there's something that might improve the reliability when dealing with slow connections. By the way, which version of PHP are you using? I'm asking that because HTTP pipelining is supported since PHP 5.5. Sorting the output by total views is a good suggestion, will get that implemented and let you know when it's available. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 14:47, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

PHP Version => 5.6.6--Kopiersperre (talk) 15:00, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Hm, that makes HTTP pipelining supported. Here's a new version, which adds some more timeout-related runtime configuration, and sorts the output by the total article page views. Could you please test this version, both in its original form and with curl_multi_setopt($handles, CURLMOPT_PIPELINING, 0); and curl_multi_setopt($handles, CURLMOPT_PIPELINING, 1); on line 72? — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 15:56, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

CURLMOPT_PIPELINING=true:

[..]
> Russian Chemical Reviews: fetching data FAILED!
> Tricyclazol: fetching data FAILED!

Done, February 2015 statistics for 246 articles fetched in 16 seconds.
Fetching the views statistics failed for 516 articles.

CURLMOPT_PIPELINING=0:

[...]
> Josiphos: fetching data FAILED!
> Carteolol: fetching data FAILED!

Done, February 2015 statistics for 263 articles fetched in 20 seconds.
Fetching the views statistics failed for 499 articles.

CURLMOPT_PIPELINING=1:

[...]
> Chevron Phillips: fetching data FAILED!
> 2-Methylbenzylchlorid: fetching data FAILED!

Done, February 2015 statistics for 263 articles fetched in 13 seconds.
Fetching the views statistics failed for 499 articles.

Mysterious--Kopiersperre (talk) 16:27, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Quite mysterious indeed. Thank you very much for the testing, I'm thinking about what could be an efficient way to debug this further, as there must be something trivial preventing it from working faster and reliably even on slow uplinks. Sorting works well, by the way? — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 16:37, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Got the PHP program expanded so it now additionally fetches and displays the cURL runtime errors, improving at the same time the way outputs are stored internally (what isn't important for the debugging). Here's an example of what a few simulated failure messages look like, they're also sorted by grouping together the same error types:

> ftrace: failure (Could not resolve host: staats.grok.se)
> OpenZFS: failure (Could not resolve host: staats.grok.se)
> kernfs (Linux): failure (Could not resolve host: staats.grok.se)
> Eurocrem: failure (Protocol "hhttp" not supported or disabled in libcurl)
> dm-cache: failure (Protocol "hhttp" not supported or disabled in libcurl)

Could you please test this version, which is, as usually, available on User:Dsimic/Traffic stats calculation? With the additional debug information now available, we should be able to see what's exactly causing data pulls to fail. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 09:31, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

For debugging I constrained on my first 100 articles. With 100 articles the script runs fine. Problems begin with more than ~180:

[..]
- Leptophos: total 10 views
- Journal of Polymer Science: total 7 views

PHP Notice:  Undefined offset: -1 in /tmp/run/verboseviewstats.php on line 597
PHP Notice:  Undefined offset: -1 in /tmp/run/verboseviewstats.php on line 597
> Dimepiperat: failure ()
PHP Notice:  Undefined offset: -1 in /tmp/run/verboseviewstats.php on line 597
> Maleimid: failure ()
PHP Notice:  Undefined offset: -1 in /tmp/run/verboseviewstats.php on line 597
> Nicosulfuron: failure ()
> Tetraethylenpentamin: failure ()
PHP Notice:  Undefined offset: -1 in /tmp/run/verboseviewstats.php on line 597
> Dichlon: failure ()

[many undefined offsets]

PHP Notice:  Undefined offset: -1 in /tmp/run/verboseviewstats.php on line 597
> Chanda: failure ()
> 10,10′-Oxybisphenoxoarsin: failure (Connection timed out after 10002 milliseconds)
> Dichlormid: failure (Connection timed out after 10002 milliseconds)
> Benoxacor: failure (Connection timed out after 10002 milliseconds)
> International Journal of Medical Microbiology: failure (Connection timed out after 10002 milliseconds)
> Thidiazuron: failure (Connection timed out after 10002 milliseconds)
> Refratechnik: failure (Connection timed out after 10001 milliseconds)

[other 10001 ms timeouts]

> Befehl Nr. 227: failure (Connection timed out after 10000 milliseconds)

[other 10000 ms timeouts]

> Dimethylchlorsilan: failure (Connection time-out)
> Lothar Kühne: failure (Connection time-out)
> Cytec: failure (Connection time-out)
> Tributylmethylammoniummethylsulfat: failure (Connection time-out)
> Alexander Tamanjan: failure (Connection time-out)
[..]

