Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
Hey I just wanted to thank you for helping me understand the protocols around page protection. It's a small thing but if you hadn't said anything I probably would have just given up. Much obliged. Connorlong90 (talk) 06:47, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
@Connorlong90: Glad to help. I know that WP:RFPP and the other noticeboards have trouble dealing with some (many?) kinds of problems and I'd be glad to offer an opinion if you ever need assistance. Johnuniq (talk) 08:18, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for your help with the common leopard gecko page so far. Is there a point we should revisit semi-protection? The page is currently back to saying they are crepuscular from an IP editor. For all the changes nobody has ever commented on the talk page regarding the cited sources. It's a weird dynamic - there appear to be many (or at least one very dedicated) people/person who want that changed to crepuscular or cathemeral, but nobody is able/willing to cite sources or discuss it. Connorlong90 (talk) 22:46, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
The activity at Common leopard gecko is very strange. I have left a dozen messages for the user trying to direct them to your message at article talk. They should be seeing those messages (if they use the same IP). Maybe their English is poor? I will semi-protect in due course but will leave it for a while. Johnuniq (talk) 00:07, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for following up with that - it's odd, there have been IP edits to other eyelid gecko pages as well (genus Eublepharis and the African fat-tailed gecko) to similarly say they are crepuscular without citing any sources. On those pages I just marked the assertion as "citation needed" with an explanation, as it seemed less likely to be immediately reverted. I should probably bring this up with the wiki herpetology group. Do you think this is one user? The IP addresses looked similar but not the exact same - I am admittedly not well versed in how IP addresses are assigned so that means little to me Connorlong90 (talk) 21:26, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
I don't know if it is the same person but my guess is that it is. If you have a problem on other pages give me a link and I'll have a look. It would help if there were at least a small discussion on a relevant wikiproject showing consensus against the IP's edits. By the way, thanks for writing the explanation at Talk:Common leopard gecko#Discussion: Nocturnal vs. Crepuscular vs. Cathemeral but next time I would suggest making it much shorter and more focused on the issue (reliable source X says Y). It is possible that the IP is not a great English speaker and they may not be able to engage with so much text. That's just my thoughts for another time. Johnuniq (talk) 02:40, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
The first LAN in thee world
Dear Johnuniq,
I added the paragraph on my invention, design, construction, implementation, and operation of the first LAN in the world.
I invented the system to use it in the European Parliament electronic voting systems in Strasbourg, France, and Luxembourg.
The system was sold by Olivetti Spa, an Italian company, to the Parliament after winning an international bid to which all major European companies presented a proposal.
My system was the favorite for its price/performance characteristics.
Official records from the European Parliament attest to the truth of the above statement.
The system was using 430 microprocessor-controlled voting terminals each; the microprocessor was an Intel 8047, just released to the market by Intel.
The LAN used a twisted-pair telephone cable wiring system, arranged in a star configuration, controlled by a Central Control computer; initially, an Olivetti P6060 running an interpreted basic LAN control polling-selecting software.
The first time the first system was tested in Strasbourg in late 1980, the response time was miserably slow.
Official records from the European parliament can attest to it.
Olivetti asked me to solve speed: I proposed replacing the P6060 with a polling-selecting microcomputer based on an 8080 CPU, with a PL/M software.
They accepted my proposal, and the "Concentratore Intelligente" - as I called the polling/selecting unit - was installed in the second system in Luxembourg.
This system was used for the first time for the votation and approval of the European Union budget in 1980 - it was the first time that the Parliament was involved in the procedure to approve the European budget, and it was the reason why they have invested 24 million Belgian Francs in having the system.
The budget's approval required more than 500 nominal votes - and to register the vote that each of the 430 deputies had expressed.
If done manually with the existing procedures, the votes would have required more than three days, at a cost for the Parliament of three-person for each MEP: the MEP, his/her secretary, and his/her assistant. The parliament would have paid for their expenses of staying out of town.
With my LAN-based system, the 500 votes have been completed and registered in less than five hours.
Again, official records of the European Parliament can attest to the truth of the above sentence.
Unfortunately, the Olivetti engineer who was the project manager asked me to implement in the terminal firmware a new feature, that was not present before, and was such that if at power-up one of the voting buttons was pressed, the terminal would go into test mode, starting to transmit a square wave. My flat has been to not question his request and implement it.
It happened: the first time the LAN system was used in Luxembourg a few MEPs pressed the voting button and the system failed, as you can see from the Italian RAI TV service https://vimeo.com/408089128
The Olivetti engineer who requested the change did not know what to do. As you can see in the RAI video, I was the operator of the system and intervened by manually switching off and on the terminals that were in maintenance mode. It lasted for five hours, and the Parliament completed all the voted successfully. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tangoitalia (talk • contribs) 14:32, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
You are correct, my posting should read "The first implementation of a microcomputer LAN" and not generically "The first implementation of a LAN", as this statement includes LANs of mainframes too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tangoitalia (talk • contribs) 07:35, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Email?
Do you accept email through your account? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:10 on January 24, 2021 (UTC)
@Lourdes: No problem! I did notice that the fuss was due to one IP but I didn't like to block as I could not see a genuine attempted engagement with them so I tried a nice talk page comment. Alison Hinds claims the person was born on 1 June 1970 and so should be listed at births in June 1 although I cannot see a reference for that date, so it should be removed from the biography. At any rate, I agree that blocking the IP was needed although I saw it differently at the time. Johnuniq (talk) 05:40, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Ouch, that's the second time I've made that blunder and I suspect Redrose64 had to correct me last time as well. I'll record the problem as a reminder:
I put the following as a guide to what was needed to restart the RfC:
<nowiki>{{rfc|bio|style|policy}}</nowiki>
But when the RfC bot arrived it read the wikitext without regard to the nowiki and treated my comment as a (broken) RfC. Instead should use the following as documented at Template:Rfc#Usage.
{{tlx|rfc|bio|style|policy}} which displays as {{rfc|bio|style|policy}}
Hi! You are a good soul. You understand about compromise, give and take. That's just one example. Here's another one. The editor who got all worked up is DrMi3s, who is on noticeboard a lot. He always wins. (Yes, yes, I know we're not supposed to think of it as winning or losing on AI. Even though I'm a girl, woman, XX chromosomer, whatever, I see it this way.) Sometimes, Dr. Mees is right. But I understand about people (e.g. Super Dino) getting bad attitudes. You assuage the feelings of those who might feel BITTEN, and gently explain our sometimes-inscrutable WP protocols.
