User talk:Aclassifier

Hello, Aclassifier! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! --Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 16:45, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images
Getting help
Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention
Policies and guidelines
Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The community
Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Writing articles
Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review
Miscellaneous
User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

001: Making a new page on an idea published by myself

{{helpme}} I wonder if I am allowed to make an article about a special, deadlock free software pattern. I would look much towards the wiki:Bakery algorithm article, also see wiki:Deadlock.

The problem is that I have published this pattern, see chapter 10 of From message queue to ready queue by Øyvind Teig. I have also discussed it in two newer, published papers. A dr. student at the university here asked me the other day if that pattern was something I had invented, because he had not seen it documented. I don't know, and I will be very careful indeed, about that question.

However, that pattern is valuable for software designers, as one out of several building blocks for concurrent systems. I urge to say that this is not research, it's a patterns that has been used for several years. I would imagine that this pattern must have been used many times in the life of concurrent or multi-threaded systems - since the sixties?

I am thinking about giving it a name.

Am I allowed to start such an article?

Øyvind Teig (talk) 07:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would advise against it, as per WP:NOT#OR. As you have only provided links to which you have either created and not widely accepted/published by a third-party, your article may be deleted. As I just linked Wikipedia should not be used as a publisher of original thought. We are not used to publish academic works, theses, or original research. I hope this gives you a better understanding of what's involved here. If you are unsure about original research, reliable sources, or related topics, they are conveniently located near the top right corner of my user page, under List of Wikipedia Policies and Guidelines. Have a good day. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ guestbook ♦ contribs} 08:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that's why I asked. Maybe it would better be an entry in my Tech Blog? But I would still not call it research. But if some other wiki user made an article, would that be different? Anyhow, with a Tech Blog, it's a good start? But then, a Tech Blog could not be cited in Wikipedia? So it's a catch-22 inside the Wikipedia system? (All systems are self-referential, so where does this start?) Øyvind Teig (talk) 08:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

002: Possible conflict of interest links

See User_talk:Beetstra#Possible_conflict_of_interest_links

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:24, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hi Aclassifier! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, My collected autographs, are they valid signatures?, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.

You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please create a new thread.

See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). Muninnbot (talk) 19:00, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

July 2024

Hi Aclassifier! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Tony Hoare that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Thank you. —⁠andrybak (talk) 17:21, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Is there any way to make it "major edit" then? Øyvind Teig (talk) 17:22, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just disable the checkbox "

This is a minor edit" under the editor on the left. —⁠andrybak (talk) 17:50, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I didn't find any way to do this on an already saved edit(?) Øyvind Teig (talk) 19:04, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's not possible, no. —⁠andrybak (talk) 21:37, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]