Welcome!

Hello, Letdorf, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Sceptre 21:45, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I just wanted to say that it's good to see someone taking an interest in working over the NetBSD article. It had been the most out of date and incomplete of the BSD articles for a while and I had only done a tiny bit to improve it to complement the OpenBSD one. Anyways, you may want to check OpenBSD's for some ideas on what to do and how if you want to take this article further, we've pretty much completed an overhaul of it over the past 4 months and it's pretty slick now. Like I say, it's good to see someone take an interest in fleshing it out. Janizary 01:10, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was editing the AIX article and saw a previous editor had said that AIX/ESA was based off of OSF/1 and I saw it again on the OSF/1/Tru64 page. I didn't see anything in IBM docs about this (although they probably wouldn't mention it anyways), I was just wondering what source you got the information from. TimP 03:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• http://www.brettward.co.uk/bwl/tdwcv.htm --IanDavies 23:59, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching that slight memory lapse on my old Cray photo. Davepape 15:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for getting some facts straight on the Stringy floppy page and the formats template. I find the endless tape loop concept fascinating. Do you have any more info on the topic? Maybe you know the dates for the Entrepo product? -- Austin Murphy 23:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments; I, too, have gone back and forth on the number system; however, not that this is a passion of mine, but some of the sites that I was recently editing, other editors had indicated that this is now the common convention for British designations. I am an author myself and consulted a number of style guides to find that the most recently published manuscripts now all had adopted this style. You may also notice that nearly all historical sites on significant British aircraft, e.g. [[1]] will use this system. One of the other aspects of adopting a commonality is to move away from the inevitable mixing of different numbering systems. Bzuk 02:40, 19 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Following up on the site that you had given me, I noticed that the de Havilland Comet [[2]] used the new convention while all the other articles did not but seemed to be done by the same author. In checking, it turns out to be not a historian but a commercial site that was responsible: [3] Look at the following reputable site for the modern numbering system: Hawker Hurricane [4] Supermarine Spitfire [5] Avro Lancaster [6] Modern aircraft [7]

Bzuk 03:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]

I would tend to agree with you on your latest comments except for the fact there are more sources that now use the contemporary marking and designations. The site you indicated RAF Museum Aircraft Thesaurus, with a foreword by Dr. Michael A. Fopp, Director General has on the first page, at least four grammatical errors, two spelling mistakes and even two errors in his name, not a great start! LOL :} Bzuk 13:26, 24 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Oops Sea Mosquito missed that - thanks. Just to say sorry I changed the article to a table in the middle of your editing efforts ! - I just though it would make it clearer. MilborneOne 21:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I thought I'd heard of some PC compatibility issue with the 186 that meant it couldn't be used in clones, but I didn't remember any details. Guy Harris 23:38, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support - most of the air force articles appear to be in this format so I decided to change. I agree with your comment on "foreign designations" I will change the article. MilborneOne 21:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your changes regarding AH being Army Helicopter, I just wanted to make the point that the Apache is also an Army Helicopter, the military dont normally have two designation with different meaning. I just suspect that there is confusiuon with the american terminology. MilborneOne 10:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to say thanks for your new intro to the article fdisk. Daniel B. Sedory 17:52, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Letdorf,

I wanted to let you know that I was doing some editing (adding sections) on the Meiko Scientific article when I noticed that the CS-2 information in the separate article was almost verbatim so I merged the two. I felt it did not make sense to have both given the brevity of each article, but I do apologize if this bothers you since I noticed that you had been working on both articles.