You are an agent of peace with dignity. I wish there were more people like you on Misplaced Pages, and in this world. Keep up the good work.
I just edited my comment, in order to provide properly linked evidence :o) <~~~ That is a smiling piggy of good will.--FeralOink (talk) 09:49, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
local rowspan = (rounds > 1) and 2 or headings and 2 or nil
makes the Party and Candidate headings have a rowspan of 2 when there are two rounds of voting, or when ss1t is called, and works if either of these are done alone (here and here). However, the rowspan function fails when both exist and I can't work out why. Cheers, Number5718:29, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
@Number 57: I'll have a bit more of a look at that soon. The unusual indenting is puzzling and I'll hassle you about that later. Meanwhile I notice
local rowspan = headings and 2 or nil
local should be deleted to make rowspan work when it is used later. Unfortunately that does not fix the "DSV with two rounds and two types of seats" test. I assume the problem is that the sandbox output should exactly match the main template? Johnuniq (talk) 03:02, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for having a look. I've undone two changes made in the sandbox as they messed up some of the examples in the testcases (specifically they led to the cell containing the diagram in parliamentary tables having a colspan of 1 and the Votes and % headings in these tables having a rowspan of 1). What the outstanding non-working table should produce is:
What's the rules regarding indenting? Apologies, I am an amateur at Lua and have been very much learning as I go along, having had an unfriendly and unhelpful response when I asked for assistance at Help:Lua some time ago. Cheers, Number5712:29, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
I know there are still problems which I'll look for. However, see User:Johnuniq/sandbox mentioned above. My changes fixed that problem. I'll fix the whitespace later. I haven't done that yet because it would make checking diffs against the main module very difficult. Actually, I might clean them both so this can move forward as there are under 1500 transclusions. Johnuniq (talk) 22:09, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
What is the problem in the example in your sandbox? Both appear to be working fine and look identical to me? Number5722:47, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
@Number 57: That's interesting, I just tried it on a second browser and sure enough it looks ok. However, in Firefox it is completely broken (in brief, "Alexander Lukashenko" and "Votes" and "4,661,075" all appear in the second row). You can see that it should be broken by asking what rowspan for the Votes cell should be. Currently (when broken), it is set to 2. While I don't understand all the possibilities with this template, it seems the rowspan for Votes should always be 1? Johnuniq (talk) 22:55, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
OK, so it looks like the :attr('rowspan', rowspan) in lines 220 and 224 is not working as I'd hoped (though the code in line 213 (rowspan = headings and 2 or nil). Any idea how that can be fixed? Have I put the code in line 213 in the wrong place? Cheers, Number5700:10, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
I'm getting around to working on that. I decided to clean the whitespace in the sandbox module because it is best to be consistent. I also did the same edits in the main module so they can be compared to see the substantive differences. I started fixing the indents but gave up. They will have to be fixed because it is too hard to follow when if/elseif/end and so on do not align in the conventional manner. I can see the reason for the nonstandard approach (to make the row items line up in the same column) but it's not a good idea. There is a long block of code which I need to understand but it's a struggle to see what the conditions apply to. Johnuniq (talk) 04:27, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
@Number 57: I changed User:Johnuniq/sandbox to show the sandbox result for "DSV with two rounds and two types of seats" together with its HTML. The UNIQ stuff is the strip marker resulting from Template:Independent politician/meta/color which generates <nowiki>#DDDDDD</nowiki> with unhelpful nowiki tags (presumably so the # isn't taken as a numbered list). The nowiki should be removed. I haven't had time to work out the problem with the module but will return to it in due course. Johnuniq (talk) 09:47, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
I think I may have cracked it – using the html trick you showed me above (thank you very much for that, it's a big help) I managed to figure out a rule for setting the rowspan of the votes and % columns, but then found another issue that a was being inserted before the ss1h headings, so made the insertion of that dependent on whether a secondrow was already being called elsewhere. I've checked all the examples in the testcases in four different browsers and they seem to work fine.
Re the colorcode issue, I'm afraid I don't even know where to start on that, as it was inserted by someone with a far more advanced knowledge than me. I'm kind of amazed it actually works given how it appears in html...
Hi, Johnuniq. I've disabled Special:AbuseFilter/1042; it doesn't seem to catching much of anything. I've been creating quite a few new filters recently, and filters are kind of a finite resource. We aren't near the limit yet, but I don't want to be close when we suddenly need to create a dozen complex filters to deal with a the next TikTok meme. If you think it's still needed, I'll re-enable it. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 19:56, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Misplaced Pages: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. The thread is "Misplaced Pages:No_Nazis".The discussion is about the topic Misplaced Pages:No Nazis.
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!
Please respect the rules when (and in this case after) using the admin tools.