Sorry for my late reply.--Kopiersperre (talk) 21:13, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

No worries about the slight delay, there's no hurry. :) Thank you very much for detailed testing, now it's much more clear what's happening. Here's an improved version of the program: the statistics data is now fetched in chunks while pausing between two chunks, as fetching data for a large number of articles at once causes stats.grok.se to start refusing or delaying HTTP connections. The bug resulting in "Undefined offset: -1" error messages was caused by a silly mistake I've made and haven't caught during the testing on my side; that's also fixed now.

Could you, please, test this version? Based on the test results on your side, we'll decide whether further changes in the program logic are required; what's left to be modified/improved is to keep retrying to fetch statistics data until that succeeds (or goes over a predefined number of retries, of course). — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 10:39, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Works very nicely. You could improve this tool further with fetching someone's articles from http://tools.wmflabs.org/sigma/created.py?name={USERNAME}&server={lang}wiki&max=2000&ns=,,&redirects=none .--Kopiersperre (talk) 22:39, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Great news, thank you very much for testing it out! :) How long does fetching the statistics take in the end, for your large list of articles? Anyway, I'm still thinking about implementing the retrying of failed HTTP requests, as that would be a pretty much "bulletproof" approach. Would you be willing to test (another :) new version, if I make it available in a day or two?

Your suggestion for fetching the list of created articles automatically is great, and actually I've already thought about something like that. Though, the trouble is that the above linked utility from tools.wmflabs.org provides only HTML results, not "raw data" in some kind of a "machine-parseable" format such as JSON. HTML could be parsed as well, but that's a somewhat pointless exercise as even slight changes in the page design would completely break the parsing "engine". However, I'll give it a second thought later today. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 09:18, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Done, February 2015 statistics for 760 articles fetched in 3 minutes and 22 seconds.

Fetching the views statistics failed for 2 articles. (Articles which have brackets in their title)--Kopiersperre (talk) 10:01, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

That's a rather good result, compared to about ten minutes we had before with a completely sequential approach. :) Could you, please, send me those two article titles that have brackets in them? — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 10:12, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

de:Verordnung (EG) Nr. 440/2008 and de:Verordnung (EU) Nr. 517/2014 über fluorierte Treibhausgase give failure (Parsing JSON data failed).--Kopiersperre (talk) 11:30, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! Fetching the statistics data for these two articles failed because their titles contain slashes, and stats.grok.se expects / not to be URL-encoded as %2F. Got that fixed in a new version, I'd appreciate if you could test it out. Also, this version implements easier selection of the encyclopedia/language for all specified articles. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 15:56, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Ice Cream Apps article – evaluation of complaint

If you have time, can you offer an opinion or evaluation about the 209.6.201.191's message in User talk:Donner60 § IceCream Apps is spam. I replied about general editing guidelines but I really don't have the expertise to evaluate the complaint about the existing article as being spam. I had reverted the edit because the IP user had replaced general language with extremely negative language. Perhaps some of the complaint has merit but the language and type of edit needed to be reverted. If you don't have time or interest for this, no problem. Donner60 (talk) 01:21, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

The exact link to the Wikipedia article is IceCream Split & Merge. Donner60 (talk) 01:23, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello! As far as I can see, short of trying out the software myself, the application is marketed in the same way IceCream Split & Merge article currently describes it, so the article follows the sources closely. Though, the problems arise from relying on sources that are pretty much advertisements for that application, what would require at least one or two more sources such as independent application reviews.