I also think that Meiko Computing Surface and MeikOS should probably be merged into the Meiko article as well and that that would make it a much more comprehensive an encyclopedic article. If you like I could set up a sandbox page and work up an introductory summary and article mock-up we could work on together. Thank you.Awotter (talk) 19:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! It seems that you know the Alpha based systems well. Since the DEC 7000/10000 is the last of the early Alpha based systems without an article, I am wondering if you would be interested in a collaborative effort to write an article for it. If you are interested, just leave a message in my talk page and we'll sort out how to do it there. Thanks. Rilak (talk) 12:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just want to let you know I've got a bit of the article here. Rilak (talk) 13:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After reading through the article, I think that it has enough content to be released. If you agree, feel free to create the article. Also, thanks for your contributions to the article and the numerous corrections and suggestions. Rilak (talk) 15:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the late reply, I've haven't been able to get online lately. Anyways, I just wish to say thanks and happy editing! Rilak (talk) 05:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Offhand I don't recall any (notable...) Linux-only text editors (though before changing categories, I assume you do as I would, and inspect the source code). However, the same applies to the "Mac OS X Text editors" category - most of those listed are vanilla ports with no Mac OS X specific code. (OpenVMS and Windows are a different matter). Tedickey (talk) 15:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for correcting introduction dates. May I ask where you found those press releases? Just asking since I collect press releases from Digital. Rilak (talk) 11:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your numerous edits. They are most helpful. — Wackymacs (talk) 17:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I just want to let you know that I am currently attempting to expand the DECstation article. If you are interested, you may want to take a look at some of the new improvements that are going on. These improvements will (hopefully) cover the basic architecture of the systems and any significant TURBOchannel options in addition to presenting the information (for example, technical specifications in a less confusing manner. Thanks. Rilak (talk) 08:02, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.

We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.

You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Wikipedia:Meetup, for updates on future meets.

We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!

Addbot (talk) 21:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'm currently improving the table in AlphaStation to include more information about the systems. At the moment, I'm drafting a table in one of my subpages, so if you are interested, feel free to drop by User:Rilak/04. I'm planning to order the entries alphabetically and provide at least the year of introduction for all models, which means your scheme of ordering the entries by introduction date is unfortunately going to be dropped. I hope you don't mind. I also plan to improve the table in AlphaServer after I'm finished with the AlphaStation table. If you're not interested, just leave a message at my talk page so you won't get future notifications about major improvements to Digital-related articles. Thanks. Rilak (talk) 13:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been improved. I was unable to preserve the chronological ordering of entries as some models in the same family were introduced much later than the rest of the family, which I felt was too complicated to maintain. I've also split the table into multiple tables, each corresponding to a family or when there were not enough entries in a family, a group of families. I think organizing the article like this is better, as it makes future expansion (adding details, etc.) easier, as each family can have its own section with a table and a description. What do you think? Rilak (talk) 09:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware that the family name refers to the chipset code name, but I didn't add the family names, that was added before I started. I just took what was there, expanded and reorganized. As for the question marks, I think they should be replaced with information as well. However, the chipset information is hard to obtain, especially for systems made by Compaq and HP. What is problematic is that while some systems may have belonged to a family and should have used the chipset that corresponds to the code name, the system characteristics sometimes do not agree with the chipset's characteristics. For example, the ES40 can support up to four CPUs, but the Tsunami chipset, as far as I know, supported only two. Compaq's technical documents state that the ES40 uses a modified version of the DS20's chipset, but there is no indication as to what it is called. We could call it "custom" or something similar though. As for the dates, I'm doing adding data slowly, although the discontinued dates are nearly impossible to find. HP, I think, from USENET postings had a discontinued/end of support matrix with all the information, but that has been removed. It might be possible to use the Wayback Machine to find a copy, but it has frequent service outages and a search engine that doesn't appear to actually search the archive. Also, I cannot find any mention of the AlphaStation 205 except for in SPDs and open source documentation. I have my doubts as to whether it actually existed. Rilak (talk) 10:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! Just found out that the Tsunami could support four CPUs... please disregard. Rilak (talk) 11:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The AlphaStation 205 is a rather mysterious model... So far, I haven't seen any real evidence of AlphaStation 205. No documentation, news reports or even non-trivial USENET postings. There is no information as to what hardware it had, nothing. Filling out the entry for this model is going to be hard. Rilak (talk) 11:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I've said I would expand the DEC Alpha to include details about its architecture, so I've started. There are a few very incomplete bits here: User:Rilak/07. Regards. Rilak (talk) 08:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I've got drafts for articles about VAX microprocessors up at User:Rilak/06. Feel free to drop by and make a few edits if you wish. Regards. Rilak (talk) 08:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! In the AlphaStation article, my browser displays the first table wider than the rest even though the code used by all the tables is identical. I don't believe its a content issue (the content should fit in the specified column widths). If you have time, could you please take a look at it and see if made a mistake somewhere? Regards. Rilak (talk) 06:42, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a minor change but very well done. Thank you! Jeh (talk) 18:35, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Letdorf (talk) 11:24, 22 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Hi! I have created stub articles for the major VAX product lines. I hope to get basic information for them (dates, processor, memory, etc.) up in the next few weeks. Links to the articles are up at Template:DEC hardware. Regards. Rilak (talk) 11:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you have the time, could you please go over the VAX articles to see if the article structures are adequate? I have tried to layout the articles by grouping similar systems, but that might not be the best scheme. Thanks! Rilak (talk) 10:34, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The list of VAX computers in the VAX article has been moved to List of VAX computers, which still requires much work, such as sorting the entries and linking them to articles. I also have concerns about the VAX article. It seems to focus more on VAX computers and not the VAX architecture as it should. Should the offending content be moved elsewhere? That would leave the article rather short. Rilak (talk) 07:27, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's reasonable for the article to cover both the VAX ISA and the VAX family of systems, like the PDP-11 article does. Letdorf (talk) 15:02, 17 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Hello! Would you know the difference between the VAX 9000 Model 3x0 and Model 4x0 is? I am guessing it is clock frequency, but I have nothing to back my guess with. Rilak (talk) 14:12, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can't find many details, but both 300 and 400 seemed to use similar processor modules (KA940)[8] (compared to the Model 200's KA920) so maybe the difference was in number of busses/slots etc? BTW I've found some interesting documents here, though they don't answer your question. Letdorf (talk) 15:02, 17 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Well, the Model 210 had one XMI, the 410 and 420 had two XMI, the 430 and 440 had four XMI. It does not seem likely that the difference would be in buses at the moment, but I'll look into it. Was the 3x0 a phantom model? The only references to it I have found so far are in the NetBSD documentation and that does not elaborate on the details and archived SPDs. Rilak (talk) 08:23, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well it appears in several DEC Software Product Description documents (eg. [9]) but I guess that doesn't necessarily prove it actually existed! Letdorf (talk) 13:03, 18 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]

