User talk:Jeh/Archives/2013/December

improve awkward wording

Funny, your tweak to Usenet is exactly what I almost did. Nice to know my first instinct wasn't outrageous. —Tamfang (talk) 08:02, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Jeh (talk) 08:09, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

PAE on Athlon

Regarding "Athlon? Really? All of them?" topic on "http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Physical_Address_Extension#Dubious"

To enable PAE your system must have DEP activated or /PAE param explicit on your boot.ini file. Probabily you are with one of them disabled.

I know that.

All AMD64 based processors supports PAE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.82.152.43 (talk) 05:10, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I know all AMD64 procs support it. The text to which I was referring just said "Athlon", not Athlon64 or AMD64. The Athlon name was first used on decidedly non-64-bit CPUs. My non-64-bit Athlons don't support PAE, at least in the platforms they're in (760 MP and 760MPX chipset). Jeh (talk) 05:34, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

BatteryUniversity.com

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lithium-ion_battery#Charging_procedure "Undid revision 446519793 by DavideAndrea (talk) batteryuniversity.com is not a RS. Please see talk page)"

Huh? Why? Thanks Davide Andrea (talk) 21:02, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

As I said in the edit summary, please see the article talk page; the issue of "battery university"'s reliability is already being discussed. Also, in the future, when starting a new topic on a personal talk page, please begin a new section. Thanks! Jeh (talk) 00:13, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Alright, let me be more clear. Why did you delete my contribution on charging Li-Ion batteries (contrasted to the section on charging individual cells, which was already present)? My contribution had nothing to do with "battery university", and your opinion of "battery university"'s reliability as a source. It appears to me that, just because my contribution happened to be next to one with which you have some problems, you deleted it. So, my direct question to you is this: why did you delete my contribution to the Li-Ion battery article which detailed the 3 steps in charging a Li-Ion battery? Thank you in advance for answering this question, directly, and this question only. Davide Andrea (talk) 13:45, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Let ME be more clear: Discussions of article content belong on the article talk page, where all interested parties can see them and participate. Jeh (talk) 16:51, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for answering me. The best to you. Davide Andrea (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:32, 26 August 2011 (UTC).

Proposed compromise on BS 1363

I've suggested an amended version of the much-reverted Counterfeiting section on this article; please take a look at the talkpage when you have a moment and pass judgement. Yunshui (talk) 09:33, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Re: A minor quibble about section formatting

I disagree. Either way is in compliance WP:HEAD.  -- WikHead (talk) 17:55, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Had the {{refimprove}} tag been correctly positioned above the infobox, I would not have performed further edits beyond the revert of vandalism. Feel free to put those spaces back if you please, but those would be your edits, and not mine. Thank you.  -- WikHead (talk) 18:40, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

regarding my wikipedia edits for interrupt

hellow sir i m new user from coep india editing the article under Wikipedia india education program me and my group mates are supposed to revised(add more points) to the existing topics. so we are trying to do that. As per as my topic edits are concern i don't think that they r wrong in the matter of content and i think they are adding more value to the article by providing more knowledge about the article in very simple language so that even a common people/student can easily get the topic. looking for your help..

(Vinay.rangari (talk) 08:18, 11 October 2011 (UTC))

Please note the text that appears immediately below the "Save page" button: "If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here." "Edited" includes "deleted." Like any other WP editor it is within my purview to revert edits or additions that I feel detract from an existing article.

With regard to the additions you made to Interrupt:

• The language you used was not "very simple," it was decidedly substandard English prose. As such it detracted markedly from the article's credibility, and by extension, from the entire project's credibility. If a significant fraction of articles contained text of that nature then Wikipedia would garner no respect whatsoever—in fact, it would be so little regarded that I doubt that your school would have embarked on the project of which you are a part!
• If your goal is to provide info in "very simple language" then you really shouldn't be getting into the details of e.g. non-shared vs. shared interrupt request lines at all.
• You appended your content to an existing article without regard for the existing content. The resulting organization was poor at best. "Oh by the way, here's some more information on topics raised in the previous section." That isn't how articles here (or anywhere) are supposed to be organized.
• Your technical content had some issues. It is not so bad if the reader already knows the subject and makes allowances for oversimplifications and false generalities on your part, but a reader new to the subject could come away with many misconceptions. Just for example, not every device in a shared interrupt environment has something as straightforward as a bit indicating that it interrupted; and even where such a bit exists, "1" is not always the state that means "interrupt was requested." And for another example, you omitted message-signalled interrupts entirely... If you want a number I would say that on a claim-by-claim basis no more than 50% of your claims could stand without significant revision, and I am not counting there revisions for purely linguistic reasons (if I did it would be close to 0%). Note that even being 100% technically correct is not sufficient to warrant inclusion when the linguistic style and organization is so poor (but purely linguistic problems could likely be fixed fairly easily, rather than simply warranting deletion).
• You are using as your sole references two obsolete editions of the same book; multiple sources are desired, and that does not mean different editions of the same book.
• Please see WP:CIR.

There are other problems with your material, but I think those points are sufficient to explain my action of reverting your material. Your being part of the India Education Program does not mean that you and your colleagues are free to make changes or create new articles in main article space and have them be immune to edits or even deletion by other editors. To put it another way: Just because an article has been assigned to you by this project, does not require the rest of WP's editors to leave your work alone until the Program is over.

"Looking for your help." As I suggested in the edit summary, since your program seems to involve a limited number of editors working on any given article, what I suggest is that you work on your article additions in a "sandbox". The way to do this is to click here even though it is a redlink for now. You will be greeted with an edit window. This is a subpage under your user page. Create your article there, then invite comments at the appropriate WP venues, such as Wikiproject: Computing. Your sandbox will be a little tough to find, perhaps, but it is always available via your edit history. I will even make suggestions for improvement, if you don't object. I will most strenuously object if you restore your content to the mainspace article without serious improvement.

On the other hand I could revert my reversion and then go through your material and largely rewrite it. The result would not be your text; it would raise the points you raised in addition to what the article previously covered, but very little of it would be recognizable as originated by you. This, too, is within the purview of all Wikipedia editors. I doubt that that would satisfy the requirements of your class assignment. But it would be much, much closer to satisfying Wikipedia's requirements for articles.

What Wikipedia wants is articles and edits to existing articles that improve the state of the project. I am sorry to be so blunt, but... your additions to Interrupt did not do this, but rather the opposite. Jeh (talk) 10:42, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

wiki doubt

hello sir, I had edited on brain computer interface in the main article interface (computing).A separate article already exists in wikipedia on that.But few things are there which I have added and also I gave the references.But,still it got deleted.During our discussion session I had asked one of the campus ambassador whether we can write on the topics that already exists in wikipedia ,he said we can and so we proceeded.But still there are few things that I have added are new.So please guide me what to be done now. Its getting deleted inspite of rephrasing properly and all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pareenwakde (talk • contribs) 08:42, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Article content discussions should occur on the respective article's talk page. I am about to answer you there. Jeh (talk) 17:11, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Radio Waves

Hi! I have a question about your recent edit to Microwave with the following comment:

Undid revision 460100313 by Guy Macon (talk) please, Guy. "Radio waves" do not include e.g. visible light regardless of the derivation of the word

I, of course, agree with the above. What I am having trouble understanding is why you changed a version that does not mention radio waves to a version that does. Was this an error, or are you claiming that microwaves that are contained in a Microwave oven are radio waves? If so we can discuss it on the article talk page, but I wanted to check here to see if it was a simple error first.

While it is true that "Radio waves" do not include visible light, they also do not include non-radiators such as a sealed microwave oven. A microwave antenna with the same frequency as typically used for linking telephone towers would be an example of radio waves. Thus radio waves should not be mentioned in an article about microwaves, which may or may not be radio waves, but always are electromagnetic waves. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:04, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Not an error. Why don't you repost the above at the article talk page - I'll respond there. Jeh (talk) 10:08, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Category:Advanced Technology Attachment

... is on CfD again. Cheers, —Ruud 22:55, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the alert. You might also want to take a look at the RM discussion at Parallel element processing ensemble. Jeh (talk) 07:46, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the recent move back, and apologies for my error. Tony (talk) 01:50, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Support - I think you are right