Rules state: "After a page has been protected, the protection is listed in the page history and logs with a short description indicating why it was protected, and the article is listed on Special:Protectedpages. Further discussion should take place on the Talk page of the article." But I'm the only one to edit Talk:Prevention of COVID-19 so far. You didn't respond to my comment on the protection request either. No one has. I explained WHY I changed the page. TW?--50.201.195.170 (talk) 11:40, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Many topics are highly contentious and subject to a never-ending stream of repetitive proposals that argue agains current consensus. Covid is one of those and Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Coronavirus disease 2019 explains that adminstrators can, and indeed should take steps to protect the relatively small pool of good editors from burn-out due to discussing everything dozens of times a week with new arrivals. The general sanctions page also has a log of page protections which merely record the facts (page, protection, duration). If you want to pursue the matter, try to find other editors who would support a separate article at Prevention of COVID-19 which currently is a redirect to Coronavirus disease 2019#Prevention, having previously been a redirect to Workplace hazard controls for COVID-19. However, please do not push the matter too much and if there is no support within a short period, take the hint that consensus does not support an additional article. Johnuniq (talk) 02:46, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Hey, Johnuniq. Just noting my view that you are entitled to use your discretion to apply any suitable (AE) sanction on the aforementioned user by invoking the authority of WP:ARBBLP. Regards, El_C18:16, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
"hopeless" is a hard word, but I really don't understand why you and Aza and I see something that admins seem to be blind for. There are guidelines about copying, and yes, they were formally (almost) observed, but there is interaction between colleagues, and respect or not, and appreciating achievements of others or not, call it decency. - El C, why is that? - Can you - one of you - perhaps remove the template on the Clavier-Übung? I am banned from the talk page of FS and try to interact as little as possible. Can I interest you in the FAC for BWV 1? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:33, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
That problem seems on its way to solution, and the FAC also. Today, we have a DYK about Wilhelm Knabe, who stood up for future with the striking school children when he was in his 90s, - a model, - see here. - Thank you for your position in the arb case request, - I feel I have to stay away, but there are conversations further down on the page, in case of interest, - in a nutshell: "... will not improve kindness, nor any article". - Yesterday, I made sure on a hike that the flowers are actually blooming ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:30, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Ban Appeal
Hi! I would like to make a ban appeal. This editing ban on south asia topics seems unfair. With regards to one of my objectionable edits where I used the term "right wing muslim supremacists", I want to note that I apologized for my remarks with two editors and promised to work on improving my editing in the future. Additionally, in many of my notifications about objectionable edits, I always discussed the issues with certain administrators and asked for feedback. I don't think one edit should ban me from editing south asia topics. I really hope you can understand and try to assist me with my ban appeal. Krao212 (talk) 17:01, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
I have to go elsewhere and won't be able to investigate for a while but will reply with a ping when I've had a chance to remind myself of the details. This relates to a close at WP:AE. Johnuniq (talk) 22:52, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
@Krao212: Sorry but I decline your appeal at this stage. The enforcement request is at WP:AE permalink. The requestor stated that diff showed "egregious original research ... cited source does not at any point state ...". Your statement included "that's why it was my bad that I added this WP:SYNTH/WP:OR. I am a new editor who happened to jump into controversial areas". While you have under 200 edits, your account was created on 28 April 2020 and the diff shows an attention to jargon in the edit summary of "Removed poorly source info that violate WP:NPOV and replaced it with better info". Another administrator recommended a topic ban and mentioned an earlier problematic edit: diff. That edit was discussed here and here. The problem is that an inexperienced editor with an aggressive attitude is not compatible with a highly contentious topic under discretionary sanctions. The idea of a topic ban is to ensure that experience is gained while editing other topics. When evidence is available that a topic banned editor is able to edit collaboratively and in accord with policies and guidelines, they can appeal their ban. Arbitration enforcement procedures should be as fair as possible, but an emphasis is given to providing fairness for experienced editors who work in the area and who have to deal with a continual stream of problematic contributors. While personal mentoring for new arrivals would be desirable, it is not a feasible objective and people have to fit in with standard procedures or find another area to work in. The notice on your talk mentions "may appeal this sanction" and shows what other steps can be pursued. My advice would be to let some time pass before pursuing that—time in which you demonstrate desirable editing in other topics. Johnuniq (talk) 04:22, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
A request for comment is open that proposes a process for the community to revoke administrative permissions. This follows a 2019 RfC in favor of creating one such a policy.
A request for comment is in progress to remove F7 (invalid fair-use claim) subcriterion a, which covers immediate deletion of non-free media with invalid fair-use tags.
A request for comment asks if sysops may place the General sanctions/Coronavirus disease 2019 editnotice template on pages in scope that do not have page-specific sanctions?
When blocking an IPv6 address with Twinkle, there is now a checkbox with the option to just block the /64 range. When doing so, you can still leave a block template on the initial, single IP address' talkpage.
When protecting a page with Twinkle, you can now add a note if doing so was in response to a request at WP:RfPP, and even link to the specific revision.
By motion, the discretionary sanctions originally authorized under the GamerGate case are now authorized under a new Gender and sexuality case, with sanctions authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, any gender-related dispute or controversy and associated people. Sanctions issued under GamerGate are now considered Gender and sexuality sanctions.
I'll confess I have no idea how Misplaced Pages works. All I know is that I am trying to correct a series of falsehoods and misleading statements and every time I do they get reversed. It's like the other user has carte-blanche to write a whitewashed version of his reality and when I try and fix it I am getting referred to the teahouse and being called names and being told I am the one breaking the rules. Not sure what I am supposed to do. Foodprofessor (talk) 03:21, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
@Foodprofessor: Did you see my message to you at Talk:Sylvain Charlebois#Consumer Advocacy? Edits should improve the article. If you think that the npr.org report is best summarized as "Charlebois wrote an op-ed on 21 February 2021", you should not be editing at Misplaced Pages. Sure, your opponents should not be editing at Misplaced Pages either, but successful editing requires actually improving the article, not making your distaste apparent. I removed your latest comment from article talk because that page really is not available to comment about other users (see the edit summary I used for more). I'll check what's going on later but you should worry about what you do. Don't edit war—that is fatal, just be patient because stuff takes time here. If new stuff arises, feel free to edit this section and ask a question or suggest that I check recent edits or comments.
I will have to talk to you about your user name because an opponent of someone who blogs as the Food Professor should not use that name. See if you can figure out the labyrinthine instructions at WP:RENAME. Johnuniq (talk) 04:37, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
@Foodprofessor: I have had a look at who is editing the article. Perhaps you could tell me how you came to be interested in this topic. You started here on 27 February 2021 and seem to be the only editor who is trying to remove promotional puffery, while five others plus an IP want to add it. One of those five others has been indefinitely blocked at the French Misplaced Pages. Without details, I would like to know what off-wiki incident has provoked all this interest. Everyone involved is a single-purpose account (SPA) except for one of the other five. That non-SPA editor, like everyone involved, has no clue about how Misplaced Pages works although they have been able to edit other topics. The article needs attention from someone with the patience to see it through in order to remove promotional puffery. I am going to remain an uninvolved administrator so won't edit. However, I have mentioned to a couple of people certain general points about what is expected. The best way to proceed would be to ask questions and take advice. Feel free to ask here. In principle, other noticeboards for advice are available but you might find people are too busy to respond meaningfully. I suggest focusing on improving the article by mentioning WP:DUE facts such as two or three points from the npr.org report. It's fine to acknowledge the person has been noticed and has advocated various things. We have articles on people who advocate creationism or crazy conspiracy theories—what they advocate doesn't have to be bullet-proof science. The trick is to write a version of the article that other editors (apart from the SPAs) would be happy to restore. They would not want to restore undue puffery, but they also would not want to restore undue negativity. Johnuniq (talk) 09:03, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Appreciate your feedback re: improving the article, point taken and that is the approach I am taking in my most recent edits. This morning it seems much more balanced than it had been so that's a start. The subject writes a lot of editorials which are potentially damaging if the public can't separate fact from argument. I appreciate your advice, I will look into name change, I would edit more articles if I understood how it all works. Foodprofessor (talk) 16:00, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
On fr-wiki, there was an edit war a few days ago with 3 SPA: Janvez (SPA promoting Charlebois) and 2 who are not happy with whatever he said. There's currently a RCU about these other 2. One of them, DALalumni, sounds like "alumni of Dalhousie University", but I may be wrong.