That's true, but I've found one third-party source which mentions the Model 300: [10]. It appears to refer to the system as a "VAXserver [9000] Model 310". A search for "VAXserver 9000" returns: [11], which confirms the existence of the Model 300. The Model 300 should probably be mentioned in the VAXserver article, which needs to be expanded anyway.

On an other note, what would be a good course to take in regards to the DEC 7000/10000 AXP and VAX 7000/10000? I had previously moved VAX-related content out of the DEC 7000 article, but looking back, it appears to have been a poor decision as it would be a better idea to cover both platforms in one article to avoid duplication (and there is duplication of content already, some parts of the VAX 7000 differ from the DEC 7000 in a few places). If merged, the article layout needs to be rethought, so their are no prerequisites (discussing one thing before it is explained). Your input would be valued. Rilak (talk) 13:33, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sinclair Research has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Articles are typically reviewed for one week. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here. Ruslik (talk) 08:26, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		The Template Barnstar
		For efforts far "above and beyond" in trying to maintain the Template:FOSS in some form of comprehensible rationality - Ahunt (talk) 23:38, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem - credit where due. Sanity might yet prevail! - Ahunt (talk) 23:46, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to jump in there again! Template_talk:FOSS#Changes !! - Ahunt (talk) 00:40, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After catching up on recent developments, I think the template should be quiet and stable now. I have removed "related" material from the template, please check the template's revision history for my reasons. Perhaps we should archive the ridiculous amount of drama to give others a fresh slate to work from.

By the way, I have noticed you have a page of quotations of the drama that has graced the 'pedia for most of the year. You may find this "lecture" on the innards of CPU operation to be of interest, where multiple bizarre claims are made, without sources of course, although there was an acknowledgement that part of it was wrong and fortunately, no incivility. It should be noted that this was posted at the Chipset article.

