User talk:Mysidia/Archive/1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hi Mysidia/Archive/1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thanks for your contributions to the coolest online encyclopedia I know of =). I sure hope you stick around; we're always in need of more people to create new articles and improve the ones we already have. You'll probably find it easiest to start with a tutorial of how the wikipedia works, and you can test stuff for yourself in the sandbox. When you're contributing, you'll probably find the manual of style to be helpful, and you'll also want to remember a couple important guidelines. First, write from a neutral point of view, second, be bold in editing pages, and third, use wikiquette. Those are probably the most important ones, and you can take a look at some others at the policies and guidelines page. You might also be interested in how to write a great article and possibly adding some images to your articles.

Be sure to get involved in the community – you can contact me at my talk page if you have any questions, and you can check out the village pump, where lots of wikipedians hang out and discuss things. If you're looking for something to do, check out the community portal. And whenever you ask a question or post something on a talk page, be sure to sign your name by typing ~~~~.

Again, welcome! It's great to have you. Happy editing! --Spangineer (háblame) 22:52, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

Please do not make edits to my user page. Thank you for your cooperation. --Vega007 23:15, 19 August 2005 (UTC)vega007

• • I have replied on your user talk page, suffice to say you're wrong, edits were to talk pages about you, not any of your user pages. --Mysidia (talk) 23:21, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 Odic force (Jun 16, 2005) 2 Gary Foley (July 10, 2005) 3 Copyvios (July 13, 2005) 4 ChakraNET (July 13, 2005) 5 Redirection (July 13, 2005) 6 Stub placement (July 17, 2005) 6.1 Template:Advert (July 21, 2005) 7 General purpose registers (July 17, 2005) 8 Vandalism on my talk page (July 18, 2005) 9 Fastest vandalism revert I've seen! (July 19, 2005) 10 Template: Quantity, etc. (July 19, 2005) 11 Image:Crosstar.jpeg (July 20, 2005) 12 THANK YOU (July 22, 2005) 13 And thank you about something else (July 23, 2005) 14 VANDALIZER (August 3, 2005) 15 Slowly I Turned (August 10, 2005) 16 Func's RfA :) (August 11, 2005) 17 AOL template vandal (August 12, 2005) 18 Blizzforums (August 14, 2005) 19 Infobox standardization support (August 15, 2005) 20 Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. regions (July 31, 2005) 21 GNAA FAC (Aug 1, 2005) 22 \x01a4 (Aug 15, 2005) 23 Rktect (Aug 20, 2005) 24 User:211.31.42.55 (Aug 21, 2005) 25 WP:AIV (Aug 21) 26 hello friend or missus (Aug 22, 2005) 27 VfU (Aug 24, 2005) 28 The Wikipedia Hall of Shame (Aug 24, 2005) 29 User:Kam-Ren (Aug 25, 2005) 30 Whobot (Aug 25, 2005) 31 Userfying Wikipedia:WikiDefcon (Aug 25, 2005) 32 AFethke (referring to [7] ?) 33 thanks (August 26, 2005) 34 Category:Millennial Wikipedians (August 26, 2005) 35 Thanks (August 27, 2005) 36 Nay Nagin and Delete page (September 3, 2005)

[edit] Odic force (Jun 16, 2005)

Oh, hey, is it a copyvio too? Where is the original text found? siafu 02:13, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

From [1] Eight, mirrors could reflect the currents. Nine, all of his sensitives gave closely identical reports during their independent sessions.... --Mysidia 02:17, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gary Foley (July 10, 2005)

Thanks for fixing the copyvio. I think he deserves a place in Wiki and someone may do it. I am surprised by the blayant copyvio - just a cut and paste from the 1st google link.--Porturology 12:28, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Copyvios (July 13, 2005)

You are doing useful work, but just a friendly reminder to delete the copied text when you put the copyvio tag on. For example at Inept. --Henrygb 01:55, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] ChakraNET (July 13, 2005)

Hey, you gave me a serious headache! You added {{d}} in between my opening the page (without the tag) and my opening of the editor to add {{d}}. I thought I was having some sort of seizure: Did I already add that and then forget about it?? : ) brenneman^(t)(c) 02:34, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I think there must be a bug in the Wikipedia software, the {{d}} tag was there and could be seen in diff, but for some reason Wikipedia did not pick up the template and add the category or boilerplate text until a second edit --Mysidia 02:38, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Redirection (July 13, 2005)