I saw your recent communication with Lmatt. I completely agree that he is highly disruptive and recently requested that his AWB access be revoked. There was no response. I just thought you would like to know. Q Science (talk) 23:35, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

It appears to me that much of his activity is proscribed by AWB rules 2, 3, and 4. Rather than asking the admin who granted him access, I would suggest accumulating a number of examples of these rule violations and then go through the dispute resolution process. A bit of searching tells me that "AWB abuse" is not an unheard-of complaint at ANI. Possibly a review of his talk page (including history) would bring up cases where others have complained, and they may be supportive of an WP:ANI report; such others indeed must be notified of any such report mentions them, even if they're not the one being reported on. Jeh (talk) 01:11, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

San Francisco meetup at WMF headquarters

Hi Jeh,

I just wanted to give you a heads-up about the next wiki-meetup happening in SF. It'll be located at our very own Wikimedia Foundation offices, and we'd love it if some local editors who are new to the meetup scene came and got some free lunch with us :) Please sign up on the meetup page if you're interested in attending, and I hope to see you soon! Maryana (WMF) (talk) 21:30, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Binary Prefix

I think that's ironic you wear a SI badge on your user page but seems to support the incorrect use of SI prefix with binary values by Microsoft. Oh mind me, you are a Windows professional! So, are your doing your job on Wikipedia, or is it on your leasure time ?

You seem particular keen to remind the others the correct use of "should", especially on WP, by telling what that shouldn't do.

Have a good day (in Microsoft World and Hell) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Solsticedhiver (talk • contribs) 18:15, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

1. I don't work for Microsoft, and I don't support their incorrect use of SI prefixes (though those are far from the least confusing things in Windows' various displays). But WP articles are supposed to document, not recommend. We can even document what would happen in some theoretical case, but we can't recommend that that case happen. That's WP policy, not me speaking.

2. WP editors are expected to edit WP articles to WP's policies and guidelines. WP's policies and guidelines do dictate a large number of things that editors shouldn't do. Expressing your personal preferences in articles is one of those things. On the other hand, explaining the reasons for an edit is something editors are supposed to do. And where such reason is a WP policy or guideline, said policy or guideline should be cited in the explanation. So, I did. I even depersonalized the explanation, saying "WP articles are not supposed to..." instead of "You are not supposed to...". It's just the rules, I don't make them up.

3. If you still feel it was a personal rebuke, all I can say is that you are going to feel that a lot here. All WP editors get reverted a lot. Especially if they insist on adding their personal opinion to articles.

4. If you want to discuss the actual article content, please do so on the article's talk page. Jeh (talk) 19:03, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Your free 1-year HighBeam Research account is ready

Good news! You are approved for access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research.

• Account activation codes have been emailed.
• To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1
• The 1-year, free period begins once you enter the code.
• If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:HighBeam/Citations.
• HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
• Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check the applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 04:44, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Windows XP

The discussion about w3schools stats in the Windows XP article, in which you were a major participant, has flared up again. You may wish to make further comment at Talk:Windows XP#w3schools stats. Thankyou. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:49, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Alas I'm busy as a one-armed wallpaper hanger at the moment. I'll try to see if I can peep in but ... Thanks for the notice! Jeh (talk) 16:38, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Invitation to WikiProject Electrical engineering

Hi fellow editor, You are invited to join the WikiProject Electrical engineering, a collaborative effort focused on improving Wikipedia's coverage of electrical engineering. If you'd like to join, add also your name to the member list. Thanks for reading! SchreyP (messages) 19:01, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

ps/2 colour/wire table

Everyone was warned about accuracy of the table. Let everyone decide either to use it or not. My intention was just to undo useful content that can help people repair ps/2 keyboards and in that way not to trash still useful hardware. It helped me and i can't see the reason why you insist on removing it. Someone invested time to make that table and i appreciate it very much. If your way of contributing is erasing useful content, than let it be... 94.253.207.158 (talk) 10:26, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

