Samurai80
Please don't forget to sign your comments, either with this button on your menu:
or by typing this code: --~~~~Welcome!
editHello my name is Samuel I come from France but I live in Tokyo, Japan. I am a hardware engineer and I have been working on FPGAs (mostly from Xilinx) for about 15 years. I like foreign languages and I have a good level in French (native), Japanese (JLPT level 1) and English (TOEIC 890). English and Japanese are not my mother tongues so please feel free to edit my posts. I like wine, sports (basketball), all sorts of music, snowboard, bass guitar, video games on PC, etc.--Samurai80 (talk) 13:10, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Talk page structure
editHi, thank you very much for taking the time to discuss changes. I'm afraid, however, that Talk:Transistor count is currently extremely hard to navigate.
Please take a moment to have a look at other talk pages, like Talk:Barack Obama and Talk:Barack_Obama/Archive_82, to see how indentation, signatures, replies and section headings are used properly. Please, for example, do not add signatures to the heading.
Thank you very much in advance. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:54, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you for your message. It's true I don't have that much experience with talk pages, but I did read most of the guidelines and looked at other talk pages like those you pointed out. In the "FPGA - About dates of introduction" section, actually if you look at who wrote what, I did myself use indentation and signatures in this talk page, so maybe you refer to 213.81.220.134 ?
- Regarding the signatures in subsection (not section) headings, I understand it might be confusing to have that inside the table of content, so I will remove those subsections. The main problem is the person discussing with me was constantly messing up all the discussion with his answers not using signatures, indentation or even new line, and I had to add some sort of separators and a timeline to clarify that. You might have a look at how it was here and in the few following versions. 213.81.220.134 straight out added a whole new section for his message... If I did not edit the way I did, that would have been way worse.
- I added collapsible content to make it easier to navigate. Maybe it's not super clean but I think that is much better than without. I could not find any better solution as the discussion is very long. In the examples you give there is one sentence from each user at a time so it's much easier. Here, 2 or 3 times a week one is undoing the other basically, and gives his points about each edit he made, and the other answers to those points. I do try to find some compromise with him but this is getting really stupid, and he did again edit the FPGA section today.
- And as I say at the end of the section, I plan on removing the whole discussion and leave only the wrap up. Actually I did just that recently, after 10 days without any edit from 213.81.220.134, but he recently undid everything, so I put back the discussion and here we go again... --Samurai80 (talk) 12:48, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
- PS: So I understand the form of the discussion is "ugly" but I would greatly appreciate someone else's opinion about its content, especially about the 2 last collapsible paragraphs (19 and 20th sept). 213.81.220.134 is clearly mixing up the date of announcement and the date of introduction on the market, only the latter being relevant for this article in my opinion. Today he added 2 columns for dates in the FPGA chart, it just doesn't make much sense. With this addition we can clearly see he is misunderstanding what a date of introduction is.