• hi, u created a redirect link on the stub page State Bank of Patiala. I request you to please read my comments on the talk page of that article, and I am sure you will help by removing the redirect link. Please assist in my humble endeavors. --Bhadani 16:57, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

In case, you so desire, you are most welcome to create the article State Bank of Travancore a redirect link to State Bank of India, and State Bank of India may be re-directed to Indian banking. However, please donot do that - this is my appeal to you.--Bhadani 17:12, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Re: State Bank of Patiala talk page - I thank you for your assistance and advice. I will be seeking your co-operation from time to time. --Bhadani 19:29, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Stub placement (July 17, 2005)

Thanks for editing the ACD Canvas article. I have a question about stub placement. Some people have moved stub notices to the bottom of articles. I kinda like seeing them at the top of an article, so a reader knows what he's getting into. Is putting them at the bottom a policy or requirement? I'm a newbie about templates. Let me know cause I want to do whatever is correct. Thanks. DavidH 04:13, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

It is more a matter of convention and guideline that the stub messages invariably appear at the bottom of an article, rather than a policy, it is usual for the stub templates to be designed with that in mind. Most article message templates designed to appear at the top of articles use shaded boxes or frames of some kind. A stub template also puts an article in a particular category for easy access to people looking to expand stubs in the topic area at Category:Stub_categories, and an article's category links are also expected to appear at the bottom of the article but before the interlanguage links. : See Wikipedia:Stub#Identifying_a_stub and Wikipedia:Categorization#How_to_create_categories. It makes a lot of sense for an article's stub category to be in the same place that all the article's other category links would go --Mysidia 04:33, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Advert (July 21, 2005)

Since advertising is not a speedy criterion, and this template is promoted for usage on several people's toolkit templates, I've reworded it to become a cleanup template instead. Please consider if you wish to change your vote on WP:TFD now that the template has changed. Radiant_>|< 08:28, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

• So noted, thanks --Mysidia 01:41, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] General purpose registers (July 17, 2005)

Hi. I think that it's incorrect to say that a register is general purpose because it may be freely used. A floating point register may also be freely used, but it is not general purpose since it can generally only be used for a particular type of data. The term GPR is used to distinguish these registers from the specialized registers found on chips like the M68000. This chip doesn't have any GPRs. Instead, it has 8 data registers and 8 address registers. All may be freely used, but most instructions only operate on one class of register or the other. Pburka 14:26, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

I do not believe it is incorrect, but just a different usage than you might be most familiar with, see here for an example:

'The MIPS microprocessor has 32 general-purpose registers. Registers are 32-bits for MIPS I instruction set architecture (ISA) and II ISA. MIPS III and higher ISAs have 32-bit registers when running in 32-bit mode, and 64-bit registers when running in 64-bit mode. Registers $1, $26, $27, $29 are reserved for special purposes by the assembler, compiler and operating system. Register $0 is hard wired to the value zero, and $31 is the link register for jump and link instructions but can be used with other instructions with caution."

--Mysidia 14:29, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

That example works against your argument. MIPS does, indeed, have 32 general purpose registers, named $0 through $31. $0, $1, $26, $27 and $29 are general purpose registers which are not freely usable. Pburka 15:59, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

[2]

'The x86 general purpose registers are not really as general purpose as their name implies. That is because these general purpose registers have some highly specialized tasks that can often only be done by using only one or two specific registers. In other architectures, a general purpose register is a general purpose register, that is you can use any register you like for any purpose you like. The x86 general purpose registers further subdivide into registers specializing in data and others specializing in addressing.'

-Mysidia 16:15, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

x86 is a strange case. The registers started off as very specialized registers in the 4040 and 8080 processors, but have gradually become more general purpose. For the most part, x86 general purpose registers are really general purpose, although a few (such as ECX) have additional properties. Any x86 GPR can now be used for addressing or integer arithmetic, which fits the definition given in Processor register.

But I'm not sure what your point is with this example. opentopia is a wikipedia mirror, so its articles are no more authorative than any other article on Wikipedia. I would argue that its use of the term is questionable, and that the whole article is poorly written.