Lastly, thanks for keeping the template in question sane. Rilak (talk) 10:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that you should be aware of a recent edit at Talk:Random-access_memory#See_Also_section. More drama? I hope not. Rilak (talk) 04:28, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch on the SUNMOS -> Catamount heritage on the Cray XT3 page. I've updated the SUNMOS page with a description of the numerous descendants of SUNMOS based on the historical paper, Lightweight kernels for capability computing, as well as some comparisons of OSF/1 to SUNMOS on the Paragon. Autopilot (talk) 17:31, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for tweaking the colours - didn't realise how far off I'd been until I saw it on another monitor when compared to your version. Nice one. Endrick Shellycoat 22:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Letdorf. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. You can find the specific section here.

To clarify, you are not the subject of the ANI, but you have been previously involved in or have commented on this or a related ANI. Thank you for your time. Jeh (talk) 07:56, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed the removal of content at Template:N-bit and I've reverted the latest occurrence. I've left a message at the editor's talk page asking him/her to discuss it first at Template talk:N-bit. Rilak (talk) 06:28, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that! Letdorf (talk) 14:01, 27 December 2008 (UTC).[reply]

When WAS this keyboard introduced? Midway into AT?? Early AT's have left-hand function keys. Bachcell (talk) 23:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the change of category on this - the FAA is relevant. The RNHF isn't strictly a "museum" as it's not open to the public, but I had trouble finding a category for this sort of establishment, ie, preserved aircraft. Any ideas? Folks at 137 (talk) 11:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Aviation history? Letdorf (talk).

Thanks for helping out with cloud computing. -- samj _in^out 00:47, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, enough already with the intro thing... it's like $!#@%($ groundhog day and we've finally found something relatively stable that fits with the consensus view and trying to refine it further than it has been already causes upset, edit wars and yet more discussions like the one we're having. Thanks. -- samj _in^out 01:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Letdorf. The correct name of this vehicle is Audi Sportback Concept with a capitol C. It's a proper name and it how it is written in all official press releases of the vehicle from Audi. This is actually a pretty common occurrence with a lot of manufactures when releasing preview or concept vehicles. Example of this are the Chevrolet GPiX Concept, Chevrolet Camaro Concept, Honda Sports Concept, Lincoln C Concept, Volkswagen BlueSport Concept‎, and Cadillac Converj Concept. roguegeek (talk·cont) 17:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ummmm, no, it isn't [12]. Letdorf (talk) 17:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Hello! I have identified a major mistake in the DEC 2000 AXP article. Firstly, the article text claims that the DECpc AXP 150 is a development of the DEC 2000 AXP. This is incorrect, the DECpc was developed first and the 2000 is a DECpc marketed as a server, which the DTJ article in the References section supports. If the text is corrected now, the title would be a problem as it implies that the 2000 is the primary subject, which it is not, as it is a variation of the DECpc. This mistake is the result of my hasty research when the article was created. I intend to correct it by revising the text and moving DEC 2000 AXP to DECpc AXP 150 (currently a redirect to DEC 2000 AXP). Any comments?

I also intend to expand the article after its faults are corrected to include more information regarding the machine's history, specifically its development and code name ("Jensen" is a reference to a sports car, the DTJ article claims).

Regards. Rilak (talk) 06:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So you think renaming the article is a good idea? Rilak (talk) 04:52, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really have any strong feelings either way... I don't have any objective evidence to hand to say whether the DECpc AXP was sold in greater numbers than the DEC 2000 AXP (and hence could be considered the preferred "common name", per WP:NAME), but I suspect so. Letdorf (talk) 12:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]

If the common name must be taken into consideration, a Google search for "DECpc AXP 150" returns 1,710 results whereas "DEC 2000 AXP" returns 62 results. A Google News search of the same terms returns 13 results for the first and none for the second. However, most news sources did not refer to the machine by name but by "Alpha PC" and similar. Also, the DTJ refers to the machine as the DECpc, and "DEC 2000 AXP" is mentioned as a footnote explaining that the 2000 is a variant. It would seem that DECpc is the common name. Rilak (talk) 04:48, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, "DECpc AXP 150" it is then! Letdorf (talk) 16:47, 25 January 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Hi there. Whilst I agree with your edits to the text of the above article at 11:18, 12 January 2009, I wouldn't clasify the images as POV. (One of which I uploaded myself.) I added both back onto the article. Many thanks for cleaning it up. All the best. D.de.loinsigh (talk) 03:06, 17 February 2009

