Open main menu

Contents

Welcome to Wikipedia!Edit

Face-smile.svgWelcome Pi314m!

Now that you've joined Wikipedia, there are 36,953,111 registered editors!
Hello, Pi314m. Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions!

My name is Patrick (and my username is Pdebee), one of the other editors here, and I hope you decide to stay and help contribute to this amazing repository of knowledge.

Some pages of helpful information to get you started:
    Introduction to Wikipedia
    The five pillars of Wikipedia
    Editing tutorial
    How to edit a page
    Simplified Manual of Style
    The basics of Wikicode
    How to develop an article
    How to create an article
    Help pages
    What Wikipedia is not
Some common sense Dos and Don'ts:
    Do be bold
    Do assume good faith
    Do be civil
    Do keep cool!
    Do maintain a neutral point of view
    Don't spam
    Don't infringe copyright
    Don't edit where you have a conflict of interest
    Don't commit vandalism
    Don't get blocked
If you need further help, you can:
    Ask a question
or you can:
    Get help at the Teahouse
or even:
    Ask an experienced editor to "adopt" you

Alternatively, leave me a message at my talk page or type {{helpme}} here on your talk page, and someone will try to help.

There are many ways you can contribute to Wikipedia. Here are a few ideas:
    Fight vandalism
    Be a WikiFairy or a WikiGnome
    Help contribute to articles
           
    Perform maintenance tasks
    Become a member of a project that interests you
    Help design new templates

Remember to always sign your posts on talk pages. You can do this either by clicking on the   button on the edit toolbar or by typing four tildes ~~~~ at the end of your post. This will automatically insert your signature, a link to this (your talk) page, and a timestamp.
The best way to learn about something is to experience it. Explore, learn, contribute, and don't forget to have some fun!

To get some practice editing you can use a sandbox. You can create your own private sandbox for use any time. Perfect for working on bigger projects. Then for easy access in the future, you can put {{My sandbox}} on your user page. By the way, seeing as you haven't created a user page yet, simply click here to start it.

Speedy deletion nomination of Job Entry Subsystem 1 (JES1)Edit

Hello Pi314m,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Job Entry Subsystem 1 (JES1) for deletion, because it seems to be inappropriate for a variety of reasons. For more details please see the notice on the article.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Montanabw(talk) 19:16, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

I left a note yesterday and earlier today added some more details to the article. In particular, I made reference to both IBM's "proclamation" about JES1 ("..the most important...") and the technical article in IBM Systems Journal. Pi314m (talk) 07:43, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!Edit

  The Writer's Barnstar
For work on various models of System 370. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:54, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
noted. Thanks Pi314m (talk) 08:05, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Chidush for deletionEdit

 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Chidush is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chidush until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Sir Joseph (talk) 14:27, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Please don't do cut and paste moves
**was a merger**
Edit

  Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give IBM ESA/390 a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into IBM System/390 ES/9000 Enterprise Systems Architecture ESA family. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:23, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm adding more details. It's not just a simple move; due to how IBM made the (3 part) intro Sept '90, it's a MERGER, not a move. Pi314m (talk) 21:44, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Please see the TALK page for
IBM System/390 ES/9000 Enterprise Systems Architecture ESA family
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:IBM_System/390_ES/9000_Enterprise_Systems_Architecture_ESA_family

Pi314m (talk) 23:52, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Melech (Anglicized from Hebrew) listed at Redirects for discussionEdit

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Melech (Anglicized from Hebrew). Since you had some involvement with the Melech (Anglicized from Hebrew) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Sir Joseph (talk) 02:07, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

You are creating redirects that will never be used. For example, aveilim (mourners) is never going to be typed in the search bar. If you are going to create redirects, please use redirects that have a small chance of being used. Sir Joseph (talk) 02:10, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
The purpose of the "Melech (Anglicized from Hebrew)" and the "Aveilim (Mourners)" redirects is for use in articles. Pi314m (talk) 05:23, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Aveilim (Mourners) listed at Redirects for discussionEdit

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Aveilim (Mourners). Since you had some involvement with the Aveilim (Mourners) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Sir Joseph (talk) 02:13, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

explanation of aveilim (mourners) as part of a "layering"Edit

Mouseover-ing on aveilim (coded as: [[aveilim (mourners)|aveilim]] would show the desired 1-word translation. For more details, the REDIRECT would point to Bereavement in Judaism#Terminology and timing which is a collection of 1-liners that have internal links to parts of the larger article, which in turn, in many cases, have a Main article header/hatnote.

One comment above is that [[aveilim (mourners)]] would be more useful in lowercase than my initial [[Aveilim (Mourners)]]. I agree.

This layering is something new, and can be seen in per a simulated quote:

"A neighbor of the aveilim ..."