This is not due to "my way of contributing," it is one the most important policies of Wikipedia. Please see WP:V, WP:RS, WP:OR, etc. Claims of fact that are prefaced by "the following is not really reliable or consistent and you should check it yourself" absolutely do not belong here. As for "help people repair PS/2 keyboards," anyone competent to do that will be able to trace the connections with a $10 DMM. If you feel that strongly about the table's usefulness, host it on your own blog and maybe we can support an External Link thereto. Or maybe it can go somewhere in WikiBooks, which encourages OR. Jeh (talk) 10:53, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

HDD Capacity per platter

FWIW, the "current" drive with the highest capacity per platter is not necessarily the same drive with the maximum number of platters per drive. Since the 1.8-inch has only one height and 3 platter drives are no longer available in that height (I think) yr recent edit can stand, but in general it is not necessary that the (maximum capacity per drive) / (maximum number of platters per drive) = capacity per platter, since the first two items may refer to different drives. I suspect the other two form factors entries could be in error but don't have the time or inclination to investigate. Tom94022 (talk) 15:45, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you mean. I think it needs a wording change to explain that point. Jeh (talk) 17:18, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Videotape cassette formats

Hi, the lead of DV has a currently semi-broken link to Videotape#Cassette formats. You recently renamed the targeted section from "Cassette formats" to "Professional cassette formats". Yet, the section does not only cover professional formats (I am not knowledgeable on the topic, but I recognize DV as being general-purpose). Should the section be renamed? Or what? --Chealer (talk) 19:22, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Bigger than a broom closet

I get your point in the HDD article but I think we need to find a better analogy than "two refrigerators" which is inapposite in places like Europe and Japan (and my son's dormitory) where the refrigerators are quite small. BTW the RAMAC with its air compressor did require a small room, bigger than a broom closet ;-). Any ideas for a culturally neutral analogy? Bigger than a small van? Required a small room?  ???? Tom94022 (talk) 16:28, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Good point. We could always do something radical like providing the actual size of the footprint and height. The whole article should probably be checked for similar analogies. Jeh (talk) 01:06, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Oscilloscope, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Reactance (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:10, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Ranges fc talk

i suggest you read through the talk archives you will see that the ip users who ar making these complainenets are doign it all the time and not obsrving wikipedia policices even admins are reverting it because ther enot trying to improve the article but disruptie it i dnt remove user talk posts but in this case the ip user are being disruptiveAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 10:36, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Please read WP:TPO. Pay particular attention to:

The basic rule—with some specific exceptions outlined below—is that you should not edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission. (emph. added -jeh)

I see no exceptions that yould justify your action. In particular it says

Posts that may be considered disruptive in various ways are another borderline case and are usually best left as-is or archived.

If an admin reverts them, fine. That doesn't mean it's ok for non-admins to do so. Jeh (talk) 10:45, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

dnt start lecturing me a consesnsu has been formed and non admins have been reverting it and no admin has said anything against any of us, if you havea a problem report the fact no admin are reverting disruptive postsAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 10:48, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Hope ...

... you don't mind my undo :-) — Cheers - DVdm (talk) 11:00, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I see. Thanks for the catch! Jeh (talk) 06:02, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution. The thread is "Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Talk:PS/2 connector#.22...almost_all_desktop_computers_still_have_PS.2F2_ports.....22".