Pburka 16:33, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough, but the existence of other articles using the different idea of what is meant by General Purpose demonstrates it's not universal, general purpose is at times taken to mean general purpose, not just data and address, the more narrow definition is perhaps the convention of some particular architectures. What source is supposed to give the authoritative definition? Certainly no major dictionaries have listed the term. -Mysidia 16:54, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

There is clearly some inconsistency in the industry about the definition of the term and the definition in Processor register may be too restrictive. See [3] for IBM's definition, for instance. But in all of my experience I've never seen the term used to mean "freely usable". Pburka 17:12, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism on my talk page (July 18, 2005)

Hi, just wanted to thank you for reverting vandalism on my talk page! It seems these things only happen when I go on a miniWikiBreak. --Deathphoenix 05:41, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fastest vandalism revert I've seen! (July 19, 2005)

I was just checking my watchpage on Characters of Fullmetal Alchemist, saw vandalism, checked the history, and tah dah, you'd done what I was about to do. Awesomely fast work! :D Kawa 02:43, 19 July 2005 (UTC) (PS: Sorry about that double post thing. I'm a turd. ^^;;; )

[edit] Template: Quantity, etc. (July 19, 2005)

I think you have a point with these as a navigational aid. May I suggest a substitute, for those unprepared to do category navigation, is explicit links back to the Portal: Category:Mathematics?

At least this would keep all the navigation in one place. Septentrionalis 17:42, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

• • It is reasonable.. though I suppose it wouldn't be quite as direct to use as templates, still, an explicit link back to the portal is better than nothing and would provide access to more related materials. ---Mysidia 02:27, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Crosstar.jpeg (July 20, 2005)

I noticed your changes to this file. I am discussing possible merger or VfD of the related article at talk:Crosstar, in case you are interested. Cheers, -Willmcw 20:24, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] THANK YOU (July 22, 2005)

Hi I just wanted to thank you for your support vote at my RfA. Thanks for the accompanying comment too, With respect, Redwolf24 (Talk) 05:18, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] And thank you about something else (July 23, 2005)

I appreciate your stepping in to revert the vandalism to my user page. Gamaliel has now blocked the vandal, so I can hope that he'll waste no more of your time or mine. Thanks for your help! JamesMLane 05:49, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] VANDALIZER (August 3, 2005)

Hi this is your official warning. You recieve this warning because you vandalized the "Natalee Holloway" page. The next warning will result in a suspension for 195 hours. Thank you.

• If you mean [4] you are obviously mistaken, your edit was the one that introduced the simple vandalism into that article. So I added an appropriate warning to your talk page, so you wouldn't need to do that yourself... Please try to make edits that are more useful and improve the Wikipedia in the future, thanks --Mysidia 03:31, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Slowly I Turned (August 10, 2005)

Hey there! Just a quick thanks for reverting the edits to my article. (Goiter? WTF?) You are a credit to Wikipedia! Thanks! --Metron4 23:36, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Func's RfA :) (August 11, 2005)

Mysidia, thank you for supporting my in my adminship! I will try to continue to have a positive impact, thank you. :)

Please never hesitate to let me know if you have concerns with any administrative action I may make.

Func( t, c, e,  ) 18:30, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] AOL template vandal (August 12, 2005)

Hi, I noticed that you're removing some of the spurious AOL templates. Thanks! I was afraid I'd find the whole IP space plastered with them when I got up tomorrow morning. Just thought I'd drop a note to let you know that the effort is appreciated. Cheers, TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:31, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Blizzforums (August 14, 2005)

Greetings, I've restored the article for the VfD, with an explanation of what happened on the VfD page. Regards, Fire Star 04:58, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox standardization support (August 15, 2005)

You have voted for the suggestive title Infobox standardisation on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Infobox standardisation even though your comment indicates that you are actually against standardization creep or at least do not support it unconditionally. VfD for these cases offers the option to vote move to NPOV title. Comment on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Infobox standardisation if you want the page to be moved, for instance to Wikipedia:Should we have instructions to standardize infoboxes?. --Fenice 08:42, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. regions (July 31, 2005)

Please see my new post and new base map, at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. regions. Thanks. -JCarriker 17:49, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] GNAA FAC (Aug 1, 2005)

I removed the broken link, and added a note to the pages you needed to register at. Is there other links that seems to be causing you to object to the article becoming Featured? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 06:46, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

• I think the links work now. There is still some fairly unusual source material included, for example: what is called 'Michael's "freaks list"'.. this "source material" is like raw data from an experiment, it requires some kind of interpretation and/or research by an expert to determine if the list presented as "freaks" actually even verifies the claim it is cited as the source for, namely, that it was in fact GNAA registering these accounts, and marking as "foe".. obvious? No, not to the average reader of an encyclopedia. --Mysidia (talk) 01:54, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] \x01a4 (Aug 15, 2005)

And if I had written "patent nonsense" instead of "non-encyclopedic", would it have been different? That article was exactly that: patent nonsense. - Sikon 05:17, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rktect (Aug 20, 2005)

Rktekt: You are removing references from pages. Why?

