User talk:matthiaspaul

List of abbreviations in photography

Hello! Thanks for your useful contributions to the list of photographic abbreviations, which I started some months ago. For a long time I seemed to be the only one working on it. I'm glad to have other expertise to enlarge it and correct errors. I set up the list when returning to serious photography in the digital age, after a long absence from 35mm film photography. I found the numerous abbreviations that were bandied about on the digital discussion groups baffling, so I began to list them, partly to educate myself, and partly because newcomers like myself seemed not to have easy access to listed explanations. All help welcome! martinev (talk) 13:59, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you as well. --Matthiaspaul (talk)

Old edit authorship info

Just for the records, this is to acknowledge that the following IP edits in the English Wikipedia belong to myself (just in case questions would arise in regard to them and someone wanted to contact me):

• 1 edit under IP 84.63.54.118 on 2006-11-05T03:53:55 on article:

Carl Zeiss AG

• 5 edits under IP 84.63.15.78 between 2007-02-11T02:42:21‎ and 2007-02-11T02:54:00‎ on article:

Carl Zeiss AG

• 2 edits under IP 84.63.26.89 between 2007-02-11T03:10:22‎ and 2007-02-11T03:14:18‎ on article:

Carl Zeiss AG

• 3 edits under IP 80.137.104.82 between 2007-02-12T05:45:50 and 2007-02-12T05:57:16 on articles:

Carl Zeiss AG, Minolta AF

• 13 edits under IP 84.63.32.95 between 2007-02-12T19:07:21 and 2007-02-12T19:56:24 on articles:

Carl Zeiss AG

• 1 edit under IP 84.63.35.82 on 2007-02-25T13:10:07‎ on article:

Carl Zeiss AG

• 3 edits under IP 84.63.52.179 between 2007-02-28T11:07:20 and 2007-02-28T11:09:35‎ on article:

Carl Zeiss AG

• 2 edits under IP 84.63.10.5 between 2007-03-01T12:34:15 and 2007-03-01T12:37:03 on article:

Carl Zeiss AG

• 1 edit under IP 84.63.56.115 on 2007-03-03T21:21:48‎ on article:

Carl Zeiss AG

• 1 edit under IP 84.63.16.87 on 2007-03-09T03:14:29 on article:

Carl Zeiss AG

• 2 edits under IP 84.63.7.199 between 2007-07-19T00:40:04 and 2007-07-19T00:45:27 on article:

Carl Zeiss AG

• 4 edits under IP 84.63.51.146 between 2007-07-20T23:43:59 and 2007-07-21T00:20:55 on article:

Carl Zeiss AG

• 1 edit under IP 84.63.43.156 on 2007-09-08T06:09:28 on article:

Carl Zeiss AG

• 1 edit under IP 84.63.24.232 on 2007-10-03T00:08:35 on article:

Bokeh

• 1 edit under IP 84.63.4.241 on 2007-11-10T18:35:26 on article:

Carl Zeiss AG

• 2 edits under IP 84.63.55.36 between 2007-11-11T01:42:21 and 2007-11-11T01:44:28 on article:

Carl Zeiss AG

• 2 edits under IP 84.63.25.174 between 2009-07-20T22:39:24 and 2009-07-21T10:11:56 on article:

SilverFast

• 2 edits under IP 84.63.19.99 between 2009-07-29T01:12:21‎ and 2009-07-29T01:13:56‎ on article:

SilverFast

• 33 edits under IP 84.63.52.9 between 2009-10-01T17:58:20 and 2009-10-09T19:03:37 on articles:

Video Floppy, Sony Mavica, Full-frame digital SLR, Talk:Sony Alpha, Crop factor, Talk:Crop factor, Herbert Keppler, Kodak DCS Pro 14n, Kodak DCS Pro SLR/n, Kodak DCS Pro SLR/c, Talk:Nikon D3, Template:Konica Minolta/Sony DSLR cameras

• 9 edits under IP 84.63.26.178 between 2009-10-13T03:26:16 and 2009-10-17T17:06:50 on articles:

Bulb (photography), Talk:Bulb (photography), Full-frame digital SLR, Sony Alpha, Template:Nikon DSLR cameras

• 2 edits under IP 88.77.199.34 between 2010-07-03T20:57:11 and 2010-07-03T21:23:58 on article:

Herbert Keppler

• 5 edits under IP 88.77.213.52 between 2010-07-20T12:37:09 and 2010-07-20T12:55:57 on articles:

Sony Mavica, Sony E-mount

• 1 edit under IP 88.77.193.105 on 2010-10-17T18:33:01‎ on article:

Antibes

• 2 edits under IP 88.77.204.184 between 2010-10-17T18:56:36 and 2010-10-17T19:04:20 on articles:

File talk:Château Grimaldi, Antibes, Alpes-Maritimes, France.jpg

• 2 edits under IP 88.77.222.170 between 2010-10-17T22:54:42 and 2010-10-17T23:03:02 on articles:

Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Photography workshop, File talk:Château Grimaldi, Antibes, Alpes-Maritimes, France.jpg

• 1 edit under IP 84.63.115.171 on 2010-12-18T17:16:19‎ on article:

DX encoding

• 1 edit under IP 88.76.55.197 on 2011-02-26T16:32:50 on article:

Mercury battery

• 7 edits under IP 88.76.59.246 between 2011-04-03T20:18:29 and 2011-04-04T17:30:29 and on articles:

Ultrasonic motor, SSM, SDM, HSM, Xsm, USD

• 4 edits under IP 88.77.214.179 between 2011-05-01T21:25:00 and 2011-05-01T22:57:12 on articles:

AARD code, Talk:AARD code

• 3 edits under IP 92.72.226.118 between 2011-05-04T03:52:31 and 2011-05-04T13:21:53 on article:

iISO flash shoe

• 1 edit under IP 88.76.47.138 on 2011-04-25T03:38:20‎ on article:

Ian Cullimore

• 12 edits under IP 84.63.113.180 between 2011-07-11T01:50:44 and 2011-07-10T19:46:56 on articles:

Shutter priority, Mode dial, Aperture priority, f-number

• 5 edits under IP 88.77.195.147 between 2011-07-11T11:16:39 and 2011-07-11T20:43:36 on articles:

f-number, Talk:f-number

• 2 edits under IP 88.77.221.243 between 2011-07-12T19:02:55 and 2011-07-12T19:04:26 on article:

APEX system

• 1 edit under IP 88.76.63.184 on 2011-07-14T19:36:23‎ on article:

Film speed

• 5 edits under 88.76.55.125 between 2011-07-23T02:25:55 and 2011-07-23T03:14:50 on article:

DX encoding

• 1 edit under 88.77.214.88 on 2011-07-23T13:07:53 on article:

DX encoding

• 3 edits under IP 88.77.217.152 between 2011-07-24T13:49:32 and 2011-07-24T20:50:05 on article:

Film speed

• 35 edits under IP 88.77.217.84 between 2011-07-25T10:53:40 and 2011-07-26T05:20:14 on articles:

Film speed, Talk:Film speed, Template:ISO standards, List of DIN standards, ISO 518, List of International Organization for Standardization standards, International Organization for Standardization

• 9 edits under IP 88.76.53.220 between 2011-07-26T10:43:59 and 2011-07-26T18:22:45 on articles:

Film speed, Talk:Film speed

• 2 edits under IP 88.77.219.92 between 2011-07-26T21:22:06 and 2011-07-26T23:31:50 on articles:

Julius Scheiner, Talk:Film speed

• 43 edits under IP 84.63.121.25 between 2011-07-27T09:31:48 and 2011-07-28T05:22:38 on articles:

Film speed, Edward Weston (disambiguation), Weston, Edward Weston (chemist), Weston (surname), Ge, HD, SCH, Deutsches Institut für Normung, Ferdinand Hurter, Vero Charles Driffield, Hurter and Driffield

• 26 edits under IP 88.77.212.191 between 2011-07-28T11:04:33 and 2011-07-29T01:14:22 on articles:

Film speed, Photographic film, Talk:Film speed

• 7 edits under IP 88.77.198.150 between 2011-07-29T10:29:39 and 2011-07-29T11:58:30 on articles:

Film speed, Hurter and Driffield, Talk:Film speed

• 38 edits under IP 88.77.221.103 between 2011-07-30T13:18:48 and 2011-07-31T05:23:27 on articles:

Film speed, Hurter and Driffield, Josef Maria Eder, Edward Weston (chemist), ISO 6, ISO 2240, ISO 5800, Ferdinand Hurter, Vero Charles Driffield, American National Standards Institute, ISO 12232, Talk:Film speed , Goodwin (surname), Talk:Howard N. Potts Medal, Goodwin, Leon Warnerke, Sensitometry

• 20 edits under IP 88.77.216.217 between 2011-07-31T12:31:54 and 2011-08-01T00:44:51 on articles:

Josef Maria Eder, Film speed, Talk:Film speed, Leon Warnerke, Edward Weston (chemist)

• 5 edits under IP 88.77.222.188 between 2011-08-01T11:15:00 and 2011-08-01T17:19:41 on articles:

Film speed, Canon A-1, Focal-plane shutter

• 19 edits under IP 84.63.123.118 between 2011-08-02T11:18:41 and 2011-08-03T01:12:31 on articles:

Hurter and Driffield, Film speed, Loyd A. Jones, Ferdinand Hurter, Vero Charles Driffield, Josef Maria Eder, Alfred Watkins, Leon Warnerke, Julius Scheiner

• 12 edits under IP 88.77.201.19 between 2011-08-03T10:40:56 and 2011-08-03T14:20:49 on articles:

Josef Maria Eder, Film speed, William de Wiveleslie Abney, Film speed, Sensitometry, Talk:Kodachrome, Edward Weston (chemist)

• 2 edits under IP 84.63.151.108 between 2022-12-28T14:20:50 and 2022-12-28T14:22:59 on articles:

Riesending cave, Skyfall (disambiguation)

I do no longer use these dynamic IPs and do not claim authorship of edits under these IPs before or after the specified date ranges above.

There were more contributions in the English as well as in foreign-language Wikipedias, in particular the German Wikipedia, but it is difficult to remember them after all these years. So far, the earliest edit I could track back was on 2005-07-02. Mostly for my own curiosity I'll continue to document them when I happen to stumble upon them, but perhaps it will become technically possible to merge such IP edits into a user account somewhen in the future. We'll see.

--Matthiaspaul (talk)

MIRRORLESS INTERCHANGEABLE LENS CAMERAS (MILCS)

Hi, Matthias. I think you have not really understood the implications of fully including Pentax Q into the MILC cathegory. In fact, MILCs were originally designed "to provide SRL-like image in a small body", whereas - due to its sensor - Pentax Q is just a "compact camera with interchangeable lenses", with no image-quality advantage over remaining compact cameras. Therefore, by including it in MILCS you are actually changing the original definition of MILCs !! A very vague and poor definition, I agree, because no reference to a "large sensor" is contained in the MILC acronim. Nonetheless if you want to use MILC for what it literally means, and apply it to all mirrorless interchangeable-lenses cameras, you can not stop by editing the introduction: you have to edit all subsequent paragraphs stating that MILCs provide a better image than compact camera do !! Not all "your MILCs" do !! So either you proceed to editing the whole article, or it should be reverted to its previous state. Now it is contradictory and false. Marcus MarcusGR (talk) 17:47, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Marcus. The problem with the original definition of MILC is that there is none. Please point me to an authorative source where it is defined, I'm quite sure you won't find one. The term is made up, therefore, vague. And that's why different people have different ideas of what it might stand for. As far as I am concerned, I interpret it literally and do not see any implied meaning such as "larger sensor than in compact digital cameras", "better quality than in compacts", "DSLR-like quality" in it. That's just marketing speak and not relevant for the article. Therefore I suggest to keep the intro of the article free of any implied assumptions. After all, WP is an encyclopedia, and we should be very careful in our wording to not coin new terms and meanings ourselves or to let WP become an instrument of viral marketing. If there are multiple real or assumed meanings of the term, we should not brush the article in one way or the other (which would only create new bias) but discuss these different definitions further down in the article (but not in the intro, it just doesn't belong in there). And we should be careful to use neutral language. To be honest, my interest in the article is limited (for as long as it remains in the generally bad state as it is), I just saw way too much distracting jargon and rumor mill showing up in the intro, and therefore tried to suggest some more encyclopedic direction how to further develop the article. You seem to be eager to contribute to the article, so please go ahead, but perhaps try to use a bit less "enthusiastic" language given that this is not a forum or such, but an encyclopedia. All the best. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 12:18, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Dimensions of photometric units

Hi Matthiaspaul. Can you answer the question at Template talk:SI light units#Dimension column incorrect?, about the Dimensions column you added to Template:SI light units?--Srleffler (talk) 03:11, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Answer given on discussion page. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 12:18, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:VPT

Thank you for clearing my WP:VPT mis-edit. At least now I know where my typings went. -DePiep (talk) 21:15, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

;-) Glad I could help out. I guess this has happened to all of us at times... --Matthiaspaul (talk)

Barnstar

		The Copyright Cleanup Barnstar
		For your good work in locating and removing the copyvios on USB 3.0. Yunshui 雲水 09:15, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 09:15, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Matthiaspaul. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:India Education Program.
Message added 10:11, 31 October 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

IEP clean up

Hi. If you come across many disruptive IP edits that geolocate to India, or if individual IPs have a history of persistent disruption, particularly on such articles as Five-Year plans of India, please let me know directly and I will consider sem-protecting the page and/or blocking the offenders. Thanks. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:38, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Yep. --Matthiaspaul (talk)

Your request for rollback

Hi Matthiaspaul. After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war.
• If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
• Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Swarm ^X 20:04, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

P.S. Thank you for your cleanup efforts, and keep up the good work. Swarm ^X 20:04, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. --Matthiaspaul (talk)

Two barnstars for the price of one! (How often do you see that?)

		The da Vinci Barnstar
		Incredible job keeping the Template:SI radiometry units template so technically accurate! Vaughan Pratt (talk) 06:58, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

		The Template Barnstar
		and moreover it's a template so you get the great-template barnstar too Vaughan Pratt (talk) 06:58, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally you might like to critique the analysis at Planck's law#Crash_course_in_radiometry in case you see any opportunities for corrections, improvements, etc. This article has been under seige since Oct. 13, accounting for the abnormal level of traffic at its talk page since then. --Vaughan Pratt (talk) 06:58, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

What a nice surprise, thanks. ;-) I'm very busy right now, but I'll have a look when time allows. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 09:15, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Multiple inheritance

Hi. Thank you for replying. I consider the community's concern over this very serious issue of copyvio. I know many of my course mates have done that which is really sad. I apolozise on their behalf. But I dont understand the need of removing my contents entirely from the page even when it was not a confirmed copyvio. I mean what will I show to my instructor? My project deadline has also elapsed. Please tell me what should I do. Also our instructor has informed has to stop all the further edits on wikipedia. I guess this answers your question. RAJATPASARI (talk) 08:07, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Answer given on talk page. I hope this can be sorted out for you, Rajat. --Matthiaspaul (talk)

"unexplained addition of tags"

I gave an explanation, in the first parameter of {{prod}}: in my opinion, the articles I tagged did not meet the notability criteria. Maybe I should have been somewhat more verbose: I could not find significant coverage in multiple, reliable sources, and I seriously doubt one could find any (and by the way, "Doscore" most probably has been created in violation of WP:COI, but I decided not to bring this up; failing to be notable should be enough). After all, if the articles' subjects were notable, adding reliable sources to them would be easy, right? But that is precisely what you did not do, even though the burden of proof on whether content is verifiable lies with the one who claims it is. So I think removal of these tags is even less warranted, and correct me if I'm wrong, but given your edit summary, it seems to me simply as an act of spite. As for having "an agenda to have lots of articles deleted" - well, yes, I am a deletionist. And an immediatist too. And I just happened to stumble across several pages that in my opinion were not worthy of inclusion. What should I wait for before proposing each of them for deletion? Thank you for your attention. 212.87.13.73 (talk) 22:13, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Request for Time: India Education Program Learnings

Hi. I'm writing to request a favor. The India Education Program pilot is concluding in Pune, India. It has been extraordinarily challenging and a series of learnings have emerged from the pilot that we intend to take on board to inform the way forward. I had promised an honest, open and comprehensive review. There are multiple ways that we are trying to collate and distill these learnings. One of these is that the Foundation has commissioned a study to do in depth interviews with a wide variety of folks who were directly or indirectly involved in the pilot. The include discussions with students, Ambassadors, faculty as well as members of the global community such as yourself. I thought it would be really particularly useful if we could get your views. You have been involved in the project (albeit not as part of the formal project structure.) I thank you for your involvement. You have made some interesting and insightful comments in the discussions you have participated in. Would you be willing and available for the person working on this study so that she can get your feedback and suggestions and comments? If so, would you let me know on my talk page? Do also let me know how I can have her reach out to you. Many thanks in advance. Hisham (talk) 10:01, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Hisham. I answered on your talk page. --Matthiaspaul (talk)

Would be kind enough to explain the abbreviation?

Fälschungserschwerende Schrift is abbreviated FE-Schrift. If the "E" is not from ende, then where does it originate? SBHarris 20:49, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi! I tried that in the edit summary, but it was difficult due to the length limit. The German term "FE-Schrift" is short for "Fälschungserschwerende Schrift" (which directly translates to "falsification-hindering typeface" in English). FE is simply derived from the compound word "fälschungserschwerend". The "-end" in "erschwerend" has nothing to do with the German word "Ende" (English: end), it just marks this word as an adjective, and since "die Schrift" (typeface) is female in German, an "-e" is added after the adjective, hence "erschwerende Schrift". The corresponding verb would be "erschweren" (to hinder). Greetings. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 21:00, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

That makes sense. Would you be good enough to add that to the .en article? Since it's not at all obvious to English readers which E is being used for the "FE" abbreviation/acronym, and why. Thanks! SBHarris 21:08, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Very nice addition. Now it makes sense to English users. Thanks again. SBHarris 21:43, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 21:44, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Pune pilot analysis plan

Hi! As you were very active in discussions about the India Education Program's Pune pilot, I wanted to draw your attention to Wikipedia:India_Education_Program/Analysis, a page that documents our analysis plan for the next few months. I encourage you to join the discussion if you have any thoughts. -- LiAnna Davis (WMF) (talk) 23:09, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer, LiAnna. I'll have a look. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 14:43, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I just sent you email regarding participating in the Pune Pilot Project Review.Toryread (talk) 00:24, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Alright, Tory, I have received your mail. Please expect my answer until the end of the week. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 14:43, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

"FAT64"

Thanks for the reminder. But the moment I've seen your changes at the exFAT page [been also reading about the confusion in terms a while ago] I took care of it. The word "FAT64" doesn't exist at my website anymore. ;-)
I've also changed the URL to point to http://www.mdgx.com/secrets.htm#XFAT [I've updated the URI at the wiki page too ;-)], and the section title now reads exFAT.
BTW... exFAT *is* for all intents and purposes Microsoft's "next gen" FAT32 [that's why was also called FAT64 when it was released] for portable drives/USB sticks/SSDs/cards/cartridges. They basically fixed most FAT32 flaws + limitations, and added some NTFS/ext4/HFS features into the punch. They could have expanded/improved upon NTFS, but they chose the old FAT32 instead. ;-/ I haven't been curious to find out why (yet).
Thanks for keeping us on our toes.
Best wishes,
MDGx^☹☺ 22:26, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Great, thanks. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 13:39, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Since you mentioned that "it was called FAT64 when it was released", can you point me to Microsoft documents actually naming it FAT64 originally? Thanks. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 14:43, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I did not find the original wording anymore anywhere at the MS website. They must have removed it too. ;-/
I did find proof that MS considers exFAT the successor to FAT32: here.
HTH [hope this helps]
MDGx^☹☺ 21:25, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Microsoft may not have any references to FAT64 anymore, but these guys do. I have no idea how/if their FAT64 relates to MS's exFAT. They have a powerpoint slide presentation with details.
HTH
MDGx^☹☺ 21:44, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I also found this book, which refers to FAT64 as a nickname for exFAT: searching thru the book [bottom of webpage search box], I found 2 references to FAT64, at pages 3 + 76.
HTH
MDGx^☹☺ 22:10, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Where is no such limit and FAT32 implementations in other operating systems?

Don't believe if there is reference missing--211.127.229.23 (talk) 06:29, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi, IP! Well, it may be difficult to give a reference for something (a limit) that does not exist. ;-) I can only guess, why Microsoft documents a limit on the number of sub-directory entries for their implementation of FAT32, but they also document a size limit of 32 GB for their implementation of FAT32. The design of the FAT32 file system does not have any such limits, both the 32 GB limit and the 65534 limit are artificial.

The practical size limit for FAT32 volumes is 2 TB, because this is when the 32-bit entry for the number of sectors runs out in the partitition table in the MBR and the original FAT32 bootsector (where the size of the partition is specified in sectors) and also, because most file system and disk drivers implement 32-bit arithmetics only. For non-bootable FAT32 volumes, which are not necessarily listed in the partition table or do need to have a standard FAT32 BPB, for sector sizes larger than 512 bytes, the actual FAT32 design limits are even higher. A FAT32 volume can have close to 2^28 clusters, so assuming a maximum cluster size of 32 KB, the FAT32 limit would be at 8 TB, assuming 64 KB clusters, it would be at 16 TB. (Some operating systems even implement proprietary extensions to this original FAT32 design, for example, they use logical sector sizes up to 16 KB, cluster sizes up to 256 KB or FAT widths of 32-bit instead of 28-bit, but I won't go into details of such third-party extensions here.) As you can see, a partition size limit of just 32 GB in MS operating systems is completely artifical and is not the result of *any* technical limitation.

Similarly, the Microsoft documented 65534 number of entries per sub-directory limit is artificial as well. A sub-directory is not much different from a file with a directory attribute set. Normally, the maximum size of a file on a FAT32 volume is 4 GB - 1 (this is imposed by the 32-bit file size entry in the directory table), so (putting VFAT LFNs aside for a moment), this would theoretically allow for 134217728 directory entries (each 32 bytes long). VFAT LFNs take up additional entries, the longer the VFAT name, the more. Up to 20 VFAT entries (each 32 bytes long) may be used per file entry. Since VFAT LFNs are optional, we end up with 1 to 21 directory entries (that is 32 bytes to 672 bytes) consumed per file or sub-directory on a FAT volume. So, even in a worst case scenario, we'd still have up to 6391320 directory entries.

Anyway, the design of FAT32 does not have this limitation per se. In reality, sub-directories have the size entry set to 0 for "N/A", that is, they don't have something like a size measurable in bytes. They are only limited by their length of the cluster chain in the FAT, so, for as long as there are free clusters to extend the chain, sub-directories can grow "indefinitely". As discussed above, a FAT32 volume (following the original design, not those mentioned third-party extensions) can have up to 2^28 - 12 (268435444) clusters. Of course, assuming that each directory entry corresponds with a file, the files defined by these directory entries have their own cluster chains in the FAT. Assuming, they are all very small or at least one byte in size, each of them takes up a single cluster in the FAT as well, reducing the number of available clusters for the sub-directory chain respectively.

Nevertheless, even in a worst case scenario we would still end up with several thousand times as many entries as those 65534 entries documented by Microsoft. Since a reasonably good implementation does not introduce artificial limits not found in the design of the file system, there is no reason, why such limits should exist in third-party implementations of FAT32. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 13:39, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Secure Digital

Hi! Thanks for your edits and your technical knowledge of FAT32 vs exFAT, to which I defer. I have massaged the large paragraph you edited for reasons given in the change history; notably, that it seems partly to be an editorial against SDA's decision to use exFAT. This controversy is not an inappropriate subject for the article, but you should point to citations of that opinion rather than just state it as our own.

I have other clerical problems with the edits. In the first sentence of "Compatibility with SDHC," you begin, "If the card controller has been enhanced to support this...." I would at least turn this around to define "this" first. But my understanding was that the SDXC spec required host devices to support older cards. If this is untrue--if it allows "dual compatibility" host devices--then your change to the sentence is to say "Host devices either do or they don't" and it would be better to say nothing.

And in the last sentence, "on protocol level" confuses me. The sentence already said that choice of the file system is the problem, and protocol-level support doesn't matter if the gadget won't work. Spike-from-NH (talk) 12:30, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Just a note to both of you, which we all know, don't reference something that is NOT publically available, like SD Card Spec 4.0. You will need to limit statements to what can publically be found about 4.0, like SD Card Spec web pages and press releases and 3rd-party articles. I'm not a SD Card Spec member, so I can't download 4.0, and neither can most of the world. I wish that I had access to all the SDA documents, but unfortunately I don't. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 17:44, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Though SDA chose to require SDXC card makers to ship with exFAT, it is actually a minor limitation, because the card can be reformatted to other more popular file systems. This should be made obvious and clarified in the article. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 17:44, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

SDSC

Thank you for reverting the undo of SDSC; Sbmeirow noted that SDSC is used in the specs in the article's talk page. Separately, I will revert your change that made conditional the assertion at the start of "Compatibility with SDHC". In addition to my vague citation on Sbmeirow's talk page, Simplified Physical Layer v3.01 says "Hosts that can access...SD memory cards with a capacity greater than 32 GB and up to 2 TB [that is, SDXC], shall also be able to access SD memory cards with a capacity of 32 GB or less." Sec. 3.3.2, Note 3. You have made the case that a decision to embrace exFAT would be problematic; but that would seem to be the only issue in the way of backward-compatibility of host devices. Spike-from-NH (talk) 17:56, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Hm, the term SDSC seems to be kind of an afterthought. Try a Google search for it, almost nobody is using this term so far. Nevertheless, it is good that the SDA has coined the name because naming the old type of cards and the family of cards the same has caused a lot of confusion.

Regarding the compatibility issues, exFAT is by definition mandantory for all SDXC cards. While we can re-format to FAT32 when using an SDXC card to exchange data between PCs, all SDXC-enabled digital cameras and corders I have seen so far do not accept a FAT32-reformatted SDXC card. Even in the user manuals, manufacturers clearly state, that SDXC requires exFAT to be used and that this is supported only by a few (typically listed) operating systems. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 15:52, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Further edits

I understand why you changed "dominant" to "wide-spread" [sic] at the end of the article's first paragraph. But the softened result says almost nothing. As the clause's only function was to provide an official interpretation for the statistics that preceded it, I just removed it entirely--sticking in a comment that, if someone wants to point to an authoritative interpretation of SD's dominance, they should reinsert it, but with citations.

I do not like the implication you reinserted that, essentially, SDA had no good reason to go with exFAT and should have stuck with FAT32. I tend to agree with the conclusion but the language seems judgemental. If the assertion is correct that FAT32 above 32 GB would be legal but wouldn't be supported by Windows, that is a huge reason not to go with it.

Your tagging stuff with {fact} goes against what I thought I knew, but I could be wrong. There are also grammar and organizational things about your edits left to fix. Spike-from-NH (talk) 17:33, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Partition type

Your new material on partition type needs refinement. SDHC "Capacity smaller than 8 GB" and "Capacity larger than 8 GB" leaves ambiguous what you do when the capacity is exactly 8 GB. Likewise, above it, "between 16 MB and 32 MB" may want additional words to ensure that the endpoints are included.

Separately, what type to declare a partition as, for best results under a given OS, doesn't seem specific to SD and might want to be located in a different article. Spike-from-NH (talk) 12:47, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Anchors at File Allocation Table

Hi,

I don't understand why you've reinserted numerous comments of the format <!-- NB. The header "FAT16B" is used in redirects to this page. -->: these are superfluous because that's implied by {{anchor}} anyway, or simply by the header itself for #FAT32 (though I goofed on adding an anchor there). Additionally, the one for exFAT is simply wrong: there should be no redirects to File Allocation Table#exFAT, as they should instead point directly at the separate article.

My apologies for replacing the visible space entities, by the way: I wasn't looking carefully enough at the output. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:27, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Chris. People frequently change section headers without being aware that they might be used as anchors for redirects. Therefore, it is common practice at Wikipedia to indicate the usage of a section as an anchor in a comment immediately following the section header. I agree, the comments could be removed where we can use the anchor template, since its usage implies that there are redirects to them. I added them merely for consistency reasons. You are right about the exFAT label, which is unlikely to be used as a redirect target given that a separate exFAT article exists. I envisioned it could become a local anchor for quick navigation inside the article itself, similar to what is done in the film speed article, where links like "ISO" or "ASA" or "DIN" would not jump to external articles but just to the local section, and inside the corresponding section they would jump to the corresponding external article. Makes navigation much easier, however, it requires a certain degree of consistency within the article. We have achieved that in film speed over the course of months, but the structure of the File Allocation Table article is not quite there right now, I think, therefore, the comment is not necessary at present and I have removed it. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 12:47, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

IMO if the comments duplicate the {{anchor}}s then they should be removed: we don't habitually comment the use of templates in articles. As for the use of internal links, IMO those are Easter eggs: readers expect that a blue link will go to a page with that title, not to jump around in a page. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:18, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Chris, the comments have already been removed yesterday where we use the {{anchor}} template, so this is already a non-issue.

Regarding the internal links, I'm afraid, I disagree. Please have a look at film speed, which has been styled this way, and please try it out yourself. If you are on a page about film speeds and there's a link to terms link "ISO" or "ASA" or "DIN" etc. the first you want to know about them is "ISO film speed", "ASA film speed" or "DIN film speed", and this is, where the links link to locally. Before the change, it was really annoying ("easter-eggish" or so to speak), that clicks to these links did not reveal anything about film speeds but brought you to unrelated articles on the standardisation bodies, mostly irrelevant in the context of film speeds. However, once you are inside a section about, say, "DIN", it no longer makes sense to link to the section title of that very section, so instead you'd be brought to the article about the DIN organization. It is perfectly intuitive. Those, who were really looking for an explanation of the abbreviation DIN in the first place will either find that basic information in the DIN section as well, or they'll have to click another link to actually get to the external article.

Whatever, it depends on the scope, structure and length of the article if this works great or if it may cause harm. I envision the FAT article to be another article of this kind, so that you can switch between FAT12, FAT16, FAT32, VFAT, BPB, EBPB, XBPB, etc. sections in a second without any annoying scrolling and searching. But the article does not, at present, have the consistent structure and nomenclature to achieve this, and it is months of adding actual content to the article, working on nomenclature and improving phrases before anything like this could or should be tried, IMO. I was not saying that I am going to introduce this scheme now (or ever), I was just mentioning, that this is what I must have had in mind when adding the HTML comment on the exFAT section originally. Neverthess, a non-issue at present, since the comment is long gone since yesterday, anyway. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 15:59, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I've got to disagree, I'm afraid. Navigation around the article is what the table of contents is for. I have a strong aversion to using intra-article links, especially as a matter of course as in film speed. This appears to be a relatively recent addition to said article and certainly isn't widely used, or suggested in the MoS. The FAT article's issues with navigation are mostly due to its great length: it's probably time to seriously think about splitting it up and making it a WP:SUMMARY of individual sub-articles. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 20:32, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Pat Villani

Hi! I just signed in after a long Wiki hiatus and saw your message regarding my user page for Pat Villani.

You're welcome to merge any information there into the current Pat Villani article, although you seem to have done a great job of expanding the article already, so I don't think my little user page would be of any help anymore.

I also wanted to let you know that I am actually Pat Villani's daughter, and there are a few small errors and unverified facts in the current article that I can either correct or confirm as true -- however, using myself as a source would certainly run afoul of Wikipedia:No original research. You're a more experienced Wikipedian than I am -- any ideas about how we might want to handle this? - Aeonian (talk) 17:37, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Erika, it's nice to hear from you and I hope you are fine. Actually, I left the note before I even started to expand the article myself in an (ultimately successful) attempt to keep it from being deleted. Whilst I knew your father from the FreeDOS project and had no doubt about his achievements in regard to the project, it turned out to be quite difficult to establish notability (in WP terms, that is) from available online sources, but fortunately the proposed deletion could be turned down eventually. I have meanwhile collected some more material, but have not come around to add it to the article. If you can help out with better references, including offline sources, for as long as they are citable, or can otherwise flesh out the article beyond the FreeDOS stuff or if you can correct details, I think this would be most welcome. If you think you can manage to maintain the neutral point of view, I would suggest that you just go ahead and if you have questions I'll happily assist. Cheers --Matthiaspaul (talk) 15:29, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

BAP (German band)

Hi. Following the change you made to the introductory wording of the Bap (German band) article here, you don't think that people reading this article will now assume that the band's name is an acronym pronounced "B-A-P" in the same way as bands such as AKB48, AC/DC, KRS-One, UB40, and UFO (band)? I suggest you have a look at the articles for Kiss (band), Chemistry (band), Exile (Japanese band), and Glay, as these are all good examples of articles for bands that normally write their names stylistically in all-caps, but which correctly follow the Wikipedia Manual of Style guidelines laid out at WP:MOSTM. I hope you can work to bring this article up to Wikipedia standards too. Thanks. --DAJF (talk) 11:31, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Of the mentioned articles, I think, the one most closely resembling the szenario with BAP is the Glay article, because Kiss, Chemistry and Exile are all "normal" words in the English language, so it's kind of natural to apply English grammar rules. Similar to Glay, BAP is not a "normal" word. However, there are differences as well, as the Glay play-on-words is based on the English language, whereas the BAP sort-of-play-on-words is based on a foreign language, Kölsch, a strong dialect of the German language. Further, the Japanese language does not have a concept of upper and lower-case letters, as far as I know. The German language certainly has, and the rules are more strict and stringent than in the English language. So, what might be almost don't care or a matter of fashion for a Japanese band, is an aspect of identity for a German band. Also, the Glay article states "(stylized as GLAY)", whereas the BAP article stated "(often stylized as BAP)", which is simply not true (unless we omit the "often" and replace "stylized as" by "written as"). You won't find any publications (except for the English Wikipedia and its derivatives), where the band's name would be written as Bap, therefore, I don't consider it a question of style to write it BAP, it's a given. I am not familiar with Glay, therefore I don't know, if they use both forms Glay and GLAY and just prefer the GLAY form. If the GLAY form is consistently used in publications I would consider it wrong for us to present them as Glay in Wikipedia. The purpose of the Manual of Style is not to invent new forms which don't exist elsewhere, but to help make a good decision if multiple styles are available to choose from. The MOS is of no use if there is only one available variant and no alternative, as it is in the case of BAP. Inventing the new "Bap" form is what I consider unsourced interpretation or original research; it's fundamentally wrong by Wikipedia's rules. The solution seems to be to refine the Manual of Style in order to allow exceptions such as GLAY and BAP, so that we could avoid such discussions in the future.

A good counter-example to Glay may be INXS. Noone would start writing them as "Inxs" just for compliancy with Wikipedia's MOS. The difference to BAP is that INXS is widely known in the English speaking world, so people easily recognize the problem with Inxs, whereas the same people don't seem to see a similar problem with Bap.

(Is UFO actually pronounced as U-F-O?) --Matthiaspaul (talk) 13:31, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

For your interest, "bap" is a common word in the English language, just like "kiss" and "chemistry". The band "UFO" is pronounced "U-F-O" (not "yoofow"). --DAJF (talk) 13:42, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't know that. ;-) --Matthiaspaul (talk) 13:58, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Much appreciated. 86.144.228.49 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:07, 4 March 2012 (UTC).

Categorization

I thought categorizing redirects such as Wikipedia:IPA for Kölsch was not allowed by Wikipedia MoS; however I could be wrong.--Carnby (talk) 20:49, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Carnby. Not all redirects need to have categories, but the correct categorization of redirects is explicitly wanted, either indirectly by using the large set of {{R ...}} templates predefined for this purpose or by directly specifying categories. There are lots of uses. It can be used, for example, to list articles in categories under different keywords, and it allows sub-topics of an article to be found in different (and possibly independent) sets of categories, which would not apply to the actual article, but only a carefully chosen set of redirects pointing to the article. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 22:22, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation. I will be more cautious in the future.--Carnby (talk) 16:20, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Byte value 69h at offset 0 in boot sectors of FAT12 or FAT16 floppies

My original question raised on Asmpgmr's talk page was: "Request to help solve a little mystery: Byte value 69h at offset 0 in boot sectors of FAT12 or FAT16 floppies?