Guide for participants If you wish to open a DR/N filing, click the "Request dispute resolution" button below this guide or go to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/request for an easy to follow, step by step request form. What this noticeboard is: It is an early step to resolve content disputes after talk page discussions have stalled. If it's something we can't help you with, or is too complex to resolve here, our volunteers will point you in the right direction. What this noticeboard is not: It is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct. It is not a place to discuss disputes that are already under discussion at other dispute resolution forums. It is not a substitute for the talk pages: the dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) before resorting to DRN. It is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and explanation of policy. Things to remember: Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, and objective. Comment only about the article's content, not the other editors. Participants who go off-topic or become uncivil may be asked to leave the discussion. Let the other editors know about the discussion by posting {{subst:drn-notice}} on their user talk page. Sign and date your posts with four tildes "~~~~". If you ever need any help, ask one of our volunteers, who will help you as best as they can. You may also wish to read through the FAQ page located here and on the DR/N talkpage. Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you! AC power plugs and sockets: Plugs Sockets Connectors and Gender The original text contradicts both ASME_Y14.44-2008 and Gender_of_connectors_and_fasteners, and the picture with explanatory text to the right. To clear up confusion, because the hermaphroditic socket with the male earth pin shown is normally never energized (and this plug/socket combination is likely to disappear into the museum one day) a picture of a male socket (eg a portable cement mixer might be more useful. It does not contradict Gender_of_connectors_and_fasteners:- <In some cases (notably electrical power connectors), the gender of connectors is selected according to rigid rules, to enforce a sense of one-way directionality (e.g. a flow of power from one device to another). This gender distinction is implemented to enhance safety or ensure proper functionality by preventing unsafe or non-functional configurations from being set up.> because the term connectors is used which like plugs and sockets may also be of any gender and the female connector must of course be the energized one. Referring to these as sockets on cables in common usage ( on extension leads/cables) is as bad as jack plugs being shortened to jacks. Spaghettij (talk) 07:46, 10 February 2013 (UTC) First: I have wikilink-ified your in-wiki links. Also btw, the word you wanted there was "hermaphroditic", and if you're going to use the word, you should know that the picture of the socket with the male ground pin is not a picture of a hermaphroditic connector anyway... because such connectors cannot mate with other identical connectors. That aside... Article content should be discussed on the article talk page. It is fine for you to post a notice here on my talk page informing me of a discussion on the article talk page, but unnecessary because (like most editors) once I've edited an article it's on my watchlist anyway. (Yes, some editors do not do this, but then they are probably not interested in further discussion either, so no point in notifying them.) I suggest you copy your above text into a new section at the end of Talk:AC power plugs and sockets. I will answer you there. That way other editors interested in the topic can see and join in the discussion. If only posted here, it is unlikely that anyone else will ever see it. Jeh (talk) 12:13, 10 February 2013 (UTC) Thanks for the Wiki corrections and the sic tic, I spotted it later, and also the talk page so I guessed the above consequences. As a complete Rookie - shit happens! I've also started to note the combative tone of posts which I find a little sad. Hermaphroditic has no requirement to be identical except for daisy-chaining applications, and unless there is a specific standard that requires it. Spaghettij (talk) 14:06, 10 February 2013 (UTC) "Combative tone of posts." You mean like "(eg a portable cement mixer might be more useful."? Re "hermaphroditic connector", I am afraid you are incorrect. It describes a connector that is self-mating with another very similar if not identical connector. An example is the Anderson Powerpole connector (the WP article does not show this very well, alas). Please see Gender_of_connectors_and_fasteners#Genderless (hermaphroditic): "By definition, a hermaphroditic connector includes mating surfaces having simultaneous male and female aspects, involving complementary paired identical parts each containing both protrusions and indentations. These mating surfaces are mounted into identical fittings which can freely mate with any other, without regard for gender (provided that the size and type are already matched). [...] True hermaphroditic connectors should not be confused with mixed gender connectors, which are described elsewhere in this article." (emphasis added) The French connector pictured is obviously not hermaphroditic because it can't mate with itself, or