I'm not sure Foodprofessor a really new account, it may have been created by someone?
Hope it makes the situation clearer about what's going on on the French-speaking side. The page is currently protected because we're tired of SPA, sockpuppets and edit warring. Best regards, - - Bédévore19:26, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the information. We will have to proceed slowly at enwiki but eventually the article will be under control. Johnuniq (talk) 05:41, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
The editor Intforce has decided that an external link for a scrolling video on YouTube, downloaded to accompany a 1983 recording of Ton Koopman, is what they claim in their edit summary is a "copyright-violation". In their edit and edit summary they write, Remove links to copyright-violating YouTube uploads (WP:YOUTUBE).
This type of scrolling video, created by the downloader Pannonia77 in November 2019, is an educational aid and has been created on YouTube, with no reports of "copyright-violations". Exactly the same 1983 recording had been licensed on YouTube with the account of Ton Koopman: here is the video. The recording was licensed by Universal Music Group for YouTube with the release date 17 March 2017. (The same YouTube license indicates the original recording by Deutsche Grammophon in 1983.)
Intforce's assertion of a copyright-violation for a legitimate license seems incorrect: they have not checked their facts carefully. To prevent further confusion, please could Intforce be given some advice about (a) copyright-violation, licensing and YouTube and (b) WP:COPYVIO on en.wikipedia.org and Wikimedia Commons. As far as I'm aware, the scrolling video here is perfectly legitimate as an external link. Graham87 is the normal administrator I would contact about this kind of music material, since he is an expert on baroque music and on audio matters both here and on Commons; in this case, however, it is the video aspect that is relevant. I would dearly like to use scrolling videos like this without being bothered. I think Intforce is just wrong.
Further comment. In my experience, YouTube normally add the licences automatically. That happened with the videos I downloaded in 2010 for Organ concertos, Op.4 (Handel) and Organ concertos, Op.7 (Handel). Meanwhile I have sent a public message to Pannonia77, with a query about the licensing (normally done automatically by YouTube & Co).
Today I uploaded a Deutsche Fotothek image from the Dresden archives (SLUB Dresden) onto Wikimedia Commons; I then transferred it to en.wikipedia.org and then to two articles on de.wikipedia.org, with three "thanks" acknowledgements. One was for the German featured article on Gottfried Silbermann. Mathsci (talk) 20:35, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Copyright is way over my head. I guess they left links where the youtube target page had a "Licensed to YouTube by ..." note, and removed those that lacked such a notice. That sounds defensible. I would ask about this at WP:ELN or possibly WT:CP. However, if that were done, enthusiasts would attack Organ Sonatas (Bach)#External links as a link farm and strip it back to perhaps nothing. Unfortunately many people with not enough to do cannot distinguish between educational material and genuine link farms with promotional waffle. Re the issue, I doubt that one YT page with a licensed release means all other YT pages with the same material are similarly licensed. I can see that the scrolling score is extremely useful but I have doubts about whether an article here can be defended with those links. At any rate, I don't know enough about copyright to say anything useful, sorry. Johnuniq (talk) 23:07, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
I consider it to be in very bad faith to ask people to lecture an editor on something without even giving them the courtesy of a ping. In any case, Mathsci's allegation that I have not checked my facts correctly is just plain wrong. Linking this video is fine: it was provided to YouTube by Universal Music Group and is therefore correctly licensed. The scrolling video is a copyright violation, like thousands of other similar videos on YouTube. Though they may be of great educational value, they have not obtained the consent of the respective rights owners. WP:YOUTUBE and WP:COPYLINK are very specific about this. Re the issue, I doubt that one YT page with a licensed release means all other YT pages with the same material are similarly licensed Precisely this. If I upload my original content to YouTube, then I am its copyright holder. It someone copies my content without my permission, then that is an immediate copyright violation, even though the content of the videos may be the same. intforce (talk) 19:36, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Not at all. These comments were made directly to Johnuniq, whom I've known for quite a long time, and were made as noping. Since 2009, I have operated a channel on YouTube, only downloading classical music videos between 2009 and 2010 for a selection of movements from Handel organ concertos; at that stage, licensing was done automatically by YouTube, once audio recordings were identified on their audio database. I never had to initiate licensing and even slightly diminished the recording quality. Subsequently advertising policy changed on YouTube.
I have chatted briefly with pannonia77. On their channel, there is a large number of scrolling videos that started 6 years ago. Occasionally, after uploading, the license does not appear: that does not seem to be any indication that the uploaded file is illegal, just YouTube programming errors. On my channel dashboard, I have posted "send feedback" twice—possibly it might result in gmail messages re licenses.
Looking at pannonia77's videos, they are almost all of scrolling videos; they are uploaded with the same careful annotation; and then, when the recordings from the audio database is identified, the license is mechanically appended by YouTube. Here is an example where the license has been added. Here is an example where it has not yet happened for a Mozart Divertimento. Here is an example where the license has been added for an early Mozart symphony. Here is another example of a Kyrie from a Latin Mass BWV 233 by Bach with no license. This YouTube issue seems to have almost nothing to do with[REDACTED] or wikimedia commons. pannonia77 is a prolific creator of classical music scrolling videos; except for a handful of cases, the algorithm for adding licenses appears to work. Mathsci (talk) 22:27, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
A question for you.
Hello Johnuniq,
I was editing on the 2021 NCAA Division I Men's Basketball Tournament and it seems that you have semi-protected the article. My two questions are A. Why did you decide to semi-protect the article? and B. Can you remove the semi-protection from the article? Thanks.
