Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:15, 12 April 2017

Archives (Index)

2010/February 2010/September 2011/February 2011/March 2013/December 2013/November 2013/12 2014/01 2014/02 2014/03 2014/04 2014/05 2014/06 2014/07 2014/08 2014/09 2014/10 2014/11 2014/12 2015/01 2015/02 2015/03 2015/05 2015/06 2015/07 2015/08 2015/09 2015/10 2015/11 2015/12 2016/01 2016/02 2016/04 2016/05 2016/06 2016/07 2016/08 2016/09 2016/10 2016/11 2016/12 2017/01 2017/02 2017/04 2017/05 2017/07 2017/08 2017/09 2017/10 2017/11 2017/12 2018/01 2018/02 2018/03 2018/04 2018/05 2018/07 2018/11 2018/12 2019/02 2019/11 2020/03 2020/04 2020/05

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Discussions of article content belong on that article's talk page, not here! Please do not use this page to complain about, argue against, etc., my edits—not, at least on the basis of their content. You can of course thank me for them here if you want! But per WP:TALK, any discussion (argument, debate, dispute, whatever) over article content belongs on that article's talk page, not here. That way, other interested editors can see the discussion and participate. (Who knows? Consensus might go against me! But if nobody else sees the discussion, that can't happen.) Thank you for understanding.

If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, as I am watching it. If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, so please add it to your watchlist. Please click here to leave me a new message.

If I've edited a page, or its talk page, I am either a) watching it or b) don't care about it any more. So if you edit a page I've edited, or its talk page, a message here to go look there is either a) unnecessary or b) pointless. And clutters up the edit history here and requires deletion. If you really want to make sure that I've been notified of something you've written elsewhere, please use the {{ping|jeh}} template there (or on its talk page if there isn't already a talk page). Thank you.

minor test. Jeh (talk) 12:31, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Windows 10

The IP had self-reverted and you undid the self-revert? Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 07:03, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I was trying to get rid of the "pending revisions". See my note on your talk page. Jeh (talk) 07:04, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Two unrelated things

1. I always saw NANPA telephone numbers as set up by Ma Bell as having the area code in parentheses as the official way to do it (I have seen the hyphens, dots, slashes, & even spaces used to separate everything). Before I go further or change anything back at the WWV page, I am going to do further research. I'll report back here with my findings so we may discuss further. Stereorock (talk) 17:45, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

WP has no defined format for phone numbers. There is even opinion that we should not report them at all. I asked about this. We have this article in mainspace. See also this US-centric article. If we're going back to what Ma Bell published, should we also omit the "+1"?

In any case, hyphens only (or maybe en dashes, gak) seems to be the most common format, both worldwide and specifically for US. Though I understand the argument that the parens are used to set off the part that you don't always have to dial.... but this is less important given that US numbers have a strict format.

If you really want to put the parens back, I will not object, but I will flatly not accept parens with no spaces around them. Do you have support for your claim of parens-with-no-spaces being some standard? We're not paper and we don't have to conform to a practice that was started just to save printed space. Jeh (talk) 22:01, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

2. Can you look at Fox Sports News (Australia), because that whole programming section, to me, reeks of WP:NOTTVGUIDE, but apart from a couple of show times, I am not sure that it's in actual violation. Maybe the shows are noteable, but it seems it's just their broadcast day with only a couple of show times thrown in. I wanted to get your thoughts on that. Thanks!Stereorock (talk) 17:45, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

I've removed similar stuff from quite a few articles. Similarly with context-less lists of news reporters. It is not encyclopedic information. Take a look at the CBS article. There is extensive historical information on the evolution of CBS's program lineup. That is how an article about a station or a network should talk about the program lineup. The mindless list of CBS shows is, properly, off in a list article. If we must have such "information", that is the right thing IMO. Jeh (talk) 22:01, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, that was bold. I would have left about half of it. But let's see what happens. Jeh (talk) 06:45, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Re: copyright...

My friend I would take a step back if I were you. I don't take kindly to threats.

First off you don't own copyrights to Intel whitepapers and tech documents are allowed to be cited under fair use no different than youtube. So there has been no copyright infringement on my part, if so then kindly point out where. You and your friend both stated my contributions were deleted because it contained content "related to x86/ paging in general. In fact the opposite was true, I removed the original paraphrasing because of the ambiguous x86 content and replaced it with accurate and specific info on Intel. AMD64 didn't even use paging in that era, IA-32 did. Sure IA-32 could technically address more than 64GB, but only 4GB at a time, once a process hit the 4GB limit, IA-32 CPU would start paging in and out of RAM using internal registers., that's what PAE is.

PAE was used on Intel hardware and Microsoft Operating systems, not AMD processors. As you probably know. I'm sure. Addressing more than 4GB is not the same as being able to use 64GB all at once.

Moreover though, I've noticed that in many articles relating to Intel 32 memory limitations and Microsofts PAE workaround(which btw only Intel used at a hardware level)your contributions, editing & comments in talk discussion have a tone about them that if someone was paranoid they may might suspect you of being a shill/evangelist/ close affiliate with Microsoft or even Intel. Most of these articles have a decidedly slanted tone about them biased towards Intel and MS. Particularly someone who claims to be a "developer" a great majority of your references come from marketing blogs such as MSDN or Technet instead of independent or at least published material. Which I'm sure you know is a breach of the "no original research" rule.

So I'm asking politely, do you have an affiliation with Microsoft or Intel in any way at all?

Thanks.

Btw re: any discussions I probably won't enter into talk with u as 1 I suspect it would be a very tiring exercise and 2 I don't have the time due to IRL commitments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PastieFace (talk • contribs) 00:26, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

For the benefit of those just joining us, the above was prompted by what I posted on PastieFace's talk page.

Re the rest... if you're not going to respond further there's no point in my answering in detail. Cool - I have IRL stuff to do too.

If you think you have a legitimate complaint, and you can cite specific examples of what you're on about (not vague throw-it-to-the-wall-and-hope-something-sticks crap like "in many articles... your contributions... have a tone about them that if someone was paranoid they may might suspect you of ...", and you are willing to "enter into talk" about it rather than hit-and-run attempts at intimidation like what you wrote above, feel free to come here and cite those specifics. (Why would I care about what a "paranoid" (not that that's the term you really wanted there) "might suspect"? ).

Until then, ta-ta. Jeh (talk) 06:23, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

That's fine, however I would still like an answer to my question. Are you or are you not associated with Microsoft? Yes or no will suffice.PastieFace (talk) 17:15, 12 April 2017 (UTC)