Moving the mouse to "aveilim"
will show "aveilim (mourners)" and
clicking will bring the reader, via #REDIRECT [[Bereavement in Judaism#Terminology and timing]] to . . . the 1-liners.
Clicking on that 1-liner's internal link will . . . bring forth more and more detail, as needed. Pi314m (talk) 23:52, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Petira (passing) listed at Redirects for discussionEdit

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Petira (passing). Since you had some involvement with the Petira (passing) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Sir Joseph (talk) 23:54, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Aveilim (mourners) listed at Redirects for discussionEdit

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Aveilim (mourners). Since you had some involvement with the Aveilim (mourners) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Sir Joseph (talk) 02:35, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

You really need to stop with your disruptive editing. Sir Joseph (talk) 02:36, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Throwaway code:

If by "disruptive" you mean what looks like "throwaway code" - the new redirect to demo the layering I was trying to describe, your accusation is actually subject to a well known Talmudic principal: BeMooMoe Hu PoSail, the accuser actually has that fault and is most comfortable accusing others.
BeMooMoe means with his fault. PoSail= he disqualifies (other definitions also). Sorry if I appear to be rude, since I don't really want to feel under attack and I'd like to see here why I shouldn't take this accusation a bit wider. I'm trying to be helpful, not disruptive.
Even when it comes to a search bar, why do you assume that it means Wiki?
Google can suggest something without getting caught up in upper case, lower case, paren/comma/etc. It's a plus here. -
Google "throwaway program" OR "throwaway code" OR "throw away program" OR "throw away code" site:wikipedia.org

One snippet says:

  • It is not deliverable code, but is not throwaway code either, being typically retained for use in regression testing.
Here, it can be the model for the Lower case of "(Mourners)"

another says

  • It might just be a very narrow implementation of the functionality but is not throw away code. It is of production quality, and ...
Why not open up the discussion to whether my "layering" is a good-enough interim implementation of the Mouseover feature that one Wiki article says Wiki doesn't yet have.

/* timestamp this, and accept fellow Wiki person's request to not answer on THEIR talk page; likewise, for now keep this just HERE */ Pi314m (talk) 03:26, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Editing without discussionEdit

Can I ask you to please discuss your edits on the talk page first? You are routinely adding in confusing information, and you are using ref tags when you shouldn't be. Sir Joseph (talk) 16:45, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Reference errors on 16 FebruaryEdit

  Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:19, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, bot. It was a case of missing a (newly) "broken" line. Pi314m (talk) 00:48, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

mouseover redirectsEdit

The consensus at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 February 6 was weakly against the two redirects you created with the explanation that they be used as "mouseovers" to explain the foreign language terms. However, if you feel strongly about them I would suggest that you start a discussion somewhere in project space (perhaps one of the village pumps) about using them generally. If there is consensus in favour of the idea in such a discussion then it's likely that there would be little opposition to recreating the redirects either as was or in slightly different form (depending on how the discussion goes). If you do start that discussion, it would be courteous to ping those people who participated in the RfD. Thryduulf (talk) 13:06, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Yisroel BelskyEdit

Please see the discussion on the talk page re: WP:RS. --Jersey92 (talk) 05:14, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

ZmanimEdit

I reverted (AGF) your recent change. Please describe at Talk:Zmanim: What is it that you want to be able to accomplish by adding those tags to the section headers that you can't do now? I just don't get it. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:20, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

AfDEdit

I appreciate your participation and welcome your comment at WP:AfD. However, I find your posts there to confusing because you don't indent at all. Please try to follow what other editors do. Example:

  • Keep:
reasons --Signature Editor 1.
  • Delete : --Signature Editor 2
  • Comment:
lengthy comment
lengthy comment continued
lengthy comment
lengthy comment
--signature of Editor 3

By doing this, we can figure out who said what. The way it is, you completely dominate some of the discussion and it is hard to figure out who is talking. By formatting as above, we can get a better sense of what the consensus is and who is speaking. --David Tornheim (talk) 19:17, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

(by talk page watcher) Dear Pi314m; (Copy: David Tornheim)
The guidelines for indenting posts are outlined in Wikipedia:Indentation. Hope this helps.
With kind regards;
Patrick. ツ Pdebee.(talk)(guestbook) 20:06, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

September 2017Edit

  Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing an article on Wikipedia, you will see a small field labeled "Edit summary" shown under the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

 

I noticed your recent edit to PDP-15 does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing →   Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks!  I dream of horses  If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message  (talk to me) (My edits) @ 04:53, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

MVCL atomicEdit

I'm puzzled by the statement in Z/Architecture that both MVPG and MVCL are atomic. Details are in talk on that page. Clem Dickey (talk) 17:57, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

detailed response is @ Talk:Z/Architecture Pi314m (talk) 19:13, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of PerfectDiskEdit

 

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on PerfectDisk, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. FockeWulf FW 190 (talk) 20:37, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Gesher HaChaimEdit

 

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Gesher HaChaim requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Cahk (talk) 07:28, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Notable vs. interesting.Edit

In the AfD on MyDefrag, you state "A DeFrag program, described in the second sentence as "inclusion of a scripting language" is not notable?".

No, that's not notable. That's interesting, but not notable.

There's a lot of interesting things in the world, but that may not make them notable. And there's a lot of totally uninteresting things in the world that are, sadly, notable.

In this case the definition of notable is that the program has some sort of coverage in something that would be considered reliable and general. If you know of any reviews in something like PC World, then you hit notability no problem.

Maury Markowitz (talk)

above is re https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/MyDefrag Pi314m (talk) 20:50, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter messageEdit

 Hello, Pi314m. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Dot matrix printersEdit

Hi. I reverted you at Dot matrix printers for two reasons. The first is that I don't see why we need two articles on this topic. Is there some reason why we need separate articles on dot matrix printers and dot matrix printing? If not, then the correct solution is to rename ("move") the existing article, not to create a new article with a different title.