@ColtsFan9372: Clicking "history" at the top of 2021 NCAA Division I Men's Basketball Tournament shows "Addition of unsourced or poorly sourced content" as the reason that I protected the article. That was in response to a request at WP:RFPP. That request will be archived soon; a permalink is here. Protection is unfortunately necessary from time to time when a lot of edits based on unreliable sources occur. You only have to make one more edit and you will be "autoconfirmed" and able to edit that article. Johnuniq (talk) 04:23, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Does it have to be so hard?
What about this lot, John?
2A01:4C8:1468:7B69:1:2:8E80:99A
2a01:4c8:148b:2aa8:1:2:a5c1:8a3b
2a01:4c8:1465:31e3:1:1:ae96:3514
They've been long-time harassing User:OliviaZoe0. I'd be very happy to block the range from her talkpage for a few years. And I've been staring at this. Is there really not a simpler way? Bishonen | tålk16:43, 14 March 2021 (UTC).
LOL, the only thing missing from that page is a flowchart. There is no easy way and I don't know anything better than what you have tried before, namely:
I added the user page to my watchlist and spent a little time looking at what's going on. I decided to partially block Special:Contributions/2a01:4c8:1400::/40 (the "c" in the first row from the above table) from
User:OliviaZoe0
User talk:OliviaZoe0
for one year. There was at least one other IPv4 address last year but we can take further action if needed. I think your semi-protect which you did would be needed if it happens again. As you know, the point is to break the habit. This should do for now. Johnuniq (talk) 22:56, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
@Guy Harris: Thanks, although I noticed that (except I only assumed the connection) but I lazily left Mistral Solutions alone because it isn't really bad. I've watchlisted it for three months. I don't know how to handle the promotional firehose. Someone is supposed to spend a few hours trying to help the new editor become a good contributor to the encyclopedia although blocking them seems more pragmatically worthwhile. Johnuniq (talk) 09:25, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
The links are pretty convincing and would help justify protection. However there is a strong (and rather optimistic) view that open is good. There has only been one dubious edit since 06:38, 19 March 2021 when protection expired so I think I should wait for more evidence of problems before protecting again. I will watch it for a while. Johnuniq (talk) 02:18, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
@YorkshireExpat: I reverted your edit at Template:Taxonomy/Myrmecia because it inserted "Lua error in Module:Autotaxobox at line 225: attempt to index a nil value." in the template and several articles, for example, Myrmecia aberrans. Apart from that, I do not know anything about the template. If you want to discuss a problem, I suggest asking at Template talk:Taxonomy. If that doesn't work, try looking at the history of the template and contacting the editor who created it. Johnuniq (talk) 00:12, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Protection expired and the disruption started up again. The thing is, there really isn't a lot of disruption -- days go by between attempts -- so I am not sure whether protection is justified. Your call. I can see going either way with this one. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:57, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Re: Guy Harris, unwanted comments on the 68000 talk page.
"@Vapourmile: I am an uninvolved administrator who noticed the above report. I'm sure you are editing constructively and have the best intentions but consensus is against you. I will issue a block if there is any further disruption at Talk:Motorola 68000. Johnuniq (talk) 00:30, 27 March 2021 (UTC)"
Really, what grounds do you have to accuse me of being the one causing the disruption? There is so far nothing which can be adequately described as a consensus when just one other person not involved in the discussion has commented since it took place. I believe neither you nor Meters have really bothered trying to understand what's going on, all you've noticed is me deleting a large section from a talk page, an action which I absolutely stand by, and you haven't really considered the grounds for doing it.
FYI: Guy Harris's comments add nothing to that page. First of all, it's the 68000 Misplaced Pages entry, and the bulk of Guy's comments are a cut & paste from and commentary on a manual from a completely different system, the IBM 360, which has its own separate Misplaced Pages entry. If he wants to talk about the IBM 360 then that's where his comments on it should go. So I maintain my stance that Guy's lengthy and substantial additions to the 68000 talk page fail it dismally on grounds of relevance.
It is also true that I think my say on the matter can be taken seriously since most of what Guy has written is an ongoing entirely incongruous response to something I had written on that same page, something he innately agrees with anyway. He is merely arguing for the sake of it and abusing the talk space as a platform for indulging his hobby interest in a subject which is irrelevant to the context. I had said to him several times during the exchange last year that Guy's additions to that page are not pertinent to the subject matter, a 68000 subject matter which I began and to which his comments are an attempt at a response. My comments to him on grounds of relevance are still there. He for no good reason wants to talk incessantly about the IBM 360 on the 68000 page. His is the sort of persistent incongruous monomaniacal off-topic chatter you expect from somebody on the autism spectrum, meaning no disrespect to people who are.
I imagine neither you not Meters have read that whole section, I don't blame you, I don't particularly want to read it either. I also expect it is highly unlikely anybody else will want to read it either. It has neither purpose nor relevance there, it isn't interesting and by itself it also constitutes about a third of the bulk of what has been submitted to that talk page now. It will never inform the long-term content of the 68000 Misplaced Pages page and as such it should be removed on grounds of relevance.
Meter remarked that I had deleted the work of three contributors, what he didn't add is two of those three contributors are Guy and myself and the other addition from somebody else is barely more than a sentence, from another user who accepts what I had written. Here is the word from the single other person I can find who commented that same section:
"That's what I said (with a lot less words), didn't I? 16-bit ALU makes 16-bit design (68000/8/10), 32-bit ALU makes 32-bit design (68020/30/40/60). It's the processing size that matters"
This is pertinent. Zac is right, the consideration of the ALU is relevant to this discussion. As Zac67 says correctly, the 68000 ALU is 16bit. This comment is correct and relevant, but it only repeats what I had already written. Everything else in that same section is a long time-wasting argument in which Guy and I are the only people involved which features my multiple laborious attempts to explain to Guy why his comments do not inform the section and he continues to go around in circles repeating the same thing and I continue trying to explain to him why it isn't relevant. That ongoing exchange is most of those 9,000+ words accounted for, except where Zac comes in to say I'm right in a sentence. So as far as consensus goes, the single other person commenting besides Guy and myself accords with what I had already written. So, Guy's comments add nothing but a whole lot of words.