True, the images aren't themselves non-NPOV, but I expect their captions will attract some attention sooner or later! Letdorf (talk) 14:02, 17 February 2009 (UTC).[reply]

I see that you have taken an interest in other articles that I also edit - I guess we have similar interests. Your recent edit outing me personally in the Save the Netbooks article followed 2 minutes later by your attempt to discredit both article and author by affixing the COI cleanup template are, however, neither productive nor appreciated. I deliberately did not promote myself so as to avoid such accusations and believe the article to be well balanced. If you disagree then please cite specific areas that are lacking NPOV and/or fix them yourself but don't apply a blanket cleanup tag intended "for tagging articles affected by conflict of interest that may be candidates for deletion" (remember COI is not justification for deletion). -- samj _in^out 15:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added my comments on the talk page. Basically, COI isn't just about self-promotion, it's also about promoting an author's "business or personal interests". Since you seem to have made the Netbook trademark your personal interest, COI would appear to apply. To quote WP:COI again. Activities regarded by insiders as simply "getting the word out" may appear promotional or propagandistic to the outside world. If you edit articles while involved with organizations that engage in advocacy in that area, you may have a conflict of interest. As for Template:COI, it merely states that "A major contributor to this article appears to have a conflict of interest with its subject.", which I believe to be true. Letdorf (talk) 15:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC).[reply]

The template is a cleanup template designed to improve article quality, not a long term branding for editors to use to discredit articles and their authors (as you have clearly attempted to do here). I reject that there is a conflict but even if there were then feel free to identify and/or fix specific NPOV issues with the article. -- samj _in^out 15:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you really just don't give up, do you... -- samj _in^out 04:29, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi; first, great work on Military aircraft insignia. I was wondering, though, would it be a better idea to wikilink the roundels to the respective national air forces rather than the countries? Seems to me more natural this way, as that people may be more interested in the article about the air force. I'd be happy to do it; just wanted your take on it before making such a big change. Paxsimius (talk) 02:27, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention Iran, which has one roundel for their air force, naval aviation, army aviation, and the Air Force of the Army of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution. I agree, it's rather sticky when there's more than one potential target for a wikilink. Perhaps there's an elegant solution to be explored; I'll ponder this for a while. Paxsimius (talk) 20:25, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I like your suggestion and was already starting to think in that direction. I'll check into it and maybe get started on that soon. I work on Wikipedia better when I have little easy projects with a definite goal, and this fits the bill. Paxsimius (talk) 18:53, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting article, you should nominate it at T:TDYK and WP:MILCON; also, you may want to spend some time and work on commons:Category:Insignia. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message - but i am correct as i work for 32 (The Royal) squadron at Northolt. ZE702 was a 200 series aircraft and it was disposed of during defence budget guts in the late 1990s, ZE700 & 701 were retained for their interchangability. 702 was able to carry more pax and was slightly different inside, these differences made it less practical for servicability issues that the 100 series aircraft.

These fact were previously mentioned on the RAF Northolt website but the site has now been updated and the info removed.

Regards

msa1701 (talk) 13:42, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Yak-28MST, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Fictional archive with no assertion of notability or sources. Fails WP:NOTE.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Farix (Talk) 00:45, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You will be pleased to know that the article previously changed to MG Motor by me has been renamed toMG Cars. I have changed the company name on the info box to 'MG Motor UK Limited because that is the official name. I also did the same with the first word of the article. --Thomas G 06:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