The second reason is that even if we need two articles, the article title guideline would require the new article to be Dot matrix printer, not Dot matrix printers. Except in special cases, we don't use plural nouns as article titles.--Srleffler (talk) 07:20, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Rather than deal with dot matrix, dot matrix printing, the tidbits from the CZECH (translated) article, and the various other articles, all with Wiki notes atop them, I did a mini-blow-it-up/start all over. My goal was an article from which to not only have a stand-along but also a collection of sources for the others too.
As for single/plural, the goal was to incorporate not only DEC dot matrix printers, which would not by itself justify the plural, but also -- as it makes sense -- incorporate info re other brands/implementations. The article already had some info along these lines.
Although I didn't incorporate DETAILS re the serial vs. parallel interface issue, a MAJOR matter at the time due to people needing collections of various types of cables (boxes under some administrators' desks), etc. etc. FOR THIS REASON, PLURAL is the correct usage.
A box of apples, oranges and grapefruits might be called by some a box of fruit, and by others a box of FRUITS, since there are multiple types.

Even if my example is a bit "fruity," the reason for the plural can be justified re " Except in special cases, we don't use plural nouns as article titles." Pi314m (talk) 07:35, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
The more direct answer is: The concept of DOT MATRIX PRINTING is also, logically, about laser printing and inkjet printing. Dot Matrix PRINTERS are hardware. Pi314m (talk) 07:55, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
There currently is an intermix of CONCEPT (including the article on Dot Matrix) and Implementation. Rather than change the tires while the truck is rolling, I'm building a new box (to mix metaphors). Editing OUT what is in the wrong place, if I'm successful, will also be part of this; citations too. Pi314m (talk) 08:17, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Progress report: I added re impact vs non-impact to the Dot matrix article. There actually were TWO NYTimes articles that addressed this, but I only cited one, and not even the better of the pair. The HARDWARE info is in the wrong article. Pi314m (talk) 08:51, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Near-letter qualityEdit

The article can't be at Near-letter quality because that is an adjective phrase. See WP:NOUN. Your comment "'printing' is about the effect/output; 'printers' is about hardware. This article has at present just one sentence about SOFTWARE for ..." doesn't make sense. The article is about the method of printing, not about printers per se. If it were about printers, the correct title would be Near letter quality printer. I started a page-move discussion at Talk:Near-letter quality

You should not have moved the article back by copying text from one page to another. That's not allowed. For technical and legal reasons, articles have to be moved by using the "Move" button at the top, or by starting a move discussion on the talk page, which will call an administrator to help with the move.--Srleffler (talk) 12:51, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Merged articles and copyright violation.Edit

I note that you have merged the articles Handheld PC and Palm-size PC into Palmtop PC. I also note that your merge was challenged in that it was not properly carried out. Once it was challenged you should not have re-merged without obtaining consensus on the talk page.

You appear to have merged the articles in such a way that the original articles no longer exist. Of greater importance is that the article edit histories also no longer seem to exist. Your merge would therefore be a copyright violation as the contribution history for the text that you moved has in fact been lost. Wikipedia takes copyright attribution very seriously.

I would advise you to completely undo what you have done (if you don’t someone else surely will), propose the merge at the appropriate talk page giving your reasons (which on the face of it are not unreasonable), and await suitable consensus (which would most likely be forthcoming). You should also follow the merge procedure precisely in order to preserve the edit histories of the source article. If the source articles and edit histories have been deleted, you may need to seek administrator intervention to find out where they went and to restore them.

I assume, of course, that you have never merged articles before, and that you are acting in good faith. In which case, good luck in future contributions.

Forget that, I see what you have done wrong. You put the source articles in quotes in the merged-from templates. I have corrected the error, and moved the templates to the correct place. Someone else may well still reverse the merge on the grounds of no consensus, but that is their issue. 85.255.236.16 (talk) 15:07, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Warning: Stop to merge articles without prior discussion and community consensus!Edit

Pi314m, stop trying to merge the two unrelated articles Handheld PC and Palmtop PC. These are two different classes of machines and it does not make sense to discuss them in a single article. As I told you already, don't carry out such edits without prior discussion or against consensus, as you did twice already. If you continue these kinds of edits, they will have to be regarded as vandalism which may led to a block. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 22:27, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Based on Wtshymanski's comment right after yours (TALK,Palmtop PC,19:30, 21 January 2018) I reviewed sources, did more research,and after noting/commenting that the "stable" articles had few if any sources,I made sure that my renewed efforts was better. I didn't ignore your comments,and if anything I was trying to act on the comment
"Explanation of the difference would be very valuable."

As for "as you did twice already" it really was once per Wiki encouragement of "Be Bold" and then after "Explanation of the difference would be very valuable." I too can and hopefully will learn from what you said on the article talk page as "You can start a merge discussion and if,

at the end of this discussion (typically after several months), there will be consensus for a merge, we can carry it out. Otherwise, the articles stay separate. Pi314m (talk) 21:50, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global surveyEdit

WMF Surveys, 18:25, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Reminder: Share your feedback in this Wikimedia surveyEdit

WMF Surveys, 01:23, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia surveyEdit

WMF Surveys, 00:32, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Cumulative Summary of Disambiguation link notificationsEdit

Yichus -> Dayan (June 11, 2018) ... below is the first, which is intended to stay as a subsection