Do you know what the real clincher is? It appears somewhere in Guy's own comments:
"the 68000/08/10/12 internally and externally 16-bit"
So there... so after a 50,000+ character argument Guy says exactly what I had said throughout that whole exchange: The 68000 is internally and externally 16bit. So all of those other words Guy wrote are a total waste of time and space that achieve nothing but throw fog at what is a very straightforward and simple issue: The 68000 is 16bit. No further talk on the IBM 360 has any pertinence at all.
So then what you are defending is almost 60K of text which doesn't do a single thing to shift the basic point I was making: The microarchitecture of the 68000 is 16bit. The bit rating of a microprocessor is based on an assessment of the ALU operating size and the width of the data bus, usually the correct answer is whichever is least. What's the IBM 360 got to do with it?
What is most infuriating is that in stating himself that the 68000 is "internally and externally 16bit" even Guy Himself accepts what I was saying so everything else he wrote o that page is a waste of time. Do the right thing: Delete it. What is the purpose of defending Guy Harris, whose 50K text of off-topic chatter and copy-pasting the IBM 360 has no relevance and, even by his own deduction, changes nothing anyway? Vapourmile (talk) 05:51, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
@Vapourmile: Thank you for responding. However it's time to realize that Misplaced Pages is imperfect. All the above could be 100% correct but it would still be a mistake to edit war in an attempt to remove the large posts at Talk:Motorola 68000. The article is about a microprocessor. The talk page comments provide what is claimed to be a history of certain mainframe architecture, presumably to highlight similarities/differences with the 68000. If the comments were about bread making, you could happily revert them a few times. However, it is not enough to assert your opinion that the claimed CPU history is unworthy of mention. You could do that maybe twice, and then move on. However, you've done it four times in the last two weeks and you have to shrug it off and move on. Imagine if people started removing your comments because they were superfluous. Be thankful that you're not editing an article on politics where every comma is fought over for weeks. Johnuniq (talk) 06:05, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
It is *not* just that. The section heading, recommending it for deletion, was added by me. Until I had added the section heading Guy's comments existed for no purpose except as a response to what I have written so Guy's comments are just an argument he is having. As I have said: Having made that argument everybody involved in that argument, including Guy himself, accepts the 68000 is, in Guy's own words "internally and externally 16bit". It is not merely my assertion it is the assertion of many people. It is the same "assertion" which appears in Motorola's own documentation. Everything Guy wrote boils down to him trying to use the programmer representation as decisive in some way. That is what the argument was about. It is Not decisive. The programmer representation, which is the analogy you mention which he is trying to draw between the 360 and the 68000 makes no difference. There are Fortran compilers for 8bit microprocessors which have 32bit integers. It is irrelevant. At the compiler level you can have ten thousand bit integers, it doesn't alter the microarchitecture. If you're going to allow Guy's comments then it would validate me going back with more information about other processors with wider registers, such as the Intel AVX extensions, which are NOT rated according to the size of those extensions but on Other things.
Do you see my point? He is trying to make something relevant which is not relevant and if you think that's fair game for talk page content then it also opens the door to Anything anybody decides for themselves is relevant. If the IBM 360 is relevant to "*presumably* highlight similarities/differences with the 68000" then you have opened the door to talk about almost anything from which somebody wants to try to draw an analogy. Your use of the word "presumably" is telling because it means YOU don't know how Guy's comments are relevant either.
I deleted the comment, Guy reverted it. Why don't you go and condemn him for multiple reversions? You're making comments about assertions and yet neither you nor he has provided reason to accept his assertions, and yet you are allowing his to have precedence, even though you admit you don't know what makes them relevant either: You just assumed.
I think Guy should be called upon to defend his comments to give them warrant to stay because on the grounds you're offering then anybody can use any computer talk section to talk about any computer at all. Vapourmile (talk) 06:25, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
Sorry but Misplaced Pages really is imperfect. I'm not saying you're wrong or that the other person is right. I'm simply reporting what can be done. There is no Misplaced Pages noticeboard that would support removal of that text. That's due to the reasons I mentioned above. Indeed, the ANI discussion (permalink) has four uninvolved editors agreeing with my claim and none supporting you. The count of four does not include you or the other editor, and does not include me (including me would make it five–zero). None of the five are going to investigate the comments in detail—we just know that comments about computer architecture on a microprocessor talk page are fine (given that they're not growing into someone's personal blog). Please take a pragmatic approach at Misplaced Pages and tolerate how things work rather than engage in an unfulfillable quest. Johnuniq (talk) 06:46, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
The Motorola 68000 is internally and externally 16bit, you say?
"Motorola 68000 (MC68000) is the first member of 680x0 line of microprocessors. Internally the 68000 is a 32-bit microprocessor - it has 32-bit data and address registers. Externally the processor has 16-bit data bus and 24-bit address bus, which limits the size of addressable memory to 16 MB. Motorola also made 68008 - a version of 68000 CPU with 8-bit external data bus."
"The industry's lowest cost 32-bit microprocessor, the MC68000 offers an excellent low cost entry point to the M68000 Family. The MC68HC000 is a CMOS version of the original MC68000. The MC68HC001 is also a CMOS version of the original MC68000 with 8-/16-bit selectable data bus."
"The Atari ST was a home computer released by Atari in June 1985. The letter "S" and "T" were short for "Sixteen/Thirty-Two," a reference to its 16-bit bus and 32-bit CPU; the Motorola 68000."