With that in mind, the edit performed by 209.6.201.191 might totally be the right thing to do (though, in a different style); however, as you've already noted, we'd need sources for that as well. If there are reliable sources confirming what 209.6.201.191 says about the nature of the application (I was unable to find any such sources), the article should be edited accordingly or maybe even deleted; otherwise, the article needs to stay as-is, but should be tagged with {{Third-party}}. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 08:38, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

[sic] in a quote in Docker article

Hi. You reverted some changes to Docker (software) where " [sic]" was removed from after "on premise" in a quote. I wanted to justify the removal and see if it might change your mind. (It's a small thing and doesn't matter to me either way, so feel free to ignore me.) Checking Google Ngram Viewer, the use of "on premise" seems on the rise. A cursory glance at books using "on premise" shows it's used in the same sense as "on premises". It's also a common phrasing in cloud computing contexts. Yes, I'm aware prescriptivists say it's not grammatically correct, but that's beside the point. " [sic]" is used to proactively deny a transcription error has occurred, but is unnecessary if there's no reason for that assumption. I'm trying to argue that (given the context and rising usage of the phrase) there is no reason for readers to assume there has been a transcription error, and thus " [sic]" may be safely removed. 128.205.39.37 (talk) 16:02, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello! Ah, by no means I'd choose to ignore your suggestion – IMHO, nobody's suggestion should ever be ignored, no matter how small or insignificant it might seem, simply because there's always something new to learn.

Regarding my edit and your explanation, please let's compare Google Ngram results for "on premise" and "on premises": the former is for sure on the rise since the 1980 (peaking at around 0.0000008% in 2000), but the latter is still far more used (averaging at around 0.000016% between the 1940 and 2000, with no large fluctuations). Very roughly speaking, that makes "on premises" at least 0.000016 / 0.0000008 = 20 times more used than "on premise" (just by comparing the 2000 values, and many more times if we'd calculate the exact ratio for, say, last 40 years), what just confirms which of the two forms is more correct. As we know, every language tends to become less strict over time, just as every system naturally tends to have its entropy increased, but that simply isn't the reason for less correct forms to be supported. Hope you agree. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 17:50, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the cordial response. Point taken; best leave the " [sic]". 128.205.39.37 (talk) 20:20, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing it here in the first place. :) I'm glad that we're on the same page. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 20:24, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

By the way, just had a look at Google Ngram results for 1800–2008 (we've used 1800–2000 results above, leaving out eight most recent years): "on premises", "on premise", and a comparison. It's quite interesting to see that "on premises" increases significantly after 2000, while "on premise" dips at the same time. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 06:14, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

My reverts of 108.73.114.110

This is a very-long-ongoing issue of a banned user. It's a wp:deny effort. No issue here with you or others undoing my reverts. See User:Arthur Rubin/IP list and the current discussion on Arthur Rubin. Many edits are OK, though often strange, if not bizarre, such as linking the British Pound symbol "£", or New Zealand while ignoring other countries. It's OCD v. OCD! Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 07:46, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

And now blocked again: Special:Contributions/108.73.114.110 Best Jim1138 (talk) 07:52, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello! Thank you for a detailed explanation, I was quite surprised to see those reverts (and, maybe, even the actual edits by 108.73.114.110) on the Firmware and Trusted Platform Module articles. Speaking of the OCD, well, it all depends on how one channels such issues. :) — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 08:13, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I suspect the set of "sane" is fully a subset of "insane". It's interesting that s/he links only one item a time. And, typically adds the linked article to the edit summary enclosed with parens. It would be nice to 'turn' the IP into a grammar nazi or such. Could be highly useful. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 09:25, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

That's quite interesting. Have you tried to discuss the whole thing with the IP address? I know, such attempts usually end up as pretty much futile endeavors, but it might be worth a try. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 09:40, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Brogrammer

I consistently see you around computer related articles (and that one third opinion) and would be interested in your opinion on this deletion discussion, if you'd care to give one there. —Lightgodsy^(TALK_CONT) 23:06, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello! Thank you for bringing it to my attention, after having a look at the Brogrammer article I've cast my vote on the article's deletion nomination page. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 04:34, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Is Linux an operating system?