DisAmBig MODEL link notification for June 11Edit

(Disambig ua tion Lin-k not ifi cation for mmm dd) RETAINING:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:29, 11 June 2018 (UTC)


Speedy deletion nomination of Tzvi Hirsch BraudeEdit

Hello Pi314m,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Tzvi Hirsch Braude for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

Akhiljaxxn (talk) 12:26, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

August 2018Edit

  Please stop your disruptive editing at Mikveh.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Debresser (talk) 15:41, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Edits to PencilEdit

Hi Pi314m, I've noticed you have made several recent edits to the article Pencil. Although I initially reverted them for breaking the article's formatting, I believe that they should not be reinstated anyway due to the following reasons:

  • Taking excessive information away from the lead section is against the Wikipedia rules. The relevant Manual of Style page states:

    The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic

    Your edits remove the bulk of the content summarising the topic and reduce it to a simple definition.

  • The alternate names you gave only apply to "normal" pencils. According to the relevant Wikipedia policy page:

    When this title is a name, significant alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article, usually in the first sentence or paragraph.

    As the article's topic covers various types of pencils - for example, coloured pencils, these names are misleading.

  • Adding the list of pencil types is unnecessary.

    The article already has a types section further down, and adding it up above is repetitive given that the extant section is pretty short.

  • The "Ongoing marketplace success" section is irrelevant. Wikipedia policy states that:

    Statistics that lack context or explanation can reduce readability and may be confusing; accordingly, statistics should be placed in tables to enhance readability, and articles with statistics should include explanatory text providing context.

    Also, the info you provided is too US-centric.

I apologise for being so harsh, but I would appreciate you making more effort to be familiar with Wikipedia policy and layout before making future similar changes.User:Axisixa [t] [c] 09:28, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of GunkiesEdit

 

The article Gunkies has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The citations in this article do not reach to the level of significant coverage of the subject, rather they are just mentioned. I don't believe this meets the criteria of WP:N or WP:WEB.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ... discospinster talk 19:25, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Computer History Wiki for deletionEdit

 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Computer History Wiki is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Computer History Wiki until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. ... discospinster talk 17:20, 9 September 2018 (UTC)


Nomination of Tzvi Hirsch Braude for deletionEdit

 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Tzvi Hirsch Braude is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tzvi Hirsch Braude until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. DGG ( talk ) 02:29, 28 September 2018 (UTC)


Citation explanationEdit

I think you may have misunderstood what we mean by "citation" when we have a maintenance tag indicating that a citation is needed. (As for example in Data center).

Please see Wikipedia:Citing_sources--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:13, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about Data center managementEdit

Hello, Pi314m,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether Data center management should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Data center management .

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

Thanks,

Arthistorian1977 (talk) 11:29, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter messageEdit

 Hello, Pi314m. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Re your interest in the BLAST protocolEdit

Dear Pi314m, I would be interested to learn of your interest in the BLAST protocol. For myself -- Wikipedia editor "Synchronist" -- that question is easy to answer: I am Glenn Smith, its original author. And so perhaps we even know each other? Synchronist (talk) 06:03, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of ClassifEye (disambiguation)Edit

 

A tag has been placed on ClassifEye (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G6 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an orphaned disambiguation page which either

  • disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic); or
  • disambiguates no (zero) extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. –Ammarpad (talk) 08:16, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Matzav for deletionEdit

 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Matzav is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matzav until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Reyk YO! 12:49, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 26Edit

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jehiel b. Jekuthiel Anav, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ladino (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:20, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Citation template and archivingEdit

Hi Pi314m, and keep up the good work.

When using the citation template, such as you did recently at The Jewish Press, there is a space at the end for quotes. I fixed it for you, here's what it looks like now:

 |date=November 29, 1993|quote=The New York Times published a Jewish Press circulation number of 125,000 in 1993, and, in discussing competition and readership, estimated that "About 250,000 ... currently receive a Jewish weekly newspaper.}}

  Hello. It appears your talk page is becoming quite lengthy and is in need of archiving. According to Wikipedia's user talk page guidelines; "Large talk pages become difficult to read, strain the limits of older browsers, and load slowly over slow internet connections. As a rule of thumb, archive closed discussions when a talk page exceeds 75 KB or has multiple resolved or stale discussions." - this talk page is 65.3 KB. See Help:Archiving a talk page for instructions on how to manually archive your talk page, or to arrange for automatic archiving using a bot. If you have any questions, place a {{help me}} notice on your talk page, or go to the help desk. Thank you. StonyBrook (talk) 02:43, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

A page you started (Emanuel Quint) has been reviewed!Edit

Thanks for creating Emanuel Quint.

I have just reviewed the page, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

If possible, could you clarify some basic information such as nationality and period of activity?

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|SD0001}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

SD0001 (talk) 13:19, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

@SD0001: I added Categ. re 20th/21st cent. rabbis, also modified "rabbi-stub" to "Israel-rabbi-stub" Pi314m (talk) 16:14, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 16Edit

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Association of National Advertisers, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Direct Marketing Association (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:38, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of ClassifEye for deletionEdit

 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ClassifEye is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ClassifEye until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Britishfinance (talk) 19:21, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Give musar for deletionEdit

 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Give musar is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Give musar until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. signed, Rosguill talk 01:04, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

A page you started (Torah Educational Software) has been reviewed!Edit

Thanks for creating Torah Educational Software.