Perhaps you are like me and love to solve miracles when you stumble upon them. Out of historical interest it is sometimes enlightening to know why developers chose certain "magic" values in their software. There is one question I could not answer myself and it occured to me that you might know the answer (or know those to ask, who do know the answer), so I'll give it a try:

When DOS logs in a disk volume, it checks for the presence of certain byte patterns at offsets +0..+2 in the boot sector before assuming that a BPB is present (there are additional sanity checks, but I will leave them out here for clarity - you certainly know about them as much as I do): Since DOS 2.0 valid x86-bootable disks must start with either a short jump followed by a NOP (opstring EBh ??h 90h with DOS 1.1 and again since DOS 3.0) or a near jump (E9h ??h ??h on DOS 2.x disks). On hard disks, DR-DOS also accepts the swapped JMPS sequence starting with a NOP (90h EBh ??h), whereas MS-DOS/PC DOS do not. On removable disks, MS-DOS/PC DOS and DR-DOS also accept a sequence of 69h ??h ??h. This is also documented in at least one book (DOS Internals by Geoff Chappell), unfortunately without mentioning what this 69h byte or sequence is for. So here's my question:

What is it? Is it an opcode sequence as well (possibly even a jump?), but then, for which type of CPU? Since this does not appear to be a valid x86 opcode (in a startup sequence of a boot sector, that is, and possibly even a startup code, which must not run into the BPB following a few bytes later), I also checked other options and directions: Could this have been some undocumented opcode in early x86 CPUs or in CPU prototypes, is it an opcode supported by the NEC V20/V30 etc. series (perhaps in emulation mode)? Is this an artefact retrofitted for 86-DOS? Microsoft at one time had MSX-DOS which ran on 8080/Z80 CPUs, and there were dual-processor variants (for 8080/8086) of Digital Research's Concurrent DOS 8-16, which supported DOS file systems as well. Actually, there even was a Concurrent DOS 68K for Motorola 68000 CPUs. And the Atari ST series supported FAT12/FAT16 as well. IBM had a PC-like machine named RT, using a ROMP processor. And early versions of Microsoft's Windows NT supported other platforms as well... I might have overlooked something, but so far I could not find an opcode in any CPU class I know to support FAT file systems at about the DOS timeframe which would make much sense in this specific location. So, is it an opcode at all or a signature for something else? Or has bit 7 been stripped off (E9h -> 69h) for some odd reason? Perhaps you know the answer or can at least track this back in time and into either Microsoft or IBM in order to narrow down the possibly interpretations for this strange 69h magic? Thanks. ;-) --Matthiaspaul (talk) 12:35, 9 July 2012 (UTC)"

I haven't thought about this in ages. I recall that was a leftover in the code from DOS 1.x. The code checks for 69h, E9h and EBh. I guess the 69h is the same as E9h on the 8086/8088. Remember the entire 6xh opcode range isn't used on the 8086/8088, most of opcodes in that range were added with the 80186/80188, a couple more on the 80286 and the prefixes (64h - 67h) on the 80386. If you have access to a 8086 or 8088 system then it would be interesting to verify whether the 6xh opcodes function like the Exh opcodes. Asmpgmr (talk) 15:28, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer. So we both assume basically the same, undocumented or incomplete decoded 8088/8086 opcodes.

You wrote "leftover from DOS 1.x". But DOS 1.x did not use a BPB, and the DOS 1.0 and 1.1 boot sectors I saw so far didn't start with 69h. So, how should this be a leftover from or for DOS 1.x? And why should someone use undocumented opcodes when documented ones would do the same? Some strange kind of protection scheme, so that it only runs on certain machines? But why?

Unfortunately, all "normal" PCs still in reach have been retrofitted with NEC V20 CPUs (including what I think is a very early IBM PC with wire-wrapped mainboard). IIRC the Sirius 1 still has a 8088, but its boot floppies have become weak... And the 200LX has a 186-core already. Time for a little swap job, it seems. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 23:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I recall that section of the code referred to E9h as a "DOS 2 jump" or something like that (it has been a while, I worked on DOS in the mid-90s) so the implication was that 69h was used in DOS 1.x or by some early DOS 1.x era software. It's entirely possible that code was added to DOS later to check for specific boot disks. The code was strange since 69h is IMUL on 80186+ which of course makes no sense as the first opcode of a boot sector so presumably it must do some sort of undocumented jump on the 8086/8088 or possibly an early NEC CPU. Asmpgmr (talk) 18:07, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Original info/discussions:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File_Allocation_Table&action=historysubmit&type=revision&diff=469451628&oldid=469431099 (2012-01-04)
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Asmpgmr&oldid=515075153#Request_to_help_solve_a_little_mystery:_Byte_value_69h_at_offset_0_in_boot_sectors_of_FAT12_or_FAT16_floppies? (2012-07-09)
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3AFile_Allocation_Table%2FArchive_6#Boot_sector_jump_code_0x69 (2013-08-30)

Follow-up discussion - nice to see that others continue trying to solve this miracle - however, it is somewhat disappointing to see that the origin of the discussion and various original thoughts aren't mentioned over there:

• http://www.os2museum.com/wp/undocumented-8086-opcodes/ (2013-12-21)
• http://www.os2museum.com/wp/theres-another-possibility/ (2018-01-02)

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 21:38, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Template:Like

Hi. As I understand it, images at Wikimedia Commons are free to be used and re-used on Wikimedia wikis. I don't understand your change to Template:Like and I've reverted it accordingly. This has been discussed previously. I think it's reasonable to say that if the image continues to be kept at Wikimedia Commons through a number of deletion discussions, it's acceptable to use on a Wikimedia wiki such as the English Wikipedia. Please let me know if this is unreasonable. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:00, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Matthew Anthony Smith

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computing#User:Matthew Anthony Smith. —Ruud 21:11, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, Ruud. I hope he will learn to stick to the rules... --Matthiaspaul (talk) 15:54, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

About Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX1

For the article, you said: "there are high-end 35mm film cameras, which are *much* smaller, for example the TC-1".

However, what you overlooked was that the article states: "world's smallest full-frame DIGITAL camera" and not "world's smallest full-frame FILM camera". So i removed only that erroneous section of your edit. I hope you will agree with it.MTorleeb TALK 00:50, 22 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MoTorleeb (talk • contribs)

Actually, it was me who added the "digital" to the sentence in question in order to fix the problem. ;-) Before my edit, it just read "it is the world's smallest full-frame camera", which it isn't. The section you removed was not "live" contents of the article, but just my hidden HTML comment explaining my edit for other editors to read. There was nothing erroneous with it, but anyway, it's fine with me to remove it. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 07:18, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh! I'm really sorry for what i previously wrote. I hope you didn't take offense. Thanks for clarifying the situation.MTorleeb TALK 02:58, 23 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MoTorleeb (talk • contribs)

Don't worry, I did not take offense at all. ;-) --Matthiaspaul (talk) 17:43, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Thankyou very much indeed.MTorleeb TALK 01:40, 29 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MoTorleeb (talk • contribs)

Jim Allchin

Hello, I restored the so-called "rant" that you had previously restored. I hope that's still good with you.216.86.177.36 (talk) 22:59, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Editing the References list that is "incomplete or promote wrong German"

The original references given for the Canon Pellix‎ article are those used and needed writing this article as required for any Wikipedia contribution. The actual Minolta book used was the Minolta's Kamera Technik …, published in 1990. Any misrepresentation of this information or reference to any other edition cannot be given as the original source for the article. I have not to my knowledge given incomplete information, nor do I promote wrong German. The book title is the responsibility of the authors, not mine. By changing the references, or part thereof, the list is no longer valid. The criteria given for editing the References are irrelevant and a violation of my obligation to provide verifiable information.

To remove a book listed as used for the article and add another is messing with my evidence for verifiability. If a relevant list of books can be provided, that is where such a book may be added..

With respect,--Jan von Erpecom 19:18, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Jan, I am fully aware of the fact that you used the second edition of the book for reference and there is nothing wrong with it.

For some odd reasons, the authors' names were abbreviated on the front cover of this edition, and their chosen title was "Minoltas Kamera Technik". Even though it is incorrect German, you were correct to represent the title as it was used by the authors (except for the extra apostrophe, which did not exist in the original title).

When I added the authors' full names, I did it with the third edition of the book in front of me (which reads "Minolta Kameratechnik"), and therefore I assumed, that not only the stray apostrophe, but also the space in "Kamera Technik" would have been the result of some unintended transformation error. That's why I fixed this as well while being there.

When you reverted my change, I looked this up in the older edition of the book and saw that it actually read "Kamera Technik" back then. So, had the authors not published a third edition, where they fixed their mistake (well, sort of, to be 100% correct German, it would have to read "Minolta-Kameratechnik"), we would have no choice but to use the wrong title as well. But since there is a newer edition, we can use this as well and avoid the problem altogether.

When I gave my edit summary as "No reason to give incomplete references or promote wrong German, therefore replaced by latest edition of book", I didn't meant 'you' personally, but 'us', the community of Wikipedia editors (including you and myself). This was not meant as criticism of your prior work at all but as a constructive comment as in "hey, we can avoid the faulty German title, so let's further improve on it". If somehow this came over as an offence, I apologize for that.

Regarding the other two issues you raised, it is perfectly okay to complete incomplete author info, as I did. It is also okay to replace existing references with better ones. We have no obligation to stick to the original sources if we find better ones. All that is needed is that the source supports what is written in the article. The only reason why I removed the 2nd edition is the fact that anything in there used for the article is covered in the 3rd edition as well, and there is no point to list two editions of the same book.

In closing I'd also like to point out why I framed the term Nifcalette with [sic]. Some years ago (but after the publication date of the 3rd edition), several "Minolta historians" found out that the camera was actually named Nifcarette rather than Nifcalette.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 22:05, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Biryani

Hello Mr.Matthias, on one hand I see you point that a list of famous biryani vendors doesn't belong in an encylopedia. By the same standard, something like a famous jeweller Tiffany_&_Co. or even apple computers don't belong in a encyclopedia. IMO, as long as the list is limited to established and famous places, it is acting as a knowledge reference (as opposed to a commercial hoarding). For example, this list would be of help to someone who is researching the authentic biryani styles of different regions. If you would like to re-evaluate the reversal, I would like to thank for your time. Either way, have a nice day! Curlybraces (talk) 18:09, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't want to disappoint you, but Wikipedia is neither a collection of recipies, nor a cooking or travel guide, and we certainly can't list every restaurant, eatery, or fast-food offering some form of Biryani - there are several of them in most any town on this planet. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 17:13, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

File Allocation Table

Thank you, I didn't notice that it was a reference-to-a-reference, my bad. --151.75.122.123 (talk) 12:41, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry, it's very easy for this to happen - and also easy to fix. ;-) Greetings --Matthiaspaul (talk) 17:13, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I just noticed your posting on the FAT and the NCR machines. I had remembered the model as 8200 or 8500. I looked at NCR models and looks like it it was the 7520. I implemented it on a 7200 which had the added double 8 inch floppy box so we didn't get an actual 7520 but the new card and hardware. Both machines had 8080 processors. The FAT structure was only on the machine in conjunction was Basic. StandAlone Disk Basic was the exact same file format. -- Marc McDonald (MarcMcd)

Your edits and reverts

Hi. Also your edits are mostly ok,

1. Again: Bionz article is poor, Write it better or leave it. Wikipedia is for the READERS !
2. Link to Redirect is against Wikipedia rules

Stop reverting. Tagremover (talk) 12:17, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi there as well. Unfortunately, your assertions above are not correct and are not backed up by our guidelines, and therefore I ask you to stop reverting my edits (which are backed up by our guidelines):

The purpose of "See Also" sections (as per our Manual of Style guidelines WP:SEEALSO) is to link to other articles (regardless of their state), which might be in the scope of interest of a reader of the first article (but for some reason was not mentioned in the body of the article already). The articles Nikon Expeed, Canon DIGIC, and Sony Bionz are clearly orthogonally related and in the scope for the same type of reader and therefore should be crosslinked to each other.

While I do agree, that the Sony Bionz article is a mere stub at present, this does not change the above said a bit - and suppressing the link is a judgement, and therefore a violation of our WP:NPV core policy. We just don't filter articles because they are still in a very developing state - it must remain in the reader's domain to decide if reading an article is/was useful for them or not.

Regarding redirects, our guidelines WP:NOTBROKEN and WP:NOPIPE make it very clear, that it is perfectly okay to link to redirects (and often even more desired than to link to the target article, if the redirect links only to a related topic) and that we should avoid piped links if we can use redirects instead.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 13:21, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but: You are wrong:

1. "The links in the "See also" section should be relevant, should reflect the links that would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic, and should be limited to a reasonable number. " : BIONZ is not relevant and not comprehensive.
2. "Thus, many high-quality, comprehensive articles do not have a "See also" section." : Decrease the number!
3. Linking to a redirect makes no sense if it NEVER will be an independent article: Canon DIGIC will always be a redirect as there is DIGIC. Although it is allowed, in that case it makes no sense.
4. WP:NOPIPE: Good title; see where it redirects...
5. "suppressing the link is a judgement, and therefore a violation of our WP:NPV core policy": Truly???? Links to everything?
6. "We just don't filter articles because they are still in a very developing state": Joking? A BAD editor adds such links.

Result: Limiting the number of links NOT adding worthful information should be done and MUST be done in good articles. Tagremover (talk) 13:44, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

First of all, I'd like to ask you to tone down, please. There's not the slightest reason to be aggressive, and in particular we don't shout or make insults on my talk page. Second, please read the relevant guidelines I was referring to - they are, for the most part, very clear about this, and I'm afraid, they don't support your view. Regarding your items:

1. The topic BIONZ is absolutely relevant in the context of EXPEED or DIGIC - it is the direct analogon. We agree, that the article itself leaves a lot to be desired at present, but this is irrelevant in regard to the question, if or if not a connection exists between the topics (and therefore a link should be placed). Building an infrastructure is not necessarily related to improving an article itself, although often both can be done at the same time. There may be editors who can contribute to an article's content but don't see connections, and other editors, who don't know much about a specific topic but know how it relates to other topics. We should do whatever we can do first, there's no point to delay building the web until the BIONZ article has become a full blown article. We are not talking about red links or articles without possibilities, the article exists and has (quite many) possibilities.

2. Decreasing the number of See Also links is fine, but not mandantory, and it is hardly necessary with a total of two links at present. Even if much larger than the BIONZ article, the EXPEED and DIGIC articles are far from being comprehensive as well at present. If an article does not otherwise mention the related topics, which might be of interest to a reader, they should be mentioned in the See Also section. That's the very purpose of this section as per WP:SEEALSO:

"See also section: Contents: A bulleted list [...] of internal links to related Wikipedia articles. [...] Editors should provide a brief annotation when a link's relevance is not immediately apparent, when the meaning of the term may not be generally known, or when the term is ambiguous. [...] Whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense. The links in the "See also" section should be relevant, should reflect the links that would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic, and should be limited to a reasonable number. As a general rule the "See also" section should not repeat links which appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes. [...] The links in the "See also" section do not have to be directly related to the topic of the article, because one purpose of the "See also" links is to enable readers to explore topics that are only peripherally relevant. The "See also" section should not link to pages that do not exist (red links) nor to disambiguation pages (unless used for further disambiguation in a disambiguation page)."

(Perhaps, you are mixing this up with red links in See Also sections, or with External links, for which different rules apply?)

3. We could certainly discuss if we should better link to "Canon DIGIC", "Canon DIGIC" or just "DIGIC", but not if it "makes no sense" to link to redirects. As per the guidelines, links which might not be self-explanatory in the See Also section should be explained, therefore just linking to DIGIC is too short (a Nikon user may not know what it is), we must at least add "Canon DIGIC". Personally, I would prefer Canon DIGIC, because we could avoid extra text this way (see above, if possible, a simple bulleted list of links is preferrable) and this is also the title where the article would actually belong to, as we typically prefix company-specific stuff with the company name in order to avoid name conflicts in the future, and it is well possible, that we might be forced to move these articles to these new titles sooner or later (therefore, they do have "possibilities"). Redirects are also (per the guidelines) an instrument to "measure" what would be the preferred article title, and it would defeat the purpose, if we bypass existing redirects. So, either Canon DIGIC or "Canon DIGIC" can be used, but not piped variants like [[DIGIC|Canon DIGIC]] or [[Expeed|Nikon Expeed]], which are clearly against the guidelines. For the same reason, it is correct and preferable to link to µITRON rather than using a pipe as in [[ITRON project|µITRON]].

4. WP:NOPIPE properly redirects to the relevant section in that article, and in there to the following paragraph:

"It is generally not good practice to pipe links simply to avoid redirects. The number of links to a redirect page can be a useful gauge of when it would be helpful to spin off a subtopic of an article into its own page."

See above.

5. You wrote: ""suppressing the link is a judgement, and therefore a violation of our WP:NPV core policy": Truly???? Links to everything?"

Of course not to everything (that's not what I said), but we do link to related and relevant topics, also to maintain the neutral point of view. BIONZ is a related and relavant topic in the context of EXPEED and DIGIC, therefore suppressing the link where it should occur is a form of leaving our neutral point of view and add bias and personal judgements into an article.

6. You wrote: ""We just don't filter articles because they are still in a very developing state": Joking? A BAD editor adds such links."

Actually, we even link to non-existing articles at times (although not in See Also sections). If we won't do this, we could not build the web. If you want my personal opinion, the majority of articles in the English Wikipedia is in a very bad state, we just have to live with it for now and help and hope that they will be improved over time. Links help to make readers aware of articles and thereby also to improve them. If we wouldn't link to topics we don't like but which are relevant in a context, we would create isolated articles with both, a lot of information lacking and with a lot of unnecessary redundancy at the same time. Suppressing links is not how building a logical (infra)structure works. I could not find a guideline, which would disallow the links to the Sony Bionz article just because the article is still a stub. If you find one, please let me know.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 16:53, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

It is difficult to reply, as you insist to your viewpoint: Please read again. And: To make it clear again: Your edits are mostly ok, i just reverted two (UPDATE:ONE) who are no improvement to help you getting clear.

• Manufacturer excluded from product article name: imho thats Wikipedia standard: I remember there was a discussion. I support changing: Canon EF lens mount > EF-mount or similar.
• Changing links to redirects to cause traffic on an article name you prefer is wrong. Period.
• Speedy deletion of redirects: You create a lot of redirects yourself. Please accept that others see need of redirects, too.
• Shouting: Sometimes appropriate and rarely needed, here sadly often needed.
• "We...": YOU are the most important man here, the Spokesman of Wikipedia ? Tagremover (talk) 01:20, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Reviewer

Hello, following a review of your contributions, I have enabled reviewer rights on your account. This gives you the ability to:

• Accept changes on pages undergoing pending changes,
• Have your changes automatically accepted on pending changes level 2 protected pages, and
• Administrate article feedback.

Please remember that this user right:

• Can be removed at any time for misuse, and
• Does not grant you any special status above other editors.

You should probably also read WP:PROTECT, since this user privilege deals largely with page protection. As the requirements for this privilege are still in a state of flux, I would encourage you to keep up to date on the WP:REVIEWER page. Feel free to ask me if you have any questions! Happy editing! Reaper Eternal (talk) 22:06, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Sony BIONZ: Make it notable

Can we have a possible agreement to add it to Expeed and DIGIC if you or whoever doubles the text size (not by integrating kbytes of refs or links). It IS already linked by me at image processor. Tagremover (talk) 20:11, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Tagremover, I have no problems working with you for as long as you stick to the rules (that is our guidelines) and do not harm the project. However, this is not the venue for any "private arrangements" not supported by our policies and guidelines, like "if you add x to article y, I will not revert you". I told you many times: You MUST NOT revert other editors' contributions, anyway, unless they are working against our guidelines and you are unable to improve on their edits yourself. Unfortunately, it is you, who is boldly, knowingly and willfully acting against our established guidelines - you even seem to be proud of it, given that you prominentely stated "Ignore all rules" as your principle of action.

I already gave you the extended bonus of the newcomer and spent many hours trying to explain/tutor you some of the concepts of working together in a community project and how some things are supposed to work, but since you deleted these explanations and continue to ignore established guidelines up to the present, I am certainly not willing to spend yet more time to help you out. For as long as you do not correct your behaviour, it would be a waste of time, and you have long overstressed my time already - and given your many documented problem cases with other participants in this project, many other editors' time and energy as well. Doesn't it occur to you that if you persistently continue to run against a wall, the core of the problem might be related to you?

After your continued personal defamations and cheap atttempts to undermine my integrity and public image over the course of months, there is certainly no room for any more bonus towards you from my side. By now you owe me at least six solid apologies for your insults towards me. Before that happens and you correct your behaviour, I have no interest in discussing matters with you beyond consensus-building on article talk pages.

It's up to you now. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 00:25, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Next time just revert my edits

I know how to read edit summaries and have no desire to get into a revert war. Do not really enjoy the faux-friendliness and "suggestions" on my talk page. Bacchiad (talk) 04:37, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the suggestions were genuinely meant friendly. Nobody likes being reverted and I hate to revert other people sometimes, however, I also don't like seeing other people's contributions being destroyed by careless editing. Since you were acting at a fast pace and it was unclear if you would continue to do so for much longer, raising the issue on your talk page seemed (and still seems to me) like the best way to deal with it. Had you acted this way on a single article only, I would not have raised the issue at all, or only on that article's talk page. Frankly, you will have to deal with such comments if you make bold edits to articles except for in obvious cases, where one can safely assume that community consensus exists.

Anyway, after your long hiatus welcome back to Wikipedia! (I hope that wasn't too friendly ;-) ) --Matthiaspaul (talk) 06:02, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Camera template formatting

I see you are quite involved in the discussions at Template talk:Nikon DSLR cameras. Who could I ask to format Template:Kodak DSLR cameras and Template:Fujifilm DSLR cameras in tables?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:12, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I have reworked the Fujifilm DSLR template, but the exact announcement, shipment and end of production dates need to be researched in better details and the template tweaked accordingly.

The Kodak template is a bit more complicated as the timeline spans over a much longer period, two different camera mounts are involved, and some models were available in many minor model variants and I don't remember them all after all these years. I will have think about how to organize this template. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 00:36, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I do not understand this edit which points the template at redirects. Thus the template does not become bold on the pages that it is navigating to. That is extremely weird.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:04, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

That's a valid (and good!) argument and exception to the general rule not to bypass redirects, Tony. In this case, the advantage of the links being displayed in bold outweighs the statistics, maintenance and readability advantages of redirects. I have changed it accordingly.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 22:43, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

HX DOS Extender

As a rule, I unfortunately can't add a userfication. If it was deleted due to notability concerns I would have no problem moving it there, but because it's a copyright matter that has to stay deleted. I will, however, at least provide the infobox and links that were used:

HX DOS Extender

Developer(s)	Japheth
Stable release	2.16 / November 16, 2009 (2009-11-16)
Preview release	2.17 / June 5, 2011 (2011-06-05)
Operating system	DOS
Platform	x86
Type	DOS extender
Website	www.japheth.de/HX.html

External links:

• HX website
• HX and general DOS development and support forum
• Alternative / additional docs and list of compatible software

Hopefully that helps, that's all I can provide. Wizardman 23:53, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay, Wizardman, thanks, that's a start. And you are sure that the claim for G12 was a valid one? Who added that tag? --Matthiaspaul (talk) 00:04, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

It was added by User:Insidious611, who hasn't edited since. I checked the text to the three external links above and, between the three, I found the whole article to be copied verbatim, same for a couple earlier revisions I checked. Wizardman 00:58, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Fortunately, this is not the user I had in mind, so this wasn't any attempt of gaming the system.

Checking the links you gave, I now remember the similaries as well. Given that this is an open source project one of the authors might have contributed the text to WP originally, I don't know. But then the edit history should have some remark by the contributing editor declaring this. If so, there might still be COI issues to be resolved, but at least no longer a copyvio problem. I guess I will contact them and try to find out. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 01:40, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the e-mail. I hope I will find the time to write an article about this (IMHO quite important) extender myself somewhen...

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 01:04, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar about Star Trek project!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	I have recently co-adopted Star Trek project. I painstakingly searched the history to find the person who added all those intense details. I have begun to do likewise on readability and citations. I look forward to working with you! Smuckola (talk) 02:47, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. :-) --Matthiaspaul (talk) 02:23, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	We'll get this silly old article into citation rehab someday, but in the meantime, it's pure golden Internet techno-lore! Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 17:31, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

We should join or start a retro operating system group (task force, etc). It'd be more specific than a retro computing group, which would include tons of 8-bit and other extreme esoterica. But it'd be pretty darn broad. Thanks for messing with OS/2. I hope you also like what I've done with MkLinux, Workplace OS, and a ton of exotic Mac OS related things. Blue meanies, System 7, early Cocoa, etc. Ye olden lore! — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 23:36, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Keep up the good work. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 01:04, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Ohlsdorf Jewish Cemetery

Hello, sorry for the late reply, i think you better do it since you are a native speaker of German language (if i am not wrong) and due to this reason, it's much easier for you to find information. The Wikipedia makes it hard to enter some info without citing any source, so how am i supposed to do that without knowing German? It is not my intention to cause copyright violations but then Wikipedia should stop asking for citing sources and references. Cheers Evangelidis (talk) 23:28, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I gave my answer on your talk page ([1]). Greetings. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 02:23, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Redirect creation

This is a rare instance when adding an own edit summary is a bad idea. Left it blank, please – everyone knows why you create them, but the target is not always obvious. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 14:46, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Since I always give edit summaries, I wasn't aware that there's also a default summary inserted when I don't specify one. Thanks for pointing me to it. I may now sometimes, but only in those rare cases where I see fit, skip adding my own summaries, as I still consider adding edit summaries as good policy to be followed.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 18:58, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Typography

Please, do not use your own non-standard terminology in articles. You can ever consult {{Punctuation marks}} sidebar or corresponding articles. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 14:46, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Your assertion could be read as if I would use or enforce my own non-standard terminologies all over the place. I certainly don't do that at all. This single edit was down to a genuine mistake, and as much as I am grateful to have been corrected I wonder if just fixing it wouldn't have done the job already. In German language a colon is called Doppelpunkt, perhaps that's how I came to believe it would be called double-colon in English as well... ;-)

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 18:58, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Reflinks changes to Master boot record

Hello, Matthias

I hope I am not bothering you but I feel it is high time we convened about the edits in master boot record article because apparently we have trouble understanding the purpose of one another. (I certainly have; one of your edit summaries says you are not sure.)

In my 12:17, 19 April 2013 edit, I:

• Used Dispenser/Reflinks to improve the citation style of eight of the references
• Converted all instances of <tt> to <code> (because Reflinks warned me that <tt> is deprecated in HTML5)
• Removed the misplaced TOC marker (that caused too much space between the TOC box and the first header)
• Added {{Reflist}} in place of nested <reference> tags
• Forgot to include all of these in the edit summary field

Reflinks itself removed underscore (_) from anchors.

Then I saw your 22:01, 19 April 2013 edit. There was things in it that I was not sure you intended to be there, only I could not tell which. (I was sure that TOC marker, for instance, is not intended.) But your edit summary told me that you prefer <tt> tag back. So, I made 09:30, 20 April 2013 and 09:36, 20 April 2013 edits: I reverted to Yobot version, where I thought to be the least disputed instance, and repeated my edit list except item #2.

I thought that should take care of our little dispute but wasn't I wrong? I am not sure what this part of edit summary means: "I am reformatting templates again so they don't have dangling SPACEs (which is technically bad)". What I see are line breaks before each parameter (which I neither support nor oppose) and |author= parameters being broken into |first= and |last= (which I appreciate). Is there anything else that I missed?

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 17:53, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Lisa.

Yes, the TOC token can go for sure. Well spotted! It was put in when the article was still not fully structured, so that the TOC showed up in the right place. Somehow I missed that in my edit.

Regarding <code> and <tt>, to some extent they are interchangeable, at least for as long as only one of them is used in a single article. However, in articles featuring both, I have almost consistently seen <tt> being used for numbers, and <code> for, well, pieces of code, commands etc. I don't know if <tt> is deprecated (I could look it up), but then we'd have to devise a macro template to emulate its teletype appearance (without changing the background color), as using <code> can really look distracting, when numbers have a different background color than normal text. It also looks very strange in tables, since the background shading does not match the default background shade of tables as well.

Regarding the underscores ('_'), fortunately, it works both ways. I tend to use spaces (' ') in normal (flow) text and underscores in identifiers like symbols. Since I consider invisible anchors and reference names as symbols, I use underscores for them. Experience has shown that allowing whitespaces in symbols makes parsing more complex and error prone, as whitespaces are also used as delimiter and additional rules are needed to distinguish between whitespaces, which are actually delimiting something, and whitespaces which do not. Wiki-syntax allows both ways in almost all cases (for as long as the parser isn't broken), so there is no clear right or wrong here, I just think, we should use the same style in a link as used in the corresponding link target. So, if we link to an anchor named #abc_123, it seems odd to use #abc 123 in a link just because "we can". Sooner or later doing so will cause trouble.

Regarding the references, I wasn't sure why you first reverted my edit just to reapply most of that stuff in the next edit again. ;-) After all, I had already taken care of the <tt> thing, so your revert seemed to have targeted the references mostly - only that I hadn't done much to the references other than reformatting them to one parameter per line (where possible), thereby fixing two dangling work= and pages= parameters, and streamlining the dates to use the international date format as defined in ISO 8601 (and previously used in the article). Like you, I don't have a personal preference to put it all into one line or use one line per parameter (perhaps a very slight preference to the former as it does not introduce line-feeds as another wild-card into the parameter parsing), however, I just try to use whatever is used on an existing page (if a preference can be determined - perhaps not in this particular article ;-) ). However, for the same reasons as stated above (potential parsing difficulties), I try to avoid spaces in front or after an argument as part of the argument. If I mean "test string", why should I write " test string", "test string ", or even " test string "? I would do so only if the space is a vital part of the argument itself. Therefore, knowing that the pipe character '|' is the delimiter here, I recommend

argument1=test string|argument2=test string|argument3=test string

instead of forms like

argument1= test string|argument2=test string |argument3=test string

Otherwise a (revision of the) parser may consider the space to be part of the argument, causing ambiguity. Of course, a parser can strip off whitespaces on both ends of an argument (it does so at present for named parameters, but not for unnamed parameters), but what if there were valid arguments which actually need to contain whitespaces in these places? This would require more work-arounds or exceptions or out-of-order executions to be implemented, making it more complex and therefore more error prone and difficult to maintain. (We already have an assortment of special cases for trailing dots, including a need for extra parameters to override these defaults. ;->) In the case of multi-line templates, we can (safely?) assume that a deliberate line-break is taken as delimiter as well, at least it is much less likely part of the argument than a pending space.

Again, for as long as the parser isn't broken, this does not create any immediate problems either way, but I have seen parsing reaching its limits in more complicated cases already.

Greetings. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 22:09, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi.

I asked around about the parser. Assuming we have |name=value:

• Leading and trailing white space around pipe (|) is okay
• Leading and trailing white space around parameter name is okay
• Trailing white space after value is okay
• Leading space before the value (after equal sign) is not always okay. It is parsed but may be ignored by the second-tier parser that interprets template code. So, it varies from template to template.

White space is defined as space character and line break. I did not research about tab character.

As for conversion between <tt>...</tt> and <code>...</code>, I am told to stop worrying and make no deliberate attempt to perform or dispute the conversion insofar it concerns a syntactic change only.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 09:08, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Binary number and Hexadecimal

Hi Matthiaspaul,

I wanted to let you know that I recently reversed two of your edits, one to binary number and the other to hexadecimal. In both cases, you added a remark about the words "Intel convention" and "Motorola convention". I don't know whether these usages are common (I'm a mathematician), but I couldn't find any reference using the quoted phrases. In the hexadecimal article, I thought the comment was redundant, since the paragraph already mentions in both cases where the convention is used; in the binary number article, an explanation like the one at hexadecimal would be valuable, especially with citations. Unfortunately (as I noted) I don't really know anything about this topic and so don't know what sort of reliable source would have this kind of information.

All the best, JBL (talk) 17:57, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Joel, thanks for making me aware of your reversion. Well, I am so accustomed to these terms, that it didn't came to me, that someone might question them. I hope you do not question the existance of these notations, just their names, or do you? I should be able to come up with many old books on programming (1980s era) citing these notations as being used (and apparently originally introduced) by Intel and Motorola, but it might be difficult finding a source formally defining them as "Motorola convention" or "Intel convention", that's just how I have seen these notations being referred to in verbal communication over the decades.

However, the main point I was trying to make by adding this information was that Intel uses a postfix notation, and Motorola used a prefix notation to describe numbers in other numeral systems systematically. I found this information helpful to understand why so many different conventions exists and also to make it easier to remember them. Therefore I don't think I was adding redundant info to the article, even though Intel and Motorola were already mentioned.

Greetings --Matthiaspaul (talk) 18:58, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Matthiaspaul,

Well, as I say this is not something I know much about, but I have no reason to doubt that the notations are correct as presented; nor do I doubt your expertise on this question (and if you re-inserted your text I would bear no ill will nor revert again, although it does seem to me that this is covered in hexadecimal). It seems to me that if you have ready access to this sort of information it would be great (for the reasons you note) to add to the binary number article information analogous to that in hexadecimal, i.e., a brief list of contexts (Intel, Motorola, but also others if you know them) where the various listed notations are used.

All the best, JBL (talk) 23:20, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I now ran into two sources supporting my original contribution regarding the Intel and Motorola conventions. Therefore, I put it back in adding those references.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 18:11, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Contested assertions need a source

Hello, Matthias

I must hurry, so I apologize for the curt and crude message in advance. About this: [2]. Perhaps you already know that unreferenced contributions in Wikipedia may be contested or removed. I have already registered an objection to 82.236.210.11's crude edit summaries in his talk page but per Wikipedia policies, no one should reinstate his removals without providing a source that affirms the disputed statement.

In fact, I myself really want to see an evidence for the assertion that Windows 9x was DOS-based.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 08:25, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Formerly, linguistics vs. technical accuracy; now source

Hello, Matthias

I hope I am not bothering you but I thought I give you a note about my BRDing your edit in Windows 95. You have written "On startup, the MS-DOS component in Windows 95". For the time being, I assume it is completely true from technical standpoint. However, from the linguistic standpoint, it is not. In other words, this is not how people speak (or write). "MS-DOS component in Windows 95" can refer to a lot of things, including COMMAND.COM and Command Prompt. So, your sentence is at best vague, if not strange. Just for testing it, I showed your sentence to my brother and indeed he thought he should press F8 after Windows 95 welcome screen appeared and that he has a huge window of opportunity for doing so before desktop appears. (What reinforced his interpretation was that the paragraph later talked about "exiting to DOS" which only happens when Windows 95 is running.) However, boot loader is often associated with the menu that allows them to choose an operating system. It proved more successful because it implied that F8 must be pressed before operating system start.