Well, most of people refers to the operating systems based on Linux kernel as Linux. however Linux is just a kernel, a piece of code written by a finnish guy with contributions of many people around the world, to make any OS able to use a lot of devices. it is true that the operating systems based on Linux belongs to the Linux family of operating systems as cited there: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOS:LINUX#Linux_vs._GNU.2FLinux, but that doesnt mean that Linux is a real entire OS. many geeks know that Linux is a kernel and dont say that it is an OS. for example GNU is the most free OS used today which missed a kernel and than gets combined with Linux: https://www.gnu.org/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html.

When you say that you use Linux when you use a Linux based system like GNU or Android, you mean then that the Linux developers has written the entire OS and released its binaries and all the applications running in the system, which is wrong. Debian GNU/Linux is an OS, Android is too, Chromium also. Please stop writing wrong informations about operating systems, that affects the knowledge of many people which is not nice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kb333 (talk • contribs) 14:22, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello! What I've reverted back isn't wrong information; however, my user talk page isn't the right place for discussing this ever-recurring Linux vs. GNU/Linux thing. I'll provide my feedback on an appropriate article talk page, while pinging you so you can know where to reply. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 14:33, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

GNU/Linux distribution

Can you have a look at this redirect. We have an editor who seems to be trying to turn it into a very COI/POV article against consensus. - Ahunt (talk) 14:45, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello, and thank you very much for bringing it to my attention! GNU/Linux distribution, as a redirect, should never be expanded into a separate article, and the content you've reverted was a clear example of what's known as WP:POVFORK. I've added this redirect to my watchlist, and, following the MOS:LINUX guideline, tagged it with {{R from incorrect name}}. Hope you agree with the tagging. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 15:25, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Linux article and edit warring

By my count you haven't broken 3RR but you should be aware of the report I filed at ANEW. BethNaught (talk) 18:58, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello! Thank you for letting me know, and for filling the report in the first place. As you've probably seen it yourself, unfortunately it was (and still is) almost impossible to discuss the whole thing about the Linux article with Kb333. However, I've tried as much as possible to stay away from reverting the edits, and especially to stay away from breaking the WP:3RR rule – but the range of choices was pretty much limited, if you agree. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 19:19, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

My thanks to you also. I'll continue to keep an eye on the page. BethNaught (talk) 20:49, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

That would be great. I've also thought about filling the report myself, but it's much better when not filled by an editor directly involved in a discussion. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 20:53, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

ARMOR – row hammer

Hi Dsimic,

First of all thanks for editing my post. I am fairly new to wikipedia so accept my apologies if what I am asking is obvious. Can you please let me know why did you change the title of my post "ARMOR: A Hardware Solution to Prevent Row Hammer Error" to "A Run-time Memory hot-row detectOR"? I believe the first title gives more information to the user who is looking for a solution to this phenomenon. Also, you changed the link directly to the solution page rather than home page. Can you please explain the reason?

Regards, Mohsen Ghasempour (talk) 19:35, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello! No worries, all kinds of questions are more than welcome.

Please let me start from the second question. I've changed the link so it points to the solution page, which provides information not contained in the Row hammer article, because the originally linked home page provides only what's already covered in the article. The purpose of external links is, in general, to go beyond what the article already covers, and the home page simply doesn't fit the bill.

Speaking about the link description, explaining "ARMOR" as an acronym seems to fit better, while staying a bit on the neutral side; if we describe it directly as a solution that prevents curruption caused by the row hammer effect, that might be slightly on the advertising side. With a rather neutral acronym description, it's up to the readers to find more about what ARMOR does; also, anyone who reaches that external link after digesting the whole article, will clearly conclude that ARMOR prevents errors caused by the row hammer affect.