anything that looks remotely like itself. It could be described as "mixed gender", but it is usually just called a "socket" or "receptacle". Jeh (talk) 14:44, 10 February 2013 (UTC) Talk page Hi. I don't understand what the problem is with my edits. Especially, you seem to partially revert yourself in the last 2 edits. Talk header must be on the top per WP:TPL. And I don't understand why you react on the simple insertion of a harmless parameter to a template. Thanks in advance, Magioladitis (talk) 22:22, 18 March 2013 (UTC) I react to seeing the talk page show up in my watchlist (which it does, because I have of course edited that talk page and the corresponding article page), only to find that there's nothing there but semi-bot edits that a) were made by someone with no previous involvement or apparent interest in the article page; b) do not fix anything that was actually wrong (except perhaps from the POV of a bot, or someone with a bad case of OCD); c) do not materially change the rendering of the page, let alone add any substantive content; and d) are most certainly not discussing, or have any possibility of leading to, improvements to the article. At best, all such edits do is clutter up the edit history and increase involved editors' workloads (by making us check the edit history for other edits "under" yours). Whether you're using a bot or not, such edits are annoying and do not help make the page in mainspace better... which, per WP:TALK, is what all work on talk pages is supposed to be about. In fact, I don't think it is too strong a reading of WP:TALK to say that you shouldn't be changing anything on a talk page that you didn't put there in the first place, with rare exceptions like BLP violations, or things that actually break the renderer. There are so many problems in mainspace; I'd think any editor's (or even bot operator's) time would be far better spent there. For example, Leandrod (talk · contribs) made a HUGE number of anti-MOS changes to mainspace articles before he was finally blocked indef for not responding to anyone's comments, and to my knowledge there has not been a general cleanup effort. Couldn't AWB help there? Jeh (talk) 23:22, 18 March 2013 (UTC) WP:TPL tries to organise the upper part of the talk page too in order to provide information to editors in a systematic way. I can help by improving mainspace pages according to MOS and this is what I do many hours per day. This is the reason I spot and fix common syntax mistakes with AWB. Thanks for the advice. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:25, 19 March 2013 (UTC) Just to clarify... Those who monitor WP:RFPP might possibly have been more quick to act on semi-protection, but not likely. It usually takes significant WP:BLP violations to lead to that when the editing traffic is so low. You'll note that less than a half-dozen IP addresses were blocked instead. I really think you wholly misread my comment on ANI...the "fine, I'll take my ball and go elsewhere" comment really was odd coming from you, considering how highly-regarded both you and your usual attitude are on this project. Cheers (✉→BWilkins←✎) 22:46, 18 March 2013 (UTC) And, um, did you realize what you were re-adding to the article? "Ritualistic fellatio"? Really? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:10, 18 March 2013 (UTC) Obviously not. Sorry. I did realize I was removing a fake title of "ritualistic boozehound" but didn't check the rest of the diff closely enough. There goes my highly-regarded status, I guess. Jeh (talk) 23:25, 18 March 2013 (UTC) It looked to me as if it was a case of college pranks (as was confirmed by Toddst1) that were likely to continue... so I have to admit, I was a little put off by the initial lack of concern. And honestly, I do find enough abuse-reverting to do without straying into places like JBC (and I usually do a better job of it). (I'm not planning on going home, just sticking to my usual playing fields...) I don't even remember how JBC got on my watchlist. I must have edited it in the past—probably checking the edit history of a vandal to some other page. And I obviously was not checking the diffs carefully enough, so withdrawing from the page is a good idea anyway. Re "highly-regarded", I'm a little surprised that anyone outside of a small number of editors in the computer and electronics tech areas have noticed me. Fewer than 7,000 edits in almost 8 years, only about half of them to mainspace, is hardly a prolific record. Jeh (talk) 10:24, 19 March 2013 (UTC) Josephine Butler College Please see my comments at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Persistent_vandalism_by_multiple_users_at_Josephine_Butler_College. RNealK (talk) 23:09, 18 March 2013 (UTC) Seen, replied, and complied. Thanks. Jeh (talk) 10:25, 19 March 2013 (UTC) IBM 2741 I replied to your note a while ago, but I guess I should have replied here... The charts are in the manual that's the first external link. I have plans to add the control codes, but probably won't do the other code charts for now, so if you want to do it, have at it.Peter Flass (talk) 11:41, 6 February 2013 (UTC) Peter Flass (talk) 11:41, 1 April 2013 (UTC) Thanks I have attempted to send [the same message] to this editor previously. He has a following of others, including a common range of many IP editors that I have clashed with before and I