"The Motorola 68000 is internally and externally 16bit, you say?" Is this really the place? No. I didn't say that. Guy Harris did, I'm merely quoting him to show that at the end of the day, he doesn't even dispute the central point. But I didn't say it. I'm not really to concerned with those sources because I already have enough, including relevant documents from Motorola themselves, and people who worked on the design of the CPU we're talking about. It's really a case of "You either understand how this works or you don't". A quote which says it's 32bit or 16bit doesn't mean anything. It's a similar problem with Guy Harris: The decider is the microarchitecture of the CPU. Nothing else means anything. Just like the cylinder count of an engine is decided by the number of pots it has and nothing else. The two main components involved in CPU classification are the data bus and the ALU. It's whichever is smaller, but the data bus is the "choke" on the maximum it can be: Whatever the rating of the CPU is, it cannot possibly be more than the width of the data bus because that limit places a hard upper limit on the rate at which the CPU can present results to the outside world. Even the 8088, which is Entirely 16bit internally, including the ALU, is rated as "8 bit" because of the half-size of the data bus. It has "16 bit registers" too, it doesn't matter. You can quite literally look at the underside of a 68000 and point at the pins and count them, and consummately end the discussion. The 68000 fits into 16bit CPU slots in 16bit motherboards with a 16bit interface to 16bit RAM. There is nothing to discuss. You can type "68000 pinout" into Google Images and look at a schematic with your own eyes and count. The idea it was somehow 32bit was started by Motorola's own marketing which essentially said "Hey wow, microprocessor bit-ratings are hard to understand, aren't they? So how about instead of doing what the whole industry does and rate our CPU on the data bus width, how about we do it by the register-space on the die instead"? Why not? Because that's marketing nonsense. The whole rest of the industry does it differently because they all do it accurately, they don't cherry pick details from the CPU die. When the data bus AND ALU are *BOTH* 16bit then there is NO route from that to "So I guess it's 32 bit then!". To draw an analogy, it's like taking a car with 6 cylinders and arguing that, owing to some other details in the engine bay which it has 12 of, it's therefore a V12. It isn't true. Those arguments are all posited by people who fall into at least one of two camps: 1. Marketing people, and other 68000 fans and evangelists. 2. People who just don't really understand how micro architectures are definitively rated and don't mind blurring the boundaries with fog. That said, almost all of Guy Harris' comments rest on his "portable instruction set" argument. It's pointless. There are 6510 assemblers which allow you to define 32bit integer types, it's simply ludicrous to imply that somehow implies a 6510 magically becomes 32bit that way. Fortran allows the programmer to declare 32bit integers on the multiple 8bit architectures it's been ported to. The language specification doesn't do a thing to change the classification of the underlying CPU microarchitecture. It's just nonsense. 100% of Guy's argument is totally superfluous. He has wasted literally hours talking about things that simply don't count. Vapourmile (talk) 15:56, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Please compare WP:OR wit WP:V and WP:RS. Come back when you have sources that support your rather odd notion that a CPU with a 16-bit external bus cannot be a a 32-bit CPU. One can only wonder if you treat the Intel 8088 the same way. Nonetheless, Misplaced Pages is based upon citations to reliable secondary sources, not walls of tldr unsourced original research. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:56, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
To quote myself: "Those arguments are all posited by people who fall into at least one of two camps: 1. Marketing people, and other 68000 fans and evangelists. 2. People who just don't really understand how micro architectures are definitively rated". Remember I wrote that because you will notice a pattern emerge that contradictory arguments about it come from nowhere else. To quote you: "your rather odd notion that a CPU with a 16-bit external bus cannot be a a 32-bit CPU". So, you fall into at least the second category. That is how it is done. In the way that I have already described. To quote you further: "Misplaced Pages is based upon citations to reliable secondary sources". First of all, you haven't used any 1. Reliable- 2. Secondary- sources. Even Motorola themselves are Not a reliable source on this issue, for reasons that I (as ever) have already given: Motorola themselves mooted the notion the 68000 was 32bit for marketing purposes, using exactly the process I (as ever) have already described. The exact document where they first do this is here below, in the linked issue of Byte from 1983, on page 70 (incorrectly appearing in the .pdf as page 74). In this article, written by Thomas Starnes, who was then *marketing* manager at Motorola, ie, this document primarily intended as a piece of *marketing*. Turn to page 70 (74 if you're going by the .pdf pagination), and I will quote it below. https://vintageapple.org/byte/pdf/198304_Byte_Magazine_Vol_08-04_New_Chips.pdf
"Many criteria can qualify a processor as an 8-, 16-, or 32-bit device. A manufacturer might base its label on the width of the data bus, address bus, data sizes, internal data paths, arithmetic and logic unit". Short version: "Oh, isn't rating CPUs hard? There's just so many things to consider, where should we begin?" Answer: No there isn't, it's the data bus. He then goes on to say, and read this bit out loud to yourself: "Generally, *the data-bus size* has determined the processor size". Did you read that out loud to yourself? Everything he writes until that point is nonsense to create confusion amongst people who don't know how it works as a prefatory. This is not a technical document, it's rhetoric. He then tacitly admits, *it is the data bus size which is the determinant*. Did you read that bit?
I have also already (as usual) explained why claims made in documents don't mean anything: What you need is an understanding of microprocessor architecture. For the same reason as the analogy I have already (as usual) used with car engine cylinder ratings. If you are a mechanic you can pop the hood and count the damned cylinders. It doesn't matter if somebody hands you a user manual which says the car is a V12. You can pop the hood and look. What it takes is understanding what V12 means. What is does NOT mean is anything the manufacturer and its fans want it to mean for publicity purposes.
68000 = 16bit data bus, 16bit CPU socket, 16bit RAM interface, 16bit ALU, 16bit instruction word length.
68000 fans: "Yeah but there's 2x16bits of die space for the registers so it's 32bit". facepalm.
NO. One random detail on the die elsewhere in a portion of the chip which doesn't contribute is NOT somehow magically an overriding fact. It was already 16bit before you got there. It can have some ad hoc ten billion bit operations somewhere on the die.... it doesn't upgrade the entire chip rating. Those values will still reach the real-world 16bits at a time.
Your argument is "Yeah, but who actually uses cylinder-count to decide if a car is a V6 or a V12?". Answer: Everybody who understands the mechanics does.
All you can do is what Motorola marketing did: Perform semantic legerdemain by falsely redefining what "32bit" actually means for the benefit of selling the 16bit 68000.
The most 32bit thing the 68000 has going for it is *some* instructions will take TWO 16bit values across the bus. But: *it still takes them 16bits at a time*. It takes them 16bits at a time because it is a 16bit CPU. Intra-register chip-die operation do not contribute to the overall chip rating. They aren't relevant. The 68000 is 16bit so those movements cannot enter the real world faster than 16bits at a time.
I have just noticed somebody(?) has removed the entire talk page just to have this argument, after I have received threats for removing only the garbage, and it has been changed it so only the garbage you have written appears, so this discussion is very obviously just bullshit. There needs to be a far better complaints procedure than having entire pages administered by a policy of obvious intentional bias and sabotage. You are exactly what I predicted: A 68000 fan doing this for competitive reasons, not for reasons of being honest or truthful, the same as Motorola did.