By the way, after reading the solution page, I'm still rather unclear what ARMOR actually is internally, and how is it supposed to interface with existing DRAM solutions? Or is it supposed at all? In other words, the whole thing seems to resemble a commercially oriented "an awesome black box, call for prices" description, to a certain degree of course. Are there maybe any further in-depth descriptions available? — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 21:15, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks for your clear explanation. Yes, ARMOR is a research project so there will be more in-depth description available to the public soon. Mohsen Ghasempour (talk) 08:27, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome, and thank you for bringing the questions here in the first place. Looking forward to in-depth papers about ARMOR, please let me know when they become available. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 18:57, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Art and artificial intelligence

Dear Dragan, you probably already know about this, but when you have a chance, please check out the additions to the "Criticism and comment" section of Deep learning and the article referenced therein -- I would rather that my friends take the first shots at all of this! And be sure to take a look at the first footnote of the article proper. Synchronist (talk) 23:59, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello! It's been a while, how are you? :) Regarding your recent edits on the Deep learning article, unfortunately there may be some issues with the proivided reference (which is surely an interesting read). In a few words, additional care should be applied when referencing one's own work, especially when it's published on a blog; please see WP:NEWSBLOG, WP:BLOGS and WP:ATT for further information on related guidelines. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 06:02, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Dragan, your concerns are well taken, and in fact I am not unhappy to have the chance to defend the reference to my own article and its validity as a source.

The underlying point is that artificial intelligence represents a quite extraordinary topic. One the one hand, like nuclear physics, it is a topic which has the possibility of affecting all of our lives, even unto the existential level; but unlike nuclear physics -- to which, realistically speaking, only physicists and mathematicians can contribute -- artificial intelligence has the potential of becoming the most democratic of all sciences, i.e., if we are to craft the ideal intelligence, which discipline would we willing to ignore? History? Medicine? Literature? Furthermore, I note that AI is a relatively young science, and therefore -- like the aeronautics of 1903 -- capable of benefiting from the input of the non-academic. So, all in all, I think Wikipedia has ample justification for offering greater than usual latitude in its scrutiny of AI sources.

In respect to the particulars of my case, Wikipedia states, in "Citing yourself", that "you may cite your own publications just as you would cite anyone else's, but make sure your material is relevant and that you are regarded as a reliable source". As to the relevance aspect, you have not made this an issue, not to mention that I expended a great deal of care and thought as to how the reference to my article was integrated into the larger Wikipedia article, even to the extent of writing an introductory paragraph for the section in which it appears and slightly enlarging its focus, from "Criticisms" to "Criticism and comment".

As to my reliability as a source (and here allow me to apologize for having to bring up some subjects with which you have had to deal ad nauseam as an experienced Wikipedia editor), there are of course two basic questions apart from the testimony of the cited article itself: first, my own qualifications in respect to the article in question, and second, the qualifications, if you will, of the media outlet which has made the decision to publish it. In regard to the former -- i.e., my qualifications to write an article on the intersection of computing and society -- I am tempted to get up on my high horse and talk about computing as another young discipline, and about Bill Gates not having graduated from college, blah, blah, blah; but instead, I will let the biographical sketch published on my user page speak for itself. In regard to the latter -- i.e., the authority of the publishing process at "ArtEnt.net"., where my article appeared -- let me say, first, that this is one of those "blogs" which is really more like an on-line journal or review in that it is published by two PhD mathematicians employed by Penn State University and features some quite technical coverage of the AI arena; and second, that they gave my article a thorough critique, and the substantiality of which can be demonstrated by comparing the article as published to that which was submitted to them, and to the latter of which a link has long since been available on my user page.

Having said all of the above, I would be delighted, were you or another Wikipedia editor to find favor with my article, to have my edits reverted and the article plugged in by another hand -- this to avoid the very real stigma of self-reference; but I suspect that it will be difficult to avoid duplicating to some extent the manner of its integration. Synchronist (talk) 18:05, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Ah, please don't get me wrong, I've read your article before writing anything and to my knowledge it's all fine regarding the factual accuracy – just wanted to present you with a few Wikipedia guidelines so you can be prepared if anyone challenges its validity. I haven't challenged your competence or validity of the article as a reference, and it's probably a mishap that the website publishing the article has "blog" in its name at all. In other words, and if you agree, it should be better to have me point out those guidelines, rather than having someone else do that later. :)

Speaking of blogs in general, it's really tough to say which of them are good as references and which aren't – perhaps the related Wikipedia guidelines should be slightly adjusted in that regard, but that would be a highly debatable topic and probably wouldn't reach consensus required for the changes to take place. On the other hand, printed books and "officially" published papers seem to be simply too slow to keep up with the rapid pace of advancements in recent years. As soon as a book is printed, chances are high that it's already slightly obsolete.