I have just reviewed the page, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Thank you for your new article on Torah Educational Software.

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Doomsdayer520}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:03, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Category:Subsystem has been nominated for discussionEdit

 

Category:Subsystem, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. 99Electrons (talk) 23:38, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

HRO Today moved to draftspaceEdit

An article you recently created, HRO Today, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 01:42, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Nakh (Bible acronym) for deletionEdit

 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Nakh (Bible acronym) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nakh (Bible acronym) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. signed, Rosguill talk 23:24, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Under ConstructionEdit

Good work on outsourcing. Just a quick tip to consider using an Template:Under Construction when doing a series of edits as it helps prevents edit conflicts and stops people worrying if something isn't perfect. I'm currently not planning to edit outsourcing myself but obviously you're triggering my watchlist. I'd currently note the article does not mention how some outsourcing (e.g. cleaning, catering) is not core business and can be easily substituted whereas others e.g. bespoke software maintenance may be difficult to switch to another supplier or bring back in-house. Also the article may not indicate the risks of an outsourcing supplier withdrawing service through collapse, contract enforcement or possibly threatening to increase costs through being in a monopoly supply position. Just a couple of thoughts. My concentration is really elsewhere. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:14, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I've used Under Construction in a few situations, and perhaps my hesitation to over-do it has tipped in favor of using your suggestions to perhaps make a bit more use thereof. As of the supplier problem, thanks for the reminder. I know how important it was in the Y2K era, when there was both fear and legitimate concern that a supplier's Y2K failure could "domino" into an unanticipated problem. Once again, thanks. Pi314m (talk) 09:22, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

McDonald Avenue on Template:Streets of BrooklynEdit

Regarding your edit - it is "McDonald Av" because that is what literally on the street signs. Every other avenue is abbreviated "Av." and it should be kept that way unless we change every other entry to "Ave." Otherwise it looks out of place. Better yet, we could remove the abbreviations, but I don't think that will be necessary.

And there is no need to put (Brooklyn) at the article. Unless there is another McDonald Avenue with a Wikipedia article, the parentheses aren't needed per WP:PRECISE. I just want to sincerely say, though - good work on the Brooklyn avenue's article. epicgenius (talk) 22:02, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of ClassifEYE for deletionEdit

 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ClassifEYE is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ClassifEYE until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Peacock (talk) 15:03, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 16Edit

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Blackline (software company), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fortune (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:05, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Philip BirnbaumEdit

He is certainly notable, and I assume you are going to expand it. DGG ( talk ) 05:51, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Rewrite of Continuous data protection sub-section in BackupEdit

Yesterday you merged the merged the former Continuous data protection article into Backup. I can understand why you did it, but you thereby wiped out a separate article without any prior discussion on that article's Talk page. I believe that's a violation of WP rules, and I intend to be up your tuchus about that.

But what really bothers me is that, after I spent about 5 hours editing your inserted sub-section into early this morning, you reverted all my editing. IMHO myy editing was necessary because the Continuous data protection article left out an inconvenient fact about many recent "CDP" backup applications, was poorly worded in places, and had references from 2007 - 2012 that were basically marketing blurbs for software that no longer exists—in one case written by a marketer whose software company went out of business after an uncontested fine for bribery.

I really don't understand why you did the revert. You don't seem to have done any previous editing on the merged-in article, so why would you be so determined to prevent any changes except your own? I've spelled out in detail here why I made the changes I did after your merge. The only item I deleted was the sentence about bandwidth throttling, and that's because the only reference for it other than the Pogue article that glancingly mentioned it was a marketing-oriented article from 2010.

Come on over to the Talk page for the article, and let's see if we can work out a compromise that won't require me to take further action. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 21:38, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

I just discovered another thing that you did that's definitely a violation of Wikipedia rules. You "merged" the first paragraph of "Information Repository" into the Backup article, and then deleted the entire "Information Repository" article. You weren't entitled to delete that article under rule 4 of the Wikipedia:Deletion policy. That's because IMHO that article does have "relevant or encyclopedic content", even though it describes a system that is a superset of what SoleraTec had developed by around 2008. Your tuchus is likely to be very populated, especially after I inform SoleraTec LLC of what you've done. Again, come on over to the Talk page for the article, and let's see if we can work out a compromise that won't require me to take further action. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 11:40, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

I did what I said I intended to do, but you promptly messed that up by moving my clarified version of the "Create synthetic full backups" paragraph to the front of the article, and by totally wiping out the "Automated data grooming" paragraph because you couldn't logically fit it up front under "Backup types". I'm about fed up with your "my way or the highway, even if I don't understand what I'm editing and violate WP rules" approach to the Backup article. If I don't get a response from you by 3 p.m. EDT this afternoon on Talk:Backup, I'm going to file for a 3O.