In answer to your question: "One can only wonder if you treat the Intel 8088 the same way".
Why would you even ask? Projection? I AM *NOT* THE ONE DOING THIS FOR PERSONAL REASONS. I AM THE ONE DOING THIS TO GET THE TRUTH OUT. You really need to look at yourself and YOUR motives.
I was going to say this previously: Clearly the 68000 page is policed, as so many Misplaced Pages pages are, by fans, so it says quite a lot of what its fans want. No wonder people don't take this site seriously. With people like you on it, it cannot be taken seriously.
RE: "One can only wonder if you treat the Intel 8088 the same way".
You obviously didn't read the discussion, as I said you wouldn't, and others can't now because somebody just conveniently hid it all from view. If you had looked and bothered to read it first, you'd have seen I have already (as usual) answered this, so I will just cut and paste from what I have already written on that talk page which you have strategically removed. This time you can have a source too:
1. "You will notice, if you look for the documentation, the Intel 8088 appears in their own self-sourced manuals as 'The 8088 8-bit microprocessor'"
Can you read that OK?
2. "The 8088 was internally almost identical to the 16bit 8086. It differed from it only in the data-bus pin reduction" (and a multiplexer).
Do you get what that means? It only took a change of the data bus width for a chip with an otherwise *entirely* 16bit internal architecture to be downrated to 8bit. Even despite the fact it has 16bit registers AND a 16bit ALU. So according to the Motorola fanboy version, the 8088 has MORE of a claim to be 16bit than the 68000 has of being 32bit. Does that answer your question? I don't care who the manufacturer is, but you, obviously, do. It doesn't say the 8088 is 16bit on the Misplaced Pages entry. Are you going to start policing the 8088 page to ensure everybody accepts the 8088 is 16bit? No, you aren't, because you are NOT an impartial witness. You are goalkeeping for team 68000 and you don't care about your home team cheating, you will even help them to do it.
Conclusion:
3. "The *primary* metric in these matters is /the size of the data bus/ in exactly the same way the *primary* measure of wether a car is a V4 or a V8 is the cylinder count, not some other random thing you can find to talk about. As with engines, you don't get to ignore the main thing entirely" (purely for it to figure out how you want).
You see, you're confusing me with you. YOU are doing this for competitive reasons. YOU care who the manufacturer is. I don't. I'm using the same measure in all cases. YOU don't give a damn what the truth is. YOU just want people believe whatever you want them to. YOU are dong this for competitive reasons. Inventing whatever rules you want so you can win. I am doing this *to protect the truth*. Something which clearly you will to anything to prevent from prevailing.... including being party to far more damage to the 68000 page than I did.
What is the point when an encyclopaedia has got obviously corrupt editors?
Please let's bring this interesting discussion to a close, although I'll risk another reply by pointing out two issues. First, no one's life or national pride depends on how many bits are used to describe a particular chip. That means there should not be this much passion and debate. Instead, tolerate the fact that different people are different and that some of them have different opinions even if wrong. No editors in this discussion are "corrupt". Second, there is no standards body that asssigns labels to chips and there is no authority capable of declaring, for example, that the 8088 should be described as an 8-bit chip in a Misplaced Pages article. Thank you for the Intel data sheet showing how Intel described the chip in a particular document but it is possible that an article might still use "16-bit" as a description because from a common-use point of view, that is a reasonable (although incomplete) summary of the situation. A programmer concerned about performance would regard an 8088 as a 16-bit processor because that's what it can efficiently handle, albeit through an 8-bit external bus. A low-level programmer would regard an 8088 as very different from a "real" 8-bit processor such as the 8080. That is yet another demonstration of the fact that there is not always a precise label that can summarize a particular situation and people with one background might say potato while others say potahto. Johnuniq (talk) 03:02, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
No, that "point of view" is simply false, for the same reasons I have now repeated multiple times. On the other points you have made on side issues, for example performance: you are objectively wrong. There is a performance penalty in terms of real clock cycles taken to shift quantities between main memory and the CPU with lower classification chips. This is Because they have a lower classification. The link between classification and performance is material, causal and measurable, is *not* merely notional, as per every single argument I've listened to. As I said very early on in the my case, people disputing me fall into at least one of two camps: 1. Evangelists, who really don't care what the facts are, they just want things to go their way. 2. People who really don't know what they are talking about. Furthermore, the pretence this is merely matter of personal opinion as illustrated multiple times already, has about the same validity of claiming counting is merely a matter of personal opinion and what number comes after 4 is purely down to personal taste. It simply renders the entire thing meaningless. As have said to the others, the Intel AVX-512 extensions add 512bit registers to the Intel range. Do you think AVX-512 extended CPUs are 512bit? Do you recall Intel, or anybody else, announcing the release of world-beating 512bit CPUs? No. Because they haven't. It is a delusion to convince yourself you can simply pick and choose as you feel and come away with whatever outcome you like the sound of. If you want to have the final world then stop writing things which are not true. This is an encyclopaedia, aiming for credibility, you should aim to help it achieve that, don't just freewheel. Vapourmile (talk) 20:13, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Excuse me but there would be far less to say if the discussion wasn't being dogged by falsehood. FYI: I am NOT singularly responsible for writing 100K words on the topic, the bulk of the discussion from 7 months ago was Guy Harris cutting and pasting huge sections with commentary from the IBM 360 manual on the 68000 page. If people were not littering Misplaced Pages pages with falsehood there would be nothing to reply to. Vapourmile (talk) 21:19, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Following a request for comment, F7 (invalid fair-use claim) subcriterion a has been deprecated; it covered immediate deletion of non-free media with invalid fair-use tags.
Following a request for comment, page movers were granted the delete-redirect userright, which allows moving a page over a single-revision redirect, regardless of that redirect's target.
Technical news
When you move a page that many editors have on their watchlist the history can be split and it might also not be possible to move it again for a while. This is because of a job queue problem. (T278350)
Code to support some very old web browsers is being removed. This could cause issues in those browsers. (T277803)
![[REDACTED]](https://u3vuiephb.global.ssl.fastly.net/File:Oversight_logo.png){kind=link}
Arbitration
Miscellaneous
Administrator changes
Interface administrator changes
Guideline and policy news
Technical news
Alexandria • Happyme22 • RexxS
Regards, Cabayi (talk) 15:50, 3 April 2021 (UTC)