[13] Please, instead of aggressive deletition, be constructive, and rather repair the pronunciation into the correct form. Thanks. --Franta Oashi (talk) 22:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I had already discussed this issue on the talk page. My point is not that the pronunciation is wrong, rather that there is no justification for prescribing a specific pronunciation in this article. Letdorf (talk) 12:09, 23 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Hi Letdorf - many thanks for moving the Volkswagen Group factories article :-) 78.32.143.113 (talk) 15:16, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#VAG and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requesting Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, DES (talk) 14:43, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that you removed occam from the "Influenced by" table. You did not, correctly as far as I understand, remove it in the intro, where it is set correctly in the family tree. Occam is mentioned in the Language FAQ. I agree that Limbo should be in the "Influenced by", but then Limbo is/was a concurrency-wise almost blue copy of occam. (Syntax was almost equal: "chan of", "protocol", "!", "?" as far as I can remember, with _similar_ semantics). I wrote an email to the Limbo people at that time (nineties), informing them that they failed to mentioned "influenced by" CSP and occam. I am not certain if they were particularly observant about roots at all. And Rob Pike is involved in both Limbo and Go. If you feel that occam should be added into "influenced by" again, I would not be the one to remove it!-)--Øyvind Teig (talk) 07:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I de-emphasised occam in the article as I think it's fair to say Go is more directly influenced by Pike's previous languages such as Newsqueak and Limbo, although these do (as you say) in turn, owe something to CSP and occam. It's a fairly minor distinction, though. Letdorf (talk) 13:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]

This should either help or make things worse. :) Please keep your communication skills at their typical exemplary level. ;) Franamax (talk) 03:44, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your help! Letdorf (talk) 10:39, 5 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]

As you have seen the cloud computing LEDE discussion was kicked off again and rather than allow it to become another goat rodeo and then revert to something imprecise but accurate, I worked with other editors to come up with something that I think has a decent amount of both precision and accuracy (that is, it's about as good as I think we're going to get). There was some discussion about the term "utility" and whether we should like to the public utility article or bridge to it via utility computing - I prefer the latter option but mentioning "public" is just going to kick off a war about public vs private and I'd very much prefer that the LEDE were stable so we can focus on improving the rest of the article (for example, the criticism section). -- samj _in^out 13:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, let's take this to the article talk page. -- samj _in^out 13:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, best to discuss the matter on the talk page. I was following the discussion there, but missed the latest comments. Letdorf (talk) 13:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]

I wrote three sections under "Partition table backup techniques", which you deleted, writing that it looked too much like howto instructions. I don't think you have a rock-solid case there. I was aware of that policy when I wrote it and I was attempting to "present facts" as the policy requires, although I'm not sure why anyone would want to read those particular facts were they not interested in doing something with them. But it wasn't like an annoying step-by-step wikiHow article. Policies aside, I can't imagine why you would think the Disk partitioning article is better without this information. Lumenos (talk) 06:10, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

However I note that your wikishwarts appears to be larger than mine. I'd rather not put so much effort into editing if you are going to do nothing but delete anything that might be construed as violating a policy that is so fundamental to Wikipedia's proper functioning. Perhaps you could reveal your intentions if you happen to browse over one of the following articles:

Is there any point adding useful facts to this article -> Dd_(unix) or this one -> Multi-boot? Lumenos (talk) 06:10, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look at this -> Reliant Rialto, no sources in complete defiance of policy!?!?!? Should we nominate for deletion? Lumenos (talk) 06:10, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I admit I was a little bold in deleting that section (more so than I usually am), but boldness can be a good thing - see WP:BB. I still stand by the assertion that it was a bit too much like HOWTO-type material for a WP article - to quote WP:NOT, In any encyclopedia, information cannot be included solely for being true or useful. In addition, this article is about the concept of disk partitioning in general, and not specifically about MBR partition tables on PCs. Going into detail about specific techniques involved in managing MBR partition tables seems inappropriate in this article. It might be slightly more appropriate in the Master Boot Record article. I am happy to discuss any of my edits with other users. Feel free to edit any article as you see fit, and I shall do the same. If we find ourselves disagreeing, we can discuss it. That's pretty much how WP is supposed to work! Letdorf (talk) 22:00, 27 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]

