User talk:Mthinkcpp/Archive 1

Hello, Mthinkcpp, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

  Introduction

 5    The five pillars of Wikipedia

  How to edit a page

  Help

  Tips

  How to write a great article

  Simplified Manual of Style

  Fun stuff...

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Abductive (reasoning) 04:48, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the help pages

Mthinkcpp (talk) 17:47, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Help

For the BlackBerry OS page I made edits relating to BB10 without logging in and it has now recorded my IP there

(cur | prev) 18:35, 12 March 2013‎ <redacted> (talk)‎ . . (20,316 bytes) (-94)‎ . . (Updated article to include the existance of BlackBerry 10, instead of integrating BB10 into the article users are pointed to the BlackBerry 10 article) (undo)

Is it possible for the edit to be reassigned under my username (hiding my IP)? Mthinkcpp (talk) 18:58, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

The only way I could see would be to have it hidden or oversighted and then reposted by you signed in. But then you have posted it here too, so that would need to be hidden too... I'm not sure whether this would come into the real scope of WP:REVDEL or not. Peridon (talk) 19:28, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

That sounds okay, can it be done? Mthinkcpp (talk) 19:40, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's an allowable use of REVDEL. The edit to Blackberry OS can't be reassigned to you, but the IP that made it is no longer visible, and I have also rev-deleted the content of four revisions of this talk page which contained the IP. The relevant policy seems to envisage that an even stronger form of concealment known as WP:Oversight would be appropriate; I don't know whether that is really necessary, but I will notify an oversighter who can decide. JohnCD (talk) 20:34, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

All oversighted, so no longer visible even to admins. JohnCD (talk) 22:28, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, John. I've never used revdel much. Peridon (talk) 22:41, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Thankyou very much Mthinkcpp (talk) 07:57, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Tone

When writing articles, please use third-person and avoid using "you", "your", etc. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 06:00, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 16:16, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

No problemMThinkCpp (talk) 16:42, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Help (2)

In the C++ history I undid an edit and I placed a link to C syntax#Primitive data types, however, by mistake I entered http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C_syntax#Primitive_data_types instead and it now has an odd explanation on the reason why I undid the edit (oldid=555647218), time 14:41, 18 May 2013‎ BST or 13:41, 18 May 2013‎ UTC. I meant to place in

See C syntax#Primitive data types - Undid revision 555608051 by Marc-russo (talk).

Should I undo my edit and then undo the other edit again, or should something else be done. Thankyou MThinkCpp (talk) 13:48, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Mthinkcpp, you don't have to redo your edit, although what you can do if you want the edit summary to reflect what you did is make a null edit (an edit where you don't change anything), and put what your explanation is in the edit summary. Something like "Missed edit summary: Your explanation here", or similar. Alternatively you can put the explanation on the article talk page. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 14:30, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Criticism section in C++ article

Hi. I noticed that you deleted the criticism section of the C++ article, despite the ongoing discussion in the talk page.

About the edit reason, "in the view of the non-existent criticism sections on other programming languages" - that's simply not true; as of today, Java language has a section an in fact an article on criticisms. Also, WP:CSECTION states that perceptions/feedback information should either be integrated into other parts, or labeled neutrally. It does not imply that you should just axe the whole section and its content, without explaining specific problems with it.

Maybe this is a recent shift in Wikipedia policy, which suggests that the Criticism of Java article should be called into the question. But otherwise, it's best if you brought to the talk page of the C++ article. Abstractematics (talk) 20:22, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

The section as it stood had very little content (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=C%2B%2B&diff=prev&oldid=578144787), Java seems to be the only language with the 'feature' of a criticisms section and article. If you look around, even C doesn't have a criticism section, or an article (or any criticisms in the article, except the similarity between == and =), and there have been successors to it created. mthinkcpp (talk) 13:03, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Then the Criticisms of Java should be considered for deletion. In any case, please bring it to the existing discussion in the talk page first. Abstractematics (talk) 14:57, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

What I have said has already been added (indirectly) to the talk page already (about non-existent criticism sections in other languages, WP:CSECTION) mthinkcpp (talk) 16:21, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Debian and Emdebian Grip

Hello there! Regarding your edit on Debian article, could you please provide an insight why is it bad to include that {{see also}} link? Emdebian Grip is tightly related to Debian, provides binary compatibility etc. Please advise. — Dsimic (talk) 22:14, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

The article is about Debian, not any derivatives (compatible or not). The rational for not including derivatives is that Wikipedia would become very cluttered if every article mentioned everything linked to it. This could included material promoting another entity that is not related. In an extreme case this would be a company linking to its product from a general page on, say, vacuum cleaners. The same applies to software, for example, the Linux Kernel, a specific distro could be mentioned in order to raise its profile. mthinkcpp (talk) 16:35, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

That's debatable. If we had an article named List of Debian-based embedded Linux distributions (or similar), only then a {{see also|Emdebian Grip}} link in Debian § Embedded systems section would be totally inappropriate. With no such "umbrella" article in place (which I'd be more than happy to see here), I'd say refusing the inclusion of such a {{see also}} link is pretty much unreasonable.

Speaking of the Linux kernel article, it actually lists Red Hat and Debian as sample distributions, please see Linux kernel § Development model; as we know, many more distributions are maintaining their own sets of Linux kernel branches.

Thoughts? — Dsimic (talk) 00:41, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed RHEL and Debian on the Linux kernel page. On looking at the section it appears to be out of date (it doesn't mention the 3.x development model). That particular paragraph does seem to be out of place as the section is about the Linux Kernel development model, not the downstream distros that receive kernel code. I have consequently altered the section, adding new details and removing that paragraph.

Listing Debian based derivatives on its page is inappropriate. Should you wish to mention Debian derivatives a separate page should be created. If you create the page I would recommend calling it something like 'List of Debian-based Linux distributions' instead, and have a section for embedded distros on it. Linking to that page from the main Debian article would be appropriate.

mthinkcpp (talk) 18:07, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Please, let's put aside the Linux kernel article for a moment; what are then Ubuntu and Knoppix doing in Debian § Reception section? I'm by no means married to the Emdebian Grip thingy, but if Ubuntu and Knoppix are mentioned there, I don't see why Emdebian Grip should be considered less valuable? — Dsimic (talk) 18:39, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

As far as I can see, they are given as examples of the far reaching effects of Debian specific changes (they could be removed though, with no ill effect). mthinkcpp (talk) 16:41, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, Ok. For the sake of convenience, I'm fine with leaving everything as-is. — Dsimic (talk) 17:38, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 22

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:02, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Mthinkcpp_reported_by_User:84.127.80.114_.28Result:_.29. Thank you. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 17:07, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Result "There's no violation by Mthinkcpp.", "To the extent anyone has edit-warred, it is 84.127.80.114".

Refusal to discuss changes in Debian

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents regarding refusal to discuss. The thread is User:Mthinkcpp_and_Debian_edit_war.The discussion is about the topic Debian. Thank you. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 23:04, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Result: There is no offence or rule violation by mthinkcpp. mthinkcpp (talk) 09:45, 1 March 2014 (UTC)