Artifical intelligence (AI), as you've described it very well, is a highly specific area that has very high impact potential. I'd just add that AI's greatest aspect (or danger?) comes from almost anyone being able to work on it, with pretty low requirements regarding the equipment etc. To build a nuclear reactor, one needs rare materials, a lot of space, huge amouns of power, etc. – pretty much unapproachable by an individual. On the other hand, even a medium-class modern computer, which isn't that expensive, allows almost anyone to do whatever he or she wants with exeperimenting in the broad area of AI. Isn't that fascinating?

Please allow me to return to using self-authored texts as references – I've also used an old published paper as a reference in one of the Wikipedia articles, guided by the fact that it's been published, peer-reviewed, and co-authored by two more individuals. Exactly those precautions‍—‌making sure it's good enough to serve as a reference‍—‌are what I've referred to as "additional care". :) — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 06:55, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I copy, Dragan. And of course I was just kidding about the whip thing!

On a more serious note, your point about anyone being able to experiment with AI is quite sobering, and not as unlikely as it might seem at first. That "anyone", for example -- as I'm sure you have anticipated -- would not need to have created an entire AI system on his own; to make mischief, he would merely need to download an AI code set and tinker with some of the parameters -- like reversing the polarities of the "good" and "bad" indices. Synchronist (talk) 12:28, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Exactly, almost anyone can do such "script kiddie" AI-related things, to call them that way. Moreover, a smaller number of people should be capable of modifying existing AI implementations, and, why not, writing their own implementations. Of course, there aren't many people capable of modifying existing or writing new AI implementations, but the fascinating thing is that all they need fits into a backpack – there's no need for acres of space, tons of concrete, rare materials, etc. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 13:02, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Wow -- I had never really thought about AI as a weapon, but you present a very compelling scenario. Dragan, let's think about how to raise the profile of such concerns on Wikipdia -- and our first problem will be breaking through all the clutter surrounding "hacking", "cybercrime", and so on. (Although computer viruses is a closely related topic.) But I have just been selected as a jury member for a second-degree murder trial (not kidding, unfortunately), so I am going to be pinned down for a week or so. Synchronist (talk) 01:44, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, yes, AI is a quite dangerous thing, and I always recall Isaac Asimov's short story "Breeds There a Man...?" in which it's nicely described how humans play with something that's above their actual mental capacities. Something like that is dangerous, as‍—‌beside the possibility to use AI as a weapon‍—‌we might be releasing an uncontrollable self-improving entity; there's no need to mention any of numerous science fiction movies plotting various disastrous scenarios. Speaking of raising public awareness, I'd say that's an already lost race, simply because the whole thing around the AI is already ridiculed enough in various movies so people simply don't take it seriously. Also, people are quite busy with posting stupid statuses and revealing their lives on social networks, or filming their cats in HD or, even better, in 4K. Or maybe killing some zombies in video games. All that unfortunately doesn't leave much time for thinking – sad, but true.

Good luck with the jury duty! Maybe there will be no need for juries and trials in general once the AI advances enough. :) — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 19:26, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

LAMP (Laser-Aided-Mechano-Predators)

Hey man maybe you can give me your opinion on this clarity/redundancy goal on an edit, see Talk:LAMP (software bundle)/Archive 1#Discussion of how to refer to LAMP. makeswell (talk) 01:01, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello! Sure thing, I'm already looking into it, and will provide my feedback there. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 01:06, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Done, here's what seems to me like a slightly better proposal for the lead section; looking forward to your comments on it. By the way, Makeswell, I'm really glad that we're working on improving the opening paragraph of LAMP (software bundle), which certainly needed some work. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 01:36, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Beautiful! Yes, very well-written. I am glad too to help. :) makeswell (talk) 02:15, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, went ahead and propagated the changes into the article's lead section, while incorporating some minor further cleanups into the original proposal. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 02:41, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Computing (3)

You obviously have good ideas but I'd say this time, it didn't quite cut it. IMHO, "Required sources" is not a suitable title for a subsection of "Avoid common mistakes". It implies that providing sources is the mistake; but we should say the reverse: Forgetting to provide sources is the mistake. (The original title was "not providing sources".)