This "boldness" is probably much less a waste of time if you are only deleting things and not creating or re-writing. :-) If I don't find some (temporary) "consensus" or at least tolerance, my boldness requires vigilant protection and/or it gets flushed down the toilet. WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle doesn't exactly sound like it is suggesting deleting multiple sections that are accurate and useful, so that other people can get to work making them perfect. What I do, if I think such a large amount should be removed or rewritten, I move it to the talk page and comment on everything I have moved. I have computer related health problems (shocking isn't it?); while I suppose I enjoy this and I think my new edits have improved Wikipedia, this is painful and bad for my health. I don't know if you have read the entire article, but I least the sections I wrote are accurate AFAIK. Many other places the article confuses the advantages of creating backups with "partitioning". Lumenos (talk) 02:39, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have suggested it may be more appropriate for the MBR article. However, EBR's are not in the MBR so instead I made partition table and put it there. (I would have done so initially but partition table was redirecting to disk partitioning.) Is this alright? Lumenos (talk) 02:39, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Along with "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia", one of the very pillars is "Ignore all rules". To interpret or synergize these two principles in context of each other, I conclude that we should not simply follow or enforce rules, because they are rules, but should seek an underlying purpose/benefit of the rule. Although IAR may seem to permit completely ignoring another rule, this would obviously be a contradiction in policy and could lead to edit warring or other such inefficiencies. But another possibility is that the purpose/intention of the rule may not be entirely obvious, and thus to follow it "to the letter" would not necessarily achieve its goal. Maybe I would agree with the policy I am considering ignoring, if I can see what exactly are the undesirable howto instructions. Therefore I ask, what are the desirable qualities of an "encyclopedia", that can not be achieved (as efficiently) with (certain) "howto" instructions? Before you reply to my next statement, please reveal whether you agree with this premise. Lumenos (talk) 02:39, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A step-by-step list (as may be seen at wikiHow) are often unnecessarily simplistic or assume a number of conditions that may not be the case. My edits are nothing like that. They state facts about what (free) software does, etc. But I rewrote it a bit anyway, for example, changing "Partition table backup techniques" to "Backup of a primary partition table and extended partition"; you know, more fact-like, less instruction-like. This is tedious. Perhaps you could show me how to include this information without it looking like "instructions" (as if this is more important than all those inaccuracies in the article)? Lumenos (talk) 02:39, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I should probably have discussed my objections on the talk page first, but I currently have 870 pages on my watchlist, so it is perhaps inevitable that I will make some slight errors of judgement occasionally when reviewing edits. I am sorry if my actions have caused you distress, but one must try not to get too emotionally attached to any contributions one makes to WP - note well the warning given on editing pages that If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here. (my emphasis). The WP:NOTHOWTO rule is not specifically about step-by-step instructions; it states more generally: Wikipedia is an encyclopedic reference, not an instruction manual, guidebook, or textbook. IMHO, an "encyclopedic reference" doesn't go into great detail about practical advice on specific technical tasks, especially in an article which should (again, IMHO) be giving a broad overview of a general concept which is, and has been, employed in a wide variety of computer systems both current and historical. There are plenty of other places on the Internet where this kind of content is more appropriate. As WP:NOT says, the generally accepted inclusion criteria for WP demand more than just truth or usefulness. Letdorf (talk) 12:43, 29 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]