I remember Richard Stallman trying to convince people to start saying "photoshoping it" and instead say "GIMPing it" when they talk about doctoring an image. He was unsuccessful because he failed to comprehend that language is not a matter of ultimate technical accuracy: Words are coined in the language, but then their meaning evolves while their form eludes change. So, yes, maybe the Windows 95 boot loader code is MS-DOS code as you say (technical correct), but article writing is a matter of proper combination of accuracy, naturalness and emotional response. It is a matter of writing what people understand, not what one editor deems technically most correct.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 10:00, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

P.S. I see that you counter-reverted while I was writing this. Hmmm... I guess the whole point of discussion is now lost. Codename Lisa (talk) 10:02, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Matt, you appear to be engaged in edit warring. Please stick to WP:BRD: When someone reverts you and leaves you a message, please discuss with him. When someone reverts and does not leave a message, you go ahead and do it. Whatever, you do, don't edit-war. And by the way, I think what you wrote is patent nonsense, feel free to add a source; I wanted to add "if you can" but you can't because it is not true.

And Codename Lisa, for God sake stop acting all chivalrous and negative. Report edit warriors to WP:ANI. Fleet Command (talk) 10:26, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello, guys. I don't think there is any instance of chivalry or negativity here or in the article and I think it is premature to call anyone "edit warrior" or even think of WP:ANI or WP:AN/EW. Yet, it is also premature to levy allegations like "downplay MS-DOS's role". First, we need to prove MS-DOS's role, then go down that path. An I make a point of not wanting to be either one of those who shout "it was MS-DOS–based" nor those that shout-back "that's nonsense". However, the point I'd like to defend that calling it "boot loader" does not conflict with calling it "MS-DOS code". Boot loaders are also code; thus, they can be MS-DOS code. (But we need a source for that.) I offer these two sources:

• http://support.microsoft.com/kb/217210
• http://support.microsoft.com/kb/155034

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 11:10, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello again, Matthias. Once again, I assumed good faith in people who do not supply a source and am disappointed: According to [3], [4] and [5], the option to exit to MS-DOS is only available in systems that multi-boot DOS and Windows 95. Even though I do not dismiss the possibility that these sources may be subject to different interpretations, I also do not dismiss the possibility that the unreferenced OR written in the article may have stemmed from a similar error.

To conclude, I quote from WP:V: "Any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 11:32, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

@Fleet: I'm really astonished where you see edit-warring between Lisa and me, I certainly don't. I'm completely relaxed and I think (hope so) Lisa is as well. Also, we are discussing when things need to be discussed, but I don't think every edit in the flow needs to be reflected on talk pages. That's what edit summaries are for.

Lisa, cleaning up the article in good faith, put in a technical incorrect statement, which I improved upon. Lisa then reverted for linguistical reasons, and I restored because as much as I love good prose, I feel that truth (technical accurateness) is more important, if both cannot be had at the same time. I explained in the summary why using the term boot loader in this context is not appropriate here but encouraged her to find better words. Actually, I see a form of constructive collaboration here, not edit-warring. In either case, the whole thing was triggered because some days ago an angry IP removed larger portions of the article which I restored because I found them vital to understand certain aspects of this operating system. I was not the author of these portions. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 13:22, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Hi Lisa, nothing is lost. I would have contacted you as well, but you were faster. The point, however, is, that it is important to be technically accurate here, because this is one of the keys to understand the hybrid architecture of this product named Windows 9x, which was a bundle of MS-DOS 7.xx + Windows 4.xx. As you might know, the operating system was originally advertised by Microsoft as being all new, rewritten and without any traces of MS-DOS, while in reality, the basic architecture has not changed from DOS + Windows 3.xx with the Windows portion running in 386 Enhanced mode. One of the differences is that the MS-DOS startup process is obfuscated as MS-DOS displays a graphical logo so that users cannot see the (still occuring) normal text output and that it starts up WIN.COM automatically (as you probably know, it is trivial to disable this, but mere users still got the impression that there was no DOS around any more). Another difference is that Windows 4 has, of course, better driver support so that it can handle more stuff in 32-bit protected mode, without a need to pass this "down" to MS-DOS and/or the BIOS. There are many other refinements and additions but nothing what would change the basic hybrid architecture - even not in Windows ME (MS-DOS 8.0 + Windows 4.9). I put "down" in quotes above, because what actually happens is more complicated and difficult to describe unless you are familiar with the 386 protected mode and virtual x86 mode. This is where "in", "on" and "under" have more than the obvious meanings (as per the MOS), and ultimatively this is were all this discussion, if Windows 9x is an operating system of its own or not, and if MS-DOS is a vital part of it, is still hanging around for compatibility, is only used at boot time, or does not exist at all, comes from. This once was a multi-million dollar question heavily discussed in the industry, therefore it is important to be technically accurate and we should try hard not to use vocabulary misused in that "war of OSes" for some purposes. After all, we want to tell the truth, not one party's "new-speak"? Microsoft, of course, tried to convince people, that DOS was no longer needed and only optionally used to run legacy DOS application and as a "boot loader", whereas independent industry experts have demonstrated in magazine articles, in books, and also successfully in court, that this was clearly not the case. If you are really interested in this subject, I recommend that you study Andrew Schulman's books Undocumented DOS (2nd edition) and Unauthorized Windows 95. These books do by far not cover all aspects involved, but they are technically accurate and a good read and very good introduction. After studying them you also know why Microsoft's response to one of these books (the reference given by that IP) is macroscopically correct as well (of course), but mostly (intentionally) beside the point. Even our recent IP stated that Andrew's "theory" (as the IP put it - actually it isn't a theory, but technical facts) were completely dismissed, while in reality they were not at all.

But back to your original question, perhaps, if we would detail the whole startup process from when the Volume Boot Record passes execution to the DOS BIOS (one of the components in IO.SYS) up to when the graphical shell gets loaded (WIN.INI SHELL=EXPLORER.EXE), we would also find a natural and linguistically more pleasing place to describe the boot menus alongside this process. However, the Windows 9x articles are not in my immediate scope of interest at present, therefore the time I'm willing to spend on them is certainly limited (at least at present). I just don't like seeing falsehoods being spread there, that's why I removed some incorrect statements, which raise wrong impressions and thereby are not helpful to understand how this system actually worked.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 12:42, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I would like to second Matthias here. Technical accuracy is what is important here, both from an encyclopedic perspective, as well as to maintain a neutral point of view. While the whole "operating system vs. graphical shell" discussion was once highly contentious, there is absolutely no dispute on how W95 operates from a purely technical perspective (whether you ask Shulman or a Windows kernel developer.) The contentiousness of the issue only start to arrive once you try to distil all this technical complexity down to a binary statement "operating system" or "graphical shell", and by extension when you start to apply labels like "operating system" or "boot loader" the the MS-DOS component of W95. —Ruud 14:03, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Matthias. Hello, Ruud.

At this point I refrain to comment these statements. However, in the light of contradictory statements by our guest editor and the sources that I found, this issue is no longer a matter of technical vs. natural wording. (I have modified the heading to reflect this issue but this is your talk page, Matthias; you can revert it.) Per WP:V, "any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation."

Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 16:36, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

You have failed to comprehend what these sources are saying. In fact, the sources you mentioned in the edit summary are in complete agreement with the statement you removed and claimed to have been original research. You must have somehow managed to misinterpret the statement "The option to boot to a Previous version of MS-DOS will be present only if MS-DOS was installed before installation of Windows 9x.", from one of the sources, as meaning the whole boot menu disappears, instead of merely the 7th option. —Ruud 17:11, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello. That is what I said: You present an interpretation of your own. And as I said, I neither oppose nor support. But the sentence that you just returned to the article: Does it have source? No, it does not. So, I am adding a {{citation needed}} to it to reflect this problem but won't mind if you removed. And please don't take me wrong: I do not mean to say what I do is absolutely correct; in fact, any feedback is welcome. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 18:52, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello, guys. Just grabbed a copy of Windows 95. I was both right and wrong. The part I was right was about interpreting [6]: Only option #7 disappeared, not the whole menu (as Ruud suggested). The part I was wrong, however, is that by now I assume it is possible to boot into DOS via option #5, "Command Prompt only". I could not do it in my system because the system stops responding, but I definitely saw an attempt to load COMMAND.COM. Still... there is a lot there... Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 07:30, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Reversion of my edits to SuperDrive article

Would you care to explain why you reverted my recent edit(s) to that article? Bumm13 (talk) 00:27, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

It might help for you to realize that Wikipedia:Piped link is not actual policy and that I do take issue with you reverting my good faith edits to SuperDrive, especially given your relative inexperience as a Wikipedia editor. Thanks Bumm13 (talk) 01:03, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Bumm13. I guess, everything is relative. Your edits were definitely good faith (I had not the slightest doubt about that and never said to the contrary), but nevertheless they were incorrect and therefore had to be corrected by someone. I gave the pointer to WP:NOPIPE, because the section there naturally leads to WP:REDIR and WP:NOTBROKEN, which are established editing guidelines. These guidelines clearly indicate that we must not replace redirects by pipes (as you did here: [7]):

* [[FAT12]] -> [[File Allocation Table#FAT12|FAT12]]

* [[ProDOS]] -> [[Apple ProDOS|ProDOS]]

* [[CD]] -> [[Compact disc|CD]]

Actually, the exact opposite is what we should do:

* [[File Allocation Table#FAT12|FAT12]] -> [[FAT12]]

* [[Apple ProDOS|ProDOS]] -> [[ProDOS]]

* [[Compact disc|CD]] -> [[CD]]

I would therefore appreciate, if you would revert your reversion of my correction of your edit yourself rather than me (or someone else) having to do it.

I haven't checked your edit history, but if you did similar changes in the recent past, it might be a good idea to proactively reevaluate and where necessary fix them as well.

On a different note: Comments like this one ([8]), where you are trying to intimidate and push another editor are inappropriate for any admin, in particular over something as minuscle as this complete non-issue. I answer talks when I find time for it (and think it is necessary), not when someone attempts to push me (in this case even with factually wrong statements). However, assuming your good faith, I will assume you just had a bad day yesterday somehow and therefore I wish you good luck. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 11:23, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that you've not given any actual reason as to why my edits were incorrect other than whatever pseudo-policy WP:THISPAGE and WP:THATPAGE pages happen to support your view on the matter. The specific "It is not necessary to pipe links simply to avoid redirects" statement was added by User:Rockero on June 23, 2006 (per [this diff]). There's nothing authoritative about his statement and it flies in the face of clean, direct linking to article pages. Put differently, redirects serves the needs of editors, not the other way around. It's not your fault that this issue hasn't been raised on the Wikipedia talk:Piped link talk page until now, but to treat my edits as if they are no different than vandalism and to act by reverting them is, perhaps, showing poor discretion over what you yourself said was "something as minuscle as this complete non-issue".

As for the pointer to WP:NOPIPE leading "naturally" to WP:REDIR and WP:NOTBROKEN, it appears that you yourself added the link to WP:NOTBROKEN (per this [diff]). I'd be careful about correlating a word such as "naturally" to "because I think it natural and thus added something I agree with to a page on Wikipedia".

On my comment that you linked to earlier, I apologize for sounding rude or pushy, but I did redact the comment (by removing it), so I can only hope you accept my apology. I'm not here to push other editors around or any such thing; I want to see Wikipedia continue to improve as a repository for knowledge. Regards, Bumm13 (talk) 03:12, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Bumm13: "The problem is that you've not given any actual reason as to why my edits were incorrect other than whatever pseudo-policy WP:THISPAGE and WP:THATPAGE pages happen to support your view on the matter."

Matthiaspaul: Bumm, actually, I think this edit summary ([9]) was quite clear about what's wrong with the edit. Perhaps, I could have said WP:NOTBROKEN instead of WP:NOPIPE, but the outcome would have been the same. As I said, I wanted to point you to both at the same time, therefore I used WP:NOPIPE. I mean, we are not here to play games like "who knows the better WP:SOMETHING pointer", but we are here to do "the right thing", or in other words, even if I had not given any edit summary at all or were an unexperienced editor or even an IP, your edits in question would still not have been correct, and according to your edit on the Wikipedia talk:Piped link page ([10]) you knew about the guideline(s) WP:NOTBROKEN and WP:REDIR (and therefore also, that your recent edits were violating them) before you complained about WP:NOPIPE not being a guideline on my talk page ([11]). Looks a bit odd to me.

Don't worry, I don't want to make a "case" out of that (because I'm here to improve WP and not at all interested in time-wasting drama), but given your reply above, I just want to point out that this particular "issue" exists not because I (or someone else) made a mistake, but because you were apparently somehow not aware of WP:NOTBROKEN and WP:NOPIPE before your edits. No problem, that's why we can diff and revert. I would not go as far as calling it a "fault" not to know about some random guideline (we certainly all have our white spots), but please don't try to find excuses elsewhere.

Bumm13: "The specific "It is not necessary to pipe links simply to avoid redirects" statement was added by User:Rockero on June 23, 2006 (per [this diff]). There's nothing authoritative about his statement and it flies in the face of clean, direct linking to article pages."

Matthiaspaul: It's "authoritive" in that apparently the vast majority of editors agree with it since 2006. In fact, the current text exists since a consentual talk page discussion on Wikipedia talk:Piped link#Using piping to make links longer than necessary in 2007/2008. And, there's nothing more "clean" in pipes than in redirects. They both serve a number of good purposes, and can also be made to work for things for which they do not fit well. Our efforts should always go towards using the best available tool for a particular purpose in a given scenario.

I can understand that it might be embarrasing and - at first sight - even may sound like a bad idea to use redirects when you prefer and are accostumed to use pipes and somehow missed the corresponding guidelines over all those years, but please let the idea that redirects are in reality far superior to pipes in many cases sink in for a few days and try to compare their pros and cons (and their technical capabilities) without bias. I'm quite confident you will learn to appreciate them as well as the rest of the community. (I know, redirects in the current implementation are not perfect (and perhaps one of their peculiaries is the reason why you do not seem to like them), but this is just down to implementation issues, which will be overcome with time, whereas pipes, if used in the wrong spots, are really becoming a serious problem, because they are conceptually the wrong tool and directly detrimal to the growth and maintainability of Wikipedia and the future semantic web ("Web 3.0").)

Bumm13: "It's not your fault that this issue hasn't been raised on the Wikipedia talk:Piped link talk page until now,"

Matthiaspaul: Bumm13, it's noone's fault, there is no issue with the contents on Wikipedia talk:Piped link in its current form at all, at least not in my opinion (and apparently not in the judgement of the majority of other editors as well, otherwise they would have raised some serious concerns over all these years).

Bumm13: "but to treat my edits as if they are no different than vandalism and to act by reverting them is, perhaps, showing poor discretion over what you yourself said was "something as minuscle as this complete non-issue"."

Matthiaspaul: I am sadened to see that you are hurt somehow, but you really do not need to be hurt just because someone reverted you (for a reason). I don't agree with you, however, when you are trying to make a case where there really is none. The only way to deal with these particular edits of yours ([12]) was to revert them ([13]). This was not optional as they were clearly violating our guidelines. It is also not possible to "half-revert" a badly formatted link. I could have "silently" reverted to the old version and provided an edit summary like "fixed links per guidelines" not indicating that I actually reverted you, but I would consider deliberately providing misleading edit summaries as gaming the system. Since your changes spread over 5 edits, I did not want to revert five similar individual edits of yours, therefore I reverted them all in one go and, per the guidelines, was thereby obligated to make a dummy edit to retrofit the corresponding edit summary. This is exactly what I did, and I improved on your hatnote change in the same edit. My edit summary reads: "Edit summary for previous revert: We deliberately try to avoid pipes where possible as per WP:NOPIPE. Reapplied Bumm13's improvement of the disambiguation hatnote, but now using corresponding template". There is not the slightest hint of assuming bad faith or even vandalism in it. Please do not try to read that into it, it's not in there.

Bumm13: "As for the pointer to WP:NOPIPE leading "naturally" to WP:REDIR and WP:NOTBROKEN, it appears that you yourself added the link to WP:NOTBROKEN (per this [diff])."

Matthiaspaul: Sure.

Bumm13: "I'd be careful about correlating a word such as "naturally" to "because I think it natural and thus added something I agree with to a page on Wikipedia"."

Matthiaspaul: I added that link there to make it easier for editors to find related information about our established editing guidelines. WP:NOPIPE and WP:NOTBROKEN closely relate to each other in their practical consequences and reasoning. It is quite normal to link ("naturally") related contents. I really can't see what you think is wrong here.

Regarding the question why redirects are superior to pipes in most cases, and also regarding the few exceptions where they are not, please also see the talk pages of the corresponding guidelines. A lot of things have been discussed and considered in the development of these guidelines, which reflect community consensus established over many years. I could only repeat the pros and cons here. If you do not agree with them, please raise your concerns on the corresponding talk pages. If you like, we can continue to discuss the pros and cons there, but as far as I am concerned, I would love to have some technical issues resolved, but from the perspective of a systems architect I'm happy with the "strategic" direction laid out in these guidelines towards logical and attributated linking (redirects) instead of low-level physical linking (pipes). It's vital to keep a project this size and complexity managable now and long term. After all, Wikipedia in 2013 is no longer what it was ten years ago.

One important question remains, will you fix your recent edits against WP:NOTBROKEN, or will you leave that to me or other editors?

Greetings. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 12:18, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

There have been edits here (Wikipedia talk:Redirect#Section_.22Don.27t_fix_links_to_redirects_that_aren.27t_broken.22_suggested_change) as recently as nine days ago that indicate lack of consensus regarding the WP:NOTBROKEN issue yet you have reverted my edits as if there is absolute consensus on the matter (there isn't and there may not ever be).

As my edits didn't break anything, they will remain as-is. If you personally choose to revert them (even though they are in no way detrimental to Wikipedia and are not vandalism), I will consider you involved in a protracted edit dispute and will have no choice but to proceed with the dispute resolution process. Bumm13 (talk) 21:49, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

For the records, this "discussion" continued at Wikipedia talk:Redirect#Restoring_links_to_redirects

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 01:04, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Intel 8086 code example

Thanks for the code corrections for the Intel 8086. And yes, the code is meant to illustrate the various kinds of opcodes available to the CPU, and is not meant to be the most optimal assembler code. I could have written more efficient code, but the result would not be as easily understood by novices and people (like me) who just want to see a small, fairly easy to understand sample of what the code looks like for the CPU. I've added short code examples to other articles (8008, 6800, 6502, 8080, Z80), which could use another pair of eyes for correctness. My goal is to eventually have a short code example in all of the major historical CPU articles (e.g., IBM 360, IBM 370, PDP-8, PDP-10, PDP-11, 4004, 6809, Z8000, 80386, etc.). — Loadmaster (talk) 04:37, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

You are welcome. Do you plan to use the same example for all CPUs? This would aid cross-comparisons of coding styles for different target CPUs, but it would not show specific capabilities of some CPUs, if we don't exploit REP MOVSB etc. in the example for the 8086. It could make people think of the 8086 as being much less capable than it actually is.

Hm, perhaps there would be a more suitable example problem to show the diversity of a CPU's instruction set. Perhaps a simple array or list sort problem? Or some number conversion problem? Or a stream data extraction problem? Of course, it had to be short if it should be included in an article.

Another question: Shouldn't either the code or the comments account for the modification of the CX, SI, DI and Flags registers?

Greetings --Matthiaspaul (talk) 10:59, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm using essentially the same memcpy example for the 8-bit CPUs (8008, 6502, 6800, 8080, Z80). I've got a slightly more complicated strtolower example for 16-bit CPUs (which so far is only in the 68000 article; I'd like to add something like it for the IBM S/360, PDP-10, PDP-11, Z8000, 80386, etc.). Other example subroutines that might be instructive are:

• Addition of two 8-digit packed decimal values;
• Summing all the elements of an n-element integer (or floating-point) array;
• 16-bit multiplication (for 8-bit CPUs), and 32-bit or 64-bit multiplication (for 16-bit and 32-bit CPUs);
• Deleting a node from a doubly-linked list;

...and so forth. Ideally, it would be most instructive to show a half-dozen or so opcodes within a subroutine that's no longer than, say, 20 lines. I don't think readers are going to be interested in code that's longer than half a page or so. I'd like to be able to show the actual binary codes as well (most of the examples I've written I had to assemble by hand, which is tedious and error-prone). The examples are not meant to be actual production-worthy code.

I don't want to show too many complex instructions unless they really are exemplary/typical for a given CPU. For example, I'm on the fence about using the REP opcodes for the 8086; on the one hand, they are more efficient instructions and thus would probably be used in practical applications, but on the other hand they are harder to understand for casual programmers/readers. Also note that the PDP-11 architecture and PDP-8 articles give much more detailed break-downs of the CPU instruction formats; such a thing would be nice for the other processors. The PDP-8 article also has several very small coding examples. — Loadmaster (talk) 23:56, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

List of Yale University People

Hi, Matthiaspaul, would you happen to know to which section Asoka Bandarage could be added? Lotje (talk) 12:01, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Lotje. I would put her under List of Yale University People#Professors and scholars or List of Yale University People#Religion. Greetings. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 12:11, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Keyboard layouts

Hello, Can you tell me what's your source about the italian keyboard layout? I've been living in Italy most of my life and I've never seen anything QZERTY (I've also used old mechanical typewriters, just for fun, and they were QWERTY). The only place where I saw different layouts was the laboratory at the math and computer science department where I was attending, which used US keyboards (that are QWERTY too by the way) and were later replaced with normal Italian QWERTY keyboards. So could you show me your source? And is it recent? Look at this italian made typewriter. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Olivetti_Lettera_32_(2).jpg

LtWorf (talk) 13:57, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi, LtWorf. The point I was trying to make was that Italy uses more than one keyboard layout, as was correctly illustrated in the map. That's why I reverted you when you stated that Italians only use one layout.

It's a while ago when I was a developer of keyboard drivers and therefore did extensive research on the subject of keyboard layouts worldwide. I still have piles of documents archived but they are not handy right now (and realistically I don't have the time to look them up soon - sorry). However, one source for different keyboard layouts are the keyboard layout registries at Microsoft and IBM. They have assigned IDs to most layouts they support or supported in their software. Microsoft's knowledge base identifies ID 141 (IIRC this was a QZERTY variant, but I would have to look it up to be sure) and ID 142 (definitely a QWERTY variant), an older newsgroup post of mine ([14]) also mentions ID 146, which I had found to be supported in some version of DOS, I think (but I would have to look it up to be sure, it might have been OS/2 as well). IBM's keyboard layout registry mentions ID 142 (as stated, a QWERTY variant), ID 293 (another QWERTY variant), and ID 150G (a QWERTZ variant used in some areas of Northern Italy).

Hope it helps. Greetings --Matthiaspaul (talk) 09:28, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation

Hello, Matthiaspaul. When you moved Convertible to a new title and then changed the old title into a disambiguation page, you may not have been aware of WP:FIXDABLINKS, which says:

A code of honor for creating disambiguation pages is to fix all resulting mis-directed links.

Before moving an article to a qualified name (in order to create a disambiguation page at the base name, to move an existing disambiguation page to that name, or to redirect that name to a disambiguation page), click on What links here to find all of the incoming links. Repair all of those incoming links to use the new article name.

It would be a great help if you would check the other Wikipedia articles that contain links to "Convertible" and fix them to take readers to the correct article. Thanks. R'n'B (call me Russ) 09:57, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Sure, Russ, that's what I almost always do. However, in this particular case I wasn't prepared to manually edit hundreds of articles (in particular not in the time I had left yesterday), and I first wanted to flesh out the new disambiguation page a bit more, anyway (which has happened meanwhile). Also, going through the long list, I found several cases of incoming redirects where I could not make a proper decision where they should point to (I'm not into cars and carriages at all). I have meanwhile changed some of these redirects to bypass the disambiguation page, but left others pointing to it.

If we compile a list of incoming links which should bypass the disambiguation page and go directly to Convertible (car) (in order to cover the largest bulk of links affected), don't you think it would be an ideal task for a bot to carry out the actual edits?

Greetings. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 13:23, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, I started to fix the links manually, but after changing a few hundred of them another editor changed Convertible to be the primary topic and the other meanings disambiguated at Convertible (disambiguation). While I don't think that the car meaning is the primary meaning of the term, this is an acceptable solution as well (as it avoids to have more than one alternative meaning mentioned in the main article). Therefore I have stopped converting the remaining links.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 01:04, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

System Manager edit to System Administrator

Hi,

It's not that I disagree with redirecting System Manager to System Administrator, it's that I disagree that there should be a link to "Datapac Multiuser DOS and System Manager" at the top of the page. That's an empty section of an almost-entirely inconsequential piece of software.

If we're going to have that, why not this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_Web-based_System_Manager

or this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PureSystems

or this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System_Manager_7#System_Manager

Does "System Manager" need a disambiguation page? -- User:StandaloneSA, 2013-07-03T16:26:42‎

Well, you are right about Datapac System Manager, but not about Multiuser DOS, although this is long ago.

Nevertheless, the whole idea about hatnotes is to disambiguate secondary meanings from what appears to be a primary topic for as long as no disambiguation page exists. Your examples above clearly show that there are more than these two meanings and, yes, they should be disambiguated. Therefore I have created a disambiguation page and removed the hatnote.

Greetings --Matthiaspaul (talk) 15:46, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Great, I think this works really well. Thank you very much. I hope I didn't come off too brash. I'm new to editing wikipedia, so I'm uncertain of the correct protocols.

Thanks!

StandaloneSA (talk) 15:58, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. I'm glad you like it. :-) --Matthiaspaul (talk) 01:04, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Support on 64-bit (again)

Hello, Paul

I hope I am not bothering you but I wanted to give you a notice about one of your edits in Virtual DOS machine. I partially reverted your edit (not all of it) and started a discussion at Talk:Virtual DOS machine § Support on 64-bit (again) where you can discuss or defend your edit and achieve a consensus or compromise, if you wish. I must say in advance that your cooperative spirit is much appreciated.

However, the main reason that I called you is because I used Wikipedia:VisualEditor. You see, you have a habit of manicuring the references which has no impact on the final rendering. I certainly do not spend my time doing such a thing but your time is yours. Now, VisualEditor does not respect that. If anyone change a single typo in the article or add a space character, VisualEditor will flatten your edits. This is notice meant to make your ready not to be caught by surprise if you see an edit diff is dramatic.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 16:21, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

S. Nick Barua sockpuppets

I've opened an SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mike willaims and listed the various sockpuppets I've spotted. But you also have been tracking and reverting his spam and may wish to add additional detail. Msnicki (talk) 20:23, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for opening this case. I have added another IP and a Commons account to the list, as well as a link to a recent discussion thread. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 21:10, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I saw that. Thank you, that was very helpful. I was disappointed that 119.18.148.3 wasn't blocked as well – July 7 was only 2 days ago and doesn't seem that stale to me – but something tells me we'll have another reason to back to well to request more blocks soon enough. Msnicki (talk) 21:19, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, same gut feeling here as well, unfortunately... --Matthiaspaul (talk) 21:23, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Join WikiProject Microsoft!

Why don't you join WikiProject Microsoft?

It seems that you have been editing Microsoft related articles, so why don't you consider joining WikiProject Microsoft, not to be confused with WikiProject Microsoft Windows. WikiProject Microsoft is a group of editors who are willing to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Microsoft, its technologies, web properties & its people. This WikiProject is brand new and is welcoming editors to help out. Add your name to the list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Microsoft/Participants and/or add the userbox {{Template:User WikiProject Microsoft}}. Thanks! jcc (tea and biscuits) 10:50, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

FAT technical specs

Look I understand you spent a good deal of time adding all those boot sector codes to the FAT article. To the point... it is overly technical. You can create the technical specs redirect if you want to claim credit for a new wiki.

Senior editor made comment atop wiki for a reason.

Fix the fucking article. It reads like shit with the superfluous boot sector graphs and overly detailed information. It's like fitting Stevie Wonder's biography into an article. What's the point?

---

If you really want to flesh out technical data, there exist wikia platforms for IT buffs-----------

e.g.:

http://community.wikia.com/wiki/Hub:Technology

Gary Kildall

Hi, I noticed you undid the changes/improvements I made to the article, which costed me a considerable effort. I think I must have Wikified over 10.000 articles (in multiple projects) but I never experienced such a waist of space in the reference section, as you created around the "excerpt of the BDOS.PLM file header". If this illustration is that important, can you move it into the article, and explain it some more?

Also it seems you have hidden three quotes in the reference section (see here), which are rather difficult to read. There is a sort of standard to present those kind of quotes; mainly in Wikiquote (When available in Wikipedia, they are most of the time moved to Wikiquote).

-- Mdd (talk) 18:09, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Mdd. Well, they were never meant as quotes in their own right by me, just as normal references including a citation from the original source using the quote= parameter. While most references come without embedded quotations, I felt that it would make sense to include them here for historical accurateness given that sources about the early history of CP/M are very rare, and while there are some inaccuracies in Killian's account of what happened, combined these sources can help to give definite answers to several questions about the early CP/M history. I agree with you in regard to the white space in the BDOS.PLM file header, but I didn't want to tamper with the formatting of this historic document at all. This is an excerpt of the original source code of one of the earliest versions of CP/M, and it is historically important because it is the earliest surviving document using the BIOS and BDOS designations, terms which are used up to the present. I agree with you that the white space in the references section looks a bit odd, but then I thought, it'll be okay, given that it is properly formatted according to the cite template rules and that it isn't located in the article body (where it would disturb the readers' flow) but only in the references section, which people typically look up only if they are interested in further details.

I only reverted the edit where you changed these references to quotes because your reformatting was apparently the reason why the IP editor, editing the article after you, recognized them as dubious and unsourced statements rather than as the accurately sourced citations from historic sources that they are. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 20:58, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Maththiaspaul. The reason why I removed it in the first place was, because I wanted to add a {{ref|2}} tag to recreate the reference section into 2 columns. With that original text it got all messy, and I was unable to give it a clean up. I only guess next time an experienced editor, unfamiliar with the matter, will encounter the same problems. Or others keep wondering about that illustration in the reference section. Please reconsider moving it into the article, or into a similar article. Or if not that important, move it to the talk-page.

As to those quotes (or just text from references), I also added them to the Wikiquote lemma of Gary Kildall. Feel free to alter those quotes, or add other quotes if your interested. -- Mdd (talk) 21:53, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Miscapitalization vs. misspelling

Why did you re-add the "from misspelling" category to EXIF? It is technically an incorrect capitalization but correct spelling of the abbreviation (that is, it contains the same letters in the same order as "Exif," but just the capitalization differs). Or is there a convention within Wikipedia that a miscapitalized abbreviation is considered a misspelling? Or did I miss something else entirely?

(In case the lack of the word "incorrect" in the template confused you: {{r from incorrect capitalization}} redirects to {{r from other capitalisation}}, so I decided to use the latter directly.) --SoledadKabocha (talk) 00:14, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi SoledadKabocha. It seems we both had (and have) the same intentions in regard to EXIF, but chose different paths trying to fulfill the goal.

Adding R from misspelling was my attempt to make clear, that EXIF is not valid because the abbreviation should be written as Exif (except for when the surrounding text is written in all uppercase as well). Some people are not aware of the fact, that the abbreviation of Exchangeable image file format is Exif and they incorrectly use EXIF when they add links to Exchangeable image file format in other articles. I felt that R from other capitalization wasn't "strong" enough, given that is does not flag the form as incorrect. Smart editors and bots can use the presence of the R from misspelling template (or in the corresponding category) to fix such errors semi-automatically, but they cannot do this for R from other capitalization. According to the documentation, R from misspelling can be used for misspellings and typographical errors, and while an incorrect capitalization is not normally a typographical error, I felt it would fit in here good enough.

If EXIF wouldn't have been used in quite a few talk pages already, I think the best solution would be to simply delete this particular redirect. This would keep people from using the wrong capitalization in articles (at least when they link to it), while the case-insensitive search box would still accept any capitalization of the remaining redirect Exif.

The next best solution, IMHO, would be to switch from R from other capitalization to R from incorrect capitalization (I wasn't aware of this particular one, thanks!) and possibly improve the template to make it work similar to R from misspelling.

Greetings, --Matthiaspaul (talk) 08:32, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

You probably noticed that I already switched it to R from incorrect capitalization ... but what do you mean by "possibly improve the template to make it work similar to R from misspelling"? Both already apply the "unprintworthy" category. --SoledadKabocha (talk) 15:38, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that and I like it.

What I meant was to modify R from incorrect capitalization so that it adds the corresponding redirects to Category:Redirects from misspellings as well (as R from misspelling does). While in the strict sense capitalization errors do not belong into there, I think it would be okay if we can thereby avoid creating Category:Redirects from incorrect capitalizations and given that this category is for maintenance only.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 22:13, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Nitpicking

Hello, Matthias

I have already told you once but it seems I need to remind you again: Tools, gadgets and VisualEditor like WikiEd, Twinkle, ProveIt!, etc. may automatically do edits like flattening citations (removing line breaks between cite templates) and removing underscore. What you reverted here, is one of those edits.

I do not mind if you revert such minor edits again and again and again; you are the owner of your time and I do not judge you if you feel such edits are not wasting it. In fact, I respect it. But then, you should expect comments like "Please spell anchors as they are defined instead of unnecessarily changing underscores to spaces or vice versa" to fall on deaf ears. Editors do not always have control over the tools' optimizations and even if they had, it is at their discretion not to disturb them. After all, it is not wrong.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 22:36, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the hint, Lisa, but unfortunately I don't agree with you here. While wikisyntax allows underscores and spaces to be interchanged (to circumvent a few cases, where one of these characters must be substituted by the other), this does not mean that we should change underscores to spaces or vice versa, nor are any such changes endorsed, in fact, the opposite is true. We should use whatever is used in the definition. In most cases, this will be spaces, but sometimes there are reasons, why underscores were used, and if so, this should be reflected in the links as well (unless you run into one of the few scenarios where substituting is necessary).

As I explained to you a while ago, I normally use space in "readable" names and underscores in symbolic names like those in question here in order to make them easier distinguishable from normal text. I use symbolic names, when they are highly specific and I deliberately do not want that name to ever clash with a normal readable name which may be created by another editor in the future, and I deliberately don't use spaces in such symbolic names. I have solid reasons for this. It keeps such symbols from wrapping around in editors, it makes it less likely that additional whitespace will be accidently inserted into the symbol's name by later source reformatting happening on a page (which would ultimately break the link), and foremost, consistency improves readability and it makes it much easier to search for patterns and maintain these symbols over many articles.

While you are absolutely free to ignore my suggestions and naming conventions and choose your own style, you should still not change underscores to spaces or vice versa unless there would be a reason why spaces were preferable here and you do it in all places involved in order to maintain consistency (however, in that case, I would use hyphens instead of underscores). While this fortunately does not break anything the hard way and links will continue to work for the while being, introducing such inconsistencies will still break the maintainability of articles in a soft way, and you thereby are making it considerably more difficult for other editors to contribute. It's unnecessary sand in the gear. It is therefore undesired, if not unconstructive, although certainly not intended as such. I take it, that you were not aware of the fact that you did these changes. Well, if your tools perform changes beyond (your) control, ditch those tools! Simple as that. If they change underscores to spaces in links despite them being defined using underscores in the target and without you telling them to do so, they are buggy and should be fixed. File a bug report. In the end, everyone is responsible for his/her edits based on the resulting wiki source code and it shouldn't matter what tools are used (I use my set of tools as well, but I don't use them as excuse).

BTW. While there are many editors editing links so that they use the same style of spacing/underscoring as used in the target, over all those years, you are the only editor I remember changing links to look different than on the target page in regard to space/underscores.

Greetings --Matthiaspaul (talk) 05:30, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

(Comment from uninvolved editor) Hey. I was curious, so, I checked. This edit seems to have caused the change. The gadget causing the change is called AutoEd and I see it has made a host of other good changes too.

Now, you say "ditch those tools!" That's way of out of line. If other people don't want to throw their lives over doing petty fixes that can be automated, you can't blame them and I very well understand if they don't want to re-waste the gained time by adhering to arbitrary conventions that you want to enforce.