wanted to just stay editing articles and out of politics. While I have to agree with some of comments it isn't helping the project and AN/I, in my experience, has been the worst waste of time invented yet. 174.118.142.187 (talk) 00:09, 7 April 2013 (UTC) If you're talking about an exchange from back in April, ok... otherwise I don't know what you mean. Oh, and... AN/I is not always a waste of time IME. But the violations have to be egregious and repeated before meaningful action is taken, and documenting them does takes a lot of effort. Jeh (talk) 22:16, 30 July 2013 (UTC) File:RCA Quarter Inch Tape Cartridge 2A.png And before I forget, thanks for providing what was already a pretty well set-up and photographed image in the first place. All the best, Ubcule (talk) 18:15, 2 August 2013 (UTC) Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter Books and Bytes Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013 by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs) Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved... New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted. New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis?? New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration Read the full newsletter Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 19:55, 27 October 2013 (UTC) Shocking electrical edits :) Hi, Jeh. There seems a lot of contention over at NEMA and AC plugs, and there is definitely at least one character who seems a bit obnoxious about it. I think I've come up with a solution to at least a part of it -- separate the obsolete material into its own article, covering both US and non-US. It seems a shame to fracture this stuff all over the place and then get into arguments about it. Would you support such a plan? I'm not recommending dropping obsolete/historical entirely, just to use summary style for it. For sections that near historical context, the pertinent facts should still appear alongside current material, but that would be true even if history/obsolete sections were kept sin the article. Dovid (talk) 20:02, 18 November 2013 (UTC) I take it you've read the talk page at AC plugs... it does seem that there's likely enough material to justify a separate article for all obsolete "types" and "devices." I don't have a problem with reducing such coverage in the existing articles to a couple of sentences, and "For more information on obsolete types and devices, see...". But, I don't see what was wrong with the "Obsolete devices" section in the NEMA article, either. A new article would have the advantage that it would at least start out with nobody thinking they WP:OWNed it and acting vigorously to defend their own ideas of its scope. Not at first, anyway. Jeh (talk) 21:32, 18 November 2013 (UTC) question There is a proposal to make in the History section Electrically powered spacecraft propulsion such a proposal "Electrically powered spacecraft propulsion with a nuclear reactor considered\discussed for interstellar Project Daedalus and was rejected because of low thrust and more time to disperse. Title: Project Daedalus. Authors: Bond, A.; Martin, A. R. Publication: Journal of the British Interplanetary Society Supplement, p. S5-S7 Publication Date: 00/1978 Origin: ARI ARI Keywords: Miscellanea, Philosophical Aspects, Extraterrestrial Life Comment: A & AA ID. AAA021.015.025 Bibliographic Code: 1978JBIS ... 31S ... 5B " Do you agree? Vyacheslav84 (talk) 05:57, 28 November 2013 (UTC) As posted at the top of this page... to avoid fragmenting the discussion, any discussion of article content should be conducted on the respective article's talk page. It is fine to notify interested individuals of discussions by posting to their talk pages in this way, but the actual discussion should take place on the article's talk page. Please post your question there; I will answer there. Thank you. Jeh (talk) 06:13, 28 November 2013 (UTC) "NT" usage right? Hi. How do you do? I thought I'd better drop you a line because you didn't reply in Talk:Windows 8. My inquiry is about one of your interesting messages: No, the developers don't call it that either. Microsoft doesn't even have the legal right to use the "NT" initialism any more. Jeh (talk) 13:33, 16 November 2013 (UTC) Well, I'd like to know why you thought Microsoft does not have the legal right to do that. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 14:49, 29 November 2013 (UTC) There was a legal dispute over the initialism "NT". It was owned (even at the time) by Northern Telecom (later Nortel). Sources vary - some say that Nortel actually sued Microsoft over this, and others that Nortel simply raised objections. Either way, Microsoft began putting "NT is a trademark of Northern Telecom" on their OS boxes, made a point of telling people to use the full name "Windows NT" (which they did have a trademark on) and not just "NT", and agreed to not call any more OSs "Windows NT". Jeh (talk) 15:01, 29 November 2013 (UTC) Hi. I'll investigate but unless I am much mistaken, short initialisms and numbers cannot become trademarks at all. That's why Intel, AMD and Cyrix eventually stopped using numeric designations for their microprocessors. (Intel came up with Pentium.) Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 16:00, 29 November 2013 (UTC) Perhaps the rules have changed and no more short initialisms can become trademarks, but there are certainly a lot of "NT"s registered now. Take a look here. Search term NT, type "combined word mark", "all search terms". Jeh (talk) 16:12, 29 November 2013 (UTC) Hi. Thanks for the nice engine. I stumbled upon this: [1]. Looks like "Windows NT" is a Microsoft trademark, registered 1991, renewed 2005 and still live. Although I am not specialist: There are five other Windows NT records, all Microsoft, all dead. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 18:30, 29 November 2013 (UTC) Yes. My comment was specifically about the initialism "NT". Technically MS could use "Windows NT" again... but even already-issued trademarks can be challenged on the basis of potential confusion or dilution, and that is what Northern Telecom did (or threatened to do) back when. Popular usage was just to call the OS "NT", despite MS's pleas for everyone to use the full name, and Nortel was concerned about dilution of their mark. btw, you can find several different "NT" records because trademarks don't have to be unique; they just have to be unique within a field. Thus we have "Apple" the computer company and "Apple" the music/record company started by the Beatles (the latter Apple was somewhat miffed when the former got into the music distribution business); we also have (or had) "VAX" the computer and "VAX" the vacuum cleaner.... there are many other examples. Jeh (talk) 18:54, 29 November 2013 (UTC) Hi. I must say this whole discussion was very enlightening. Does that mean we can have multiple trademarks called "Metro" in different fields? Well, you do see where I am going, right? By the way, I discovered trademark distinctiveness requirement. The guy who told me about it also said there is no telling whether Nortel could have done anything but Microsoft loves solving things outside the court because, terms of effectiveness, it occurs several years faster. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 02:28, 30 November 2013 (UTC) "Page cache" vs. "buffer cache" If page cache were discussing OS-level caching of blocks from the disk or from the file system, regardless of whether it used the VM system or not - i.e., if it were "buffer cache" rather than "page cache" - then the items you removed would be OK for the article. If it's specifically discussing caching of blocks through the VM system, those items wouldn't belong in the article. The question is whether the page should be a "buffer cache" page with a separate "page cache" page (and something somewhere describing a "unified buffer cache" combining the two), or what. I asked about that in Talk:page cache, but nobody else appeared to be interested in discussing it. Guy Harris (talk) 00:41, 6 December 2013 (UTC) To me, using the word "page" implies very strongly that we're talking about the VM system. This view is supported by the current lede. Of course a page cache might contain pages that have been reclaimed from a disk block cache or a file cache, but that still doesn't make the page cache either of the latter. Jeh (talk) 03:17, 6 December 2013 (UTC) So how should we deal with non-VM-system-based buffer caches, and how should we deal with page cache that aren't also general file system caches and unified buffer/page caches? Separate pages? A single page dealing with all of them? Guy Harris (talk) 07:55, 6 December 2013 (UTC) It seems to me that OS-managed caches for disk storage can be organized along several different axes. One is "who requested the data" - in this case we have explicit disk (or file) IO calls vs. page reads caused by page faults. Another is "where does the cache storage space come from and how is it managed". The earliest disk caching software was simply allocated a fixed amount of RAM; later we got cache managers that worked along side (and sometimes fought with) the virtual memory manager; in Windows the reactive file cache, the proactive file cache (SuperFetch), and what we're calling the page cache are all using storage managed by the common virtual memory manager (and there is additional complication from ReadyDrive and ReadyDisk). There is probably at least one more axis. So, what about an organization that first explains this organization, then presents various examples from various OSs and shows how they fit into this organization? Only problem is, I can't think of a reference that presents a unified view of cacheing in this way (but I'm going to use it for some writing I'm doing :) ). Jeh (talk) 18:34, 6 December 2013 (UTC) Could you put that note on Talk:page cache in response to the comment I wrote? That's probably the right place to discuss issues such as this. Guy Harris (talk) 19:03, 6 December 2013 (UTC) Now I have a fan on Wikipedia... Great. Now you're monitoring me? WP:HOUND Groink (talk) 07:34, 6 December 2013 (UTC) When someone makes edits that I consider problematic—like a blanket revert with an incomplete edit summary—I (and many other editors) commonly check their other recent edits to see what else they might not understand. Please don't take it personally; this is SOP here. That is one of the reasons the "User contributions" tool is there, so that problematic edits to other articles can be found and fixed. Jeh (talk) 08:24, 6 December 2013 (UTC) The Wikipedia Library Survey As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi t | c 14:48, 9 December 2013 (UTC)