50.53.15.59

Welcome to Wikipedia!

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

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• Simplified Manual of Style
• Intuitive guide to Wikipedia

You are welcome to continue editing without logging in, but many editors recommend that you create an account. Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits such as the ability to create articles. For a full outline and explanation of the benefits that come with creating an account, please see this page. If you edit without a username, your IP address (50.53.15.59) is used to identify you instead.

In any case, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on this page. Again, welcome! Randykitty (talk) 20:16, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Your many edits from "Red Book" to "CD-DA"

I noticed you have edited several dozen articles to change mention of and links to "Red Book" to "CD-DA". This is problematic for several reasons.

It is arguable that the term "Red Book", referring to "the standard sort of audio CD playable in an ordinary player that is used for commercial music sales," is not particularly familiar to the average non-technical reader. But I do not think that the unexplained "CD-DA" is any more self-descriptive. The "CD" part is clear enough in context, but "DA" could mean many things.

In fact, per the Wikipedia Manual of Style, the first appearance of "CD-DA" in an article should be written out in full (see MOS:ACRO). This isThis is especially important where understanding of the term is essential to understanding the surrounding text, which I believe is the case here. So, replacing mention of "Red Book" with "CD-DA" should end up with "Compact Disc Digital Audio (CD-DA)".

Besides complying with WP style guidelines, I would say that this is considerably more self-explanatory (hence more understandable to the typical nontechnical reader, i.e., better) than either "Red Book" or "CD-DA" alone.

You should also be aware that either way, the actual article you're linking to is Red Book (CD standard). I am aware that both Philips and Sony used the term "Compact Disk Digital Audio", and so it appears in the logo... while "Red Book" is a colloquialism, not part of the official title. Nevertheless, here on Wikipedia, the CD-DA page is merely a redirect to the Red Book page. Now, links to redirects are not in and of themselves a problem. After all, they occur often as pages are moved (renamed) and there is no requirement that they be changed to links to the "real" page. However, in general, editors should not deliberately create new links to redirects unless there is some compelling reason to do so.

Whether that article should actually be called "Red Book" rather than "Compact Disc Digital Audio (CD-DA)" is another question, one that has been discussed before to no conclusion (see talk:Red_Book_(CD_standard)#Rename article to Compact Disc Digital Audio), but should not affect current editing.

Please consider these points in your future editing. Thank you. Jeh (talk) 08:58, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with all you comments. Part of my motivation was to move away from "Red Book" though I do think "Red Book" CD-DA is clearer and succinct. I understand and have no issues with CD-DA being spelled out prior to its use as per the the style guide but I believe there are some exceptions. CD-DA is no more abbreviated or confusing than CD-ROM not being spelled out and the article is named such. I am mostly just trying to clean up the Rainbow Books. Methinks one good article on that is all that is required and all the other articles should use the marketing named they became known under and just refer to which book they were originally published under as part of their history. I opted to move toward linking to CD-DA to be in line with "Yellow Book" CD-ROM article. We can both agree Red Book is much less well known and not a good choice for the name of the article (I realize perhaps not all agree with that). That said the days of commonly referring to CD audio format as Red Book are long gone. 50.53.15.59 (talk) 14:41, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

May 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Tōge may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:33, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Oops

Yeah, somehow managed to deleted them both. Done. --Shirt58 (talk) 11:18, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Please do not bypass redirects

Hi, I see that you are currently changing a lot of wikilinks to redirects to directly point to the target page, therefore I'd like to make you aware of our editing guidelines WP:NOTBROKEN, WP:NOPIPE, etc., which explicitly advise against doing this except for in very few specific cases. These guidelines also give explanations why this is normally not helpful and often even unconstructive. Therefore, I'd like to ask you to please stop doing so. Thanks. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 14:56, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree that most changes are useless, but to my humble opinion, a change of 8086 to Intel 8086 is not a bad thing. At least it will become useful after 6,000 years ☺

In any case, such link changes are accepted as a part of an otherwise useful edit, but strongly discouraged as standalone edits. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 15:05, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and you will note I mostly made such edits as part of a larger one or in cases that are such explicit exceptions (e.g., nav templates etc.). I am already well aware of the policies on such things as I have helped contribute to their development in the past. Thanks for noticing but I am not in need of education in this department. 50.53.15.59 (talk) 04:36, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

August 2013

Hello, I'm Yintan. I wanted to let you know that I undid one of your recent contributions, such as the one you made with this edit to Popek and Goldberg virtualization requirements, because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Yintan  11:30, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Forget it, my bad. Yintan  11:37, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you'd like to explain what you consider to not appear constructive about making the title of the article italics like every other legal case article? According to WP:MOSLAW legal case names are always italicized. I directly copied that from Intel Corporation Inc. v. CPM United Kingdom Ltd however you can also see the title is italics for Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.. Thanks. 50.53.15.59 (talk) 11:01, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Apologies offered.
— | Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh Buzzard | — 11:22, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Accepted--thank you. 50.53.15.59 (talk) 11:24, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you!
— | Gareth Griffith-Jones | The Welsh Buzzard | — 18:44, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Leujohn. I wanted to let you know that I undid one of your recent contributions, such as the one you made with this edit to Intel Fortran Compiler, because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Leujohn ^{(talk, stalk me?)} 18:11, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

My bad, I'm sorry! I undid my revert to your version. Leujohn ^{(talk, stalk me?)} 18:19, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

What is with people lately--as can be seen this is the third time this month alone someone has quickly reverted my edits only to later say "my bad"--this is getting ridiculous. I really wish people would be more careful about pulling the trigger on reverts. Thank you. 50.53.15.59 (talk) 18:21, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

September 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Intel Threading Building Blocks may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• container types (''concurrent_unordered_multiset'' and ''concurrent_unordered_multimap'').<ref>{{cite web |title=What's New? Intel Threading Building Blocks 4.2 |url=http://software.intel.com/en-

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:46, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

You might want to put edit comments in your "use {{cite doi}}" changes

Large shrinkages in article size without comment, especially by anonymous users, look a bit suspicious in the history; tagging those edits with an indication that you're replacing explicitly-detailed citations with {{cite doi}} might make them look less suspicious.

(BTW, thanks for doing those edits in the first place.) Guy Harris (talk) 22:20, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I suppose you'd think large additions would also look suspicious, however, I really do not understand the why an "anonymous" user's contribution would be more suspicious than an a non-IP user's. The majority of the content here can be attributed to such IP users--does that imply the majority of the content should be considered suspicious? I should hope not.

I often make many copy edits including improvements to references. I figure the more I make the more they get noticed (even if the initial reason for notice was suspicion) Thank you. 50.53.15.59 (talk) 23:26, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I greatly appreciate your efforts to fight vandalism and make constructive edits on Wikipedia. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might like to see:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Simplified Manual of Style
• Recent changes patrol
• Anti-vandalism tools

You are welcome to continue editing without logging in, but many editors recommend that you create an account. Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits such as the ability to create articles. For a full outline and explanation of the benefits that come with creating an account, please see this page. If you edit without a username, your IP address (50.53.15.59) is used to identify you instead.

In any case, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on this page. Again, welcome! DDreth [talk to me] 10:19, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Veronica Roth authority control

Hello, I have now read up on Wikipedia: Authority Control, and learned why you put that template on Veronica Roth's page. What is still a problem is that the line you put in the Edit results in what seems an odd link.

Below is a copy of the final page, where the data term appears. It is interesting to note that putting your text on this talk page does not add the BNF and data term, and appears as this template does on other author pages. Do you know why this occurs, or if the dead link can be eliminated? The BNF link is live, it is just the word data that goes to a 404 error.

Authority control

   WorldCat
   VIAF: 160629702
   LCCN: n2010079812
   ISNI: 0000 0001 0818 2046
   GND: 1020743859
   BNF: cb16557547m (data)

That is confusing to me! Learning something new, I had not noticed these templates on author pages before. I will look for your reply here on your talk page. --Prairieplant (talk) 17:15, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I do know why the BNF data link appears there. Unfortunately it is a complicated answer to a simple question. {{Authority control}} uses Module:Authority control which in turn uses Wikidata. The English Wikidata for Veronica Roth contains a Property:P268 BnF identifier set to 16557547m (which is correct). Hopefully you can see the BNF data link was added in this diff. My talk page is (correctly) not linked from the Veronica Roth Wikidata so the Lua module used in the MediaWiki template renders different things if you place the template on my talk page (please don't; I do not need my talk page showing up here: Category:Miscellaneous pages with VIAF identifiers). 50.53.15.59 (talk) 12:30, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I see that you understand it and can trace why the 'data' link appears on her page, though not on the pages of other authors. I appreciate your time in explaining it. The detail of Property P268 is a bit over my head, so I will leave the dead link alone. Thanks! --Prairieplant (talk) 19:49, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually the data link will appear on the pages of any other authors that have {{Authority control}} with either a BNF parameter or a Wikidata P268 property—take a look at John Norman for example. 50.53.15.59 (talk) 20:04, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Using what I have learned, I set up the Authority Control template for Agnes Martin, the artist honored in the Google doodle for 22 March. It worked! I found three index numbers to enter in the template, and then somehow many others were filled in, including BNF. For this person, 'data' went to a link quite full of information on her. I see this differs by person; the pattern of difference is not obvious, but at least it is not always a 404 error. Now I know to look for these on articles about persons, and see what I might learn clicking on those links. --Prairieplant (talk) 04:06, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Great! Actually you can include the template on a page without any parameters and it will often pull fields from Wikidata and just work too (you can even preview to see what it will pull before saving). I am not sure but I think BnF has not fully populated their data site and that is why the data link does not always work. 50.53.15.59 (talk) 16:11, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Rational ClearCase

Hello 50.53.15.59. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Rational ClearCase, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Category:IBM software shows that many articles are named IBM. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:21, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, 50.53.15.59. You have new messages at Malik Shabazz's talk page.
Message added 01:11, 26 May 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

---