Last but not least, if you haven't seen, that does not mean it didn't exist. It just means you didn't see. A lot of tools like Reflinks and WikEd fix underscore in links. Fleet Command (talk) 07:24, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Fleet. Thanks for commenting, but, well, unfortunately I see my position significantly misinterpreted in your comment.

It's good that tools exist to automate fixes where things need to be fixed. In this particular case, however, there was nothing to fix, and even if it was, certainly the tool (or the editor behind it) should not have introduced inconsistencies, which did not exist before (even when reducing the scope to this single article only) - this simply was no improvement at all. While some of Lisa's changes were fine, some other edits are questionable as well, but it would be opening a can of worms and I don't want to be nitpicking - so I just changed back what didn't need to be changed at all in the first place and what is essential to avoid actually wasting my time when continuing to work on the article as one of its major content contributors.

If some of these tools cause unintended changes as "collateral damage", as apparently happened in this case (given that there were no links with underscores in the article which needed fixing, and assuming that Lisa did not intend to change underscores in anchor names to spaces), it is not our all editing behaviour, that needs to be adjusted, but those tools that need to be fixed to do exactly what they should do - and nothing else. After all, it is just code. What programs do is always under our control rather than the other way around. Sometimes, programs are imperfect, usually because we, as their creators, missed something in the first place or we were too lazy to implement it the right way. In that case, we have the choice, either do not use those tools until they are fixed (and if we cannot fix them ourselves, at least initiate what is necessary so they get fixed by those who can fix them), or master them to still do what we want them to do despite their shortcomings. Simply ignoring their mistakes or even using them as excuse, however, is hardly acceptable. It would make us slaves of our own creations. And "saving time" doing unnecessary changes at the expense of wasting other editors' time is not desireable as well, however, we all know it sometimes happens even with best intentions, and I can therefore tolerate it for as long as it happens sporadically and unintentionally. As in this case I normally don't make an issue out of it and just correct it.

It's the same as with bots, either they do what they should do, or they need to be stopped and corrected. The responsibility for an edit is always with the person using a tool or running a bot, because he/she always has the choice to not use the tool if it isn't or cannot be mastered. We never give up our responsibilty to tools.

You wrote "If other people don't want to throw their lives over doing petty fixes that can be automated, you can't blame them"

Just to straighten the facts, it is not me who has a problem here, but Lisa. Obviously, she didn't like my edit, otherwise she wouldn't have complained about it on my talk-page. For me, this would have been a non-issue, because there never was a problem with automated tools changing underscores to spaces where this was not intended. If this would have been a common problem, I would have never come to adopt this convention years ago, but so far it wasn't at all. So, either we have had a recent guideline change enforcing spaces in anchor links even where underscores are used in the target, or there still is no issue. As I said, I can happily adjust to use hyphens or other characters, if underscores would cause any problems, but so far there never was a problem.

You wrote: "and I very well understand if they don't want to re-waste the gained time by adhering to arbitrary conventions that you want to enforce."

Hm, this is a rather stretched reflection of my position. I don't care, if other editors choose "my" convention or not, and I certainly don't enforce any arbitrary conventions on them, but when contributing the contents, anchor names had to be chosen somehow, and it just happens that I chose symbolic names without spaces (for reasons, see above). If someone has a better concept, great! They can use what they want, and I'm open to suggestions to adopt my style as well. All I ask is to not introduce inconsistencies, in particular not when only doing quick "drive-by" editing.

It is just the other way around, would other editors suddenly start to introduce the same inconsistencies and "enforce" spaces in anchors all over the place, where I previously used underscores, it would really be a tremendeous waste of my time, as it would make it much more difficult to maintain the articles using my tools. My solution would be to avoid spaces and underscores in symbolic anchors at all (actually, I may do this anyway). However, so far, there simply was no reason to do so, as everyone else managed not to introduce such inconsistencies - and the other editors use all sorts of tools as well.

Greetings --Matthiaspaul (talk) 15:49, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Wow, that's one long reply; I feel lucky it is not for me. Poor Fleet Command, who must read it. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 09:34, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi. No, I am not going to ditch the gadget. Convention and tools should serve the purpose; what you are asking is the other way around. Even if what you ask was a rule, I might have ignored it. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 13:10, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Thank you for removing the recent vandalism to the Washington State Pages! You are a real pro. :) -Birdymckee Birdymckee (talk) 08:02, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: Serial ata

Hello Matthiaspaul, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Serial ata, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: This would not be an uncontroversial deletion. Redirects from alternate capitalizations are common. Moreover, this page is visited quite frequently (http://stats.grok.se/en/latest30/Serial_ata), meaning people are in fact using this redirect to navigate. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you.

Signature got eaten due to a BracketBot error. Sorry for that. The above message was originally by Cymru.lass. Huon (talk) 00:57, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Caldera (company) interwiki

Hi, I removed ikw because Caldera (Unternehmen) on dewiki is only the redirect page - that's why it cannot exist in Wikidata. Regs, Doctore (talk) 00:09, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I assumed that already. ;-)

However, redirects are valid inter-wiki-link targets (and this example illustrates nicely why this is necessary sometimes). The syntax for local inter-wiki links continues to be supported after the wikidata launch with one of the reasons stated that it can help to solve cases, which are difficult to set up using wikidata. Therefore I don't think we should remove fully functional links to the correct pages just because they aren't using wikidata. It was difficult enough to sort out the total mess in the English WP mixing up the different Caldera companies. I may do this as well in the German WP somewhen in the future (if noone else does), however, so far I only set up the inter-wiki-links, so that at least the infra-stucture is there and the correct topics are interconnected for someone else to build on.

BTW. I have managed to set up links to redirects using wikidata in the past as well, but it is somewhat tricky and IMO just not worth the extra work and hassle for as long as everything is working nicely without it.

Greetings --Matthiaspaul (talk) 00:38, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Having had a look at the page in the Polish WP, it unfortunately mixes up the various Caldera companies as well. However, my Polish is way too bad to correct the facts there. So, if you could do something about it (using the English page as reference, which properly distinguishes between the companies now), that would be highly appreciated... ;-) --Matthiaspaul (talk) 00:55, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

It's true, we've got a mess on plwiki with that. I've seen your message in discussion, I'll try to fix that article. Doctore (talk) 13:30, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

AARD code

Thank you for readding content I removed on AARD code after adding an appropriate citation. Much appreciated! --Yamla (talk) 13:49, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

R from Unicode

It’s been a week. I plan to revert your reversions of my edits to redirects like NEC μPD96050. Okay? Gorobay (talk) 22:38, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Replied on the user's page. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 21:01, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Arabic MS-DOS listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Arabic MS-DOS. Since you had some involvement with the Arabic MS-DOS redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). � (talk) 17:44, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Issue solved by adding a small paragraph on Arabic, Hebrew and other special versions of DOS. Actually, these versions are different enough (from Western issues of DOS) to deserve a more detailed discussion, but I don't have the time for it right now. Let's hope others will use it as start. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 21:01, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Orphans

You have restored non-breaking spaces in File Allocation Table claiming it solves an Orphan (typesetting) problem. Orphans are associated with page breaks. There are no page breaks online. What you're apparently trying to address is single-word lines at the end of paragraphs. I am not aware of any aesthetic problem with these. If there is a problem, it will exist for all articles and should be addressed as a technical issue with the MediaWiki system perhaps at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical). ~KvnG 14:32, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually, there are three types of orphans, those associated with page breaks, those associated with column breaks, and those with line breaks at the end of paragraph (the exact definitions seem to differ slightly between countries and they sometimes have rather different names in other languages, but the basic idea is mostly the same). It is best practise in booksetting to avoid all three types (but particularly the first two), either by adapting the spacing or by rewording the corresponding section, measures which don't work for web-pages for obvious reasons. One old work-around to avoid the third type on web-pages is to insert &nbsp; between the last two words of a paragraph. Meanwhile, it is also possible to address the issue with CSS, but CSS support differs between browsers and older browsers don't support them at all, therefore the &nbsp; method is more universal - even archaic browsers support it. In either case, it is only a minor annoyance. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 21:01, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

That's interesting and I appreciate the explanation but I don't think it is desirable or feasible to insert non-breaking spaces manually at the end of every paragraph. If you believe it is a problem you should advocate for a general solution to it. ~KvnG 16:23, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

While I do think a general solution would be appreciated and I take care for it in my own publications, it is not a major issue for me if others don't observe traditional typographical rules. It would be too time-consuming for me trying to start something about it here. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 15:36, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

.app listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect .app. Since you had some involvement with the .app redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 10:58, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Alpha 4/5/7 moves

I have done my best to revert these edits of yours to produce massive disambiguation pages regarding alternate names for a bunch of cameras which are not the name that they are best known by in the English language. There is no point to make disambiguation pages just to fill them to the brim with invalid redirects.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 12:09, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

For alternate names like what you are proposing, you should use {{hatnote}} instead of making a billion redirects all to the same page.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 12:29, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I created disambiguation pages for Alpha 5 and Alpha 7 since there are more than three topics under these names without a primary topic, and disambiguation pages are our established way to cope with this scenario per our editing guideline WP:DISAMB.

If you are referring to the Minolta Maxxum cameras, I'm afraid, except for in the USA, they are by far more commonly known under their Dynax and Alpha names (actually, the whole system is named A-mount system all over the world since 1985 - guess, what the A stands for?). Wikipedia is an international project, US names are not any more relevant than those used in other parts of this world. An owner of f.e. a Minolta Alpha 7 may not be aware of the fact that the camera was available under the Minolta Maxxum 7 name in the USA. A reader can reasonably expect that he will be directed to the relevant contents if s/he types in Alpha 7. Guiding a reader to the relevant article is the very purpose of redirects and disambiguation pages.

Moreover, the Sony Alpha 7 is sold under this very name in the USA (as well as anywhere else).

So, we have three or more topics under the same name with no primary topic. Per WP:DISAMB the proper way to deal with the situation is to create a disambiguation page under this very name per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:2DABS.

Hatnotes are typically used only for as long as there are only two topics under the same name that need to be distinguished, and only, if one of them is a primary topic. In this case, however, even if we are conservatively counting, we have three entries under Alpha 5 (Alpha 5 (Minolta), Alpha 5 Digital and Alpha 5 (Power Rangers) - and with more to come in the near future) and seven or more entries under Alpha 7 (Alpha 7 (Minolta), Alpha 7 Limited, Alpha 7 Digital, Sony Alpha 7, Sony Alpha 7R, Sony Alpha 7S, Alpha 7 (Power Rangers)).

A clear case for a disambiguation page, and fully backed up by our guidelines. You should not have reverted me, but raised your concerns on the article talk page. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 13:40, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Your creation of a bunch of redirects from alternate names of these cameras does not excuse your behavior. These are hatnote material if best. Not disambiguation page material. The fictional character is still the primary topic in this case because the articles on the cameras are not "Alpha 5 (Minolta)" or "Alpha 5 Digital". Those are just two redirects to other camera models that are sometimes called those names, but are not on the English Wikipedia and not in places that speak English to where such a confusion may arise. Also, the "Alpha 7" camera redirects just point to the same 3 pages. Just because you can create these redirects does not mean that they are useful. This just all looks like it's some sort of unnecessary obsession with these cameras and their alternate names. I can see that several redirects you have made have been sent to RFD for being improper.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:39, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Discussion continued and finished in this thread:

Talk:Alpha 5 (Power Rangers)#Requested move

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 15:36, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Redirects

Hi,

I'll admit to two things, my friend: I am old, and I am not technically the most clever person. What this means is that I remember the remote past, when the search box wasn't so handy with varied capitalizations. It also means that I tend to be conservative on deleting redirects, because they are "cheap", and -- as a general rule -- their existence does more good than harm for reader navigation (provided they are accurate and unbroken, of course.) I go by the book: I look to see if the reason for deletion comports with guidelines. I also consider whether the reason for deletion is actually discouraged by guidelines. In this case, while your request (as you've now explained it) sounds fine, I don't see your rationale supported within the guideline. I do see that your rationale might be contradicted by points 1, 2 and 5 of "reasons not to delete redirects."

Let me be clear: I really have no passionate opinion about this. You may well be very right. However, given my reading of the guidelines, I still don't think these are speedy deletion cases. I'm afraid you'll have to list them at RfD, where multiple expert eyes can examine the problem. I really am sorry; I always feel silly discussing such small matters as if they were grave. Still, according to the letter of the guideline, these redirects strike me as more helpful than harmful. Best wishes, Xoloz (talk) 16:23, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Origin of this thread: User talk:Xoloz#Redirects as search terms

I see and appreciate your point, Xoloz. I'm rather conservative in deleting stuff myself unless it is obvious junk. However, I also try to avoid bureaucracy where it is possible and (to my best judgement) doesn't harm (because it consumes time which could be better spent on improving articles otherwise). Not seeing points 1 and 5 applying, and point 2 only partially by the word, but not by the spirit, I have nominated the redirects for discussion now. I don't care much about the outcome, as I have now done my best at cleaning up (and already spent too much time on it). Greetings --Matthiaspaul (talk) 15:36, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Regarding your move of the contents of Alpha Five to Alpha 5

I want to inform you that I have reverted your cut-and-paste move of the contents of Alpha Five to Alpha 5. The reason I have done this is because cut-and-paste moves should not be done: it breaks the edit history attribution on the pages since the edit history would be on the wrong page. Please see WP:CUTPASTE for more details. If you want to move the page to the new title, the best venue to request the move is WP:RMTR (unless someone opposes.) Steel1943 (talk) 23:20, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi and thanks for the pointer! I am aware of WP:CUTPASTE, but somehow I thought that none of these pages ever had any significant contents and edit history, so that nothing would have gone lost by the swap and I wanted to avoid the bureaucratic overhead for all of us (already way too much time spent on this trivial issue, if you ask me). But having rechecked this now, Alpha 7 actually has a relevant edit history, so it really makes sense to do it the proper way. Greetings. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 23:51, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Actually, Alpha 7 has a relevant edit history, but Alpha 5 hasn't. ;-)

In either case, I've gone the route suggested by you and the page was moved without hassle. Regarding preserving edit histories, in low-importance cases such as this one, I find the resulting construction with an Alpha 5/version 2 sub-page considerably more quirky than what would have resulted by just swapping contents and providing proper edit summaries indicating this (after all, per our guidelines edit summaries are enough to indicate the origin also in actual article merge cases, for as long as the original page isn't deleted, so it should be enough for a disambiguation page with only trivial edit history as well).

I just hope that everyone is happy with the new organization now and that even Ryulong will learn to appreciate it. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 15:36, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Redirects for Alpha 5 listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirects you created for Alpha 5. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 15:36, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

RfD discussion closed as Keep. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 22:26, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Edits to File Control Block

When DOS 2 was being developed, attempting to "support multiple processes or users, use other filesystems than FAT or to share files over networks" was all three or more years down the road. Those features weren't included in DOS 2, and I'm not aware that there was ever any intention to include them. The obsoletion of FCBs was not an immediate strict direct necessary consequence of adding subdirectories, but the two did go together, since using FCBs only allows you to access files in the current default directory on each drive. FCBs could not have been a convenient and useful part of a general set of system calls for dealing with files in a system of hierarchically-nested directories without somewhat radical reformulation... AnonMoos (talk) 20:34, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

It's nice that you found a source, but it's still rather strange that you provide an explanation in terms of things that were still far off into the distance when DOS 2.0 was being coded, while completely ignoring something that was actually being implemented when DOS 2.0 was being coded (i.e. hierarchical filesystem). AnonMoos (talk) 23:58, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Matthiaspaul. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 17:56, 14 May 2014 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Nikkimaria (talk) 17:56, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Re: Sortable tables and sort keys

Ping. User_talk:C._A._Russell#Sortable_tables_and_sort_keys -- C. A. Russell (talk) 22:10, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

RfC archived

I'm surprised, given your general position that article development should proceed slowly with ample discussion, that you've archived the open RfC on File Allocation Table organization without explanation. Is this is because you WP:OWN the article or is this a mistake. ~KvnG 14:22, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Console redirection

In Comparison of command shells, General characteristics, you should explain what console redirection is. The concept of console is vague under Unix, and a shell generally doesn't run in a console, so that this column makes no sense unless it means something else. BTW, it is said "Yes" for bash, but the bash man page doesn't even contain the word "console". Vincent Lefèvre (talk) 23:19, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Secure Digital bis

I post-edited you for grammar. Afterward, Anon post-edited you to call for a citation. He changed your text and possibly your meaning, but I think his point is valid that your summary of the current state of SDXC-capable devices could use a citation. Spike-from-NH (talk) 20:28, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Clarification on Scroll wheel article

Hi, do you mind clarifying why you made this edit? The scroll-wheel on a mouse isn't related to the keyboard's scroll-lock key AFAIK, what warrants having the link there? DraugTheWhopper (talk) 19:11, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Depending on the operating system and configuration and the applications used, there are (or at least can be) similarities between toggling Scrollock on or toggling the third or wheel mouse button (which is part of the Scroll wheel). The following excerpts from the article should give a clue, but if you cannot replicate the behaviour in your environment, the analogy may still not be immediately obvious.

"In the original design, Scroll Lock was intended to modify the behavior of the arrow keys. When the Scroll Lock mode was on, the arrow keys would scroll the contents of a text window instead of moving the cursor. In this usage, Scroll Lock is a toggling lock key like Num Lock or Caps Lock, which have a state that persists after the key is released. [...]

Most GUI environments neglect Scroll Lock, which means scrolling must be accomplished with a mouse, using means such as scrollbars or scroll wheels. Often, the middle or the wheel mouse button works as a toggle determining if mouse movements will move the mouse cursor or scroll the contents in scroll window."

Hope it helps. Greetings. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 20:12, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Your edit summary at Command Prompt

Please do not make unjustified assertions concerning other Wikipedia users, as you did in your edit summary at Command Prompt. I, for one, support User:Codename Lisa's change (although I did revert it once due to a very inappropriate edit summary left by that user). Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 21:10, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I am seeing two separate discussions, one between Codename Lisa and Jenks24 and another between Dogmaticeclectic and EdJohnston. Basically, Codename Lisa and Dogmaticeclectic have completed all three stages of WP:BRD and their revert survived. The only thing that remains is your four reverts, one with your account and three with your IP addresses. (Oh, yes, we know they are yours.) You are engaged in edit warring and you didn't communicate even once with Codename Lisa or Dogmaticeclectic; instead you used personal attacks against one of them.

This feud between you and CL has gone long enough. It is time you two make amends before it is late.

Fleet Command (talk) 04:57, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

COPY (command) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect COPY (command). Since you had some involvement with the COPY (command) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:37, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

• Just so you know, I don't wish to delete it, but I think it could be targeted to a more relevant article. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:44, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Replacement parameter

Hello, Matthiaspaul. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Replacement parameter, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:

1. edit the page
2. remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
3. save the page

Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Steve Lux, Jr. (talk) 19:57, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

MOS:WEBADDR

Hi.

Are you trying to make me kill myself by boring me out of reading? (; There is no reason to repeat the same sentence three times and it is absolutely vital not write technical details that the editor does not need to know for editing.

Now, there are parts of your edit that directly contradicts common practice. I and many others (see above, your own talk page) have told you several times that Wikipedia does not care what others do; hence, adopting what others do needs community-wide consensus. Please take them to talk page. On a sidenote, it appears that a slight problem with FreeDOS DNS address has shaken you so badly that you are dramatically changing a MoS! You know that the reply to that is "pull yourself together, man!", don't you?

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 16:31, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Replacement parameter listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Replacement parameter. Since you had some involvement with the Replacement parameter redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. — Keφr 16:25, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Personal attacks by User:Matthiaspaul. Thank you. Codename Lisa (talk) 21:41, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh, look, you are already ANI'd! So, you can partially disregard my message below. Fleet Command (talk) 09:51, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

MOS:CLI

I saw your revert in MOS:CLI and here is your edit summary:

Reverting bold change for which there is no consensus

There are two lies in this: Claiming that it is bold, and claiming that there is no consensus for it. I am through with your lies. So, get this: If you continue this deception, I will take the case to WP:AN3, I will produce both the discussion in Talk:Cmd.exe in which this claim is established AND the sentence in MOS:CLI that says the exact same thing.

Oh, and thanks for giving me credit for my "violently attempting to force lowercase into articles" [sic]. Only, I don't understand: Why the hell Codename Lisa is sharing the credit. May I remain you that if was I who started the move discussion? It was I who gathered consensus and it will be I who will see to that every single computing article with uppercase title is moved or deleted? Codename Lisa is a lovely creature but she wouldn't have even started the move request, just as she did in CHKDSK. Editors like her are too entangled with their own beliefs about playing nice. So all in all, you are biting the wrong newcomer. Fleet Command (talk) 09:49, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

DOS 30 listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect DOS 30. Since you had some involvement with the DOS 30 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. - TheChampionMan1234 10:22, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of DOS 0 for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article DOS 0 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DOS 0 until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. — Keφr 10:44, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

SmartShot Alpha vs. ILCE

I think precedence on the English Wikipedia goes to the English press release. Regards, Samsara (FA • FP) 17:46, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

DOS Separator

Could you please find a proper way to include that information. It's useful. I didn't add it for my health.-G (talk) 03:09, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Gregory. I'm sorry to hear about your health and hope you will be well up again soon. Regarding your request, are you talking about your 2014-05-08T19:33:11‎ edit to List of DOS commands which I reverted or some new information to be added to the article? The old edits to this article are currently blocked since User:Asmpgmr added a lot of copyrighted contents to it a while back, so I cannot look up what you wrote in May. But from the edit history I take it that you added some Windows related information although this article is only about DOS commands and the information therefore did not belong there (and more importantly, it would have confused people in the context of that article since they would assume it would be related to DOS, not Windows). Perhaps, the information would be useful in another article or a similar article should be created for Windows? However, not knowing what you actually wrote I unfortunately can't make a proper suggestion right now. If you don't want to edit the article yourself, perhaps at least bring up the topic on the article's talk page? Please let me know, when I can help. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 16:42, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Matthias. I'm glad to see that the nominator withdrew their AFD for the list of DOS commands. Sometime I may redo it. I'm thinking it might make a nice sortable table with columns for command name, version number where first appeared, internal or external, who wrote it (Microsoft, IBM or some third party), class of command, and short description of function, in my own words. It was a mistake allowing intricate details including the syntax and all the switches. I still haven't gotten to a more thorough review of the FAT articles, but last I looked at them I thought they were much improved from what I recall they were earlier. I was wondering if you had knowledge of any connection between Asmpgmr and this guy? Someone added all the PC DOS 7.1 builds to my timeline, using this guy's site as the reference. I'm not really comfortable with keeping those on the list, but not comfortable with deleting them either, if you know what I mean. Apparently they are all internal never-released versions, so only the developer would have any direct knowledge of them. Wbm1058 (talk) 15:52, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

On second thought, the list doesn't look that bad, now that it's been cleaned up. Wbm1058 (talk) 16:06, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Wbm, I'm so busy with other projects right now I didn't even recognize it was nominated for deletion. Good that the nomination was withdrawn, as this is a central list article and navigation piece for many existing (and even more future) DOS-related articles.

Actually, I don't think it was a mistake to allow details to be included, just listing the syntax does not make it a how-to guide by itself, as some seem to believe. In fact, I believe listing the syntax somewhere is absolutely necessary to achieve Wikipedia's long-term goals, but I saw the listing of the syntax in /this/ particular list article only as a stop-gap measure until separate articles for each and any DOS command will have been created in the long run. Those articles should discuss and compare all DOS versions and flavours in context, not just a single one. There's enough notable, encyclopedic (and non-textbook-style) information available to justify separate articles, I guess, I could write a few pages for each of them if I only had the time for it (unfortunately, I haven't).

However, I do think and fully agree with you, that it was a mistake to let copyrighted material creep into the article (the syntax was directly copied from the PC DOS 7 help screens by User:Asmpgmr). Back then I even asked him to stop it several times, but to no avail (and admins didn't act on it back then), so I eventually gave up on this and hoped someone would rewrite the stuff sooner or later. Yes, I verified the real-life identity of this editor back then (the web page didn't exist back then), and while I think he was a problematic editor, at least the information he provided was technically correct except for a few genuine mistakes (which were corrected by me).

Regarding OEM PC DOS 7.1 releases, from the back of my head I am aware of (and almost certainly have archived) four /released/ builds of this particular version (there may be more). I might even have written about them in one of my articles, so while not necessarily a RS in itself, it would at least be a second (and outside) source to back up some of those build numbers. However, given my other obligations it may take some time to look it up. Greetings,

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 17:28, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for editing Seattle Computer Products page

I'm doing research on my grandfather's company, SCP. His name is Rodney Brock and he's not very talkative, but he's still goin. Since you edited it, I thought you might know something about it. Please get in contact with me: jonha.silverworm@zoho.com [or @hush.com] or call me 253-391-1866. My AIM address is Tiberiusfury. I need help - I'm in poverty and I'm going to be homeless soon. Looking for friendship and charity. Thanks Matthiaspaul. Greets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonha.silverworm (talk • contribs) 21:20, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Relax duplicate linking rule (again!)

Hi Matthias,

You might be interested to see that I'm reopening the issue of duplicate links at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Linking#Relax_duplicate_linking_rule. --Slashme (talk) 21:43, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined - Genie (feral child

I have declined your speedy deletion. WP:CSD#R3 applies only to recently-created redirects, and this one has been there since 2013. There is a good reason for that: when a redirect has been present for some time, there may be external links to it which would be broken by deletion. The traffic statistics show that this one gets something like 20 hits a day. If you think it should be deleted, take it to WP:Redirects for discussion, but first read WP:RFD#When should we delete a redirect? JohnCD (talk) 13:44, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Article Wikification

On 6 April, 2015 you indicated that the article on IBM Distributed Data Management Architecture needs "serious wikification." What does this mean? I would appreciate specific critiques and suggestions. Richard A. Demers (talk) 20:10, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Richard, don't worry, it's a nice article already. What I meant by "wikification" was mainly that the article should become more tightly interconnected with other articles. It has very few links to other articles and there are not many links from other articles pointing to it at present. The article could provide more references, and they should support individual statements, not whole chapters. References shouldn't be put in section headers, and terms without incoming redirects shouldn't be set in boldface (use italics instead), but these are just cosmetics proposed by our style-guide (the MOS).

There were also a few areas where I had hoped to find more details / background information, f.e. in regard to record-based files and file types like sequential, direct, keyed and random files. My interest stems from FlexOS (on which 4680 OS and 4690 OS are based) supporting similar concepts IIRC. Greetings --Matthiaspaul (talk) 00:33, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello Matthias, I am very pleased that you find my article interesting and worth inclusion in Wikipedia.

• I did include links to other articles on subjects I mentioned in the article, but I did not attempt to add DDM links to those articles. Is this what you're looking for?
• While writing the article, I made heavy use of articles I wrote and published in the IBM Systems Journal as well as to the published documents about level 3 of DDM architecture. Can you suggest a better way to reference these articles (as I tried to do in section headings). It would frankly be difficult and repetitive to tie individual statements in my Wikipedia article to specific statements in the System Journal articles. Please note that my Wikipedia article is all new text; I did not plagiarize myself.
• It would be possible to provide considerable additional information about the various kinds of record-oriented files. The DDM Programmers Guide contains good descriptions of each type, including graphics. I would not want to rewrite and redraw this information, but what could I legally copy and modify from the Programmers Guide? Would I need specific permission from IBM, the publisher? If so, it's not at all clear who I would ask.
• If I were to provide additional information about record-oriented files, I don't think it would be appropriate to extend the DDM article unless it was put in a separate section. Alternately, it could be added to the article on record-oriented filesystems, but I am somewhat hesitant to add that large a change to someone else's text. Please advise.
• I personally have no knowledge of FlexOS, though I was aware that the IBM 4680 was implementing DDM architecture.

Thank you for the many cosmetic changes you made. Richard A. Demers (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 02:37, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome, Richard. Let me try to address some of your questions:

• ad 1) Yes, wherever it makes sense.
• ad 2) Actually, the repetitive style would be the preferred one. Still, you need to define the references only once in an article. If you apply names to them, you can repeatedly invoke them by their name, without adding redundancy.
• ad 3) Directly copying from sources would be a violation of copyrights, unless you could get permission from the copyright owners (difficult, and probably not worth to try in this case). You'd have to rephrase it in your words.
• ad 4) Yes, the record-oriented filesystem article might be a good place to add this kind of info. You do not need to worry about changing other articles. Wikipedia articles aren't "owned" by anyone. If you can add useful contents or make corrections, you can edit any article without asking for permission. It's a collaborative effort. If you think (or know) the edit would be controversial, it is best practise to bring up the topic on the article's talk page in order to discuss the matter with other editors first. But you seem to have the right attitude towards collaborative editing already.
• ad 5) FlexOS supports record-based file access in the FAT file system as well, but distributed files in FAT are unique to 4680 OS and 4690 OS. I am looking for better implementation details how exactly they implement this feature in the FAT filesystem.

Greetings, --Matthiaspaul (talk) 22:34, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello Matthias, After an extended vacation, I got back to the article on Distributed Data Management Architecture. The major changes I made to the article are:

• I deemphasized IBM in the title because DDM has much broader scope than just IBM products. IBM is still given credit in the article for having sponsored the development of DDM.
• I removed technical details from the History section and wrote new subsections in the Inside DD section to better explain record-oriented files, stream, oriented files, etc.
• I found and added links to many more of the concepts and products mentioned in the article.
• I went to many of the pages linked by the article and added back-references to DDM and how it was used in that context.

I hope this satisfies your request for "serious wikification." I am, of course, open to further suggestions. --(unsigned) 2015-06-14T17:05:18 Rademers

TWL HighBeam check-in

Hello Wikipedia Library Users,

You are receiving this message because the Wikipedia Library has record of you receiving a one-year subscription to HighBeam. This is a brief update to remind you about that access:

• Make sure that you can still log in to your HighBeam account; if you are having trouble feel free to contact me for more information. When your access expires you can reapply at WP:HighBeam.
• Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, make sure to include citations with links on Wikipedia: links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed. For more information about citing this source, see Wikipedia:HighBeam/Citations
• Write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, let us know and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.

Finally, we would greatly appreciate if you filled out this short survey. The survey helps us not only better serve you with facilitating this particular partnership, but also helps us discover what other partnerships and services the Wikipedia Library can offer.

Thank you. Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 16:45, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Warnings 1, 2, 3, and 4

1. WP:COI: Smuggling in a reference to a good self-published source is from my POV okay per WP:IAR if nothing else covers it correctly, but 36 references to NWDOSTIP.TXT are gross, and references to forum entries with author=self also won't do.
2. WP:OR: FAT+ is a draft implemented by one co-author. If it is mentioned once per WP:IAR over notability this is more than good enough, it does not need four redirects FAT+, FAT16+, FAT32+, FATPLUS, with a similar zoo on dewiki, where you introduced FATplus as "misspelling". FAT32B is your own original research, the German forum entry does not cut it as a reference, I removed that. Of course FAT32B is a WP:NEO unless somebody who is not you mentions it somewhere outside of Wikipedia in the sense of WP:42.
3. WP:NEO: FAT32X and FAT16X are unnecessary neologisms for what you (among others) have already covered with partition type#PID_0Ch and partition type#PID_0Eh. However, you cannot simply make up new partition types for FAT+ and FAT32B on this list without proper references, where "proper" is again something passing the WP:COI, WP:OR, and WP:42 sanity checks.
4. WP:CIVIL: An edit summary "Groundlessly reverting an editor providing a reliable source is disruptive" is okay if true, but the allegedly provided reliable source had an interesting history: AnomieBot added a date to my citation request, you replaced it with <ref name="Caldera_1998_FDISK">{{cite | title = FDISK | publisher = Caldera, Inc. | date = 1998}}</ref> claiming that it is covered in #Nomenclature, reverted by me after finding nothing in #Nomenclature and the bogus (empty) reference. That was neither "groundless" nor a "reliable source", maybe it was a case of "shit happens". The references are now better, thanks, but still mostly based on two partition software products, which used the WP:NEOs for marketing purposes. The FAT file system as specified by ECMA (and Microsoft for FAT32) does not depend on LBA and partition types.

–Be..anyone (talk) 23:10, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Quadruple (computing) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Quadruple (computing). Since you had some involvement with the Quadruple (computing) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. . Ditto Quartet (computing), Tetrade (computing), and Half-byte. –Be..anyone (talk) 02:00, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

A deletion nomination of four valid terms used by experts in the respective fields by someone who appears to be obsessed with deleting stuff he doesn't personally know as "neologisms" and who (among other things) obviously doesn't understand the purpose of redirects. While quality control is a very good thing, it often requires deeper insight into a subject, and unreasonably overdoing it easily becomes counterproductive, as such practises are unnecessarily binding other editors' precious time and resources and thereby harm the progress of the project.

The result of the discussion was that all four redirects should be kept. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 12:24, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of 日独写真機商店

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on 日独写真機商店, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a foreign language article that was copied and pasted from another Wikimedia project, or was transwikied out to another project. Please see Wikipedia:Translation to learn about requests for, and coordination of, translations from foreign-language Wikipedias into English.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. TF92 (talk) 10:04, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

A2 does not apply to redirects at all, but more important, it's a valid term for a redirect. Kept per my contestation and the follow-up discussion at User talk:RHaworth/2015 Jun 12#.E6.97.A5.E7.8B.AC.E5.86.99.E7.9C.9F.E6.A9.9F.E5.95.86.E5.BA.97

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 12:24, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library needs you!

We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:

• Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
• Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
• Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
• Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
• Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
• Research coordinators: run reference services

Sign up now

Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Ways to improve List of Sony E-mount cameras

Hi, I'm Sulfurboy. Matthiaspaul, thanks for creating List of Sony E-mount cameras!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Fails what wikipedia is not.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. Sulfurboy (talk) 20:52, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

X flash synchronization Comment

You realize that "X" isn't a section on the target page right? It's not redirecting to anything specific on the page. Compassionate727 (talk) 15:56, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but there is no requirement for such anchors to exist on the target page. The link targets exist to aid the possible future development of the article as it helps to keep logically or semantically different things separated regardless of how the article develops in the future. Linking to a cumbersome section title like the one in the artcle is not a good idea, as the title will likely change in the future.