Please tell me what sense you think it makes to revert a page to a vandalized version that removed the references?Rktect 04:06, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

• Please see Talk:Mille Passus. That new list of cross-references is excessive for the size of the article.

How would you know whether they were or were not? Have you read all of them?

The entire article is broken down into cross referenced subsets so as to not do a huge data dump on a single page. If people would leave it alone for a while so I could add some graphics that would be nice.Rktect 06:11, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

We can provide a few references specifically relevant to the article to provide more information, but too many is just like turning the article into a link repository, see WP:NOT. 4 or 5 references for the purpose of expansion are appropriate; more than 5 is at least pushing it, more than 10 seem clearly excessive. --Mysidia (talk) 18:42, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia's not a study guide or a textbook, a syllabus for studying any subject is along the lines of original research and does not belong,

The reason people read encyclopedias is because they are studying something.

Many encyclopedias of ancient history do include extensive inter-disciplinary references presented as a study guide because you have to jump back and forth between linguistics, archaeology, history, several foreign languages from at least three different language groups, plus architecture, boatbuilding, marine archaeology to cover all the data points. --(comment by Rktect)

Perhaps a study guide that you think appropriate should go under More general topic here (study guide), and there would be one link from the related articles to the guide. This would at least separate it from references specific to an encyclopedia article. And let the other editors decide whether a study guide actually belongs on Wikipedia, they may prefer to Transwiki to Wikibooks, since that could be found to be more appropriate for whole lists of materials designed specifically to aid further outside study of a whole subject. --Mysidia (talk) 18:42, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

and references sections in most articles are used for citing sources that can be used to verify material presented in the article as fact. --Mysidia (talk) 04:22, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

which is exactly what these are. You need Gardiner, Faulkner, Loprino, Gillings and Kahaty for the Egyptian measures and related grammar plus Thomson for Sumerian and Luraghi for Hittite, then there is the basic Greek and Latin which I suppose you could get anywhere, then the archaeology and tie ins to medieval history and the crusades which follow the developments

for the last couple of millenia, all of this is really basic, very relevant stuff. --(comment by Rktect)

Note also that Rktect tries to put his same "course of study list" plus everything he "knows" in every article he edits. Gene Nygaard 04:37, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

No footnote tags are to be found, so the references are just listed as extras, it appears none of them were actually cited in the article. Just listing things at the end doesn't accomplish that. --Mysidia (talk) 18:42, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

My profession is architecture. Measures are a small but important subset of that profession. A lot of what architects do is focused on writing proposals and specifications, going from schematic designs through design development and working drawings to bid documents and contract administration. I spend a lot of time studying materials and methods, sustainability, cad modeling, space planning, healthcare and various technologies. Most of my reference library is focused on engineering and various cad systems. --(comment by Rktect)

Evidence being gathered at [5] and [6] about Rktect questionable edits. He pust the exact same text on every entry he deals with. So for instance, on the entry Mille Passus only about a single paragraph would deal about such term, whereas the rest of pages is repeated content he has on his user page. His additions are being pushed without regards of consensus being that they should remain on his user page per his original research. -- < drini | ∂drini > 04:50, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

People seem to throw that term original research around a lot. That is why there is a long list of references so people can see who else has discussed thse ideas.

The pages often do overlap on some things but the major reason for that is that pages are being systematically deleted and reverted almost as fast as I can salvage them. In many cases they are evolving nicely into their own very separate and distinct niches so it would be nice to have them around long enough to organize.Rktect 06:11, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

• He has just produced another horror: knotted cords. -- RHaworth 10:37:04, 2005-08-27 (UTC)

• • Uh-oh --Mysidia (talk) 17:01, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:211.31.42.55 (Aug 21, 2005)

Mysidia, if this vandal messes with another article, leave him/her a {{subst:test4}} and if they persist after that, I'll block them. Always better to have two editors. Fernando Rizo T/C 09:51, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] WP:AIV (Aug 21)

Thank you for listing that racist IP at WP:AIV. I have blocked him for 48 hours, though I wish I could have for longer. Redwolf24 22:56, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

• Hey, thanks for noticing.. I try my best to bring these to attention, when I notice them. --Mysidia (talk) 03:08, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] hello friend or missus (Aug 22, 2005)

