DGerman

Feel Free to leave me a note here or better yet, email me at

DGermanwk (a) Real-World-Systems.com

Talk:printf

Hello DGerman! I removed your comment from the deletion discussion as it is only preserved as an archived discussion (It took place in late 2004). printf is clearly notable and is not going to be deleted anytime soon. Regards, decltype (talk) 22:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, the reason for this is that the printf unix command does not have a standalone article. Because there's already a topic called "printf" (the C function), the link from the article you mentioned has been disambiguated to "printf (unix)". I do not think there is a better target for that link, so the only way to fix it would be to write an article about the printf unix command. decltype (talk) 07:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

"America is not US"

Hi! About http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chalan_Pago-Ordot,_Guam&diff=418054784&oldid=413793145

In the English language "American" is commonly used to mean "US"

In other languages typically "American" refers to North and South America - but this is the English Wikipedia, so using "American" is okay to describe something of the United States

But "United States" is preferred to "America" WhisperToMe (talk) 17:55, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

It's fine to post replies to my talk page :) I am aware that some people are annoyed when "America" is used to refer to the U.S. - Typically though I think that happens when English speakers refer to the U.S. as "America" in other European languages (i.e. "americano" instead of "norteamericano" or "estadounidense" in Spanish)

And in English the most commonly used adjective for the U.S. is "American" WhisperToMe (talk) 19:15, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Voltage article

You wrote on my talk page;

I took great care to provide a section that answers what most people want to know. I am an electrical engineer and the technical details of this article are terrible. While much of it is accurate, it is so obscure that most people cannot understand any of it. Even the Hydraulic analogy is poorly written as it never associates the electrical terms with the water flow. The image of the electroscope, while related to electricity is not informative or discussed in the article. Similarly the image of a Q a b and an s (what ever that is) stating "the work is independent of the path", while true has no business in this article. Direction of current flow is also true but not only confuses the reader. I could go on (and on).

Please talk to me regarding accuracy, (my ? ) confusion and errors. I will correct error and reapply the edits. Please don't tell me that there are various chemical combinations for constructing a battery which produce very different voltages, as I am well aware of that. This is discussed in the article about a cell which I included a link to. I will be making additional edits to this article and I will try to resist totally omitting the particle physics information. Thank you in advance for you comments.

DG12 (talk) 12:30, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

First of all, you should have provided a link to the voltage article and a diff to my comment so I know what you are talking about. I think it is a good idea to provide a list of common voltages and would be happy to see that go in the article. Some more extreme examples might also be helpful such as the voltages of a lightning strike, power transmission, and a nerve impulse. However, a simple list or table is going to work better than a lot of involved explanations, much of which was wrong or covered better elsewhere. I reverted rather than trying to correct since I would virtually have had to write the section myself from scratch to get it right. Detailed replies to your comments;

• Your criticisms of the existing article may or may not be right, I am not going to go into them here. They are not relevant to the insertion of additional material. A new edit stands or falls on its own merits. If your thinking is that a new section should be added to compensate for inadequacies of the existing text then that is an entirely wrongheaded approach. The correct approach is to directly improve the deficient sections.
• Please don't tell me that there are various chemical combinations... If you are aware of that then you should not have allowed your edits to confuse them so much.
  • Hearing aids commonly use zinc-air battery cells which are 1.2 - 1.4 V, not 1.5 V
  • Car batteries are lead-acid with a cell voltage of 2.1 V. They therefore use fewer cells than a 9 V alkali battery, not more. Unless of course, you have lithium batteries in your smoke detectors.
• If the purpose of this section is to give a feel for voltage to those not familiar, all talk of cells and the way they are interconnected to form batteries needs to be left out. No one says "cells", it is always "batteries" in common speech and anything else only serves to confuse. There are other articles where this is covered better and in more detail.
• 19th century flashlights? Modern flashlights still run on batteries, why dig up something from history.
• Again, the history of the transistor radio is really misplaced under a "common values" title.
• Mention of "alternating current" and "direct current" is confusing when discussing voltages. The terms are already described and linked previously in the article. If they have to be used at all, just use the abbreviations AC and DC.
• You complain that the article is obscure, but about the most obscure term in it has got to be house current.
• Discussion of supply voltage range is going off topic; discussion of stoves and air conditioners is going off topic. The essential information is North America, 110 V, Japan, 110 V; Europe 230 V. Going off at these tangents is no longer discussing "common values".
• Formatting issues:
  • Heading should be "Common values", not "Common Values" - see MOS:CAP
  • Bolding should not be used to highlight terms - see MOS:BOLD
  • Symbols for units take capital letters and there is a space between the symbol and value: 110 V, not 110v. Preferably, the space should be a non-breaking space, or else use the {{nowrap}} template - see WP:UNIT.

SpinningSpark 15:23, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I put directories after files

You asked "Why did you move directories earlier in the article, specifically before filename?"

I didn't. I moved it after file names; to quote the comment "Talk about directories after talking about file names." Directories contain file names, hence directories should be mentioned after file names. Guy Harris (talk) 17:14, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Re: Open (system call)

You are very welcome DG12. Thank you for your message. I've had a keen interest in Perl for many years, but have never taken it beyond the use of pre-written scripts (under Xitami). Some day perhaps, if I ever get bored with Wikipedia, many of my old ideas may be worth revisiting. Have yourself a great day DG12, and happy editing! :)  -- WikHead (talk) 19:39, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Citing File system API

Thank you for all of your hard work on File system API! I see that you've contributed a significant amount of text to the article. Could I ask you to please cite your sources when writing for Wikipedia? References help readers to trust the information on Wikipedia, and help others editors determine that you're not plagiarizing. As the {{Unreferenced}} tag says, "Unsourced material may be challenged and removed." Thanks! —voidxor ^{(talk | contrib)} 08:11, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

October 2013

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in WhatsApp, disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Wikipedia is not the ideal platform for warning users about potential viruses, unless it has received widespread reliable coverage. GSK ✉ ✓ 04:02, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Notification of automated file description generation

Your upload of File:9VBatteryWithMeter.jpg or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 11:13, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Copy of thread on User_talk:Arlo_Barnes about Tab_key#HTML

Your edit to [[]] was to add [ ] " represents the horizontal tab [ ] ", seems like you meant to add something. DGerman (talk) 21:21, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

The brackets contain a Unicode horizontal tab character, which (when not aligned to tab stops) looks identical to other one-em-or-less whitespace, like the space character [ ]. Containing it in this way is a crude attempt at thus visually separating the character, but I have not thought of a better way. If you have, I invite you to be bold and make it so. Thanks, Arlo James Barnes 06:17, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Core dump

Perhaps I missed something (quite possible), but from what I can find out this doesn't seem to fit with the concept of a "core dump." You write "DCHP," did you mean "DHCP," as your link indicates? In any cast the link points to RFC 1395 (Bootp), and doesn't reference either DCHP or DHCP. Are you talking about getting a dump of DHCP tables? (https://social.technet.microsoft.com/Forums/sharepoint/en-US/2d6c5471-6660-4f11-b76e-df11dcde6c45/export-dhcp-scope-information-to-text-?forum=winservergen) This seems more application-specific and not a general-purpose core dump. In any case I think you need to provide more information than just one sentence. Peter Flass (talk) 20:02, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Comments in the source

I mean, I don't have that intense feelings about comments in the source. If you really want to, then go ahead. I guess the original reason I removed those comments was just that it was quite a lot of comments, and not just a little note or so. Also, I am just another random contributor. I have no authority over this. Maybe you could ask some wikipedian admin, or read their overtly extensive documentations, idk · · · Omnissiahs hierophant (talk) 23:56, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

=

=