While not mandantory, I just added anchors to the article. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 16:01, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Semantic relationships

Hi Matthiaspaul. Re this edit. I agree that Dioptrics is conceptually relevant and should stay. In general, semantic and linguistic relationships are completely irrelevant for See also links. This is because Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. More specifically, the topic of an article is not the title of the article. The topic of an article is the thing that the title describes. Things that have a linguistic relationship to the article title but not a conceptual relationship to the actual topic of the article are completely irrelevant. It's not a matter of degree. --Srleffler (talk) 19:59, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

catadiopter or catadioptre

Hi, I reverted the addition[15] of "historically also known as catadiopter or catadioptre" because the statement is not supported by reference given, it is not a historical treatise on etymology and simply shows someone using one of the words. Wikipedia is not a dictionary where we see a word used and then try to come up with a definition and doing so is very much original research by Wikipedia standards. I have looked for a usable definition and have failed, it keeps coming up as a foreign language term or being used by what may be non-English speakers[16] (they may be misusing the word). At this point you really need to fulfill WP:BURDEN, i.e. citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 18:36, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Your edit re: Minolta shift lens

Howdy. In your edit to the Minolta portion of the Perspective control lens page, you changed my Rokkor link to SR-mount, stating, "Has nothing to do with Rokkor but with SR-mount." I have no idea what you mean, because this lens was in fact a Rokkor lens. (I used to own one, and you can in fact verify this by viewing the image on my first source, or on this KEH page.) You are correct that it was made for the SR-mount, but both things can be true at the same time, and in fact are when it comes to this lens. Hzoi (talk) 23:08, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Hzoi, yes and no. I don't dispute that the lens you owned was labelled "Rokkor", but between 1976 and 1985, Minolta produced five versions of this lens. All of them were SR-mount lenses, but only the two 1976 versions were Rokkor lenses, which were replaced by a non-Rokkor version in 1977 already. So, the common property describing this lens is that it was an SR-mount lens, not, that it was a Rokkor lens. The fact that it was an SR-mount lens is also important to know for compatibility reasons in an overview about perspective control lenses, whereas the fact that there also was a version labelled Rokkor is perhaps nice to know for (us) Minolta users, but not really relevant in the article, after all, Rokkor was just a marketing name, not a physical property of a lens. Actually, mentioning specifically the Rokkor version in this context is unnecessarily narrowing the scope, as it rules out the non-Rokkor versions, and it is therefore misleading. That's why I removed it. These are the five versions of the lens:

• Minolta Shift CA Rokkor 2.8/35mm (MPN 613-018, 1976-1977, type: "MC-X")
• Minolta Shift CA Rokkor-X 2.8/35mm (MPN 613-318, USA only, 1976-1977, type: "MC-X")
• Minolta Shift CA 2.8/35mm (MPN 613-310, 1977-1978, type: "MD-I")
• Minolta Shift CA 2.8/35mm (MPN 613-???, 1978-1982, type: "MD-II")
• Minolta Shift CA 2.8/35mm (MPN 613-810, 1982-1985, type: "MD-III")

(BTW. I do own a MD-III.)... ;-)

Greetings --Matthiaspaul (talk) 15:44, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Interesting. My mistake, I was not aware that non-Rokkor or non-Rokkor-X versions existed; I'll change my edit. So the version you own has the focus confirmation prong for the X-600? Hzoi (talk) 18:13, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, my lens has the X-600 pin, so per Dennis Lohmann's nomenclature it is actually a "MD-III-i" rather than a "MD-III". So, strictly speaking, we have yet another version (613-818). --Matthiaspaul (talk) 21:47, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Interesting. I think I've only owned one MD lens with the focus pin, a 24/2.8. Not that it made much difference, as I only owned an X-600 for a couple of years before the novelty wore off. Hzoi (talk) 22:36, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

No, might have been a 50/1.7. Either way, I only had one with the last MD mount. Hzoi (talk) 22:40, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Mikro

Hello. I was hoping you could share your motivation for moving the Mikro page to Mikro (Greek band) and redirecting to the dab page, considering there doesn't seem to be any other conflicting topic. Thanks! -- Fyrael (talk) 05:03, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi, not providing a proper edit summary was a mistake of mine. In fact, I meant to give one here as well (as I usually do), but somehow I accidently hit the button before I had a chance to enter it. Sorry for that.

The reason I moved the page is that "Mikro" is just an alternative spelling variant of "Micro", and a lot of the topics on the DAB page might be searched under "Mikro" as well by people. Such spelling variants are often combined on a single DAB page for convenience, even more so as it is a very common prefix used in science and technology, and as there is another band named "Micro" as well. The alternative would have been a hatnote on the band's article pointing to the other Micro band and the Micro disambiguation page, but I really felt that the Greek band isn't the primary topic here (the article has no references and only few incoming links, so it isn't even clear if the article would meet our notability criteria if it were challenged). Greetings, --Matthiaspaul (talk) 09:48, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

RPL

Thank you for your extensive cleanup of the references and for taking out the factually incorrect statements concerning the "definition" of RPL which I had marked dubious. :)

I didn't intend to make the introduction overly verbose (although it became so), but instead I was trying to make it clear that the "RPL" acronym doesn't really "officially" expand to anything, although it's commonly expanded to Reverse Polish Lisp -- thank you for changing "stands for" to "derived from". :)

If it's ok with you, I'd like to at least include a footnote reference, which is already included in the references, but is obscured -- if it had its own "== Notes ==" section, with the quote by Wickes, then I think there'd be less confusion concerning any "controversies" surrounding the "definition" of the "RPL" acronym. If you don't think this is a good idea, then that's fine -- just a suggestion. :)

Thank you and regards, Jdbtwo (talk) 18:23, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you as well, Jdbtwo. The funny thing is that I planned to rework the misleading lede and had already prepared references for inclusion in the article when I saw that you tagged the incorrect statement and added some of the same references. Good timing, I guess. ;-)

Regarding the definition of RPL. I don't think it is necessary to further elaborate on it in the article - actually, there isn't much of an issue regarding the meaning at all: Most users just take RPL to mean "Reverse Polish Lisp", semi-official or not. I could find only a single (1987) source for "ROM-based Procedural Language" (and a few more discussing this). Adding more on this, we would be risking to put undue weight on the second meaning. We already quote the source in the reference - so this information is there for anyone interested. That's already "above standard", therefore, I don't think we need to put this into a more prominent place. I would rather like to see an expansion of the article in regard to the language itself.

Greetings, --Matthiaspaul (talk) 00:18, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Re: Page move request

I posted here to gather additional consensus on the proposed moves. Regards, Samsara 23:46, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Airy points

added a link pointing to Droop

Cosmolabe

added a link pointing to Astronomical instrument

History of the metre

added a link pointing to Droop

Measuring instrument

added a link pointing to Astronomical instrument

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:37, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Arcfourth

Matthias, Arcfourth links to Minute and second of arc#Fourth, but that section does not exist, and the word "fourth" doesn't even appear in the article. Where should this target to? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:22, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

• Looks like several other of the redirects you created have the same problem. Please have a look. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:23, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Oiyarbepsy. Yes, I know. This is because another editor removed that information. It will be added again with more sources, but before I'll come around to address this I'll first have to finish a number of other edits already prepared. The redirect is pointing to the correct target already. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 02:42, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sexagesimal, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tierce. 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) 10:47, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Comes v. Microsoft listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Comes v. Microsoft. Since you had some involvement with the Comes v. Microsoft redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Codename Lisa (talk) 21:05, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Discussion closed as 'Keep' per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2016 January 23#Comes v. Microsoft --Matthiaspaul (talk) 13:16, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Minor barnstar
	Thank you for correcting the typo "Bibliographisches Institute AG‎". best regards, Daniele.tampieri (talk) 19:42, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

That was really fixing a minor issue only, but thanks anyway. ;-) --Matthiaspaul (talk) 13:16, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

IJ

Hi! Regarding [17], see IJ (digraph). Cheers, —Ruud 20:04, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ruud! Thanks for the info, much appreciated! I must admit I have seen both capitalization variants when I was living in the Netherlands (some decades ago), but that was near the border to Germany, so this might have been down to "artistic license", given that this ligature does not exist in the German language except for in a few words derived from Dutch. Either way, given that in "IJssel" it is clearly not a combination of two syllabels, shouldn't we better change this to the ligature "IJ" instead of "IJ" in order to promote the best possible spelling variant? --Matthiaspaul (talk) 21:03, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

No, that Unicode ligature should not be used (see IJ (digraph)#Encoding). I'm afraid I'll just have to keep reminding non-Dutchies not to "correct" the spelling :) —Ruud 21:12, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

I've made good experiences using {{Not a typo}} in such cases. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 22:09, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Redirects to missing section

Hi, I saw that you created Fixed-length instruction and Fixed-length instruction set but they redirect to Instruction_set#Fixed_length which is a section that does not exist, was that intentional? Mlkj (talk) 13:11, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Yes, this was intentional in order to group multiple incoming redirects to logically distinguishable sub-topics in the target article. The corresponding anchors may already exist in the article (though not necessarily in the form of section headers), or they may be added at a later stage (either by me or by other editors working on an article and routinely checking the incoming links in order to identify areas for possible article improvement and reorganization). Even if anchors don't exist (yet), links targeting them are not faulty, as these #hash extensions are entirely optional and can be seen as a form of implicit documentation as well. If they don't exist, a browser will start displaying an article at its top, and it's just the same as if invisible anchors for them would have been parked at the top of the article using {{anchor}}.

So, ideally, they resolve to specific areas in the target article discussing a term (and if an article is already organized well enough, I typically add invisible anchors then), however, even if there is no good location where the #hash target could point to, it might after a future reorganization of an article, so it may still make sense to add such targets to help to better organize the info in the future. Also, in a self-organizing parallel developing project the fact that a particular target article isn't in good shape already shouldn't prohibit other editors from linking to more specific sub-topics of the target article already. People are working on all fronts simultaneously ...

If, however, a redirect explicitly uses {{R to anchor}} or {{R to section}}, the anchor should actually exist as well. So, if you find redirects tagged this way and the target article lacks the corresponding anchors, check the edit history to see if an anchor was removed (accidently) in the course of editing and if it can be reapplied. If not, remove (or change) the corresponding rcat. Only if the #hash target does not make sense at all (as it could happen after major restructuring or an article developing into a very different direction than foreseen originally), the #hash target should be removed.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 14:30, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

• Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:50, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Citations

Re your edit [18], I'm curious: what are you using in MOS as support for jamming all the template:cite... parameters in continuous text? This is the opposite of maintainability: it's very hard to read the source at all because of the template parameters all mushed together in with the ordinary text. At the very least, a line breaks should separate the citation params from the <ref> tags, especially for long citations. -- Elphion (talk) 19:07, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Elphion, I have no strong preferences regarding line breaks in citations. Personally I don't use them any more (I once did), as this style appears to be rarely used these days in general. But if I'd edit an article which is consistently using this style, I'd adjust accordingly. MOS has no preferred style either, it just asks for consistency in order to improve maintainability. Unfortunately, the article was using all sorts of styles, which made the source code difficult to scan over. So, one of the reasons for my edit was simply to establish more consistency among the citations in the article, and since less citations were using line breaks, I converted them rather than the other citations.

If you ask me, I would ideally like to see all citations be moved into the references (and notes) section(s), so that only short citations were necessary in the body of the article - this greatly improves readability. But doing this manually for some 40 citations is quite a bit of work, so I typically execute this step only when I get more involved in the development of an article (not yet in this one).

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 20:25, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Page mover granted

Hello, Matthiaspaul. Your account has been granted the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, and move subpages when moving the parent page(s).

Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving redirect. Please remember to follow post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when suppressredirect is used. This can be done using Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.

Useful links:

• Wikipedia:Requested moves
• Category:Articles to be moved, for article renaming requests awaiting action.

If you do not want the page mover right anymore, post here, or just let me know. Thank you, and happy editing! Nakon 01:13, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

pi on pilcrow

why did you add pi as a see also to pilcrow? i feel like the two are unrelated other than that they start with the same letters EggsInMyPockets (talk) 04:36, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I gave an explanation in the article already. ;-) They are not directly related except for that they have similar looking glyphs: pilcrow (¶), pi (π, Π). In some fonts, they look almost the same.

Back in the times of 7-bit and 8-bit codepages, people sometimes had to be creative due to the limited amount of glyphs available, so, depending on the codepage, glyphs were sometimes used for different purposes depending on the context. For example, on IBM PCs in their default configuration with codepage 437 (which only had a lowercase pi), if some software had a need to display an uppercase pi, the pilcrow symbol was often used instead. In a similar fashion, another symbol was used for both, the Greek small letter beta and the German sharp s.

In general, the links in "See also" section can be links to obviously related articles (which, for some reasons, were not mentioned in the body so far), but they also exist to connect topics which might be only remotely related via some association (see WP:SEEALSO). They should help a reader find other contents which might put the original article into some broader context or to better distinguish between them. Looking at the two articles from the perspective of similar looking glyphs is certainly one of them, not only to help readers ending in one article finding the other one, but also to make readers aware of the fact, that a similar looking glyph exists at all (so that they could, for example, improve character recognition software to better distinguish between them).

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 08:36, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

PCS and Cadmus

A long time ago, in a galaxy^W^W^Won a coast far far away, I interviewed at a company called "Cadmus Computer Systems", located in Lowell, Massachusetts; that company had a line of 68k-based Unix workstations (I have vague memories of interviewing at some company, possibly Massachusetts-based, possibly during the same trip, who had a "Unix-like" operating system in the old sense, i.e. a system that wasn't a Unix-compatible system, but that was "like" Unix in its APIs, but I might be misremembering). Was that company connected with Periphere Computer Systeme, and what was the connection? Cadmus (computer) redirects to Periphere Computer Systeme#Cadmus, but Periphere Computer Systeme doesn't contain the word "Cadmus" anywhere other than in the "See also" section, so that's not a very enlightening redirect. Guy Harris (talk) 02:50, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Guy, Cadmus was PCS' self-developed line of 68k Unix workstations (Cadmus 9000, Cadmus 9900, etc.) The German WP has an article about them: de:Cadmus Workstations. PCS had a US daughter for a number of years which was named Cadmus Computer Systems, founded in 1985.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 09:44, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Lacta- listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Lacta-. Since you had some involvement with the Lacta- redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. PamD 09:21, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

...followup. Hello!

I am still trying to investigate this: thanks for giving a reference to the Italian translation of Lange's handbook (in the lakh article), but I cannot find any access to the content of this book. Do you know what it actually says? Would you mind sharing Cardarelli's email on the subject; if it answers the question, then this might save me asking him again. Thanks! :Imaginatorium (talk) 02:30, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Please, let's not open yet another thread for this and (now that the RfD is closed) keep it at Talk:Metric prefix/Archive 1#Lacta?

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 07:04, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Lacta- listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Lacta-. Since you had some involvement with the Lacta- redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Imaginatorium (talk) 06:36, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:PII

Template:PII has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:19, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Jacques-laporte

User:Jacques-laporte, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jacques-laporte and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Jacques-laporte during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. MSJapan (talk) 01:14, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Product names

W.r.t. your recent renaming of Sony camera articles, please take note of Wikipedia:Article_titles#Foreign_names_and_anglicization, particularly:

Names not originally in a Latin alphabet, such as Greek, Chinese, or Russian names, must be transliterated.

It seems that this is policy on the English Wikipedia.

HTH,

Samsara 04:47, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

grammar point

Hi dear dude Could please tell me what's the difference between "have to" and "gonna have to"? thanks Alborzagros (talk) 11:08, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Matthiaspaul. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

--LINUX-.--- listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect --LINUX-.---. Since you had some involvement with the --LINUX-.--- redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 08:32, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Redirect from "WDR Sinfonieorchester" to "NDR Elbphilharmonie Orchestra"

Re: your redirect from WDR Sinfonieorchester to NDR Elbphilharmonie Orchestra. I would have expected WDR Sinfonieorchester to redirect to WDR Symphony Orchestra Cologne instead.[19] – Tea2min (talk) 09:28, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting this! The creation of "WDR Sinfonieorchester" was a copy&paste error from "NWDR Sinfonieorchester". What I actually meant to create was "NDR Sinfonieorchester", which, however, already exists.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 11:00, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

ASCII stick

Where were ASCII stick and Stick (ASCII) suppose to point to? — Dispenser 19:42, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

86DOS and 86 DOS

You appear to have categorized these redirects as {{R from misspelling}}, but I see no evidence that Wikipedia currently considers word-spacing and punctuation variants to be "misspellings." In other words, such differences are not generally bad enough to be unprintworthy, as they are instead mentioned in {{R from modification}}, which makes no claim to printability:

"This is a redirect from a modification of the target's title; for example, its words are rearranged, or punctuation in the name is changed" (emphasis mine).

Even if these redirects were unprintworthy, there would be other Rcats more suitable, in particular {{R from incorrect name}}. That covers names that have been officially declared by the subject of the article to be incorrect, but your edit summaries don't quite seem to make that case.

Does this make sense here? Or could you explain why R from misspelling is nevertheless more appropriate than R from modification or any other Rcat for these specific redirects? --SoledadKabocha (talk) 05:26, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I tagged them as misspellings because they are misspellings. ;-) Please check SCP's original files and documentation.

A lot of spelling variants have evolved over the decades, that's why we need those redirects from spelling variants to the article residing under the correct spelling. However, as an encyclopedia we have the duty to remain historically correct, therefore it is important to flag those other spelling variants are misspellings, so that they show up in a special maintenance category and can be easily corrected if someone adds links through them from other articles. It is good, that those misspellings are flagged as unprintworthy, so that they don't spread any further.

Yes, R from modification applies as well (I just added it), but in case of product names, a modification is a misspelling as well.

R from incorrect name might apply as well, but I have seen this being used mostly in cases, where the redirect differs by much more than a modification. For example, you can find the term Open Access Development Group in a book refering to the Japanese OADG consortium, which, however, officially expands to Open Architecture Developers' Group.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 11:14, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I understood that your edit summaries were effectively citing a source to justify that these names were considered incorrect by someone, but I had doubt as to how much these qualify as "official" statements.

More to the point, though, these don't seem to satisfy what I'm aware to be the dictionary definition of a "misspelling," at least according to Wiktionary (sense 4: "(transitive) Of letters: to compose (a word)."). (wikt:misspelling links to wikt:misspelt to wikt:misspell to wikt:spell) These particular redirects contain the same letters in the same relative order as their target. Admittedly, that definition says nothing about numbers, etc.

I apologize if perhaps you are more familiar with another language in which the cognate to "misspelling" has a broader sense than in English, making its meaning closer to what the English Wikipedia calls "unprintworthy"; my point was just that there are specific categories for specific subtypes of unprintworthy redirects, for a reason.

I am fine not making any further changes to these redirects if you agree that none are needed. There may be more to discuss elsewhere at a later date about the definitions of these Rcats, though. --SoledadKabocha (talk) 17:10, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Zenti- listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Zenti-. Since you had some involvement with the Zenti- redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. PamD 15:32, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

CSS styling in templates

Hello everyone, and sincere apologies if you're getting this message more than once. Just a heads-up that there is currently work on an extension in order to enable CSS styling in templates. Please check the document on mediawiki.org to discuss best storage methods and what we need to avoid with implementation. Thanks, m:User:Melamrawy (WMF), 09:11, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

A page you started (Cold-water geyser) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Cold-water geyser, Matthiaspaul!

Wikipedia editor DarjeelingTea just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

nice article

To reply, leave a comment on DarjeelingTea's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

DarjeelingTea (talk) 19:18, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

RS-232 and Serial port

Thank you for your significant work on these! Jeh (talk) 07:06, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 11:13, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Octad

The article Octad has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unnecessary WP:DAB page, could be done better with hat notes at the top of each article

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 22:24, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Hotels established in 2017

A tag has been placed on Category:Hotels established in 2017 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and it is not presently under discussion at Categories for discussion, or at disambiguation categories.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. AusLondonder (talk) 06:48, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

References at Binary-coded decimal

"Added ref. Started to move refs into references section for easier maintenance"

Do we have to do that? To me, it makes maintenance harder. If you want to edit the refs as well as the text for a section you have to edit the entire article (instead of just the section) and then go back and forth between the two. I just don't see the advantage over having the refs in-line. Jeh (talk) 18:38, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

No, we don't have to do that, but I think it is considered "better style". I see your point, and this is in fact a disadvantage, but only a minor one IMHO. References are rarely added and almost never deleted compared to the number of times they are maintained, so the impact having to edit and "block" the whole article during these short moments is low.

On the other hand, the source code of articles with more than a few references or with longer references are often almost unreadable due to all the clutter caused by references (sometimes several pages with just a few words actual content in between). This makes it hard to continue working on the text. Moving the "clutter" into the reference section makes the body of the article become readable again on source code level. Also, improving the quality of references often requires many iterations and sometimes comparing or copy & pasting between references (also to bring them all to the same level of quality and format over time). This is much easier to accomplish if all the references are nicely grouped together and only this section needs to be "blocked" for editing while improving the references. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 19:16, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Points taken. Still, I groan whenever I edit an article that's done that way. I still will. I guess I work on refs more than the typical editor.

It's a shame the non-visual editor doesn't have an option to collapse ref text. Or in the case of LDRs, to show them as if they were written in line. Maybe the VE does, but I'm a markup-language man. Jeh (talk) 20:19, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Redirects to Word (computer architecture)

I just noticed that you recently created several redirects to Word (computer architecture) which forward to sections or anchors that don't exist. Do you plan on creating these sections or placing the respective anchors? Steel1943 (talk) 18:52, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

• ...Same thing with redirects you recently created to Byte. You created redirects to Byte that lead to sections or anchors on Byte that don't exist. Steel1943 (talk) 18:54, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Sure, these #hash extensions are an optional part of the syntax, they do not need to exist. This is no error.

If corresponding anchors exist in the article, the browser will "jump" to the corresponding anchor, if they do not, it will act as if those anchor would be present at the start of the article - which is well documented.

When I create such logical groups of redirects I often add such #hash targets to help possible article contents organization and reorganization.

In this particular case I anticipate that the various byte and word sizes will be covered in better details somewhen in the future - that's why I created the redirects in the first place. Once they exist and get used over time, readers can use them for their research through reverse lookup of specific bit widths as being mentioned in other articles - which wouldn't be possible, if all those articles just linked to the byte and word articles in general. Of course, reverse lookup also works without the anchors, and for as long as the target article does not discuss the different word sizes in better details, those anchors could be omitted or all be grouped together to "document" their existance. However, it would be a waste of energy if they wouldn't be added to the redirects right from the start, as it would require someone else to add them at a later stage, while adding them right from the start creates no overhead.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 19:56, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I get what you mean by that, but it doesn't help other readers who may use these redirects, then look at the redirects' "code" and see that the redirect is supposed to lead them to a section or anchor that doesn't exist. In fact, editors in Wikipedia have developed external took over time that actually find such redirects as the ones you created and mark them as having errors since their respective section or anchor doesn't exist. (For example, the tool at [20] detects incoming redirects to look for section/anchor redirect errors.) Also, if a respective section or anchor is created to represent the subjects which you created redirects but the anchor/section is not titled as you in putted it in the redirects, the redirects will still just redirect to the top of the page. So, you're essentially playing a WP:CRYSTALBALL-ish guessing game about how such subjects will be created in their target pages unless, as I was asking, you intend to create the subjects yourself. So, unless you are planning on creating those sections/anchors in the near future, the section/anchor redirects in those redirects should probably be removed. Steel1943 (talk) 20:51, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of List of defunct hard disk manufacturers

The article List of defunct hard disk manufacturers has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Other than the list of companies, this article is redundant to Manurfacturing History section of the History of hard disk drives. The list itself is incomplete, inaccurate and original research, see Is This Article Encylopedic - Delete?

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Tom94022 (talk) 00:16, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Johnston diagram for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Johnston diagram is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johnston diagram until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:39, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

metric contractions

I was misled by the emphasis in the NIST guide. That the more regular forms ("kiloohm" rather than "kilohm", etc.) are standard is very welcome information. However, the reference [6] in that guide does not seem to be readily accessible. Would you know how to access its text? This would be valuable in how the article Ohm addresses this, and in what we consider the appropriate form in articles in WP generally. —Quondum 14:49, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

References

ED Floppy Disk

Your recent edit changed the definition of the FD acronym "ED" from "Extended Density" to "Extra high Density". Google searches turn up a lot of both and I even found an "Extra Density." I did check the ECMA standard but it provided no guideance as to label. I tend to favor "Extended Density" given IBM seems to have used it in some of their product literature and they were an early if not first user (some say Apple). Absent some introductory product literature from the early drive and media vendors I think we have to go with both in Wikipedia. Any thoughts? Tom94022 (talk) 07:14, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Tom, I was astonished about the rather large number of wrong Google hits as well, but this isn't the first time when errors in Wikipedia spread into the web and Google. Nevertheless "ED" correctly stands for extra(-high) density, not extended density. All ED floppies I own (IBM, 3M, Toshiba) state "extra-high density", and to confirm my memory I just looked it up in an old book as well. I hope to find some time to more systematically check my library next week to see if I can find "extended" in any authorative source of the time. Regarding dealing with the issue, I have no problems with creating redirects flagged as "R from misnomer" as we usually do for common misnomers. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 11:26, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

I've meanwhile checked many old sources (books, magazines), they all define it as "extra-high density". I could not find a single contemporary source defining it as "extended density", this definition can only be found in recent sources (which don't count, because they are obviously influenced by false information in the web or in Wikipedia). Someone must have confused ED (extra-high density) floppies with the unrelated EDD (enhanced disk drive) specification or XDF (extended density format).

I've added a few quick refs to the article, but don't have the time to format several dozen refs into the proper format.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 23:19, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

OK - the marked floppies from those vendors are compelling evidence. I looked for such images without much success and I threw out all my FDs a long time ago. If u have a few spare moments u might contribute photos to Wiki Media which could then be linked from the article. Thanks for the follow up. Tom94022 (talk) 18:24, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Sony E-mount lenses

Hi Matthiaspaul, your change is understood. The article was becoming a bit cluttered and I have since started a new page detailing what third-party lenses were already in a previous version of the article in question.

--Chevy111 (talk) 11:12, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Done and done. The redirect is live. I also just realized you're the editor who gave me the red barn star. Thanks ;)

--Chevy111 (talk) 11:45, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Catalog lookup link article-postfix

Can {{Catalog lookup link}} be modified to support no space between the article and the linked identifier? |article-postfix= does not seem to remove the no-break space. I am not particularly interested in that myself (since it seems like it would be weird for multiple identifiers and does not align with WP:CS1 and WP:CS2), but David Eppstein seems to want such functionality for {{MR}}. I appreciate you looking to and commenting on such things. Thank you, Uzume (talk) 23:32, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Done. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 00:58, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

I appreciate that. I notice |leadout= also enforces spaces. Is there a solution to this or perhaps it would just be better that {{MR}} not support a |leadout=. Thanks, Uzume (talk) 04:29, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Done as well. It looks a bit odd, but it works. At some stage in the future, the template will probably be converted to Lua. This will make special cases such as this one easier to be implemented again. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 11:19, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

VDOS listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect VDOS. Since you had some involvement with the VDOS redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. � (talk) 15:19, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

高德納 listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 高德納. Since you had some involvement with the 高德納 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. -- Tavix ^(talk) 13:33, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

A page you started (Int. Symp. on Circuits and Systems) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Int. Symp. on Circuits and Systems, Matthiaspaul!

Wikipedia editor RileyBugz just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Although I'm approving this, next time, could you please make redirects conforming to ISO 4? For example, don't include articles and prepositions.

To reply, leave a comment on RileyBugz's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 18:52, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

RileyBugz, feel free to create redirects conforming to ISO 4 as well, but I created these redirects based on the abbreviations used in references, no matter if they conform to ISO 4 or not. Basically, I'm doing this in an effort to help make the usage of these annoying/confusing/inconvenient abbreviations obsolete, as they are often so cryptic that the majority of readers can't make sense of them without research. Since Wikipedia is not paper, the usage of abbreviated journal names is an anachronism. Also, our MOS advises against the usage of abbreviations except for those which can be expected to be understood by everyone (or are explained in the article) - abbreviated journal names are rarely among them. Therefore, whenever I run into them in references I replace them by their expanded form (that is, if I'm able to decipher the abbreviation) and create a redirect (if it doesn't exist already) to improve search box behaviour for future readers running into the same problem somewhere else. If you think some such redirects are more "official" than others, please feel free to mark the unusual ones with {{R from misnomer}} or similar.

I typically reply where a conversation was started - or, rarely, move the whole thread to a better place (in this case, I think the best place would have been the redirect's talk page). So, if you want me to answer elsewhere, please start the conversation there and ping me.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 19:31, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Got it! Since your redirects seem to be useful, I'll keep accepting them when I run across them. RileyBugz^会話_投稿記録 19:34, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewing

Hello, Matthiaspaul. I've seen you editing recently and you seem knowledgeable about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 09:22, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer granted

Hello Matthiaspaul. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk.

• URGENT: Please consider helping get the huge backlog down to a manageable number of pages as soon as possible.
• Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
• You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
• Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
• Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. Alex Shih (talk) 05:54, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Unibit

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Unibit requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a company, corporation or organization, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Whispering 05:14, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Of course, it should not be deleted, otherwise I wouldn't have created it... Changed to a disambiguation page to cover other meanings as well. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 19:16, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

DOS Protected Mode Services

Hi Matthiaspaul - I see you've accepted some of my changes and rejected others, but I don't see why. You've insisted on retaining the wikilinked publisher in several cases, despite the recommendations at Template:Cite journal#Publisher and Template:Cite book#Publisher.

Name of publisher; may be wikilinked if relevant. The publisher is the company that publishes the work being cited. Do not use the publisher parameter for the name of a work (e.g. a book, encyclopedia, newspaper, magazine, journal, website). Not normally used for periodicals.

(my emphasis)

The guidelines recommend against these things for the simple reason that they're useless. The purpose of a citation is to allow a reader to verify a statement in an article. For that, they need to be able to locate the source; the publisher of a periodical does not help them with that. For a book, the publisher may be helpful, but there is no benefit in wikilinking it. Under what circumstances can you imagine a reader who's checking a reference wanting to click on any of those publisher links?

In the specific case of "Academic Press, Inc. (AP Professional)", the second link is in fact a redirect to the first. Neither link offers any benefit to a reader, but the first is redundant anyway.

(And BTW, work and website parameters are synonyms - there's no difference in the way the template treats them.) Colonies Chris (talk) 11:57, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, I will answer next week. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 12:13, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Code Page 777

I found a link to it, but where? -- 2018-03-13T22:04:00‎ Alexlatham96

If you want to create an article for it, I would suggest Code page 777.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 21:21, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Template:WP RFC listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:WP RFC. Since you had some involvement with the Template:WP RFC redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 03:40, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

The result was Keep. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 19:16, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Upcoming changes to wikitext parsing

Hello,

There will be some changes to the way wikitext is parsed during the next few weeks. It will affect all namespaces. You can see a list of pages that may display incorrectly at Special:LintErrors. Since most of the easy problems have already been solved at the English Wikipedia, I am specifically contacting tech-savvy editors such as yourself with this one-time message, in the hope that you will be able to investigate the remaining high-priority pages during the next month.

There are approximately 10,000 articles (and many more non-article pages) with high-priority errors. The most important ones are the articles with misnested tags and table problems. Some of these involve templates, such as infoboxes, or the way the template is used in the article. In some cases, the "error" is a minor, unimportant difference in the visual appearance. In other cases, the results are undesirable. You can see a before-and-after comparison of any article by adding ?action=parsermigration-edit to the end of a link, like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Foss?action=parsermigration-edit (which shows a difference in how {{infobox ship}} is parsed).

If you are interested in helping with this project, please see Wikipedia:Linter. There are also some basic instructions (and links to even more information) at https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-ambassadors/2018-April/001836.html You can also leave a note at WT:Linter if you have questions.

Thank you for all the good things you do for the English Wikipedia. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 21:18, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

7400 series

Regarding this edit, do you have a source for 1968? -- RoySmith (talk) 19:58, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Roy, I have added a reference to a Philips application book dated May 1968 (apparently the first edition - there also was a fourth edition in 1974).

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 20:39, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Now, the next issue is that I'm not even sure NORBIT was TTL. In fact, this pretty much implies that it's not. I'd like to see you put 240 VAC on a TTL input and not have all the magic smoke come out :-)

I don't think the NORBIT 2 (1967) family was TTL. I added them more for the similarity of the cases than for being TTL, but removed them again. The original 1960s NORBITs were RTL (some DTL). --Matthiaspaul (talk) 08:29, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Line splice listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Line splice. Since you had some involvement with the Line splice redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. PamD 21:18, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Kept and changed into an article by me. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 19:16, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Electrical splice listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Electrical splice. Since you had some involvement with the Electrical splice redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. PamD 21:19, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

The result was Keep. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 19:16, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Metal pair listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Metal pair. Since you had some involvement with the Metal pair redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. PamD 21:24, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Kept and changed into a disambiguation page to cover even more meanings. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 19:16, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Autopatrol broken

Please be aware that the autopatrol userright is broken, so new article by editors such as myself are showing up in recent changes when they shouldn't. Abductive (reasoning) 09:39, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for making me aware of the bug. Unfortunately, it would be impractical to first check each editor's privileges before reviewing a page. I hope the bug gets fixed soon. Thanks and greetings. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 13:22, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Re "Do what I mean":

Thanks for the review. I've not needed anything reviewed in a long time, is this a consequence of the new page creation stuff? In which case, why are we going backwards in terms of additional work when autoreviewers required no review before? Widefox; talk 09:39, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Widefox, as both of you posted at the same time, you might not have seen Abductive's note. This is apparently down to a recent bug - obviously, I didn't check the user privileges before reviewing pages while helping out in NPP a bit. (See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Issue with auto-patrol?)

All the best --Matthiaspaul (talk) 13:22, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Re "Chairman of China (disambiguation)":

I am WP:APAT. You did not need to review that page. Concentrate on those hundreds of new pages which do need reviewing. Narky Blert (talk) 21:13, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

I do. Please see above. ;-) --Matthiaspaul (talk) 21:16, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Re "Reviewing" of redirects:

Is that really necessary? I get a lot of notices about redirects and other non-content trivia that have been reviewed, and this doesn't seem like it does anything useful. I'm not sure which of these review processes is generating them. Can you elucidate?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:25, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Please read above (and follow the links) for further explanations. This is caused by a recent bug, which will hopefully be fixed in a couple of days. It is impractical to check each user's rights before reviewing a page, so everything that gets listed in the queue will be reviewed regardless who created it. There's a NPP backlog drive bringing down the queue to zero at present. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 21:33, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Autopatrolled granted

Hi Matthiaspaul, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the autopatrolled right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:43, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Great, thanks. Once the above mentioned bug is fixed I hope it will help reduce the other new page patrollers' work load somewhat... --Matthiaspaul (talk)

NPP Backlog Drive Appreciation

		Special Edition New Page Patroller's Barnstar
		For completing over 100 reviews during the 2018 June Backlog Drive, please accept this Special Edition Barnstar. Thank you for helping out at New Page Patrol and keep up the good work. Cheers! — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 01:59, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 09:33, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

PDP-10

The PDP-10 had binary floating point, not radix 8 as your edit claims. Also, I don't believe "octal floating-point" is a standard name for "base 8 floating point". See [21], for example. I see that the book Handbook of Floating-Point Arithmetic claims it used radix 8, but that is not correct. I hope that others have not been repeating this error. --Macrakis (talk) 22:45, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi Stavros, if the PDP-10 really didn't support an octal floating point mode, it is a pity that the authors didn't fix it in the (above linked) new edition of the book which was published just a couple of weeks ago. I only had the previous edition to look at, and it already listed the DEC PDP-10 as well as the Burroughs 570 and 6700. Savard lists the Atlas and Burroughs B5500.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 23:23, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree. I sent mail to the author. --Macrakis (talk) 02:05, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Fine. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 06:48, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Turns out, Burroughs 570 was a typo in the source as well. The machine was actually called Burroughs B5700 (ca. 1971). --Matthiaspaul (talk) 12:02, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Sort-name redirects

In regard to redirects like Cowlishaw, Mike Frederic and Cowlishaw, Micheal Frederic, fyi, please see the recent changes in the template documentation.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  06:41, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, Paine. I wasn't aware of these extra parameters. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 06:48, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

It's a pleasure, and thank you for working on redirects, Matthiaspaul! bd2412 and I just finished the work needed to subdivide the unwieldy Category:Redirects from sort names and Category:Redirects from ambiguous sort names, so editors' being unaware of the changes is to be expected.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  08:40, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

E series

Matthias, since you reverted my hyphen removal move at E-series of preferred numbers, I did some more looking for sources, to see whether authorities would support this odd hyphen over normal English punctuation conventions. I found one standard that suggests I had it right: IEC 60063. And no shortage of other uses without the odd comma: [22], [23], [24]. The hyphen would make sense in things like "E-series numbers" or "E-series preferred numbers" where the compound noun "E series" is being used as a modifier, but not otherwise (though many sources do get this wrong, I agree). What's your thinking on why it was "proper" with the hyphen? Dicklyon (talk) 16:02, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi Dick, this appears to be a difficult one. I find lots of sources using it either way, including "Nikon F-Mount" ([25]). While there are cases where a hyphen would have to be avoided and cases where it would have to be used, there also appears to be a middle-ground where there is no clear right or wrong and it is down to one's preferences (or perhaps traditional vs. modern English, I don't know).