I am very sorry about the LOLA thing, but here is the thing: Some wicked wikipedian wannabe's reverted a internet meme page a friend and I were creating under the title padfoot. It was not quite ready and still needed a lot of work but it would have been some knowledge that you would have been very interested in having. We just put that up in order to reserve the page, and we were working on it to get it to be one heck of an entry. But there goes Bob Dole and his gang of neighborhood dopplegangers and they decide to put a dent in the empire of knowledge we are trying to build. And the call US the "vandalizers". Why is no one telling them that they are vandals when they are deleting valuable information? They gang up in groups of 6, just like sick puppies nibbling at their mother's teat (aka wikipedia) and sucking the life out of it. Sucking and sucking and sucking some more, even after they are already full, just for the pleasure of it.

Anyway, the point is that we are really trying to do something here, and we would appreciate if we get the chance to do so, rather than to be stepped upon while the real culprits walk away with a nerdish grin on their faces, and a somewhat sticky hand.

--196.40.6.240 21:50, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

forgot the date, friend or missus ;-)

[edit] VfU (Aug 24, 2005)

Thanks for your support at VfU - Coug it. This is ridiculous :-/ Redwolf24 05:13, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, it has gotten ridiculous. :/ --Mysidia (talk) 23:43, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Wikipedia Hall of Shame (Aug 24, 2005)

Hi im Cathy (Cathytreks) whats a Bjaodin? im doing a serious article and your just bashing it without even giving it or me a chance! Shalom! Is a place where people who dont dare register their IP go, and also those who fail to check their facts first before they make an edit may reside as well!

More ..much more to come...So please stand by for...The Wikipedia Hall of Shame! which will serves as a source for humor, interest, or examples of what not to do while editing here on The Wikipedia! come back and fee free to contribute and edit edit edit..in good fun and so please feel free to share your ideas, I'll be back later with a bunch of things. (btw, im not a troll either but love to help make things better around here) (Cathytreks 22:46, 24 August 2005 (UTC))

• Answered at User_talk:Cathytreks#The_Wikipedia_Hall_of_Shame --Mysidia (talk) 23:38, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User:Kam-Ren (Aug 25, 2005)

Thanks for your extremely reasonable comment to this user. In case you haven't had a chance to look at his edit history, by the way, it's thoroughly vandalistic. FreplySpang (talk) 00:08, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Whobot (Aug 25, 2005)

Original post

• Hi, yea, I appologize for that. I was attempting to change the bot code not to use the {{Interwiki-category-check}} for now. I ran it on the one article to make sure it wouldn't mess up, as such I immediately fixed the article and the error. Thanks. ∞Who?¿? 01:04, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Ok, thanks for the response :) --Mysidia (talk) 02:25, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Userfying Wikipedia:WikiDefcon (Aug 25, 2005)

I'm trying to see if there is support for userfying this page as a way of resolving the dispute between Cool Cat and the rest of us. Let me know what you think, on the talk page. Thanks! JesseW 18:41, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I think it is a case where userfy should be favored over deletion. --Mysidia (talk) 02:25, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] AFethke (referring to [7] ?)

Oh thanks, did not know that.AFethke 02:19, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] thanks (August 26, 2005)

Thanks for reverting the vandalism of my userpage. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 04:40, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Milkman seems to not get the point to stop vandalizing, I suggest that we keep using that same template so that we can keep track of all the sockpuppets that he's using, eventually I'm sure he/she will either give up or switch to editing by an IP which will then probably be blocked for vandalism. Keep up the good work. 05:04, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning up my page too! -- (drini|☕) 01:41, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Millennial Wikipedians (August 26, 2005)

Category:Millennial Wikipedians has been listed on categories for deletion. Since you are using it on your user page please weigh in on the vote and that of the other generational categories here. Thanks. -JCarriker 20:46, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks (August 27, 2005)

Thanks for the user page revert. Wikipedianinthehouse 23:18, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nay Nagin and Delete page (September 3, 2005)

Yep, I caught the mayor misspell immediately. I moved the page, I think that undoes the page you saw. How on earth did you see it so fast? I think I've been reading too many Harry Potter movies. Anyway, you get Wiki applause for such an wiki eye...Kyle Andrew Brown 16:39, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

• Ok, I was going through some of the entries in Special:Newpages --Mysidia (talk) 16:41, 3 September 2005 (UTC)