But one of your other edits was so good that I imitated it in another section. And your edit in the x86 was in fact good, even though I changed the section, because it made me realize new things. Cheers. Fleet Command (talk) 08:03, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello! Thank you, I'm glad that you like one of my edits. :) Also, thank you for reverting back changes introduced in my other edit – as you've described it, "required sources" doesn't go well within a list of suggestions against common mistakes. Though, how about using "often-neglected sources" or maybe "unsupplied sources", instead of "oft-neglected sources"? To me, "oft-neglected sources" seems to be somewhat uncommon.

The table you've introduced into the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Computing § x86 versus IA-32 section looks nice and provides a good overview; I've just touched it up a bit. At the same time, IA-32 clearly isn't what may cause ambiguity, as you've already pointed out. Well done, if I may notice. :) — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 05:42, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

My recent edits you undid

You recently undid some of my edits removing ipsec.pl references. The references are being used as a form of self promotion, the site in question is operated and written by the editor that added them to the articles. The links he is adding the write ups to notability and frankly the information he is linking to is poorly done, hence my reasons for removing them. Offnfopt^(talk) 06:53, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

You haven't really read WP:SELFCITE and WP:SELFPUB, did you? These citations and articles do not violate any of the policy statements, there's nothing there to promote myself, only hard data which was the sole reason why I added them. Pawel Krawczyk (talk) 07:14, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello to both of you! Well, using self-written material as references isn't strictly prohibited, it's just that additional care should be exercised to make sure there's the required level of content quality and neutrality. For example, this writing isn't that bad at all – sure thing, it isn't one of the absolutely hard-core low-level descriptions of Heartbleed, but it also isn't one of the "just for clicks" webpages. This one, providing a high-level overview of web application attacks, also isn't that bad to be simply deleted. Let's discuss this further, if you agree.

Just for later reference, here are the diffs for Offnfopt's initial reference removals in the OpenSSL, Heartbleed and PHP articles, which I've reverted. As a brief reminder, edit summaries should always be provided, especially when deleting content; the exceptions are clear vandalisms, but that obviously wasn't the case here. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 08:12, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Plus the reference linking to my article IPsec.pl on Heartbleed was not even added by myself but by User:Petter Strandmark [4] which makes Offnfopt's link spamming accusation unsubstantiated. Pawel Krawczyk (talk) 12:49, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

PC home Advanced?

Hi.

Do you know of any computer-related publication called "PC home Advanced"? I suspect it is a typo but I don't know what could be the correct form.

If you want a little background, this is mentioned in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IZArc (2nd nomination) as an evidence to keep the article.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 17:51, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello! Unfortunately, I've never heard of or seen any publication (or anything else) named exactly "PC home Advanced". That's probably a typo as you've assumed, but I've unsuccessfully tried to Google out a few possible alterations. Sorry I couldn't help. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 22:37, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Big Foot

Dragan, it's me, Glenn! (BTW, I read your article on distributed data base systems -- some solid work!! -- and have gleaned from it your gmail address, which I am obviously not using at the moment.) At any rate, I have set a trap for Big Foot! See my user page for the fun . . . Synchronist (talk) 05:24, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello! How did the jury duty go? Hopefully everything went fine.

Yeah, that old paper about web applications and distributed databases tried to cover a few real-life usage scenarios, and it would be rather interesting to perform the benchmarking again after all the changes MySQL had experienced over time. Also, I'd probably copyedit the paper extensively, as I'd say that my English had improved in all those years. :) By the way, that's just the short version of the paper, and there's the much more detailed non-English version that has about 8–9 times more pages.