"E-series" vs. "E series" seems to be one such example: To me, omitting the hyphen here looks disturbingly wrong (like a bold typo), and it takes some while until the stray "E" gets mentally connected to "series" to form a compound noun - totally destroying the flow. (But not so for "book series", where I would be with you to avoid the hyphen unless it's used as a modifier.) Thinking about why that is, my gut feeling tells me it must be either because "E-series" is a rather unusual (compound) noun or because "E" is so short. Can "E" even be considered a word? Checking f.e. this guideline ([26]), taking "E" as a word, the usage of a hyphen appears to be covered by Rule 2b ("When writing out new, original, or unusual compound nouns, writers should hyphenate whenever doing so avoids confusion.") However, considering "E" to be some kind of prefix, abbreviation, truncation, digit or letter, further down Rule 1 ("Hyphenate prefixes when they come before proper nouns or proper adjectives") or Rule 6 ("Writers often hyphenate prefixes when they feel a word might be distracting or confusing without the hyphen") seem to apply. On the other hand, "E series" being used in the standard is certainly a good argument as well, but again, it appears to be down to the writer's choice.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 19:01, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure why it looks so wrong to you to omit the hyphen; maybe because it's so unlike would be done in German? This is pretty standard English, and also the way it was done in the defining sources. There's no normal role for such a hyphen when the compound is not used as a modifier. Same with the F mount; most books get this right. For E series, it's not difficult; the defining source follows the usual English grammar rules, and so do some of the sources; the fact that some also throw in a spurious hyphen should not confuse us. Dicklyon (talk) 20:52, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

If you're convinced, please move it back. If you're not, let me know and I'll start an RM discussion. Dicklyon (talk) 23:18, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

The fact that the corresponding standard uses the variant without the hyphen convinces me to choose this one for our purposes as well.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 18:26, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages

Hello, Matthiaspaul. When you moved T-Series to a new title and then changed the old title from a redirect into a disambiguation page, you may not have been aware of WP:FIXDABLINKS, which says:

When creating disambiguation pages, fix all resulting mis-directed links.

Before moving an article to a qualified name (in order to create a disambiguation page at the base name, to move an existing disambiguation page to that name, or to redirect that name to a disambiguation page), click on What links here to find all of the incoming links. Repair all of those incoming links to use the new article name.

It would be a great help if you would check the other Wikipedia articles that contain links to "T-Series" and fix them to take readers to the correct article. Thanks. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 10:05, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Russ, you don't need to remind me of that, I almost always clean up after my actions - however, in this case, finishing the infrastructure work first was more important. That's why I left the cleanup after the move to a bot and waited for more than an hour for the bot to show up before I finally switched the link to point to the disambiguation page.

Today, with Vivek Ray's help, we fixed up the links (rough guess: some 900). There's one remaining transclusion into T-Series for which I was unable to find the source. It would be great if you could look into this. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 19:21, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Please post example of "deleted information" for the character set tables

I had left the question of what information was destroyed open on Talk:ASCII and TALK:ISO-8859-1 and you never responded. Please go to user talk:spitzak and actually discuss this rather than just say "there was no consensus". Spitzak (talk) 19:56, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

ISO-8859-1 has been reverted and re-edited with a few steps to a proposed new version. Please check it out. Also ISO-8859-2 and ISO-8859-3 have been reverted and the box and spelling changes applied but leaving the decimal numbers in. It is easier than I though to remove the decimal numbers, they don't have to be deleted. That would have made reversion with saving the edits much easier. Spitzak (talk) 04:59, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

I have now updated EBCDIC with a rather tedious reproduction of all the editing I did before, saving the removal of the decimal numbers for last. Please take a look! Spitzak (talk) 06:58, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Edit war at OrCAD

You really should refrain from edit warring as you are at OrCAD. Toddst1 (talk) 22:21, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

There was no edit-war going on, just two editors trying to remove a vital part of the article, and two other users rightfully restablishing the previous state. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 21:26, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Re:Codie awards

Many thanks! It's been a long time since I last got one of these. The Codie/SIIA is an important subject and I'm just glad it's covered to some degree on Wikipedia. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 23:01, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

You deserved it. :-) --Matthiaspaul (talk) 18:26, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

PC Magazin listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect PC Magazin. Since you had some involvement with the PC Magazin redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:11, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Agreed to delete the redirect in order to avoid confusion. The German PC Magazin is unrelated to the English PC Magazine.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 18:26, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Kauffman (disambiguation) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Kauffman (disambiguation). Since you had some involvement with the Kauffman (disambiguation) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. ~ GB fan 17:02, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Result was to keep and adjust the redirect. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 21:26, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Luís Filipe Vieira

You reverted me and wrote: "Restored access-date parameters. They are desired information in a citation with an url."

Template's documentation doesn't state that. SLBedit (talk) 16:42, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi SLBedit. It does, perhaps not word by word, but by its meaning (per long-standing community consensus). As becomes clear from Help_talk:Citation_Style_1#access-date you are reading something into it that isn't in there, links are almost never stable long-term (decades). Unfortuntely, this even applies to so called "permanent referrers" (that's why some users consider access-date irrelevant for them). So, access-date is relevant almost all the time a citation links to some online contents in order to aid our WP:V policy. If a link ever is at risk of becoming dead in the long-term future or the contents under it could possibly change (which can happen for PDFs just as easily as for HTML), the access-date is important, because without the information when the citation was (still) found to reliably support a statement, the citation and consequently also the statement in the article is at a much higher risk of being challenged and removed. Thinking this further, all non-mainstream information in Wikipedia would be at risk to be deleted in a couple of decades, so most of our hard work to preserve history and build a reliable encyclopedia would be an exercise in futility. Therefore, the access-date parameter is quite important to protect non-trivial information.

I agree with you, however, that the template's documentation should be clearer about this.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 18:35, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

TASKING

I would suggest you use Template:Under construction while you are improving the article as your summary obviously notable is likely to be tested at AfD unless that is in place. Independent references for some claims may be needed. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:11, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

No need for that, the sources are IMO good enough for WP:GNG etc. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 21:26, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

School strike for climate

Hi, I saw from the Ende Gelände 2018 page that you have done some German translation and was hoping if you could help out with some short quotes to clarify the validity of references on the School strike for climate page that have come from German media sources. I have done a couple from French media, even though my French is very ropey, which involved just adding a sentence each in quote= ref in english confirming the numbers of strikers. Any help greatly appreciated. BorisAndDoris (talk) 22:27, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the contributions on the main page and the clarification on the talk page. Both were very helpful. BorisAndDoris (talk) 09:56, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for restoring the see also with an explanation. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:54, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

A pleasure. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 01:27, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello Matthiaspaul,

I saw you're one of the main editors of the Greta Thunberg. Given your interest in climate change related articles, I invite you to have a look at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Environment/Climate change task force. It's been inactive for a while, but I strongly believe that this topic should have an active group of collaborating editors to help each other with a critical eye. If you'd like to contribute, please add your name to the participants section, add some task to the to-do list or help make the to-do list a bit shorter.

Femke Nijsse (talk) 19:56, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

IEC prefixes

In 1024, the statement you added is misleading. Even in technical computer journals, KiB and Kib are rarely used (possibly because numbers as low as 1024 are rare). Perhaps we can find a sourced, accurate, and not misleading statement. (The "current" statement is misleading, in that it implies that there is a time, either before or after 2009, when the use convention was generally adopted.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:13, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Arthur, I didn't add the statement but removed it because I find it to be pushing a certain POV and recommendation not to use the convention, that is, it is not neutral.

IMO we should remove that one sentence altogether, because otherwise we are opening a can of worms. To be neutral we would have to discuss the adoption of the standard and find both, sources supporting and disapproving it. Is this really worth it? IMO, in the context of this article, it's easier to just describe that the convention exists as a standard (because that's neutral and an undisputable fact) and leave it to the reader to draw his conclusions and either use or not use it. If the reader is interested in more background, s/he will find that in binary prefix, an article we already link to.

However, since you readded what IMO is a POV statement I tried to at least tone it down and be in line with what the reference actually states. I added "2009" because the reference can't be used to describe anything after that year. The adoption of standards is a slow process, so it is not at all surprising that it wasn't generally adopted in 2009 - or now. Think about ISO 8601, which is the official date format in several European countries since the 1990s. Although it is in much more frequent use now than it was in the past, its general adoption is still a process in progress - but that's just normal not some indication of a "failed" standard or such.

That's why I think it would be an improvement to the article to remove this sentence without replacement. But if you can't agree with that and find a wording which is supported by the reference and does not imply that the convention should better not be used because it would be a "failed standard" and "nobody uses it" (because that's not true), please go ahead.

BTW, just so that you don't get a wrong impression, I am not a particular fan of the looks of this convention either, but I accept the fact that it is absolutely necessary to have some easy to use convention to express binary prefixes differently from decimal prefixes, and therefore I welcome that a standard exists - in lieu of something better one can use this rather than continue to abuse decimal prefixes and cause ambiguity. (Nevertheless, personally, I prefer to use the B-notation, where possible, that is 1024 = 1B10.)

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 22:18, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

I can see your point. With the previous sentence as "coined", rather than "suggested" or "adopted", the clarification does seem unnecessary. There are other contexts where the IEC should not be mentioned at all, as a sourced, accurate, and not misleading phrasing may be impossible. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:36, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Great, looks good to me now. Thanks. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 09:54, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Input requested regarding HP Saturn register diagram

Hello :) I've updated the HP Saturn CPU register diagram on the HP Saturn CPU page. I initially tried to get the look that I wanted using wiki markup, but I gave up on that. I then created an SVG diagram with a PNG thumbnail. I had to delete your register diagram as I couldn't properly comment it out. If you have any suggestions on what you want included in the new diagram, then I'm all ears :) The SVG file is on the Wikimedia Commons so you can edit it yourself if you prefer :) Jdbtwo (talk) 15:32, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

The discussion took place on the artice's talk page.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 18:26, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Thanks for reviewing Matthias Paul (actor), Matthiaspaul.

Boleyn has gone over this page again and marked it as unpatrolled. Their note is:

Seems to be an autobiography - unref biography of a living person.

Please contact Boleyn for any further query. Thanks.

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Boleyn (talk) 06:53, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

An article you recently created, Matthias Paul (actor), does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Boleyn (talk) 06:53, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

I created the article, but did not review it. This was a translation of an article in the German WP (which has no references there, but was stable for many years and did not include any statements which could not be backed up by sources in the web).

I am in no way affiliated with this actor, therefore this is not an autobiography. Please be more careful before issuing such accusations. Further discussion on this user's talk page...

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 17:37, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

You really should not have moved this into mainspace without an independent review from someone unaffiliated with the subject. Praxidicae (talk) 17:27, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

As I am as unaffiliated with the subject of this article as you are and since the article now has plenty of sources, it was perfectly okay to move the article back to article space.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 17:37, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter July-August 2019

Hello Matthiaspaul,

WMF at work on NPP Improvements

More new features are being added to the feed, including the important red alert for previously deleted pages. This will only work if it is selected in your filters. Best is to 'select all'. Do take a moment to check out all the new features if you have not already done so. If anything is not working as it should, please let us know at NPR. There is now also a live queue of AfC submissions in the New Pages Feed. Feel free to review AfCs, but bear in mind that NPP is an official process and policy and is more important.

QUALITY of REVIEWING

Articles are still not always being checked thoroughly enough. If you are not sure what to do, leave the article for a more experienced reviewer. Please be on the alert for any incongruities in patrolling and help your colleagues where possible; report patrollers and autopatrolled article creators who are ostensibly undeclared paid editors. The displayed ORES alerts offer a greater 'at-a-glance' overview, but the new challenges in detecting unwanted new content and sub-standard reviewing do not necessarily make patrolling any easier, nevertheless the work may have a renewed interest factor of a different kind. A vibrant community of reviewers is always ready to help at NPR.

Backlog

The backlog is still far too high at between 7,000 and 8,000. Of around 700 user rights holders, 80% of the reviewing is being done by just TWO users. In the light of more and more subtle advertising and undeclared paid editing, New Page Reviewing is becoming more critical than ever.

Move to draft

NPR is triage, it is not a clean up clinic. This move feature is not limited to bios so you may have to slightly re-edit the text in the template before you save the move. Anything that is not fit for mainspace but which might have some promise can be draftified - particularly very poor English and machine and other low quality translations.

Notifying users

Remember to use the message feature if you are just tagging an article for maintenance rather than deletion. Otherwise articles are likely to remain perma-tagged. Many creators are SPA and have no intention of returning to Wikipedia. Use the feature too for leaving a friendly note note for the author of a first article you found well made or interesting. Many have told us they find such comments particularly welcoming and encouraging.

PERM

Admins are now taking advantage of the new time-limited user rights feature. If you have recently been accorded NPR, do check your user rights to see if this affects you. Depending on your user account preferences, you may receive automated notifications of your rights changes. Requests for permissions are not mini-RfAs. Helpful comments are welcome if absolutely necessary, but the bot does a lot of the work and the final decision is reserved for admins who do thorough research anyway.

Other news

School and academic holidays will begin soon in various places around the Western world. Be on the lookout for the usual increase in hoax, attack, and other junk pages.

Our next newsletter might be announcing details of a possible election for co-ordinators of NPR. If you think you have what it takes to micro manage NPR, take a look at New Page Review Coordinators - it's a job that requires a lot of time and dedication.

---

Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:38, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Random ping

Hi, sorry to bother you. You made an edit to a deletion discussion (namely this one), but for whatever reason, I got pinged... Any ideas why this is? I can't see a mention in the diff at all. I realise I commented on the discussion, but I usually like to answer all pings, but I have no idea with this one. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:49, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Lee, as you correctly found out already I didn't ping you. I have no real explanation for why you were pinged, but I corrected some indentation/formatting in the thread, perhaps that's what triggered the system to assume you would need to be pinged, I don't know. Greetings,

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 16:59, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

GOOGL (NASDAQ) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect GOOGL (NASDAQ). Since you had some involvement with the GOOGL (NASDAQ) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:19, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm looking for references to S/DOS

Hi! In PTS-DOS article you mentioned a « Source DOS » named S/DOS 1.0 and you said it was « open source », do you have any reference to that? I found a FreeDOS document mentioning the Source-DOS and saying the source was distributed but it says nothing about the « open source » nature of it. I find this story very interesting and I'm looking into more information on that topic. :-) -- Illwieckz (talk) 23:58, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

S/DOS 1.0 could be found on the red Paragon CD-ROM containing the PTS-DOS 6.51CD binaries. It is pictured in the article. S/DOS was open-source, but nevertheless a commercial product. You had to buy it to use or modify it, and it was only for personal use.

S/DOS was basically a stripped down version of PTS-DOS with some components missing. It was written in assembler and had rather terse comments. Studying the sources it could be seen that it was lacking a lot of polishing and omitted to address many special cases implemented in other DOSes, and therefore it would not work well with badly behaving programs or on less compatible machines. I also saw quite a few actual bugs in the source code, and it was not maintaining the layered model very well (f.e. some BIOS calls in tools instead of DOS calls). Due to this, I would not recommend it as an educational tool. On the plus side, however, it was very memory efficient, and it also had some nice unique features.

(BTW. That old FreeDOS document you mentioned is not accurate in some of the details.)

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 00:55, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Since you're too busy harassing other editors... origins of your formatting "holy war"

All began with this edit here by a single user, User:TreyHarris, on 18:04, 21 January 2006‎. Since I did all that work for you, why don't you finish the task by showing me the lengthy discussions leading to WP:NOTBROKEN, WP:NOPIPE and MOS:NOPIPE? Good luck with your future crus... er, endeavours! Bumm13 (talk) 21:54, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Please remove that bar from your eyes. I might be the messenger ([27][28][29]), but I'm not your enemy. Your edits are violating our established guidelines WP:NOTBROKEN, WP:NOPIPE and MOS:NOPIPE for years. As this is causing damage to the project, it needs to be stopped. Simple as that. The discussion takes place at your talk page: User_talk:Bumm13#"Formatting_fix"

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 01:11, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

For the records, the editor decided to archive the discussion 80 minutes after the last post ([30][31]). Let's hope he will now finally adjust his behaviour, so that everyone can continue to build an encyclopedia.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 13:35, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

I’m not terribly active anymore so I missed the invocation of my name at the time. I’ve only read through the comments currently on this talk page between the two of you, so if there’s stuff going on elsewhere I’m not aware of it.

My edit “creating” this guideline was 13 years ago, so I may not have perfect recall, but I do know that before adding it, it was discussed on IRC at some length; at that time, the #wikipedia IRC channel was very active and generally considered a good place to bounce ideas off of folks if you were on the fence about Being Bold. But it definitely was not the case then that such a small addition to policy went through the kind of process it would today.

This edit was made at a time when the biggest issue driving editors was cleanup. Wikipedia had become large enough to be a viable reference supplanting other traditional reference works, but reliability was a real problem. Mechanisms like patrolling were added and policies like for citations were changed. And the overall mix of edits was quickly changing as a result.

Prior to this, most edits in the article namespace were additions of factual (or fact-like) material, followed by copyediting edits, followed by rewordings, followed by administrative edits (categorizing, template management, etc.). But this all changed when citations became something that, as a community, we decided needed to be included by default with new factual edits, rather than just “when the fact may be surprising or questioned” or “when someone’s added a ‘citation needed’”.

And the resultant mix of edits were greatly changed: now copyedits—especially cleanup, categorization, and citations—became the lion’s share of edits. There were two important ramifications of this:

1. There was a flood of editors wanting to “pitch in” on this cleanup initiative, and many took on particular repetitive tasks they enjoyed doing: fixing spelling mistakes, checking that citations were formatted correctly, adding citations to existing material, etc. And since many concentrated on particular kinds of edits across all of Wikipedia, rather than particular subject areas, watchlists weren’t as helpful for monitoring them.
2. The patrollers now had to deal with this new flurry of small edits.

Since we were still working out the cultural norms of this relatively new patrolling mechanism, there was a desire to identify places where these busy-beaver editors were just generating work for the people coming after them, without much value in actual cleanup.

This was especially important for edits that could be automated; bots needed permission (at that time, maybe only when they exceeded certain edit velocities? I don’t recall) but their source code wasn’t scrutinized, so some sometimes made undesirable edits that weren’t caught by reading their authors’ descriptions of them or viewing the results of a small sample of edits.

All that is to explain the motivation here: In looking to reduce the number of edits that increased work without much actual encyclopedia cleanup value, almost the very lowest of the low-hanging fruit were edits to “fix” redirect links. (Probably only edits standardizing the number of spaces following each sentence in an article were more useless.) They polluted watchlists, patrol lists, and every other cross-article edit list.

Editors needed no knowledge whatsoever of the subject matter of the article to “fix” a redirect link. But for editors following behind, if they were unfamiliar with the article’s subject matter, they could be difficult to quickly understand. An edit that was described as just fix link and whose delta was [[plane change]] → [[orbital inclination change|plane change]] could be published with almost no effort, but might need a minute or two investigation to figure out if it were a good edit or not—if you didn’t know that the one was a redirect to the other.

That was the context of this policy addition: in the face of a new and increasingly high volume of cleanup edits, point out that this particular type of edit that was being done wholesale was just creating work for almost no gain.

I hope this historical context is helpful. TreyHarris (talk) 18:39, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

(p.s. I suppose, to be fair, I should tag User:Bumm13 back since being mentioned is what led me here. TreyHarris (talk) 18:55, 5 October 2019 (UTC))

And also because it is him who violates WP:NOTBROKEN, WP:NOPIPE and MOS:NOPIPE for years, as has been pointed out in many old threads by me and other editors over the years. That he opened a smear thread on my page while his problematic behaviour was discussed on his talk page was just an attempt to draw the attention elsewhere.

Although I don't think it will satisfy Bumm13 (because he thinks he can ignore our guidelines anyway), thanks for providing a little "historical" perspective to the origins of this meanwhile long-established guideline. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 19:57, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

just curious...

hi, thanks for your work on sources and formatting at Greta Thunberg. Just curious, why do you think we should use one date format in the body and another in references? I don't care which we use, but going back and forth is difficult. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:53, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi, references and tables are much easier to read when they use an all numerical date format with fixed length and which is non-ambiguous internationally. They are also often shared and compared internationally. That's why many editors prefer the use of the ymd format there, which doesn't add any unnecessary clutter and yet is inherently non-ambiguous.

In the article body, however, we normally use long date formats, and since the ISO 8601 format isn't as commonly used there as the other formats (although this usage is steadily increasing (outside of WP) and it is meanwhile the official date format in many countries), our MOS still asks us to use either dmy or mdy there. Since the mdy format is used only in the USA (and isn't the most logical format, anyway), the preferred date format for the prose in an article without strong US ties or, as in this case, even an international scope, is the dmy format.

The cs1/cs2 citation framework introduced auto-date formating some months ago. This is good for consistency (and in the future hopefully also for user-configurability of date format preferences), however, some tools and bots still need to be updated to adhere to the cs1-dates parameter of the "Use xyz dates" template, otherwise they sometimes insert dates in the wrong date format, which paradoxically can create new inconsistency on source code level (unless removed). Due to the auto-date formating this is cosmetically only, but the idea is, of course, for them to insert the date in the proper format as well in the future so that we will finally have a solution with the necessary level of flexibility and consistency combined with stability. I assume, however, that the transitional phase will continue for some while.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 19:01, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for paying careful attention to these intricacies so lazy eds like myself can stumble along without messing things up too badly even though our eyes cross when we hear this said out loud! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:12, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Mathematical functions

Hi,

Concerning your edit Special:Diff/912554909, I think that "eˣ-1" should be replaced by "eˣ−1", i.e. with a true minus character, like in −1.

Moreover, shouldn't "sin (trigonometry)" be "sin (mathematical function)" like for sinh? Ditto for cos, tan, arcsin, arccos and arctan. I think these are more general than the domain of trigonometry, in particular when considering their similarity with the hyperbolic variant with complex arguments. Or perhaps "sin function", etc., like one has gamma function and lots of other examples in the "Special functions" category.

Vincent Lefèvre (talk) 15:37, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Vincent, good suggestion! I already implemented the first part of it.

For the second part, that would involve creating a bunch of redundant redirects given that the (trigonometry) redirects already exist (and IMO shouldn't be deleted). Could still be done for consistency.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 08:59, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Hambach

Hola thanks for adding refs to the Hambach_Forest#Large_demonstration_(October_2018) section. To be honest I'm still not impressed by the list, but if its referenced I don't have a problem with it. I was wondering, do you have references for the Hambach_Forest#Arrests_of_activists_(spring_of_2018) section? Right now it has nothing, I had a look around but I didn't find much. Maybe it's original research or maybe the sources exist, possibly in german only. Anyway sorry we met like this, but like you I'm eager to make this article better!  Mujinga (talk) 22:51, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Hiya thanks for adding some refs to that section. MOS is lagging here in my opinion, since I haven't been able to find guidance but I would suggest when adding foreign language links to add a relevant quote where relevant, making it easier for other editors to verify. I did this for example on We Are Here (collective). I started adding translated quotes then realised it's better in the age of machine translation to put the original text. The article is improving, maybe in time it can be submitted for Good Article status, that would be great.

On a sidenote, I saw you removed Ende Gelände 2019 which I find weird since per MOS:SEEALSO: One purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics Mujinga (talk) 07:26, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

I sometimes add quotes to citations, in particular if the source I cite is very rare or the exact wording is important to be preserved for generations to come, but I don't have the time to do it all the time. Also, more important than quotes is to make sure that online references are properly archived to prevent link rot. In either case, |quote= is meant for the original language - strictly speaking, a translation is not a quote any more. I asked several times for a |trans-quote= parameter, but until this materializes, a translation can be appended to |quote= in [square brackets] following the original quote.

Regarding the See also link removal, this was because the group, who occupied an excavator at the Hambach open-pit mine on 24 June 2019, wasn't related to Ende Gelände, so a link would be misleading. There are links to Ende Gelände 2017 and 2018 because they were targeting the Hambach mine directly. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 19:15, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes that's the thing, it doesn't seem important when one speaks both languages (with Hambach in your case, English and German, with We Are Here in my case Dutch and English) but I think if you don't then it sets up a block, like I'm not going to trawl through German languages references unless i really have to and as machine translation continues to improve i think the method of referencing should change to make it as easy as possible for citations to be verified. I do agree archiving is very important, I'm very happy with my Firefox plugin that makes it very easy to add wayback machine links. That's interesting about trans-quote, I guess the prob would be that the translation can always be disputed. Anyway thanks for your answer I find it interesting to discuss this and might eventually get round to suggesting an update of the MoS to reflect things. Mujinga (talk) 19:09, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Anuna De Wever

Just to let you know I've posted a notice about the persistent contentious IP edits at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Persistent_vandalism_at_Anuna_De_Wever. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 23:15, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks. What's actually needed is semi-page protection of the page as already requested hours ago at Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Anuna_De_Wever. They just seem not to be particularly fast today... ;-) --Matthiaspaul (talk) 23:21, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of .sch (file extension)

The article .sch (file extension) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The article is a list of indiscriminate items; it lists six unrelated apps, all of which use the same three letters for their otherwise unrelated file formats.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. flowing dreams (talk page) 05:27, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Scientists for Future for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Scientists for Future is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scientists for Future until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. A1Cafel (talk) 16:41, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

"Anderson Earle Goldschmidt Powers algorithm" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Anderson Earle Goldschmidt Powers algorithm. Since you had some involvement with the Anderson Earle Goldschmidt Powers algorithm redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. D.Lazard (talk) 14:30, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter November 2019

Hello Matthiaspaul,

This newsletter comes a little earlier than usual because the backlog is rising again and the holidays are coming very soon.

Getting the queue to 0

There are now 816 holders of the New Page Reviewer flag! Most of you requested the user right to be able to do something about the huge backlog but it's still roughly less than 10% doing 90% of the work. Now it's time for action.
Exactly one year ago there were 'only' 3,650 unreviewed articles, now we will soon be approaching 7,000 despite the growing number of requests for the NPR user right. If each reviewer soon does only 2 reviews a day over five days, the backlog will be down to zero and the daily input can then be processed by every reviewer doing only 1 review every 2 days - that's only a few minutes work on the bus on the way to the office or to class! Let's get this over and done with in time to relax for the holidays.
Want to join? Consider adding the NPP Pledge userbox.
Our next newsletter will announce the winners of some really cool awards.

Coordinator

Admin Barkeep49 has been officially invested as NPP/NPR coordinator by a unanimous consensus of the community. This is a complex role and he will need all the help he can get from other experienced reviewers.

This month's refresher course

Paid editing is still causing headaches for even our most experienced reviewers: This official Wikipedia article will be an eye-opener to anyone who joined Wikipedia or obtained the NPR right since 2015. See The Hallmarks to know exactly what to look for and take time to examine all the sources.

Tools

• It is now possible to select new pages by date range. This was requested by reviewers who want to patrol from the middle of the list.
• It is now also possible for accredited reviewers to put any article back into the New Pages Feed for re-review. The link is under 'Tools' in the side bar.

Reviewer Feedback

Would you like feedback on your reviews? Are you an experienced reviewer who can give feedback to other reviewers? If so there are two new feedback pilot programs. New Reviewer mentorship will match newer reviewers with an experienced reviewer with a new reviewer. The other program will be an occasional peer review cohort for moderate or experienced reviewers to give feedback to each other. The first cohort will launch November 13.

Second set of eyes

• Not only are New Page Reviewers the guardians of quality of new articles, they are also in a position to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged for deletion and maintenance and that new authors are not being bitten. This is an important feature of your work, especially while some routine tagging for deletion can still be carried out by non NPR holders and inexperienced users. Read about it at the Monitoring the system section in the tutorial. If you come across such editors doing good work, don't hesitate to encourage them to apply for NPR.
• Do be sure to have our talk page on your watchlist. There are often items that require reviewers' special attention, such as to watch out for pages by known socks or disruptive editors, technical issues and new developments, and of course to provide advice for other reviewers.

Arbitration Committee

The annual ArbCom election will be coming up soon. All eligible users will be invited to vote. While not directly concerned with NPR, Arbcom cases often lead back to notability and deletion issues and/or actions by holders of advanced user rights.

Community Wish list

There is to be no wish list for WMF encyclopedias this year. We thank Community Tech for their hard work addressing our long list of requirements which somewhat overwhelmed them last year, and we look forward to a successful completion.

---

To opt-out of future mailings, you can remove yourself here

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!

Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Caldera International has been nominated for Did You Know

Hello, Matthiaspaul. Caldera International, an article you either created or to which you significantly contributed,has been nominated to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page as part of Did you know. You can see the hook and the discussion here. You are welcome to participate! Thank you. EnterpriseyBot (talk!) 12:01, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Category:Inverse Jacobi elliptic functions has been nominated for discussion

Category:Inverse Jacobi elliptic functions, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 09:04, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter December 2019

Reviewer of the Year

This year's Reviewer of the Year is Rosguill. Having gotten the reviewer PERM in August 2018, they have been a regular reviewer of articles and redirects, been an active participant in the NPP community, and has been the driving force for the emerging NPP Source Guide that will help reviewers better evaluate sourcing and notability in many countries for which it has historically been difficult.

Special commendation again goes to Onel5969 who ends the year as one of our most prolific reviewers for the second consecutive year. Thanks also to Boleyn and JTtheOG who have been in the top 5 for the last two years as well.

Several newer editors have done a lot of work with CAPTAIN MEDUSA and DannyS712 (who has also written bots which have patrolled thousands of redirects) being new reviewers since this time last year.

Thanks to them and to everyone reading this who has participated in New Page Patrol this year.

Top 10 Reviewers over the last 365 days

Rank	Username	Num reviews	Log
1	Rosguill (talk)	47,395	Patrol Page Curation
2	Onel5969 (talk)	41,883	Patrol Page Curation
3	JTtheOG (talk)	11,493	Patrol Page Curation
4	Arthistorian1977 (talk)	5,562	Patrol Page Curation
5	DannyS712 (talk)	4,866	Patrol Page Curation
6	CAPTAIN MEDUSA (talk)	3,995	Patrol Page Curation
7	DragonflySixtyseven (talk)	3,812	Patrol Page Curation
8	Boleyn (talk)	3,655	Patrol Page Curation
9	Ymblanter (talk)	3,553	Patrol Page Curation
10	Cwmhiraeth (talk)	3,522	Patrol Page Curation

(The top 100 reviewers of the year can be found here)

Redirect autopatrol

A recent Request for Comment on creating a new redirect autopatrol pseduo-permission was closed early. New Page Reviewers are now able to nominate editors who have an established track record creating uncontroversial redirects. At the individual discretion of any administrator or after 24 hours and a consensus of at least 3 New Page Reviewers an editor may be added to a list of users whose redirects will be patrolled automatically by DannyS712 bot III.

Source Guide Discussion

Set to launch early in the new year is our first New Page Patrol Source Guide discussion. These discussions are designed to solicit input on sources in places and topic areas that might otherwise be harder for reviewers to evaluate. The hope is that this will allow us to improve the accuracy of our patrols for articles using these sources (and/or give us places to perform a WP:BEFORE prior to nominating for deletion). Please watch the New Page Patrol talk page for more information.

This month's refresher course

While New Page Reviewers are an experienced set of editors, we all benefit from an occasional review. This month consider refreshing yourself on Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features). Also consider how we can take the time for quality in this area. For instance, sources to verify human settlements, which are presumed notable, can often be found in seconds. This lets us avoid the (ugly) 'Needs more refs' tag.

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 16:11, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

"Hay-milk" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Hay-milk. Since you had some involvement with the Hay-milk redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 18:32, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Caldera International

On 4 January 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Caldera International, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that software company Caldera International tried to combine Unix with Linux for business customers, but did not succeed? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Caldera International. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Caldera International), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 12:02, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

2016–17 Tour de Ski

There has been a request at WP:RMTR for 2016–17. You had moved it the other way back in February. Should this be opened up for a full move discussion? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:35, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I removed your contested technical request as I had already carried it out (I forgot to remove it accidentally). Please file a WP:RM should you wish to move the page back. Cheers! --qedk (t 桜 c) 19:13, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

"4680" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 4680. Since you had some involvement with the 4680 redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:04, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Re: Link in digit sum article

Hello, Matthiaspaul. You have new messages at Hqb's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Disambiguation link notification for January 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited X (disambiguation), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Trans (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 08:32, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

"Universal hyperbolic geometry" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Universal hyperbolic geometry. Since you had some involvement with the Universal hyperbolic geometry redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:26, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 7

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Rebasing, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Microsoft Exchange (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 13:44, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer newsletter February 2020

Hello Matthiaspaul,

Source Guide Discussion

The first NPP source guide discussion is now underway. It covers a wide range of sources in Ghana with the goal of providing more guidance to reviewers about sources they might see when reviewing pages. Hopefully, new page reviewers will join others interested in reliable sources and those with expertise in these sources to make the discussion a success.

Redirects

New to NPP? Looking to try something a little different? Consider patrolling some redirects. Redirects are relatively easy to review, can be found easily through the New Pages Feed. You can find more information about how to patrol redirects at WP:RPATROL.

Discussions and Resources

• There is an ongoing discussion around changing notifications for new editors who attempt to write articles.
• A recent discussion of whether Michelin starred restraunts are notable was archived without closure.
• A resource page with links pertinent for reviewers was created this month.
• A proposal to increase the scope of G5 was withdrawn.

Refresher

Geographic regions, areas and places generally do not need general notability guideline type sourcing. When evaluating whether an article meets this notability guideline please also consider whether it might actually be a form of WP:SPAM for a development project (e.g. PR for a large luxury residential development) and not actually covered by the guideline.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7095 Low – 4991 High – 7095

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here

16:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

"0-series (manufacturing)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 0-series (manufacturing). Since you had some involvement with the 0-series (manufacturing) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 19:10, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of 0 series for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 0 series is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/0 series until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Doug Mehus T·C 21:39, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

"Freedom unit" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Freedom unit. Since you had some involvement with the Freedom unit redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Doug Mehus T·C 22:16, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

(identifier) redirects

You have been trying for years to make those happen. Please stop, you do not have consensus for this, nor are ISBNs or PMIDs special identifiers that need disambiguation when done through identifier templates, linking to different locations than CS1|2 templates. They are designed to match CS1|2 outputs.

If you want to change this functionality, get consensus for it through an RFC at Help talk:CS1. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:04, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Actually, there is no formal consensus for direct links as well, it just happens to be the status-quo on older templates - quite naturally, as Wikipedia gets improved step by step, and it is normal to first address the core functionality to get anything out of the door at all and later think about further improvements. Some templates created by me already use(d) the (identifier) links right from the start - and there was certainly never a consensus to change them to anything else, like you did... So...