(Below is a copy of what I added to Talk:Backup)
This is not a response to the anatomy-attacking and other threats, but just to highlight that "Automated data grooming" (which perhaps I should have worked on earlier) is now ahead of "Consolidation." Explanation? The flow/sequence is now Deletion ("Automated ..."), then consolidation, followed by compression, etc. Pi314m (talk) 07:09, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, but your messed-up response (including refs that aren't to the articles intended) is not nearly good enough to make me put off the 3 p.m. deadline. You seems to have a conceptual problem with the basic sequence of the article; see the article Talk page for my full explanation. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 13:00, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Here follows a set of comments intended to convince you that your trying to "help out" with the "Backup" article is not in fact helpful, because you didn't ask anybody on the Talk page what would be helpful. I'll start with a relevant personal non-IT anecdote. Since having two operations for severe spinal stenosis last summer, I have to use a rollator outside my apartment. I frequently have to speak sharply to members of the waitstaff at my local Japanese restaurant, where I remove the basket from my folded-up rollator before storing both pieces in the coat closet. They insist on "helping" with removing the basket and putting it back on, and have already bent the basket hooks twice. At my local pizza/pasta restaurant—which has only a revolving door, I frequently have to speak very sharply to other customers who insist on "helping" me by spinning the door too fast while I am maneuvering the rollator slowly through it. I understand that blind people have learned not to stand at street corners, because passers-by—seeing the white cane—frequently insist on being "helpful" by grabbing the blind person's elbow and dragging him/her across the street without first asking the blind person whether he/she wants to cross. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 01:47, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

With that in mind, let's proceed to a summary of the "Backup" article's history. Mainly between 2007 and 2011, the first 7 screen-pages of the article evolved as a comprehensive summary of what every computer-using person should know about data backup. It had very few references, because Wikipedia standards in those days permitted Making Stuff Up from generally-accepted "crowd wisdom". It was rather wordy, because editors had to assume minimal prior IT knowledge on the part of the reader.

I first edited the "Backup" article in November 2017. I had written a 10-screen-page article about a particular enterprise client-server backup application, which other Wikipedia editors insisted (via an RFC in September 2017) I drastically reduce to 2 screen-pages that were less than a historically-based condensed User's Guide to the application. I soon guessed that most of the application's features added since 2007 were common to competing client-server backup applications, because I knew the then-owner of the application discussed in my article was a large corporation with knowledge of backup requirements of medium-to-large enterprise customers. So (acting on a suggestion I solicited in the Teahouse) I moved the description of those features to a new 2-screen-page "Enterprise client-server backup" section at the end of the "Backup" article—using the references from the other article but omitting any explicit naming of the application. There followed an epic-but-friendly three month battle with editor JohnInDC, during which I found terminology for the equivalent features in two competing enterprise client-server backup applications—and was therefore able to make the new section reasonably application-independent by adding references to those equivalent features.

For 5 months I avoided editing the first 7 screen-pages of the "Backup" article, because I didn't want to disturb prior editors of a fairly-satisfactory summary of the requirements for and features of personal backup applications. Then statements in "Storage media" started bothering me, because I knew from the backup hardware experience of my friend that they had become obsolete shortly after 2007. The result was another epic-but-friendly three month battle with editor JohnInDC, resulting in a moderately-reworded but much-better-referenced section. Almost 6 months after that I faced up to the lack-of-standard-terminology problem that pervades the first 7 screen pages of the "Backup" article. The main result of that 4-month battle—as much with myself as with JohnINDC—was the standardization throughout the article of the terms "archive file" and "information repository" and "backup method". I don't much like "archive file", but it's non-proprietary (I don't think the creators of Multics—if they're still alive—can sue) and is generally used within Unix-derived backup applications.

There are 3 lessons to be gained from this history summary:

  1. There are two separate main parts of the "Backup" article aimed a two separate classes of readers—users of personal backup applications and users of enterprise client-server backup applications—and the features described in the two parts are different.
  2. Revising the personal applications part of the article actually took almost as much time as creating the enterprise client-server applications part, because it had to be done carefully in order to avoid destroying 7 screen-pages of mostly-satisfactory text.
  3. The effort involved in editing both parts produced good results because it involved cooperation between two editors.

DovidBenAvraham (talk) 04:31, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Now that you've been given the necessary historical background of the "Backup" article, let's talk about why your trying to "help out" with the article is not in fact helpful. Having looked at a sample of your other contributions, they seem to fall into three main groups: (1) added descriptions of 30-year-old 4GLs and IBM System/370-related hardware, (2) added information about and discussions of Orthodox-Jewish-related concepts and institutions, and (3) discussion of advertising-related companies and software. I see no indication that your limited technical background has included involvement with an enterprise client-server backup application, although you may use a personal backup application.

You also seem to have an strong urge to merge and simplify descriptions, but accompanied by a willingness to sacrifice the precision of those descriptions. An example is what you did for the "Continuous_data_protection" subsection of the article. The reason I called the references there "marketing" is that they all basically say "it's nice to have backups at more frequent intervals than is normally done with scheduled scripts", but they don't talk about any performance hit. But if you look at the 2017 Carbonite reference you left in (Mozy has been merged into Carbonite), it says "we noticed no performance hit at all while using Carbonite to back up about 0.5GB worth of frequently-changing files ... That's probably because it's not actually done in real time, just on a tight schedule (okay, so maybe there is scheduling): 10 minutes if a file is saved once, 24 hours if it's save[d] more than once." By contrast my 2010 ComputerWeekly reference you deleted says "Because true CDP copies all delta changes, a system can be restored to any point in time required. This can be especially useful if you need to roll back to a point before a corruption event took place, for example. [new paragraph] Because they depend on fixed-interval copies, near-CDP/snapshots only allow you to roll back to a given point in time. For this reason, true CDP offers a recovery point objective (RPO) of zero [my emphasis], while the equivalent for near-CDP/snapshots is the last time a copy took place." Your link for "snapshots" at the end of the sub-section doesn't go anywhere, which is just as well because a correct WP link to "snapshots" goes to an article on "the state of a system at a particular point in time"—a capability used for near-CDP backups instead of a kind of backup (the ComputerWeekly author also got the terminology wrong in 2010). Isn't this, as I suspect, too technical for you—so you consider it too technical for any article reader?