I've seen the joke you've added to your user page – it's a good one and it took me some time to figure it out on my own... The key is to know that "paw" is a homophone to "pa", which, in turn, is shortened from "papa". :) — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 12:04, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

M.2 (NGFF) page

Can we change the title of the "Next Generation Form Factor" wiki page to "M.2"? NGFF is its former name and I feel that the page should reflect that change as it is listed on many other pages by its proper name "M.2". Thanks! Jbalich (talk) 18:54, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello there! That's a good proposal, things changed in the meantime and it should improve the clarity. I've placed a request for admins to perform the rename, as the M.2 article already exists as a redirect page. -- Dsimic (talk) 19:51, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks much! Jbalich (talk) 20:29, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. -- Dsimic (talk) 20:32, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

We don't need to revert other people's edits in order to modify additions for flow, structure or readability. A simple cut/paste/edit would suffice and also permit others to see what was done. Nobody owns a wikipedia page. Blouis79 (talk) 21:32, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Blouis79! I'm slightly confused, which edit(s) do you refer to? These two back from November 2013, if I'm not mistaken? Those two edits were followed by three more edits made by an IP address, which unfortunately introduced next to no improvements so they were reverted. Together with that, I've also incorporated (they haven't been reverted) your edits into the article, by converting the external link you've added into a reference, and by deduplicating the wording so we don't repeat what has been pretty much already explained in the article (support for different interfaces on the same M.2 connector and associated connector keying).

Moreover, the article has been further expanded in subsequent edits, inspired primarily by your two edits, what's for example visible in this edit. At the same time, there was no need to note that Tyco says something about the M.2 connector, as Tyco is only one of the manufacturers that make the connector; it's perfectly fine to use manufacturer's papers as references, but there's no need to mention a non-exclusive manufacturer.

I've even left a message on your talk page that "I've reverted and then reworked your edits to the M.2 article, so they now fit better into the previously present content", and we could have discussed it further. Please don't get me wrong, but the whole thing isn't called owning an article, that's in fact a process known as peer review with making articles better as the only goal. Hope you agree. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 04:30, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

PC PSU

Thank You, this edit requires to click the diagrams. I suggest to undo it to keep the diagrams visible without a click. See the German version "Deutsch" of the article where it was possible to lineup 2 images or a gallery with the option called "floating" at the right side. The help:gallery_tag and help:pictures do not address how to do this. --Hans Haase (有问题吗) 20:02, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello! Yeah, I'm aware of the available options for the multiple image layouts, for example what's achievable by using the {{Multiple image}} template. The reason why I've moved all images into a gallery is simply because there are four images in the relatively short Power supply unit (computer) § Functions section, and that's pretty much the only way to keep the section layout reasonably clean. However, this layout change should present some kind of a compromise, increasing the size of thumbnails while keeping all four images in a gallery. Hope you agree. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 22:40, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

{{Multiple image}} was exactly what I was looking for. Thank you! I guess, it is soved[5] and You have a higher resolution on your screen than my one, so please review. --Hans Haase (有问题吗) 11:22, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it doesn't look good, especially on higher-resolution screens... The trouble, beside the fact that it made the section look cramped, is that images spill far into the next section, making the whole thing quite unreadable. How about this change instead? IMHO, it looks worse than having smaller thumbnails (especially after subsequent tweaks that brought all thumbnails in the article to a consistent state), but I'm more than willing to compromise. :) — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 06:16, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Those standalone thumbnails and galleries totally looked too large, so here's the take three, please have a look. To me, it looks great now, especially after additional tweaks for the sizes of remaining thumbnails. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 06:36, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Good job, everything is visible and it looks fine. Thank you! --Hans Haase (有问题吗) 14:17, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Great, I'm glad that you like it! :) — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 12:22, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Python infobox example for a template documentation

Hi, Dsimic. I was wondering what reference errors the Python example that I added to the documentation for Infobox programming language introduced. Because I didn't see any reference errors when I was changing the infobox, and I'm pretty sure I would've spot them if there were any reference errors. Also, the Scheme example felt kind of outdated, and I just thought that the example needed an update. Thanks. Kamran Mackey (talk) 01:25, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello, KamranMackey! As I've noted in my edit summary, I'm not sure what was actually wrong with the Scheme infobox example in the {{Infobox programming language}}'s documentation? However, if you insist, I can live with the Python infobox example. Speaking of the reference errors, as you've already noted in your edit summary (and what's nicely visible in this diff), it was about having undefined named reference tags that caused a number of messages in red at the bottom of the page, which are clearly visible in this revision. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 02:07, 8 May 2015 (UTC)