Either way, the discussion you ask for already exists at: Help talk:Citation Style 1#Suggestion to add support for SBN parameter. Let's try to find the best possible solution for the majority of users.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 17:10, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

"D70F01.EXE" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect D70F01.EXE. Since you had some involvement with the D70F01.EXE redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 19:57, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

"Alle Rechte vorbehalten" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Alle Rechte vorbehalten. Since you had some involvement with the Alle Rechte vorbehalten redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 21:25, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

".acc" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the redirect .acc should be deleted, kept, or retargeted. It will be discussed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 24#.acc until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 12:32, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

ARDS

Just worked for an hour on that info and references for the opening paragraph of ARDS in COVID-19. Why did you blast it? Ian Furst (talk) 01:01, 27 March 2020 (UTC) disregard. thank you. Ian Furst (talk) 01:03, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi Ian, not sure what was happening there, I certainly did not delete that (but it somehow got deleted with my edit). I was getting a "Wikimedia maintenance error message" when I tried to save my edit. Anyway, fixed. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 01:08, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

"AUTOEXEC.BAS" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect AUTOEXEC.BAS. Since you had some involvement with the AUTOEXEC.BAS redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 11:42, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

4-digit years per MOS

I notice that you have been making a number of edits to the coronavirus series of articles using the edit summary "4-digit years per MOS". I would ask you please exercise care and be sure that your understanding of WP:MOSNUM is correct. Whilst it is indeed correct that years should be stated in 4 digits, year ranges can and are usually stated in 4+2 format (i.e. "2019–20") except at the turn of a century (i.e. "1997–2002"). By replacing "2019–20" with "2019–2020" within those article links, you substituted correctly-formatted and correctly-linked articles with article redirects, as you see here. In many cases, you also inserted the parameter |cs1-dates=y, which was inappropriate because it is a violation of WP:RETAIN: almost all of those articles displayed date formats which were either dmy or mdy at the outset (referred to as our "first main contributor rule". It is therefore inappropriate that this be changed by inserting the parameter. Regards, -- Ohc ^¡digame! 19:33, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

No, you need the full years in year ranges, see MOS:DATERANGE. Vincent Lefèvre (talk) 19:51, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi Ohconfucius, abbreviated years are allowed in year ranges under some limited circumstances, but, as Vincent pointed out already, the preferred and usual format is to use non-abbreviated years per RFC and MOS:YEARRANGE. In addition to this, we have a general rule to avoid abbreviations unless they can't be avoided (or are actually useful). While in this specific case (consecutive years outside the range 1..12) the abbreviation does not technically cause confusion, it still makes it more difficult for many people to decipher the date because the format is generally understood to mean "yyyy-mm" rather than "yyyy-yy" in Far East and Eastern Europe as well as in all locales where ISO 8601 has been adopted (almost all countries worldwide) or is even mandantory (some Western and Middle European countries). And since the formal adoption of the Extended Date/Time Format (EDTF) in 2019, many forms outside the 1..12 range have become ambiguous as well, so this is a growing problem rather than only a small inconvenience. In order to avoid this potential ambiguity there is community consensus to try not to use this form (as "yyyy-mm" as well as "yyyy-yy") where it is not necessary. Since Wikipedia is WP:NOTPAPER, there is no need to save space here by using abbreviated years in the first place. So, while my edit was not absolutely necessary in this specific case, it was nevertheless an improvement to the quality of the article and fully endorsed by our MOS.

Further, the fact that some of the non-abbreviated year ranges were routed through redirects is not a problem at all and should not have been "fixed" by you (as you did in this edit [32]). As pointed out above, they were not "unnecessary redirects". Please read WP:NOTBROKEN, WP:NOPIPE and MOS:NOPIPE for some background. Basically, your edit camouflaged the fact that the target article(s) should be renamed to contain non-abbreviated years as well.

Regarding the |cs1-dates=y parameter, WP:RETAIN does not apply here at all, but you probably meant MOS:DATEVAR or MOS:RETAIN. You might have overlooked it, but the articles already used the numerical ymd format in lists and tables (and to some good extent also in the citations), therefore it was only consequential to also use it in citations for reasons of consistency (another goal we are trying to achieve in general). (Another possible solution would have been to switch to the dmy format also in the tables but this is undesirable for space and readability reasons, and also because potentially the tables are transcluded into multiple articles possibly using different date formats, so using ymd is a good middle ground.) I consider this to be quite a good reason to indicate this usage through the |cs1-dates=y parameter, and MOS:DATEVAR's "change reduces ambiguity" endores this for as long as no consistent format is used.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 20:02, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Virgin soil

On second thoughts, your point that there was no pre existing immunity is good. Not in the lead though, someone else would have reversed it sooner or later. Perhaps a sentence or two, expanding concept, in the Epidemiology section. Please find a citation as well as the wikilink. Happy Easter! Robertpedley (talk) 16:32, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Interest in new projects

Hi Matthias,

I read a lot about your work on DR-DOS, WinGlue, WinBolt, etc. and it's great to see you're still involved! I was wondering if you had any interest in new DOS related projects.

There are some projects going on where I think your input would be very interesting. Do you think it would be feasible for anybody to adapt another DOS so that Windows 9x could run in it? There are now other DPMI hosts that can run the original Windows 3.1. Do you think Windows 9x could be supported by a third party DPMI host as well? Here are specific issues where I imagine you'd be knowledgeable: https://github.com/dosemu2/dosemu2/issues/988 https://github.com/joncampbell123/dosbox-x/issues/1217

I hope you don't mind I write here. I wasn't sure if the other contact information I found online is still actual.

Thanks in advance and best regards! Julius Schwartzenberg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:985:2C6E:1:5D7B:5178:CAC7:7F09 (talk) 19:06, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Hallo Matthias,

From what I read it seems DR-DOS 7.06 has a combined kernel file (like Win9x), while DR-DOS 7.07 has the traditional two files. A few questions related to that:

• Is combined BIOS+BDOS file mandatory for running Win9x? Or separate files IBMBIO.COM, IBMDOS.COM, MSDOS.SYS (settings text file), IO.SYS (if such kind of placeholder/redirect is needed) can exist at the same time?
• Can DR-DOS 7.07 boot from Win9x/Me boot sectors?
• Does DR-DOS 7.07 include all functionality from DR-DOS 7.06?
• Can Win9x run from DR-DOS 7.06?
• Can Win9x run from DR-DOS 7.07?

Ianteraf (talk) 09:22, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Dr-dos another life questions

Hi,

I'm Nicolas from France. Sorry to bother you with another life questions. I'm building multi kernel dos bootdisks in order to test various memory managers behaviour and impact of the kernel on available memory. I cannot find other way to reach you but here. While digging the web for dr-dos, 2 questions came to my mind : 1. Regarding the dr-dos kernel file, some people talk about a 7.08 version but I cannot find anything after a 7.07, does it exist or was the 7.07 the latest version ? 2. Is there a way to have access to the 7.07 version or better of the kernel files ? The better I found was the 7.04 version of the ibmdos and ibmbios files in Dr-dos 7.05.

Thanks

Have a nice day

Auf wiedersehen Nico7550 (talk) 22:34, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Hallo Matthias Paul! As you once hoped that the "owner of the DR-DOS assets may decide that its commercial life is finally over and that it is due to open source the system." - now it happened! License is open!

You can see the current EDR-DOS developments at the repository and forum.

It would be highly appreciated if you can help in any way to "reunificate the different code branches to create the most advanced DR-DOS ever for all its fans."!

The most crucial elements I think are to share sources and/or binaries of DR-DOS 7.07. Also of WinGlue/WinBolt, DR-DOS 7.03 (including its software package) and lastly the optionally loadable multi-user security extension - (World/Group/Owner) access permission system (part of DR DOS "Panther" BETA 1).

You can upload any of those or other DR-DOS documentation and materials you decide here, for example.

In any case - thank you for everything that you created as part of DR-DOS! Ianteraf (talk) 09:10, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

"RISM (identifier)" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect RISM (identifier). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 3#RISM (identifier) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Francis Schonken (talk) 10:30, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

"Third (angle)" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Third (angle). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 7#Third (angle) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. SpinningSpark 17:02, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Photo of Edward J. McCluskey?

Hi! You don't happen to know whether the picture File:McCluskey J (I198201).jpg (allegedly from the Polish computer science journal pl:Informatyka (czasopismo)) shows Edward J. McCluskey? - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 14:11, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Jochen, unfortunately the quality of the picture is so low that there isn't much to see on it. Perhaps the way he combed his hair? There is some remote resemblance, but it could also be a lot of other people. If you consider including the picture into his article, perhaps we should wait until a better portrait shows up.

• https://news.stanford.edu/2016/02/25/ed-mccluskey-obit-022516/
• https://www.thocp.net/biographies/mccluskey_edward.htm
• https://www.ieee.org/about/awards/bios/vonneumann-recipients.html#
• https://alchetron.com/Edward-J-McCluskey
• https://ieeetv.ieee.org/mobile/video/2012-ieee-honors-john-von-neumann-medal (see [0:49] and [0:57] into the video for portraits of him as a young engineer)

Greetings,

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 15:45, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Fundstelle

Lieber Matthiaspaul, wie nett, einen Deutschen hier zu treffen. Ich finde es doch recht kompliziert, meine diesbezüglichen Fragen auf Englisch zu formulieren. Also... vor einiger Zeit hatte ich gefragt, wie man aus einem Sammelwerk zitiert in Englisch. Ich schreib hier mal, wie ich es in Deutsch mache, und wie mir gesagt wurde, es in Englisch zu machen:

• Deutsch <ref>{{Literatur |Autor=René Hirner |Titel=Fluten. Kunstmuseum Heidenheim 1998 |Hrsg=René Hirner; Richard Gassen |Sammelwerk=Achim Zeman: Kunstmuseum Heidenheim/Wilhelm-Hack-Museum Ludwigshafen, Ausstellungskatalog |Verlag=Kunstmuseum Heidenheim/Wilhelm-Hack-Museum Ludwigshafen |Ort=Heidenheim; Ludwigshafen |Datum=1999 |ISBN=9783931182618|Seiten=5-8 |Fundstelle=S.8}}</ref>
• Englisch <ref>{{cite book |last=Hirner |first=René |editor1-last=Hirner |editor1-first=René |editor2-last=Gassen |editor2-first=Richard |title=Achim Zeman: Art Museum Heidenheim/Wilhelm-Hack-Museum Ludwigshafen, Ausstellungskatalog |trans-title=Achim Zeman: Art Museum Heidenheim/Wilhelm-Hack-Museum Ludwigshafen, exhibition catalog |publisher=Kunstmuseum Heidenheim/Wilhelm-Hack-Museum Ludwigshafen |place=Ludwigshafen |year=1999 |chapter=Fluten. Kunstmuseum Heidenheim 1998 |trans-chapter=Flood. Art museum Heidenheim 1998 |ISBN=9783931182618 |page=14}}</ref>
• Mir wurde damals gesagt, dass man nur die Seitenzahl des Zitats - also die "Fundstelle" in Englisch angibt. Jetzt bei der Diskussion im Teahouse meinte jemand, ich könnte zweimal Seiten angeben, aber das funktioniert mit der Vorlage "cite book" eben gerade nicht. Da kommt immer "du hast zweimal Seitenzahln angeben, das ist ein Fehler" - sinngemäß formuliert. Könntest du mir erklären, wie man es doch hinbekommt? Ich habe in der Diskussion im Teahouse das hier überhaupt nicht verstanden "{{Sfn}} or {{rp}} - dann bräuchte man zwei Vorlagen in einer??? Ich finde es so unglaublich kompliziert, in jeder Sprache die richtige Formatierung hinzubekommen, für mich ist das sehr anstrengend zu verstehen. Wäre daher für Input sehr dankbar! --Gyanda (talk) 21:13, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Hallo Gyanda, das funktioniert momentan noch mit keiner englischen Zitiervorlage. In der Regel verhält es sich andersherum, aber es gibt tatsächlich Dinge, wo die deutsche Vorlage Literatur den englischen Vorlagen etwas voraus hat - und da es leider sehr viele prinzipielle Neinsager unter den Nutzern gibt, ist es schwer, mögliche Verbesserungsideen aus den anderssprachigen Wikipedien zu übernehmen. Das braucht meist etliche Anläufe und mitunter Jahre, bis sich die ein oder andere Funktion mal durchsetzt. Momentan ist das Thema Seitenzahlangaben mal wieder heiß diskutiert, und wir versuchen gerade, eine geeignete Notation zu finden und Unterstützung dafür auch in Form neuer Parameter in die CS1-/CS2-Zitiervorlagen einzubauen. Vielleicht hast Du ja Lust, Dich zu beteiligen und zur Durchsetzung dieser Funktion etwas beizutragen:

• Help talk:Citation Style 1#citing different pages of the same book
• Help talk:Citation Style 1#number of pages
• Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 86#Question about page parameter in Template:Cite journal
• Help talk:Citation Style 1#Proposal: page-range
• Help talk:Citation Style 1#Use of Pages in Cite Journal
• Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1060#Question on Formatting

(Help:Citation Style 1 ist die Hilfeseite für die am häufigsten verwendeten Zitiervorlagen vom Typ CS1 und Help talk:Citation Style 1 das am besten geeignete Forum für Fragen dazu.)

Wenn Du beide Seitenangaben schon jetzt unterbringen willst, ohne daß es dafür schon neue Parameter gibt, würde ich empfehlen, das wie folgt zu machen: |pages=5–8 [8], |pages=50–98 [60, 66–67, 84] oder bei einem besonders zerklüfteten Magazinartikel vielleicht |pages=50–52, 54, 57, 60–64, 67 [51, 61–62], also den Seitenbereich des Kapitels/Artikels anzugeben, gefolgt von der Liste der individuellen Fundstellen in eckigen Klammern (das scheint die Notation zu sein, die die meisten an der Diskussion Beteiligten wohl unterstützen).

Was Zitiervorlagen wie {{rp}} oder {{sfn}} angeht, das kann man so machen (und einige Leute bevorzugen das auch), aber die Mehrzahl der Anwender findet das unübersichtlich und übertrieben, wenn es nur ein paar Fundstellen gibt, die man individuell ausweisen muß. In den meisten Fällen reicht es, diese, wie in den obigen Beispielen gezeigt, zusammenzufassen.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 09:09, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Danke für deine ausführliche Antwort, Matthiaspaul. Ich habe in dem einen Thread nachgelesen und finde bisher dieses at= am besten, wenn es funktioniert. Ich bin auch froh darüber, dass die deutsche Wikipedia das mit der Fundstelle hat. Ich finde, es ist schon eine wichtige Information, ob ein Artikel, der ein Thema behandelt, 20 oder 50 oder nur 2 Seiten hat, von daher probier ich demnächst mal das mit dem at. Ich finde auch, dass unser Unterforum bei Fragen zur Relevanz enorm hilfreich ist, und dass es sehr schade ist, dass es das hier nicht gibt. Ich mag natürlich keinen Artikel schreiben, der sofort wieder gelöscht wird, daher frage ich, wenn ich mir unsicher bin, gern in dem Unterforum. Nochmals herzlichen Dank! LG, --Gyanda (talk) 11:25, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Gray code

Matthias, I didn't mean to step on your toes when I reverted your unsourced addition, which is why I invited you to bring it back with a source (this is not hard, doesn't require a revert first -- just edit your version to add the source). Anyway, that's done. Re the Varec thing, thanks for finding those sources. It looks to me like they used an ordinary Gray code, except for skipping some states when encoding tenths and twelfths. They call it a reflected binary Gray code. Has anyone called it a Varec code? Would we be better off omitting this odd piece of equipment? Dicklyon (talk) 02:45, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

I was mostly complaining about attitude, that's why I wanted to trigger your alarm.

Regarding Varec code, years back I have seen it being called "Varec code", "Varec gauge code", "Varec pulse code" and similar, in particular in documents much older (1960s?, possibly even 1950s?) than the two I added yesterday. While the first two code variants resemble a reflected O'Brien code I with a cycle length of 20, the third installment is unique enough in using different cycle lengths (20, 24, 32) for different digits. As this is not a (reflected) BCD code, the Varec code should be mentioned in the first group of codes.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 22:56, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Libaw-Craig code

As far as I can tell, the Libaw-Craig code is a 5-bit decimal code. Do some of your sources describe it as more general than that? Dicklyon (talk) 03:46, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

No, I have seen it being mentioned in the context of 4-bit codes as well, but "as is" it's always discussed as a 5-bit pentadic code.

I was tempted to extend the table in the ring counter article from 4 bit to 5 bit, so that it suits both codes, but left it as it was because the flip flop chain examples would have to be changed as well then. As Johnson code appears to be defined as a function of bit-width, do you think it would be worth adding tables for other bit-widths than 4 to the article?

There is enough notable stuff about the Libaw–Craig code, so it will probably have its own article at some point in the future. Right now, I was just building up some infrastructure for this.

1-2-1 code probably needs to be mentioned as well in this context.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 12:24, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:DEC printers

A tag has been placed on Category:DEC printers requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:37, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer newsletter June 2020

Hello Matthiaspaul,

Your help can make a difference

NPP Sorting can be a great way to find pages needing new page patrolling that match your strengths and interests. Using ORES, it divides articles into topics such as Literature or Chemistry and on Geography. Take a look and see if you can find time to patrol a couple pages a day. With over 10,000 pages in the queue, the highest it's been since ACPERM, your help could really make a difference.

Google Adds New Languages to Google Translate

In late February, Google added 5 new languages to Google Translate: Kinyarwanda, Odia (Oriya), Tatar, Turkmen and Uyghur. This expands our ability to find and evaluate sources in those languages.

Discussions and Resources

• A discussion on handling new article creation by paid editors is ongoing at the Village Pump.
• Also at the Village Pump is a discussion about limiting participation at Articles for Deletion discussion.
• A proposed new speedy deletion criteria for certain kinds of redirects ended with no consensus.
• Also ending with no change was a proposal to change how we handle certain kinds of vector images.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 10271 Low – 4991 High – 10271

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:52, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

"Corona crisis" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Corona crisis. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 23#Corona crisis until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 15:29, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Scope of page cleanup

Hi! First let me say that I really like the work you do. Every time I see one of your edits I am impressed with the quality.

Re: [33], It appears that I either need you to convince you to accept the changes WP:AutoEd makes or I need to convince Plastikspork -- the maintainer of AutoEd -- to stop making those changes. I am not willing to repeatedly manually undo AutoEd edits that I agree with. There are a large number of AutoEd users. If one of the changes AutoEd makes is wrong, we need to fix that. If they aren't wrong you need to stop reverting them.

If we cannot reach an agreement on this I can post an RfC, but I don't think that is necessary. You, I, and Plastikspork are all long-term good-faith contributors and we should be able to agree on what to do here.

BTW, I believe that Wikipedia:AutoEd/wikilinks.js is where the magic happens. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:40, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Guy Macon, I have disabled that line in the script for now. I believe that one was inherited from Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/Formatter, or maybe just inspired by it. We could make it less aggressive so that it changes [[word (computer architecture)|wo]]rds to [[word (computer architecture)|word]]s but leaves [[word (computer architecture)|word]]s alone. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 13:29, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi, both of you. That sounds like a considerable improvement already, Plastikspork.

Does your suggestion only take parenthetical disambiguations into account, or would it also work for things like [[round-off error|round-off]]s or [[round-off error|error]]s?

And, I guess, if the affix is "s", "d" or "ing" it should always be left untouched (not sure if it would be safe enough to split it off the (right side of a) link, but if it has been split off by someone already, it should be left alone - they probably knew what they were doing).

Greetings,

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 07:39, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

ALUSidebar Dispute Invitation

@Matthiaspaul: Hi! I've noticed that you were involved to such technical and related to the computing articles as Karnaugh map, Brent–Kung adder, Kogge–Stone adder, Bit slicing etc. so would you like to take a part in the ALUSidebar dispute? In short, I've create the sidebar to bring bunch of ALU related stuff into one place, but later another party came to rename it and started to remove "unnecesary" things wreaking a havoc. Help to make consensus is pretty much welcomed. Thanks! AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 23:06, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Duplicate ref names error

Hi! Your edit here introduced such error. (Search for 'error:' in the revisions before and after your edit.) Can you please fix it? --Palosirkka (talk) 00:03, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Fixed. I merged the two Bergmann references because they were redundant except for the page ranges. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 03:09, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! I wish the software would merge identical refs automatically saving us meat bags the trouble. :) --Palosirkka (talk) 09:12, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

"Noise reduction in radio broadcasting" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Noise reduction in radio broadcasting. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 20#Noise reduction in radio broadcasting until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 06:54, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much

The article on Microsoft DOS HMA, is literally error free. Thanks, I need it as a source for editing the Extended memory and expanded memory pages, Which contain misinformation, uninformed generalizations, and are just plain wrong. I am the editor of the real mode page on MITs Computer history wiki: 170.75.140.124 (talk) 20:38, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Hyphenated parameters

I've seen you recently make a few edits like this one. What is the point of fading out the non-hyphenated variant? My thinking is, it's good that we have synonyms and the editors don't have to memorize precise parameter names; obliging them to do so is a small step towards a less editor-friendly encyclopedia. Am I missing something?--R8R (talk) 12:35, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I see your point, but you don't need to be worried in any way; we'll take care of this.

The main reason for fading out some parameter aliases is to achieve more consistency in the user interface and documentation to help users to see the overarching concepts of the interface and naming / syntax conventions and thereby make it easier for users to memorize the parameters. It actually confuses readers to see some parameters formatted in multiple ways even in the same article and template, whilst a few legacy parameters exist only in non-hyphenated form and all newer parameters only in a hyphenated form. Less important, this also allows to clean up the code a bit to have a better base for some performance optimizations and for actually new features in the future, improving the functionality and convenience.

We've had an RfC in 2014 to no longer introduce any new non-hyphenated parameter variants. So, the basic rule for all users of CS1/CS2-related templates since then is to use only hyphenated parameters, the other variants only exist for legacy support.

When we see that some legacy non-hyphenated parameter variants are not actually used (at all or anymore) there's no point to continue to support them, so we deprecate them. In some cases, the parameter interface gets redesigned in other ways like merging the functionality of several parameters into one. In such situations, the new interface will only support hyphenated parameter variants. In other cases, non-hyphenated parameters only have a few dozen uses at all, so that it is easy enough to change them to their hyphenated variants manually.

In this particular case, the actual target of my editing were the rarely used |displayeditors= and |editormask= parameter aliases, but while editing an article anyway, I, of course, took the chance to also switch a few other parameters of the same class to their hyphenated variants (even though they won't be deprecated any time soon because their number of use is still too large for manual editing).

Either way, even if support for a parameter will be eventually removed, our citation templates integrate a "suggestion system" so that if a user would continue to enter the non-hyphenated parameter, s/he will receive a message telling the new parameter name, so that s/he doesn't get lost and the transition will be a smooth process.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 17:43, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much for taking your time to explain this to me in such length. It didn't occur to me that existence of synonyms can actually lead to confusion, but now that you've explained it, it makes sense. But if that's the case, I'd suggest mentioning this in the documentation of templates such as {{cite journal}}. That would have resolved this question for me and it would also inhibit the addition of new instances of non-hyphenated parameters.--R8R (talk) 13:25, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Right now it's still preparatory work, but, of course, this will be documented in the CS1 documentation, eventually.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 13:53, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

""6 and 2" encoding" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect "6 and 2" encoding. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 September 14#"6 and 2" encoding until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 17:48, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

No-cat

Regarding this edit to an archive page: roughly how many archived FAC pages have a no-cat parameter? If there are 5 pages, it's not an issue at all. If there are 500, then the pages shouldn't be edited. - Dank (push to talk) 18:57, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi Dank, regarding the |no-cat= parameter alias of the CS1/CS2 citation templates the usage number were not more than three dozens, and they are done.

In general, as much as I hate to do it, editing some archived pages is unavoidable in this case, because otherwise the templates on these pages would no longer suppress categorization, that is, these archive pages would suddenly start to show up in the category system although the original use of the parameter was exactly to avoid this. ;-) So, just leaving these pages untouched (as is our normal procedure when we enhance the templates) is not an option here.

Oddly enough, this feature has many parameter aliases (way too many for such a rarely needed feature) and some of these names overlap with parameter names of other templates which are in frequent use. Thereby it is impossible to find out the exact total usage numbers this way. Also, Cirrus search for at least one of these parameter aliases times out. Since the very function of this parameter is to disable categorization we also have no tracking category for this. This is kind of a maintenance nightmare. Also, the canonical parameter name (|template-doc-demo=) does not fit into the parameter naming conventions of the citation templates at all, therefore this needs to be cleaned up.

The plan is to reduce the number of aliases and rename the canonical parameter name to something sensible and unique so that it becomes searchable (otherwise we'd need a tracking category for a parameter designed to disable categorization).

Due to these dependencies, this will be a slow process probably taking two more update rounds until it is finished.

See also: Help_talk:Citation_Style_1#no-cat_parameter_cleanup

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 19:43, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I have all of the FAC pages watchlisted that have been promoted since Jan 1, 2016 (I think), and I only noticed one edit, so if you're done with that round, then there's no problem at all (with FAC archive pages). Thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 19:56, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

"Hades DeskTop" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Hades DeskTop. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 4#Hades DeskTop until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:53, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

"Hades cliXX" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Hades cliXX. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 4#Hades cliXX until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:54, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

"Hades (imprint)" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Hades (imprint). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 4#Hades (imprint) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:54, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

"NFT Ventures" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect NFT Ventures. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 6#NFT Ventures until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:50, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Category:Mac OS

Category:Backup software for Mac OS is up for renaming, please see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 October 28#Category:Mac OS software. – Fayenatic London 15:56, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

The "nbk" attribute for "cite book"

Hello, can you please consider the Request for the "nbk" (NCBI bookshelf) attribute for "cite book"? Maxim Masiutin (talk) 21:26, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

"Druck (key)" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Druck (key). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 November 14#Druck (key) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 15:29, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Category:Redirects from citation identifiers has been nominated for merging

Category:Redirects from citation identifiers has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 21:17, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

New Page Patrol December Newsletter

Hello Matthiaspaul,

Year in review

It has been a productive year for New Page Patrol as we've roughly cut the size of the New Page Patrol queue in half this year. We have been fortunate to have a lot of great work done by Rosguill who was the reviewer of the most pages and redirects this past year. Thanks and credit go to JTtheOG and Onel5969 who join Rosguill in repeating in the top 10 from last year. Thanks to John B123, Hughesdarren, and Mccapra who all got the NPR permission this year and joined the top 10. Also new to the top ten is DannyS712 bot III, programmed by DannyS712 which has helped to dramatically reduce the number of redirects that have needed human patrolling by patrolling certain types of redirects (e.g. for differences in accents) and by also patrolling editors who are on on the redirect whitelist.

Rank	Username	Num reviews	Log
1	DannyS712 bot III (talk)	67,552	Patrol Page Curation
2	Rosguill (talk)	63,821	Patrol Page Curation
3	John B123 (talk)	21,697	Patrol Page Curation
4	Onel5969 (talk)	19,879	Patrol Page Curation
5	JTtheOG (talk)	12,901	Patrol Page Curation
6	Mcampany (talk)	9,103	Patrol Page Curation
7	DragonflySixtyseven (talk)	6,401	Patrol Page Curation
8	Mccapra (talk)	4,918	Patrol Page Curation
9	Hughesdarren (talk)	4,520	Patrol Page Curation
10	Utopes (talk)	3,958	Patrol Page Curation

Reviewer of the Year

John B123 has been named reviewer of the year for 2020. John has held the permission for just over 6 months and in that time has helped cut into the queue by reviewing more than 18,000 articles. His talk page shows his efforts to communicate with users, upholding NPP's goal of nurturing new users and quality over quantity.

NPP Technical Achievement Award

As a special recognition and thank you DannyS712 has been awarded the first NPP Technical Achievement Award. His work programming the bot has helped us patrol redirects tremendously - more than 60,000 redirects this past year. This has been a large contribution to New Page Patrol and definitely is worthy of recognition.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 2262 Low – 2232 High – 10271

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here

18:16, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Category:Lemniscatic elliptic functions has been nominated for merging

Category:Lemniscatic elliptic functions has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:58, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

"Datenknoten (CCC)" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Datenknoten (CCC). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 8#Datenknoten (CCC) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:14, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

"Datenpirat (CCC)" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Datenpirat (CCC). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 8#Datenpirat (CCC) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:14, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

CVE (identifier)

• CVE (identifier)
• CVE-2018-3665

So, you marked CVE (identifier) as {{R to related topic}} to allow for easier reverse lookup, but now that {{R from CVE}} exists, is that needed anymore? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:07, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi MJL. Yes, keeping {{R from identifier}} in the CVE (identifier) redirect is important so it shows up in Category:Redirects from identifiers. However, {{R to related topic}} is no longer important with {{R from CVE}} certainly being a better rcat to describe the relation. I have updated CVE (identifier) accordingly.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 18:25, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Altium Designer

Quick question as I am still learning. I moved all the references from a list at the bottom to the body of the article but I see you moved them back. Is this a preference thing or manual of style. I have no issue either way but want to make sure I am not messing up anything when doing any edits. Thanks in advance. --RTotzke (talk) 18:10, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi, our MOS allows both styles, and CITEVAR and BRD apply, but list-defined references are preferred by many experienced editors at least for substantial articles which have reached some level of stability and/or maturity. List-defined references have several advantages; they avoid the clutter in the article body and thereby make it much more easy to wordsmith the prose in the source code editor (where otherwise you often almost can't see the prose with bulkloads of references interspersed) and to consistently improve references without searching for them in the source code or having to block the whole article while working on references. Most articles start out with inline references since references are just dropped into the article where needed, and often they are changed to list-style at some later point in time (unless active editors of the article object).

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 22:43, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. So if I understand correctly, using inline isn't really an issue but if I see references that are list-defined I should leave them be. Thanks again for the advice. --RTotzke (talk) 16:45, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Yep. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 16:13, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

"Bolt (screw)" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Bolt (screw). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 11#Bolt (screw) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 15:57, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Help:Citation Style 1/test problems

Hello, Matthiaspaul,

I noticed that you were the last editor to this page. Something has happened that has caused the page to now have the category Category:CS1 errors: extra text: issue. I try to resolve red link categories which is usually done by either a) reverting an edit that caused this error, b) putting the page into the correct category, c) changing some code that causes the red link category to appear or d) create a new category. In this case, I can't figure out what the problem is or what the solution should be. I can't seem to remove this category so I'm hoping some editor familiar with the whole CS1 error situation could find a way to handle a mistaken red link category. Thank you in advance. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:04, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Liz.

We recently added extra text warnings to the |issue=, |number= and |volume= parameters. The example at Help:Citation Style 1/test problems contained dummy placeholders like |issue=Issue (instead of an actual issue number), so it triggered the error message and categorization. In cases like this the categorization can be suppressed using the |no-tracking=yes parameter. See also: Help_talk:Citation_Style_1#Help:Citation_Style_1/test_problems

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 18:42, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Question regarding redirect at GND (identifier)

Hi, I notice that GND (identifier) redirects to Integrated Authority File#GND, where a GND anchor is placed at the top of Integrated Authority File, and no such section exists. I am wondering what is the reason/benefit of doing this, rather than linking directly to Integrated Authority File. Thanks, ChromeGames923 (talk · contribs) 01:11, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi, the reason for linking (groups of related) redirects to specific anchors rather than actual section headers is to keep subtopics distinguishable on a logical rather than a physical level, that is, the organization of the contents and the presentation structure (including section headers) can change without having to check incoming links (in particular from redirects) to still point to the correct locations in the article for as long as the anchors get moved alongside the corresponding contents. In some cases, if there are logically distinguishable subtopics discussed in a single section in the article, there can be even multiple anchors at the same location, and if one of the subtopics woul be moved elsewhere in the future only the corresponding anchor would have to be moved to the new place as well. In rare cases, a subtopic does not have a specific place in an article yet, but it can be anticipated that it should or will have one somewhen in the future. In these cases, anchors for them can be "parked" at the top of the article. For the browser (and reader) this is (almost) as if the anchor would not exist at all (so it does not harm), but it is obvious for editors working on the article that there are already incoming redirects on a specific subtopic and, if they add contents related to the subtopic, that they should move the "parked" anchor to this location.

All in all, it decouples the development of an article from the development of the infrastructure around it. And it helps reverse lookup.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 12:15, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

"MSDOSSYS.STS" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect MSDOSSYS.STS. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 22#MSDOSSYS.STS until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Crash48 (talk) 18:16, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

"MKSA system" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect MKSA system. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 21#MKSA system until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Sorry for a belated notification. --Lukflug (talk) 09:11, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

"B.1.429" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect B.1.429. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 19#B.1.429 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 11:24, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

July 2021

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, articles should not be moved, as you did to Integrated Authority File, without good reason. They should have a name that is both accurate and intuitive. Wikipedia has some guidelines in place to help with this. Generally, a page should only be moved to a new title if the current name doesn't follow these guidelines. Also, if a page move is being discussed, consensus needs to be reached before anybody moves the page. If you would like to experiment with page titles and moving, please use the test Wikipedia. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Renat 14:52, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

improved refs to Missouri Route 16

So I take a look at your edit to Missouri Route 16 and see that you've changed the "accessdate" parameter to "access-date" (and similar changes to "archiveurl" and "archivedate"). That is certainly an improvement of sorts, though it has exactly zero impact on what the readers see.

So then I look through the references, and click on one, lo and behold, I get a 404! Somewhere along the way, Missouri DOT seems to have changed things around. In short (in my arguably contemptuous way), you have made changes to a totally broken set of citations while making absolutely no improvement. Sigh. Fabrickator (talk) 23:54, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi Fabrickator, fortunately it's not as bad as you put it. WP:RS remain valid citations even if the links break for as long as the info is verifiable by someone somewhere. Of course, it is more convenient, if the info is available online, but that's not a requirement - these maps are certainly still available in paper format at MoDOT (if not available online somewhere else).

When I add references to an article I almost always create archive snapshots and provide the archive links as well in order to prevent link rot as much as possible. Unfortunately, many other editors do not.

In this case we are lucky that the broken links have been archived anyway, so they could all be retrieved from the archive now (by me). However, fixing dead links was not my intention when I edited the article and I unfortunately don't have the time to do it for all the other Missouri articles where the links are most probably broken as well. I wonder why they haven't been fixed by a bot by now, after all, they all seem to be dead since 2017.

Anyway, the original reason why I edited the page was to remove the article from Category:CS1:_abbreviated_year_range per MOS:YEARRANGE (support for abbreviated year ranges in citations will likely go away in the future, because the format is too easy to be confused with YYYY-MM and it is only used in a few citations). While being there, I also updated the discouraged parameter |year= to the modern |date= for consistency and easier future maintenance. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 09:50, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

I knew it had become encouraged to use hyphenated forms of certain parameters, but hadn't been aware that other parameter names (such as "year") were discouraged. (I know I have my own habits of whether to use "work=" or a more specific parameter like "website=". I think every editor must develop their own model of what's the preferred form of wiki markup.) Anyway, thanks for the explanation. Fabrickator (talk) 23:40, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Dates and issues

As I think it might (reasonably) be considered disruptive to pursue the issue at the cs1 talk page and append this to your well-argued comment, I'm leaving it here for you to consider or ignore as you feel best.

I had no reason to keep a note of where it was that I saw them but I have certainly seen many cases where the title page of a periodical had something like 'Winter 20/21" and, buried inside, ©2020; or "Trinity Term", again with a precise copyright date. So surely it must be some kind of OR to declare that something that is clearly intended to be the issue, may be taken as the date? It seems to me that the date is specifically and exclusively that given in the copyright assertion? And otherwise editors should infer the minimum necessary to disambiguate and no more.

My argument is not that it is too difficult to code, but rather that it is neither necessary nor appropriate to do it at all. But I recognize that this is not a shared view and I accept consensus, admittedly with bad grace.

As I said, consider the comment if you find it useful, discard if not. No need to reply. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:38, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Template r

Kindly look how it render now in this article Sinibaldo Doria. Please help me to see what I made wrong.A ntv (talk) 20:59, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

• Solved, thanksA ntv (talk) 21:12, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter September 2021

New Page Review queue September 2021

Hello Matthiaspaul,

Please join this discussion - there is increase in the abuse of Wikipedia and its processes by POV pushers, Paid Editors, and by holders of various user rights including Autopatrolled. Even our review systems themselves at AfC and NPR have been infiltrated. The good news is that detection is improving, but the downside is that it creates the need for a huge clean up - which of course adds to backlogs.

Copyright violations are also a serious issue. Most non-regular contributors do not understand why, and most of our Reviewers are not experts on copyright law - and can't be expected to be, but there is excellent, easy-to-follow advice on COPYVIO detection here.