PS. I have no idea what a "wikishwart" is. Letdorf (talk) 12:46, 29 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Wikishwarts is a reference to the movie Space Balls... you're perhaps more familiar with the term "light saber"... er nevermind, just a stupid joke. Lumenos (talk) 02:01, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The sections I put in partition table (in fact most of my edits on computers) don't tell you how to do things, they tell you how things are done... uum, okay let's just say for the sake of argument that you have the correct interpretation of that one little policy. I would suggest then that there may be a conflict between policies. Lumenos (talk) 02:01, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a policy that is... uuh very clear, and it is currently only one line long: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." Does this not explicitly infer that any rule may be contrary to improving Wikipedia? I didn't make up these (perhaps ridiculous) rules, I'm merely attempting to follow them to the best of my ability. :-) "...If the rules truly prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore them. Disagreements are resolved through consensus-based discussion, rather than through tightly sticking to rules and procedures." You yourself have suggested that my sections may be: "practical", "true", and "useful". Those sound like improvements to me! The sections clearly indicate the content, so if a reader isn't looking for that information, they can easily skip it. If the article was well developed or if it was getting too long, I think it would then be appropriate to move "less notable" or less "encyclopedic" information, elsewhere (eventually probably Wikiversity). The question I have is, does ignoring the rule against having "instructions", improve some articles, for the time being? Lumenos (talk) 02:01, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not complaining that you mercilessly edited, I'm saying I simply can't do a YouDelete-MeRewrite-bold-edit-cycle for very long (although I do, but that certainly isn't your fault). Thus I'm trying to discuss and predict your next move, instead of doing much editing. Also I noticed I did a few edits there (probably past my bedtime); one I think you were good to delete and another was a citation needed where I was foolishly trying to re-interpret the previous editor. Lumenos (talk) 02:01, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the differences we are having are over my preference for specific examples (eg "viewable from Windows Explorer"), and your preference for generalizations (eg "viewable as a normal filesystem"). I have long thought that specific examples are more enlightening than generalizations, because generalizations tend to be ambiguous and less accessible to laymen like me. I would probably use both, except, as you have noted encyclopedia's are usually more concise. This is probably the main reason I see a big conflict between trying to be too "encyclopedic" vs trying to improve Wikipedia by writing clearly. Lumenos (talk) 02:01, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I put a more technical question here. Lumenos (talk) 02:01, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But what does "improving Wikipedia" mean? That depends on what you think WP is. If you think WP should be a global repository of all and any information and advice that might be useful to someone, somewhere, then improving it could mean adding as much information that might be useful as you can. I get the impression that this is your idea of what WP should be (correct me if I'm wrong). On the other hand, IMHO, "improving Wikipedia" is (partly) about making WP more like an encyclopedia, and to do that we have to be judicious in deciding what material is and isn't appropriate for an encyclopedia. This is exactly what the WP:NOT policy is about too. I don't like to get into edit wars with other users, which is why I'm trying to explain my stance here. Maybe a third opinion would help here to clarify what can and can't be considered "improving" WP - somewhere like WP:CNB might be a good place to ask for one. As for specific examples vs. generalizations, IMHO, it is important to be accurate about the context in which abstract concepts exist, otherwise it can be misleading to the reader. Hence, I thought "as a normal filesystem" was a better description than "from Windows Explorer", since Windows filesystems do not exist purely within the context of Windows Explorer. I do understand the importance of using familiar reference points though, but it can be tricky to strike the right balance between allowing the reader to understand and making sure the reader understands correctly. Letdorf (talk) 12:41, 30 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]

I understood why you made the generalization; I'm making a radical generalization that ambiguity is worse than inaccuracy. And I provided one whole example to prove it! ;-) However, I agree with what you are saying and it is probably possible to incorporate both most of the time. Lumenos (talk) 11:33, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike some of Wikipedia's supposed policies, I don't take an authoritarian definition of what Wikipedia is. It is many things that we may or may not want it to be, because it is editable by any reader and "speedy deletion" is only required for a few things. The "superwiki" is able to compete with Google, Usenet, and internet forums, as the first place people search for or post information. Some wiki should (and probably will) be the superwiki, for the multiplying benefits that come from the network effects and the economies of scale. There was some dream for a "Wikia Search", to compete with Google, but Wikipedia is a much more likely candidate. Jimbo et al would probably rather prod all of us into using their for-profit Wikia, but what control do we have of the ads they feed those who don't use effective ad-blocking software? Lumenos (talk) 11:33, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do think Wikipedia should have content limits, but that these would ideally be customized by consensus, not universal rules made up by people who are completely unaware of the content in question. Where consensus can't be reached, I think the coverage in reliable sources is more significant than coverage in sources that are published by third-parties and thus I think that we would have to do extensive research to establish who the reliable sources actually are. In the mean time, it is usually easier to verify individual facts rather than sources (for controversial information). Since "widespread coverage in reliable sources..." can't be established yet, when there is not consensus, probably the best we can do to avoid edit wars is to advocate waiting till the opponent may have lost interest, and try the edit again. Lumenos (talk) 11:33, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a problem with current WP policies, I'm sure there are places you can discuss such things with other Wikipedians. I, for the most part, am happy to play by the rules here. Letdorf (talk) 13:34, 2 April 2010 (UTC).[reply]

It seems we interpret policies differently or prefer different policies. In accordance with wp:Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, I try to find consensus rather than following rules for their own sake. Lumenos (talk) 02:33, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In partition table (master boot record), I think all ommisions are explicit. Perhaps we have consensus that this content seems to be more beneficial than detrimental (at least until the article is developed to the point of a "good" article, at which time the "partition table backup" section may be moved to Wikiversity). Lumenos (talk) 15:44, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]