Other examples of how you sacrificed the precision of the "Create synthetic full backups" and "Automated data grooming" paragraphs when you moved them from the "Performance" sub-section to the front part of the article: As I've explained on the article Talk page, creating a synthetic full backup is a process that is not under the control of the user of a personal backup application—but for a fundamentally-different reason is under the control of the administrator of an enterprise client-server backup application. What I didn't previously explain is that automated data grooming is now required for an additional enterprise purpose—the implementation of the GDPR "right of erasure". I inherited a little business selling guitar method books written by my teacher; the last time I sold some books to an EU customer, I was legally obliged to e-mail him offering to erase his sales record from my database within 30 days—and to implement that I would use the newly-enhanced automated data grooming capability of my enterprise client-server backup application. I found out about the legal obligation by taking a seminar on the GDPR offered by my college alumni association, but evidently it's not simplified enough for what you think belongs in the article. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 05:39, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

In regard to "automated data grooming", I should also mention that "usually implemented as a customizable feature" is an incorrect and totally inadequate substitute for the descriptive paragraph that was in the "Performance" sub-section—which you will find I've copied into the article Talk page section. Personal backup applications usually don't have this as a customizable feature (CrashPlan was an exception, but that turned out to be a designed enterprise "push" application that for a few years was also marketed as a personal backup application). OTOH enterprise backup applications have to have this as a very customizable feature, because each enterprise has its own "regulatory requirements"—as stated in the descriptive paragraph you wiped out in the name of "neatnikism" in creating the inadequate sentence in the front part of the article. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 02:44, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 31Edit

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited FOCUS, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Hyperion and Excel (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:48, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you but...Edit

Can you participate in an RfC in Talk:Backup that concerns your presence? Please and thank you. --NikkeKatski [Elite] (talk) 14:27, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I replied/added to Talk:Backup
There really is enough material "out there" on Enterprise (backup) to justify a standalone article, especially if a history section is given its due. Pi314m (talk) 15:42, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

@Pi314m: I truly think that you can make the standalone article work, and I'm sorry if it seemed like (well really DID) amplify any bad light that was being shed on you. I feel like I forgot for a while to WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH. The statement I asked of was more of a precautionary measure as I wanted to make sure that any concerns were put to rest. Clearly I've got a long way to go to become a WikiOtter but I mostly came here just to say sorry regardless of whether or not it came off that way because to me it really felt like I was giving that vibe. If you need another view/opinion on a matter you can always ping me. --NikkeKatski [Elite] (talk) 23:33, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Edit summaryEdit

Please do not put your edit summaries inside /* ... */. That's for indicating, and providing a shortcut link to, the section under which you edited (see Help:Edit summary#Section editing). Nardog (talk) 17:49, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: HRO Today (July 1)Edit

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Mjs1991 was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Mjs1991 (talk) 10:39, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
 
Hello, Pi314m! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Mjs1991 (talk) 10:39, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Rewrite of Continuous data protection sub-section in Backup revisitedEdit

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding unacceptable article merging-in without prior discussion. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Pi314m. The discussion is about the topic Backup.

Sorry about that. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 03:46, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

In connection with that discussion, I've been directed to apologize to you for myself using the Wikipedia-fraught v-word (which I've now struck-through) once on the discussion page and 3 times on the "Talk:Backup" page. I've done nothing to my quotations of User:Matthiaspaul. However I reserve the right to right to later use the v-word in connection to what you did to the "Information repository" article, where you merged-in only the two-sentence lead and completely deleted the rest of the article—which contained (and now through my efforts contains again) a description of a type of application that has been implemented at least twice since the article was created in 2007. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 22:45, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of International Association of Outsourcing Professionals for deletionEdit

 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article International Association of Outsourcing Professionals is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Association of Outsourcing Professionals until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. DGG ( talk ) 06:23, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Request for Comment on whether "Enterprise client-server backup" should be split from "Backup"—revisitedEdit

As you can see here if you haven't already, "There is a clear consensus that the 'Enterprise client-server backup' section at the end of the article should be separated from the 'Backup' article into a stand-alone article. The content is now at 'Enterprise client-server backup'". That means the split is not just until you feel an "urge to merge"; it's permanent unless and until we get consensus to merge the two articles. Of course you may edit the split-off article, with history (good luck finding any) or anything else, so long as the editing is not destructive. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 20:17, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Just to build upon what I said in my 04:01, 1 July 2019 comment in the 3rd RfC Discussion: If you were editing periodicals for a publishing company, and made changes to the periodicals' content that decreased the average readership by the percentages that you have achieved, I think you would shortly be out of a job. As I said in that comment, the combined average weekday pageviews of the split "Backup" articles (eyeballed by me as 570 + 15 = 585) have decreased from the average weekday pageviews of the un-split article exactly a year ago (eyeballed by me as 670) by about 13%. I just did the same weekday pageviews calculation for the "Outsourcing" article from 3/7/2019 - 6/27/2019 (eyeballed by me as 1550) vs. the same article and its 9 later-merged-in counterparts—"Business Process Outsourcing" was the biggest at 1700—for exactly 1 year earlier (eyeballed by me as 1200 + 7 + 3 + 20 + 0 + 8 + 1700 + 4 + 4 + 0 = 2946). Your results there were even more damaging to readership, with average weekday pageviews down by 47%. For this reason I'd really like to re-merge the "Enterprise client-server backup" article into the "Backup" article—because I don't think most readers can find the split-out article, but I can't do that if you're going to mess up the merged-back article the way you did back in May 2019. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 04:28, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Three weeks answer to pageviews Backup/Outsourcing assertionEdit

[April Fools!] Based on a wiki-recommended source's data, the Paris article dropped from 9,795 pageviews per day in 2015 to 6,704 after the edits to Backup/Outsourcing, a 31.6% loss; the Tokyo article held nearly steady (from 6,106 to 5,896 - a 3.4% loss). Is Paris Burning?

What you're talking about in the paragraph directly above would be an textbook example of post hoc ergo propter hoc, but in my 04:28, 29 July 2019 (UTC) comment above this sub-section I'm talking about the effects of your edits to a related set of articles on the weekday pageviews of the survivor of that set. See my comment in the sub-sub-section below. BTW, thanks for showing me how to do underlining, which I though had been disabled in Wikipedia. Can you show me how to do smilies? DovidBenAvraham (talk) 01:10, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Please see Smiley (smilies) below. Pi314m (talk) 15:59, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Urge to Merge and April 1 (with a corrrection that reads August 1)Edit

[April Fools!] The 2 year old and the 98 year old, average age 50, who were unable to move a light-metal folding table are the statistical counterpart of the (plumber-fixed) backup being discussed regarding reduced readership of the (computer field) backup articles.

Proof: Editing of the Paris article must have been outsourced while the Tokyo article's editing stayed home.

As for this section's name, someone wrote about Columbus sailing in April - a clear typo that probably was meant to read August. For those a bit confused, Columbus' sailing date is linked to Tisha B'Av, for which the secular date would clearly not be April.

To whom is the above primarily addressed? Initials matching Data-Base Admin, but this is not meant to antagonize, just to indicate that a message left on my TALK page suggests he may have an "urge to merge" (back). If asked to vote re concensus to merge (back), I don't plan to vote against. Pi314m (talk) 23:03, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

I have the feeling you're referring to me, which AFAIK it's OK to do directly in a User Talk page. As far as your edits having reduced readership of the "Backup" article, let's go to a more direct proof. Here's a permalink to a pageviews analysis of the article, using a custom range starting on 8 March 2019 and ending on 28 June 2019. Notice that, after you started editing on 21 May 2019, the weekday pageviews start drifting down from about 670 to about 570. The only exceptions, other than sudden spikes that I attribute to "Fight Club fans", are during the brief period when I was editing the "Continuous data protection" sub-sub-section. Painful though that analysis may be to you, I think the drift proves my point—which is why I won't vote to merge back the articles and let you do internal edits on the survivor. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 01:10, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
We've both given ourselves wiggle room: you can vote against or vote neutral. I can vote in favor or, more likely stay neutral. We both still have a choice. As for pageviews, it's a good idea to keep in mind that if someone clicks "X" moments after reading the first few words, it counts the same way as if reading the entire page. Useful and enjoyable content may bring repeat visits, so content does count, but I don't think either of our statements have fully addressed this point. Pi314m (talk) 04:13, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Smiley (smilies)Edit

To answer your 01:10, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

BTW, thanks for showing me how to do underlining, which I though (sic) had been disabled in Wikipedia. Can you show me how to do smilies?
I considered placement: whether to answer above or go-with-the-flow (which on Wiki I know some prefer/keeping new entries linearly choronological). He who gives us what we have (including Cogito) gave me the thought that I should further recognize your personal comment way above, and add that Refuas/Refuat HaNefesh precedes Refuat HaGuf, so perhaps I can link the "smilies" topic to the "smiling therapy" topic of Norman Cousins ((it wouldn't surprise me if you had followed his Saturday Review magazine - you might also look at this, written by his daughter Sarah)), and bring you to being less "sharp" - the word you used twice in your personal non-IT anecdote above. Here is my on-topic response:

Part of doing smilies depends on one's browser. The barebones ColonRightParen is cute, :) .. but the yellow image in this sentence ( ) depends on Wikimedia's software working with the browser. The specific paren-enclosed text I used is: '''{{emoji|263A}}'''. More details can be found at Template:Emoji. Pi314m (talk) 15:59, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

The evidence from pageviewsEdit

The daily pageviews of the "Backup" article went up on 1 August from under 600 to 1337. There's no high-intensity dispute currently going on about the article, so I don't think the increased viewership is from "Fight Club fans". Instead my guess is it's a result of ransomware and malware being in the news, such as in this story and this story on the Ars Technica "front page". If I'm correct, the IT-affected people reading the article should also be reading the "Enterprise client-server backup" article—because the backup application features discussed there are necessary for fashioning an enterprise's (and that category includes non-profits and local/state governments) coordinated response to such threats. Is your effort to "dumb-down" the "Backup" article, to which my split-off was a defensive reaction, more important than that response? I suggest you consult with HaShem about that tonight and tomorrow. DovidBenAvraham (talk) 18:47, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "Pi314m".