At the time of the last newsletter (#25, December 2020) the backlog was only just over 2,000 articles. New Page Review is an official system. It's the only firewall against the inclusion of new, improper pages.

There are currently 706 New Page Reviewers plus a further 1,080 admins, but as much as nearly 90% of the patrolling is still being done by around only the 20 or so most regular patrollers.

If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process or its software.

Various awards are due to be allocated by the end of the year and barnstars are overdue. If you would like to manage this, please let us know. Indeed, if you are interested in coordinating NPR, it does not involve much time and the tasks are described here.

---

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. Sent to 827 users. 04:32, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

"K-C-S format"?

Since you created the redirect, maybe you know what "K-C-S" stands for? I'm guessing the K is Kahan, but I don't know about the rest, and the IEEE 754-1985 article doesn't say (or if it does, I missed it). —scs (talk) 15:31, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Almost, Kahan-Coonen-Stone format refers to one of the draft proposals (by William Kahan, Jerome Coonen and Harold Stone in 1977) which led to the later IEEE 754-1985 standard. It was often abbreviated as K-C-S or KCS.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 15:49, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! I've tweaked the wlink at Subnormal number, which is what had me asking. I'll try to add some mention of the names Coonen and Stone to the IEEE_754-1985#History section. —scs (talk) 12:00, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, this would be an improvement.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 12:21, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Finally done. —scs (talk) 14:01, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

"Catalan.wikipedia.com" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Catalan.wikipedia.com. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 12#Catalan.wikipedia.com until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 20:35, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

"High-density" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect High-density. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 22#High-density until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:58, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

November 2021 backlog drive

New Page Patrol | November 2021 Backlog Drive
On November 1, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Redirect patrolling is not part of the drive. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. (t · c) buidhe 01:58, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Interview request

Hey Matthias! My name is Ryan and in my free time, I have been researching the history of DOS, notably 86-DOS. From a few FreeDOS pages I've found that were authored by you, I believe you have some knowledge (or even files/OS versions) that I don't have, notably from oral interviews. Are you able to contact me at the following email for some questions? Thank you for your time! (email: s101885 AT outlook DOT com) - RhinozzGamezz (talk) 22:27, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:27, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Chset-color-ext-punct-var

Template:Chset-color-ext-punct-var has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:21, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Prabook at Lothar Berg

Hi Matthias, just to elaborate on my revert of your good-faith edit at Lothar Berg, I don't think Prabook would be acceptable for any reference or external link on English Wikipedia. It fits neatly in WP:ELNO#EL12 (and somewhat 1, 6 for some of their articles, and 11) because it doesn't have any history of stability or substantial number of editors. It's only a few years old (though seems to have adopted the name/URL of an older but similarly unreliable Who's Who, based on a search of RSP), has no editorial guidelines, and seems like its purpose is to deliver as many ads as possible. I'd like it to be blacklisted, but it's mostly used by experienced good-faith editors, and infrequently enough that I can manually clean them up periodically. Best, Politanvm ^talk 18:46, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

"Binding antibody unit" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Binding antibody unit and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 14#Binding antibody unit until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Pseudomonas_(talk) 16:27, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:User pages with UKPARL identifiers and Category:User pages with VcBA identifiers

A tag has been placed on Category:User pages with UKPARL identifiers indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:02, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

These are just no longer needed tracking categories and therefore can be deleted. See: Template_talk:Authority_control#Several_ugly_categories and Template_talk:Authority_control#Query

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 20:47, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

"Bogengrad" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Bogengrad and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 5#Bogengrad until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. eviolite (talk) 04:01, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

"Altgrad" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Altgrad and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 5#Altgrad until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. eviolite (talk) 04:12, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

"Computerwoche (0170-5121)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Computerwoche (0170-5121) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 5#Computerwoche (0170-5121) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. eviolite (talk) 04:19, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

"Cyclus (geometry)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Cyclus (geometry) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 6#Cyclus (geometry) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. eviolite (talk) 04:23, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Pages with UKPARL identifiers

A tag has been placed on Category:Pages with UKPARL identifiers indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:21, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Pages with VcBA identifiers

A tag has been placed on Category:Pages with VcBA identifiers indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:21, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

"Quantity synopsis parts list" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Quantity synopsis parts list and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 4#Quantity synopsis parts list until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 18:47, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

"Speed® Square" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Speed® Square and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 15#Speed® Square until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. BD2412 T 05:15, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter May 2022

New Page Review queue March 2022

Hello Matthiaspaul,

At the time of the last newsletter (No.26, September 2021), the backlog was 'only' just over 6,000 articles. In the past six months, the backlog has reached nearly 16,000, a staggering level not seen in several years. A very small number of users had been doing the vast majority of the reviews. Due to "burn-out", we have recently lost most of this effort. Furthermore, several reviewers have been stripped of the user right for abuse of privilege and the articles they patrolled were put back in the queue.

Several discussions on the state of the process have taken place on the talk page, but there has been no action to make any changes. The project also lacks coordination since the "position" is vacant.

In the last 30 days, only 100 reviewers have made more than 8 patrols and only 50 have averaged one review a day. There are currently 816 New Page Reviewers, but about a third have not had any activity in the past month. All 861 administrators have this permission, but only about a dozen significantly contribute to NPP.

This means we have an active pool of about 450 to address the backlog. We cannot rely on a few to do most of the work as that inevitably leads to burnout. A fairly experienced reviewer can usually do a review in a few minutes. If every active reviewer would patrol just one article per day, the backlog would very quickly disappear.

If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, do suggest they help the effort by placing {{subst:NPR invite}} on their talk page.

If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
Sent 05:18, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Logic optimization

Hi! You probably noticed that I reverted a huge delete at Logic optimization. However, Wtshymanski has a point that there are far too much references in this article. I thought of spltting of a stub for each item in Logic_optimization#Graphical_methods and Logic_optimization#Boolean_expression_minimization, just holding the references and a generic introduction, to start with. After that, we could shorten both sections of Logic_optimization, by omitting references of minor importance and/or grouping the methods (and having one item per group, not per method). Since you are (one of) the main contributor(s), I'd like to discuss that issue with you before. (PS: Das animierte Wikipedia-Logo nervt beim Editieren.) - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 09:14, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Environmental impact of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine

On 4 June 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Environmental impact of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that some severe environmental impacts of the invasion of Ukraine can be seen from space? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Environmental impact of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Environmental impact of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:03, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 6,033 views (502.8 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of June 2022 – nice work!

theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 04:01, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 24

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Pentium F00F bug, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Processor.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter June 2022

New Page Review queue June 2022

Hello Matthiaspaul,

Backlog status

At the time of the last newsletter (No.27, May 2022), the backlog was approaching 16,000, having shot up rapidly from 6,000 over the prior two months. The attention the newsletter brought to the backlog sparked a flurry of activity. There was new discussion on process improvements, efforts to invite new editors to participate in NPP increased and more editors requested the NPP user right so they could help, and most importantly, the number of reviews picked up and the backlog decreased, dipping below 14,000 at the end of May.

Since then, the news has not been so good. The backlog is basically flat, hovering around 14,200. I wish I could report the number of reviews done and the number of new articles added to the queue. But the available statistics we have are woefully inadequate. The only real number we have is the net queue size.

In the last 30 days, the top 100 reviewers have all made more than 16 patrols (up from 8 last month), and about 70 have averaged one review a day (up from 50 last month).

While there are more people doing more reviews, many of the ~730 with the NPP right are doing little. Most of the reviews are being done by the top 50 or 100 reviewers. They need your help. We appreciate every review done, but please aim to do one a day (on average, or 30 a month).

Backlog drive

A backlog reduction drive, coordinated by buidhe and Zippybonzo, will be held from July 1 to July 31. Sign up here. Barnstars will be awarded.

TIP – New school articles

Many new articles on schools are being created by new users in developing and/or non-English-speaking countries. The authors are probably not even aware of Wikipedia's projects and policy pages. WP:WPSCH/AG has some excellent advice and resources specifically written for these users. Reviewers could consider providing such first-time article creators with a link to it while also mentioning that not all schools pass the GNG and that elementary schools are almost certainly not notable.

Misc

There is a new template available, {{NPP backlog}}, to show the current backlog. You can place it on your user or talk page as a reminder:

Very high unreviewed pages backlog: 14764 articles, as of 18:00, 25 April 2024 (UTC), according to DatBot

There has been significant discussion at WP:VPP recently on NPP-related matters (Draftification, Deletion, Notability, Verifiability, Burden). Proposals that would somewhat ease the burden on NPP aren't gaining much traction, although there are suggestions that the role of NPP be fundamentally changed to focus only on major CSD-type issues.

Reminders

• Consider staying informed on project issues by putting the project discussion page on your watchlist.
• If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, suggest they help the effort by placing {{subst:NPR invite}} on their talk page.
• If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.
• To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Notes

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:01, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

NPP July 2022 backlog drive is on!

New Page Patrol | July 2022 Backlog Drive
On 1 July, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Redirect patrolling is not part of the drive. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

(t · c) buidhe 20:25, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Fat pointers at Rust (programming language)

Hello,

I do appreciate the suggestion to add a note about fat pointers! I found some references and added a note -- they come up in relation to trait objects and slices.

It's just that -- per WP:SEEALSO -- see also really, really isn't the place for mentioning an incidentally used topic. It would be kind of like mentioning "hashmap" under See Also of C++ -- yes, hashmaps exist in C++, but it doesn't seem like a closely related topic by any principled metric, it should rather be mentioned in the section on standard library or data structures. See:

Contents: Links in this section should be relevant and limited to a reasonable number. Whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense.

If you want to add a TODO for the writers, which is definitely appreciated, perhaps there is a more tactful way? Perhaps adding a suggestion on the talk page, or even a commented out message or maintenance tag in the article. Caleb Stanford (talk) 23:18, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Computability theory

Hi! When I tried to find a "teaser" image for Computability theory recently, I couldn't find anything better than the table about the Busy Beaver function. Now I wonder why you moved it down? Best regards - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 17:18, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi Jochen, unfortunately it is very wide and messed up the article's page rendering at least on my machine. Also, I didn't found it to belong into the lede - this doesn't mean it belongs where I moved it which was basically just the earliest spot after the TOC. Feel free to move it to a better place. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 17:46, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Of course, I don't want to mess up the lead rendering. What about a mirrored version of the table (see User:Jochen Burghardt/sandbox); it should use less horizontal space. Else, the current place of the table is ok for me. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 18:38, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

FWIW I agree that the busy beaver table fits better in the body than in the lead. (Though it is a decent introductory example of an uncomputable function, that only makes sense if you already understand computability.) I can try to think of something better and add it. Caleb Stanford (talk) 19:54, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

That would be great. I feel we better should have a real image (not a table), but I've no idea which aspect of computability theory could be used for that. - Jochen Burghardt (talk) 09:10, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter August 2022

New Page Review queue August 2022

Hello Matthiaspaul,

Backlog status

After the last newsletter (No.28, June 2022), the backlog declined another 1,000 to 13,000 in the last week of June. Then the July backlog drive began, during which 9,900 articles were reviewed and the backlog fell by 4,500 to just under 8,500 (these numbers illustrate how many new articles regularly flow into the queue). Thanks go to the coordinators Buidhe and Zippybonzo, as well as all the nearly 100 participants. Congratulations to Dr vulpes who led with 880 points. See this page for further details.

Unfortunately, most of the decline happened in the first half of the month, and the backlog has already risen to 9,600. Understandably, it seems many backlog drive participants are taking a break from reviewing and unfortunately, we are not even keeping up with the inflow let alone driving it lower. We need the other 600 reviewers to do more! Please try to do at least one a day.

Coordination

MB and Novem Linguae have taken on some of the coordination tasks. Please let them know if you are interested in helping out. MPGuy2824 will be handling recognition, and will be retroactively awarding the annual barnstars that have not been issued for a few years.

Open letter to the WMF

The Page Curation software needs urgent attention. There are dozens of bug fixes and enhancements that are stalled (listed at Suggested improvements). We have written a letter to be sent to the WMF and we encourage as many patrollers as possible to sign it here. We are also in negotiation with the Board of Trustees to press for assistance. Better software will make the active reviewers we have more productive.

TIP - Reviewing by subject

Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages by their most familiar subjects can do so from the regularly updated sorted topic list.

New reviewers

The NPP School is being underused. The learning curve for NPP is quite steep, but a detailed and easy-to-read tutorial exists, and the Curation Tool's many features are fully described and illustrated on the updated page here.

Reminders

• Consider staying informed on project issues by putting the project discussion page on your watchlist.
• If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, suggest they help the effort by placing {{subst:NPR invite}} on their talk page.
• If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.
• To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:24, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Redirects to MediaWiki

I see that you created Interwiki link and Inter-wiki link as redirects to MediaWiki#Interwiki links, and Interlanguage link and Inter-language link as redirects to MediaWiki#Interlanguage links. I'm wondering whether you wouldn't agree that Hyperlink#Wikis is a better target for at least the first two titles, if not all four (currently it is the target of Wikilink, Wikilinked, and Wikilinking), since they are not limited to MediaWiki specifically. Note, by the way, that Interwiki links and Interwiki linking were both deleted last year, following one deletion discussion in 2013 that was closed as "no consensus" and then another "successful" discussion that didn't, in my opinion, adequately discuss redirecting options. Note also the existence of Wiki#Linking and creating pages as another possible target. Oh, and Interlanguage links was deleted way back in 2006 as a cross-namespace redirect. So, anyway… what do you think? - dcljr (talk) 01:37, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello? - dcljr (talk) 00:12, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Dynasphere

I apologize for my error. Thanks for pointing it out. Nightscream (talk) 16:39, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

NPP message

Hi Matthiaspaul,

Invitation

For those who may have missed it in our last newsletter, here's a quick reminder to see the letter we have drafted, and if you support it, do please go ahead and sign it. If you already signed, thanks. Also, if you haven't noticed, the backlog has been trending up lately; all reviews are greatly appreciated.

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:10, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

"Noitaton hsilop" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Noitaton hsilop and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 7#Noitaton hsilop until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:59, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

"Noitaton Hsilop" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Noitaton Hsilop and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 16#Noitaton Hsilop until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 22:04, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

"Noitaton hsilop esrever" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Noitaton hsilop esrever and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 17#Noitaton hsilop esrever until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. CiaPan (talk) 16:26, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

References to Wolfram M. Lippe's book in Z3 (computer)

Z3 (computer) has four citations of

• Lippe, Wolfram M. (2010-04-13) [2007]. Kapitel 14 - Die ersten programmierbaren Rechner [The first programmable computers] (PDF) (in German). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-36193-7_6. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2011-07-19. Retrieved 2010-06-21.

That's a chapter of a book by Lippe. It Might Be Nice if the book gave both chapter title and book title, with links, but, unfortunately, that book isn't at that URL any more, and {{cite book}} doesn't support archivec-chapter-url, archive-chapter-date, and chapter-url-status parameters to allow the chapter title to link to the archived version, with an "Archived from the original..." following it. (At one point, Citation bot said:

   !CrossRef title did not match existing title: doi:10.1007/978-3-642-36193-7_6
      >  Possible new title: Die ersten programmierbaren Rechner
      >  Existing old title: Kapitel 14 – Die ersten programmierbaren Rechner

about this, although that DOI link no longer works - Springer puts up a 404 page.)

The title section of that version of the book was here, with an archived version here. The title of that version is, on the first page, "Die Geschichte der Rechenautomaten - von der Antike bis zur Neuzeit"; the pages after that give "Die Geschichte der Rechenautomaten - von Antikythera bis Zuse" as a title. I'm not sure both "from antiquity to the present day" and "from Antikythera to Zuse" are used.

A Google search for the invariant part of the title :-) - "Die Geschichte der Rechenautomaten" - found several books; one of them was "Die Geschichte der Rechenautomaten. Bd. 2: Von mechanischen Chiffriergeräten bis zu den ersten programmierbaren Rechnern". I'm guessing that "Bd. 2" is something like "Vol. 2", suggesting "Die Geschichte der Rechenautomaten" is a series, perhaps with "Die Geschichte der Rechenautomaten - von der Antike bis zur Neuzeit" being the title of the entire series, and the title of that volume suggests it covers part of the history ("from mechanical encryption devices to the first programmable calculators (computers?)"), and "von Antikythera bis Zuse" also suggests it covers part of the history, although "from Antikythera to Zuse" would cover a range that partially overlaps "from mechanical encryption devices to the first programmable calculators", so perhaps the contents of the volumes have evolved over time.

So what would the right thing be to do about references to that book/series? "Leave it as it is" would be the easiest solution, but it might be an improvement if the reference were to give the title of the book or volume as well. Guy Harris (talk) 00:31, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi Guy. The given source is in fact a university script "Die Geschichte der Rechenautomaten" which (while adding volume subtitles) was turned into a three-volume book series in 2013. However, the books seem to have been withdrawn in 2014 when several investigators found a lot of the contents to be plagiarizing other sources, including Wikipedia, but also some rare and difficult to obtain works. Some of the pictures were also included without attributation and authorization. So, the contents is most probably correct and we can use it for citation purposes, but in the long run we should try to replace this source by the original sources.

You are also right about the missing |archive-chapter-url= parameter. I suggested to add something like this (and many other things) to CS1/CS2 a couple of times (and also implemented some), but the group there appears to be more interested in discussing everything to death instead of moving forward and add features to the templates. I suggest that you propose this parameter there as well in order for it to get more momentum to be eventually implemented.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 08:22, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

"Noitaton Hsilop Esrever" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Noitaton Hsilop Esrever and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 18#Noitaton Hsilop Esrever until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. CiaPan (talk) 20:16, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

October 2022 New Pages Patrol backlog drive

New Page Patrol | October 2022 backlog drive
On 1 October, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled and for maintaining a streak throughout the drive. Barnstars will also be awarded for re-reviewing articles. Redirect patrolling is not part of the drive. Sign up here!
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

(t · c) buidhe 21:17, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

"Noitaton Hsilop esrever" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Noitaton Hsilop esrever and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 24#Noitaton Hsilop esrever until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. CiaPan (talk) 11:01, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

"Zciweisakuł notation" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Zciweisakuł notation and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 4#Zciweisakuł notation until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. CiaPan (talk) 13:52, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter October 2022

Hello Matthiaspaul,

Much has happened since the last newsletter over two months ago. The open letter finished with 444 signatures. The letter was sent to several dozen people at the WMF, and we have heard that it is being discussed but there has been no official reply. A related article appears in the current issue of The Signpost. If you haven't seen it, you should, including the readers' comment section.

Awards: Barnstars were given for the past several years (thanks to MPGuy2824), and we are now all caught up. The 2021 cup went to John B123 for leading with 26,525 article reviews during 2021. To encourage moderate activity, a new "Iron" level barnstar is awarded annually for reviewing 360 articles ("one-a-day"), and 100 reviews earns the "Standard" NPP barnstar. About 90 reviewers received barnstars for each of the years 2018 to 2021 (including the new awards that were given retroactively). All awards issued for every year are listed on the Awards page. Check out the new Hall of Fame also.

Software news: Novem Linguae and MPGuy2824 have connected with WMF developers who can review and approve patches, so they have been able to fix some bugs, and make other improvements to the Page Curation software. You can see everything that has been fixed recently here. The reviewer report has also been improved.

NPP backlog May – October 15, 2022

Suggestions:

• There is much enthusiasm over the low backlog, but remember that the "quality and depth of patrolling are more important than speed".
• Reminder: an article should not be tagged for any kind of deletion for a minimum of 15 minutes after creation and it is often appropriate to wait an hour or more. (from the NPP tutorial)
• Reviewers should focus their effort where it can do the most good, reviewing articles. Other clean-up tasks that don't require advanced permissions can be left to other editors that routinely improve articles in these ways (creating Talk Pages, specifying projects and ratings, adding categories, etc.) Let's rely on others when it makes the most sense. On the other hand, if you enjoy doing these tasks while reviewing and it keeps you engaged with NPP (or are guiding a newcomer), then by all means continue.
• This user script puts a link to the feed in your top toolbar.

Backlog:

Saving the best for last: From a July low of 8,500, the backlog climbed back to 11,000 in August and then reversed in September dropping to below 6,000 and continued falling with the October backlog drive to under 1,000, a level not seen in over four years. Keep in mind that there are 2,000 new articles every week, so the number of reviews is far higher than the backlog reduction. To keep the backlog under a thousand, we have to keep reviewing at about half the recent rate!

Reminders

• Newsletter feedback - please take this short poll about the newsletter.
• If you're interested in instant messaging and chat rooms, please join us on the New Page Patrol Discord, where you can ask for help and live chat with other patrollers.
• Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
• If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be a reviewer, please ask any admin to remove you from the group. If you want the tools back again, just ask at PERM.
• To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Proposed deletion of Specctra

The article Specctra has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Article fails WP:N and sources are wrong/not relevant to the content. Software product is already mentioned on Cadence Design Systems.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Evilninja (talk) 23:43, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:11, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Jewish Cemetery, Aachen

Lieber Mathias Paul, vielen dank für Ihren Beitrag Über den Friedhof für die englische Wikipdia. In der deutschen Vorlage ist bei der Abbildung des Grabmals der Familie Feodor Meyer ein Fehler, den ich soeben versucht habe in der deutschen Version zu korrigieren. Der Bildhauer ist Gustav Rutz. Auf dem Grabmal ist zu lesen: Gust. Rutz fec. 1902, Düsseldorf. und Brunzeguss v. Förster & Kracht, Düsseldorf. herzliche Grüße Iris Gedig IrisGedig (talk) 14:33, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Herzlichen Dank für den Hinweis und willkommen in der englischsprachigen Wikipedia! Ich habe das mal in beide Artikel aufgenommen. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 19:16, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

"By wire" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect By wire and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 28 § By wire until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. X by wire is also nominated in the same place. A7V2 (talk) 23:31, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Matthiaspaul!

Happy New Year!

Matthiaspaul,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 03:17, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 03:17, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Category:Articles with WORLDCATID identifiers has been nominated for renaming

Category:Articles with WORLDCATID identifiers has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:59, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

A chronic disruptor

Hey there. I see you posted here about a notorious problem editor Bumm13 who absolutely will not stop on the same issue of pointless messing with wikilinks and with meaninglessly self-congratulatory edit messages. When it comes to linking to DOS, he's as robotically obsessed as he is obviously wrong, and has been told countless times like by @Dgpop: here. And he still only responds by playing dumb and bratty. He's bullying you and I with WP:ICANTHEARYOU like here. He's beyond question, he ignores or derails legitimate conversation, anything is okay when he does it, all the burden is on the rest of the world, and everybody can just get lost. So I know better than to attempt any further direct and redundant engagement. There are other computer-history-minded admins who are literate about the factual wrongness in that particular case but it's perfectly obvious even in the lead section of DOS. My point here is that you mentioned pursuing desysopping or whatever sanctions in 2019 and I wondered if you're intending to follow through or if you knew that he just won't stop since then, so WP:TENDENTIOUS. Just checking. You're much more into that, you're very very good at handling all this in terms of rhetoric and policy, and have more of a history, so I await supporting it. When you do, you could ping the other people in your old thread I just linked above. In this and in general, I also thank you for your balance of profound positivity without coddling. — Smuckola(talk) 03:27, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Bumm13 does draw attention to a couple of places article organization could be improved:

1. That the DOS article is about MS-DOS, and different from Disk operating system, is just plain wrong. Every 1970s/1980s computer community uses DOS to refer to the disk operating system for its particular platform. That both the current DOS and MS-DOS articles separately exist is confusing.
2. "Apple II" has long been synonymous with "the Apple II line of computers", but the Apple II article is about a specific model, not the line. For the latter, there's Apple II series. But with the former being shorter and more obvious, there are far more links to "Apple II" than "Apple II series". It would make more sense to rename "Apple II series" to "Apple II" so it's the main article, then rename the current "Apple II" to "Apple II (1977 computer)". (For comparison, Atari 8-bit family is necessary because there's no standard naming convention for the models.)

Dgpop (talk) 15:57, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Hierarchical File System

I don't know what is going on with these articles. It seems to have gotten into a mess. Peter Flass (talk) 15:43, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi Peter, unfortunately, that appears to be the case now, see Talk:Hierarchical_file_system_(Apple)#Proposed_deletion, [34], User talk:Locke Cole#Hierarchical File System. Since Locke does not seem to be willing to undo the mess he initiated, it seems we'll have to initiate a full move discussion now, but I have little time at present.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 21:43, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Talk:Hierarchical_File_System#Requested_move_25_February_2023 --Matthiaspaul (talk) 22:29, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

There is no "mess". There's only the idiocy that insists we put some parenthetical after a primary topic page with a quarter million page views because of WP:DIFFCAPS not being good enough apparently. Fucking stupid. Thank you for making the encyclopedia a worse place. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:35, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

"International Journal of Electronics" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect International Journal of Electronics has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 7 § International Journal of Electronics until a consensus is reached. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 06:32, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

"Akademičeskij naučno-izdatel'skij proizvodstvenno-poligrafičeskij i knigorasprostranitel'skij centr RAN" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Akademičeskij naučno-izdatel'skij proizvodstvenno-poligrafičeskij i knigorasprostranitel'skij centr RAN has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 9 § Akademičeskij naučno-izdatel'skij proizvodstvenno-poligrafičeskij i knigorasprostranitel'skij centr RAN until a consensus is reached. greyzxq ^talk 22:06, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

"Akademičeskij naučno-izdatel'skij proizvodstvenno-poligrafičeskij i knigorasprostranitel'skij centr RAN Izdatel'stvo "Nauka"" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Akademičeskij naučno-izdatel'skij proizvodstvenno-poligrafičeskij i knigorasprostranitel'skij centr RAN Izdatel'stvo "Nauka" has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 9 § Akademičeskij naučno-izdatel'skij proizvodstvenno-poligrafičeskij i knigorasprostranitel'skij centr RAN Izdatel'stvo "Nauka" until a consensus is reached. greyzxq ^talk 22:07, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

"Akademitscheski nautschno-isdatelski, proiswodstwenno-poligrafitscheski i knigorasprostranitelski zentr Rossijskoi akademii nauk" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Akademitscheski nautschno-isdatelski, proiswodstwenno-poligrafitscheski i knigorasprostranitelski zentr Rossijskoi akademii nauk has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 9 § Akademitscheski nautschno-isdatelski, proiswodstwenno-poligrafitscheski i knigorasprostranitelski zentr Rossijskoi akademii nauk until a consensus is reached. greyzxq ^talk 22:07, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

"Akademitscheski nautschno-isdatelski, proiswodstwenno-poligrafitscheski i knigorasprostranitelski zentr Rossijskoi akademii nauk "Isdatelstwo Nauka"" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Akademitscheski nautschno-isdatelski, proiswodstwenno-poligrafitscheski i knigorasprostranitelski zentr Rossijskoi akademii nauk "Isdatelstwo Nauka" has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 9 § Akademitscheski nautschno-isdatelski, proiswodstwenno-poligrafitscheski i knigorasprostranitelski zentr Rossijskoi akademii nauk "Isdatelstwo Nauka" until a consensus is reached. greyzxq ^talk 22:08, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Skot (unit)

The article Skot (unit) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

I can find evidence this unit EXISTS, but not enough to establish that it is notable. Unsourced for over a decade.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. PianoDan (talk) 16:06, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

"Coturn (rational trigonometry)" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Coturn (rational trigonometry) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 21 § Coturn (rational trigonometry) until a consensus is reached. 1234qwer1234qwer4 19:34, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

"Turn (rational trigonometry)" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Turn (rational trigonometry) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 21 § Turn (rational trigonometry) until a consensus is reached. 1234qwer1234qwer4 19:34, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Article title capitalization

Do you have a view as to how Wikipedia:LOWERCASE might apply to 2021–2022 Social unrest in the French West Indies? As I read it, this page move may have been mistaken, no? Bsherr (talk) 04:18, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I think this was a mistake. Thanks for pointing it out. I have renamed the page. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 18:33, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Loosely-based film adaptations

It is not standard Wikipedia policy to add films to a novel's page merely because they share plot similarities. All best. Icarus of old (talk) 11:56, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with WP policies, it is just common practice. More complete answer given on the article talk page (where it belongs). --Matthiaspaul (talk) 18:23, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

"Numeric (data type)" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Numeric (data type) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 23 § Numeric (data type) until a consensus is reached. Vincent Lefèvre (talk) 01:09, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

"2021–2022 Social unrest in the French West Indies" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect 2021–2022 Social unrest in the French West Indies has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 26 § 2021–2022 Social unrest in the French West Indies until a consensus is reached. Bsherr (talk) 11:45, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of European Political Community (disambiguation)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on European Political Community (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a disambiguation page which either

• disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
• disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
• is an orphaned redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 22:45, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm seeing this only after the disambiguation page has been deleted already, but I would have agreed with its deletion. However, I should have been informed of the related move proposal, with which I would have agreed as well given that the name is now well established (it wasn't a year ago). --Matthiaspaul (talk) 06:14, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Fatigue (material)‎

Re: Fatigue (material): edit

Don't mistake hiding text for deletion. These are not the same things. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:27, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 18:33, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Ruscism for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ruscism is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruscism (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 04:57, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Category:Mathematical prefixes has been nominated for deletion

Category:Mathematical prefixes has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. fgnievinski (talk) 05:04, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

New pages patrol newsletter

Hello Matthiaspaul,

New Page Review article queue, March to September 2023

Backlog update: At the time of this message, there are 11,300 articles and 15,600 redirects awaiting review. This is the highest backlog in a long time. Please help out by doing additional reviews!

October backlog elimination drive: A one-month backlog drive for October will start in one week! Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled. Articles will earn 4x as many points compared to redirects. You can sign up here.

PageTriage code upgrades: Upgrades to the PageTriage code, initiated by the NPP open letter in 2022 and actioned by the WMF Moderator Tools Team in 2023, are ongoing. More information can be found here. As part of this work, the Special:NewPagesFeed now has a new version in beta! The update leaves the NewPagesFeed appearance and function mostly identical to the old one, but updates the underlying code, making it easier to maintain and helping make sure the extension is not decommissioned due to maintenance issues in the future. You can try out the new Special:NewPagesFeed here - it will replace the current version soon.

Notability tip: Professors can meet WP:PROF #1 by having their academic papers be widely cited by their peers. When reviewing professor articles, it is a good idea to find their Google Scholar or Scopus profile and take a look at their h-index and number of citations. As a very rough rule of thumb, for most fields, articles on people with a h-index of twenty or more, a first-authored paper with more than a thousand citations, or multiple papers each with more than a hundred citations are likely to be kept at AfD.

Reviewing tip: If you would like like a second opinion on your reviews or simply want another new page reviewer by your side when patrolling, we recommend pair reviewing! This is where two reviewers use Discord voice chat and screen sharing to communicate with each other while reviewing the same article simultaneously. This is a great way to learn and transfer knowledge.

Reminders:

• You can access live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord.
• Consider adding the project discussion page to your watchlist.
• To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:45, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

"Óльга А. Лады́женская" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Óльга А. Лады́женская has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 September 28 § Óльга А. Лады́женская until a consensus is reached. ArcticSeeress (talk) 11:48, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

November Articles for creation backlog drive

Hello Matthiaspaul:

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive!
The goal of this drive is to reduce the backlog of unreviewed drafts to less than 2 months outstanding reviews from the current 4+ months. Bonus points will be given for reviewing drafts that have been waiting more than 30 days. The drive is running from 1 November 2023 through 30 November 2023.

You may find Category:AfC pending submissions by age or other categories and sorting helpful.

Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.

There is a backlog of over 2400 pages, so start reviewing drafts. We're looking forward to your help! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:24, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

"You can get a great tan with an electronic Minolta" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect You can get a great tan with an electronic Minolta has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 21 § You can get a great tan with an electronic Minolta until a consensus is reached. TartarTorte 22:42, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:39, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

ITN recognition for 2023 United Nations Climate Change Conference

On 13 December 2023, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article 2023 United Nations Climate Change Conference, which you created. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:55, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

I realise that was just a redirect to start but one has to start somewhere. The other editors who picked this up and ran with it will be getting credit too. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:58, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

New pages patrol January 2024 Backlog drive

New Page Patrol | January 2024 Articles Backlog Drive
On 1 January 2024, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each review will earn 1 point. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:10, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

RPL “object oriented” dispute resolution

Just a heads up that I started a dispute resolution and you are one of the editors named. == Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion ==

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Jdbtwo (talk) 19:16, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

CS1 error on Coffee filter

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Coffee filter, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "generic title" error. References show this error when they have a generic placeholder title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 22:32, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

"Logarithmic cosine" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Logarithmic cosine has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 29 § Logarithmic cosine until a consensus is reached. 1234qwer1234qwer4 23:25, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

"DAC (operating system)" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect DAC (operating system) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 4 § DAC (operating system) until a consensus is reached. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:04, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Erable

The article Erable has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This article fails WP: N. All of the sources I could find about the subject are from HP or from Bernard Parisse, neither of whom can serve as secondary sources.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. HyperAccelerated (talk) 03:18, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

"Verticons" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Verticons has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 13 § Verticons until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 04:02, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

New Pages Patrol newsletter April 2024

Hello Matthiaspaul,

New Page Review queue January to March 2024

Backlog update: The October drive reduced the article backlog from 11,626 to 7,609 and the redirect backlog from 16,985 to 6,431! Congratulations to Schminnte, who led with over 2,300 points.

Following that, New Page Patrol organized another backlog drive for articles in January 2024. The January drive started with 13,650 articles and reduced the backlog to 7,430 articles. Congratulations to JTtheOG, who achieved first place with 1,340 points in this drive.

Looking at the graph, it seems like backlog drives are one of the only things keeping the backlog under control. Another backlog drive is being planned for May. Feel free to participate in the May backlog drive planning discussion.

It's worth noting that both queues are gradually increasing again and are nearing 14,034 articles and 22,540 redirects. We encourage you to keep contributing, even if it's just a single patrol per day. Your support is greatly appreciated!

2023 Awards

Onel5969 won the 2023 cup with 17,761 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 50/day. There was one Platinum Award (10,000+ reviews), 2 Gold Awards (5000+ reviews), 6 Silver (2000+), 8 Bronze (1000+), 30 Iron (360+) and 70 more for the 100+ barnstar. Hey man im josh led on redirect reviews by clearing 36,175 of them. For the full details, see the Awards page and the Hall of Fame. Congratulations everyone for their efforts in reviewing!

WMF work on PageTriage: The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers deployed the rewritten NewPagesFeed in October, and then gave the NewPagesFeed a slight visual facelift in November. This concludes most major work to Special:NewPagesFeed, and most major work by the WMF Moderator Tools team, who wrapped up their major work on PageTriage in October. The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers will continue small work on PageTriage as time permits.

Recruitment: A couple of the coordinators have been inviting editors to become reviewers, via mass-messages to their talk pages. If you know someone who you'd think would make a good reviewer, then a personal invitation to them would be great. Additionally, if there are Wikiprojects that you are active on, then you can add a post there asking participants to join NPP. Please be careful not to double invite folks that have already been invited.

Reviewing tip: Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages within their most familiar subjects can use the regularly updated NPP Browser tool.

Reminders:

• You can access live chat with patrollers on the New Pages Patrol Discord.
• Consider adding the project discussion page to your watchlist.
• To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:26, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

"Facebook click ID" (and some others) listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Facebook click ID (and a few others for the same ID) have been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 9 § Facebook click ID until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 22:06, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

"Facebook Analytics" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Facebook Analytics has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 9 § Facebook Analytics until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 22:08, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

New page patrol May 2024 Backlog drive

New Page Patrol | May 2024 Articles Backlog Drive
On 1 May 2024, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each review will earn 1 point. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC)