User talk:voidxor/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Welcome!

(We can't say that loud/big enough!)

Here are a few links you might find helpful:

• Be Bold!
• Don't let grumpy users scare you off.
• Meet other new users
• Learn from others
• Play nice with others
• Contribute, Contribute, Contribute!
• Tell us about you

You can sign your name on talk pages and votes by typing ~~~~; our software automatically converts it to your username and the date.

If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page.

We're so glad you're here! -- Essjay · Talk 07:13, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

welcome messages are hardly spam :)

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia! You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia, but creating an account is quick, free and non-intrusive, requires no personal information, and gives you many benefits, including:

• The use of a username of your choice, provided that it is appropriate.
• The ability to view all your contributions via a "My contributions" link.
• Your own user page.
• Your own talk page which, if you choose, also allows users to send you messages without knowing your e-mail address.
• The use of your own personal watchlist to which you can add articles that interest you.
• The ability to start new pages.
• The ability to rename pages.
• The ability to edit semi-protected pages.
• The ability to upload images.
• The ability to customize the appearance and behavior of the website.
• The eligibility to become an administrator.
• The right to be heard in votes and elections.
• Your IP address will no longer be visible to other users.

We hope you enjoy your time here on Wikipedia and that you choose to become a Wikipedian by creating an account. Feel free to ask me any questions you may have on my talk page. By the way, you should sign your name to your posts and comments with ~~~~.

Adrian Lamo ·· 04:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey, good luck with the comparison of mail servers article :)

My earlier welcome tag was misdirected; I aim'ed that particular message @ an IP user.

Cheers!

Adrian Lamo ·· 04:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Disambiguation Talk Request

This is a form message being sent to all WikiProject Disambiguation participants. I may have found your page based on your contributions or your link repair user box on your user page. If you are not a member, please consider including your name on the project page. I recently left a proposed banner idea on the WikiProject Disambiguation talk page and I would appreciate any input you could provide. Before it can be approved or denied, I would prefer a lot of feedback from multiple participants in the project. So if you have the time please join in the discussion to help improve the WikiProject. Keep up the good work in link repair and thanks for your time. Nehrams2020 23:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Redirects

Hi Voidxor! Welcome to Wikipedia! I just want to inform you about a bit of Wikipedia policy:

Some editors are tempted, upon finding links using a legitimate redirect target, to edit the page to "fix" the link so that it points "straight" at the "correct" page. Unless the link displays incorrectly — for instance, if the link is to a misspelling, or other unprintworthy redirects, or if the hint that appears when you hover over the link is misleading — there is no need to edit the link. The link may be deliberate, may consolidate related information in one place, or may indicate possible future articles.

Most especially, there should never be a need to replace [[redirect]] with [[direct|redirect]].

Some editors are under the mistaken impression that fixing such links improves the capacity of the Wikipedia servers. Because editing a page is seemingly thousands of times more expensive for the servers than following a redirect, the opposite is true if anything. It's inadvisable to worry about performance.

One area where it is preferable to fix redirected links is in series templates, such as those found at the bottom of many articles (e.g. {{USPresidents}} on George W. Bush). In this case, where the template is placed on an article, and contains a direct link to that article (not a redirect), that link will display in bold (and not as a link), making it easier to navigate through a series of articles using the template.

That's from Wikipedia:Redirect :-). See you around! —Mets501 (talk) 02:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow, sorry. I seem to have missed that important bit of Wikipedia policy. I'll be sure to keep that in mind from now on, but please allow me to say a few words in my defense:

• I'm guessing you noticed my edits on non-towered airport. If you look at the history, you'll notice I changed two links there:
  1. First, I changed the capitalization of Flight Service Station so that it would not only stop redirecting, but also to match the correct capitalization as it appears in the Flight Service Station article. Also note that I moved that link up to the first appearance of "Flight Service Station" as it was on the second appearance only.
  2. Second, I changed the capitalization of Control Zone for the same reasons.
• Please note that for both of the above edits, I did change the display of the link and I did not create a [[direct|redirect]] situation.
• I had just moved both Flight Service Station and Control Zone so that the capitalization of the page would match the bold text at the beginning of each article showing the correct capitalization, thus matching similar articles like Terminal Control Area, Flight Information Service, and Flight Information Region. Upon moving the pages, Wikipedia reminded me to fix all double redirects by having me view the what links here page for the articles I had just moved. I had thought that a double redirect was an article -> redirect -> article situation and that I was supposed to fix all of the articles that were indented under the redirect. I just reread Wikipedia:Double redirects and now understand that a double redirect is a redirect -> redirect -> article situation.
• Note that Wikipedia:Redirect#Don't fix links to redirects that aren't broken and Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups/About fixing redirects both seem to ignore Wikipedia:Don't worry about performance by saying that you shouldn't fix links that redirect because it creates more load on the servers. This appears to be a policy conflict.
• While I have fixed lots of redirecting links, most of the time I do so while fixing other things in an article too. I realize that every click of "Save page" uses lots of server resources.
• When I have fixed redirecting links (along with other problems) in the past, I have never done so with performance in mind, as per Wikipedia:Don't worry about performance.
• Seeing a "(Redirected from ...)" note annoys me, and may confuse new users. It also interrupts the sleek style of a Wikipedia article.

Anyway, thank you for the info. I will try to live by these words I found in Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups/About fixing redirects from now on:

"If you're editing a page anyway, go ahead and fix redirects if you so desire. But editing a page expressly for the purpose of fixing a redirect is unnecessary." —Voidxor 21:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the response! I actually wasn't worrying about the Non-towered airport edit, because I saw that you also changed the location of the link/capitalization, I was just letting you know in general :-). It's all good for the future :-). Basically the reason why Wikipedia:Redirect#Don't fix links to redirects that aren't broken does not conflict with Don't worry about performance is because it takes thousands of times more server load to make an edit than to follow a redirect. —Mets501 (talk) 21:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Virtual classroom

I've set up the Virtual classroom (VC), which is a forum for the discussion of advanced Wikipedia skills. It differs from the help forums on Wikipedia in that major topics of discussion are scheduled and once started remain continuous.

The reason I'm contacting you is because one of the class assignments is a comparison of our user interfaces. A lot can be learned from individual users, who usually have developed their own ways of doing things. I noticed you are an expert programmer, so you no doubt have some tricks up your sleeve. I'm hoping that you will stop by and share and compare the interfaces you use when browsing and working on Wikipedia. I've also constructed a tools page which presents everything learned from these discussions, and it is growing -- there are some pretty powerful techniques on there now. Even Interiot, Rich Farmbrough, and CBDunkerson have stopped by the VC to show off their tools and methods. It's been a lot of fun, and you are invited. The interface topics are called:

• External interfaces - let's compare

and

• Internal interfaces - what do you use?.

I look forward to seeing you there and to learning your wikiways. Sincerely,  The Transhumanist    23:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Number on pill

I was given a script for Oxycodone and some have the # 512 others have 203 on the pill what does the# mean. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.182.207 (talk) 04:11, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea. I just cleaned up the image; I'm not an expert on the drug. —Voidxor (talk) 04:50, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Capitalization

Hi Voidxor, I noticed that you are going through all the space shuttle mission articles, and un-capitalizing the titles of the astronauts. I would request that you revert those changes. When listing the crew, the title of "Commander" or "Pilot" or "Mission Specialist" should be capitalized, as it is the title of the astronaut. It is treated the same as military rank, such as Captain, Commander, and General, and thus, for the crew lists, should be capitalized. For example, the current NASA shuttle page says: "Even astronauts get some time off during the holidays. Commander Lee Archambault, Pilot Tony Antonelli, Mission Specialists Joseph Acaba, John Phillips, Steve Swanson, Richard Arnold and Koichi Wakata will head home to be with family and friends for about ten days." Which clearly shows that when used as titles, the terms are capitalized. (When using it in a sentence, of course, it would not be capitalized, unless worded as a title, for example: "Commander Eileen Collins flew the shuttle." would be correct, but if speaking of the generic role of a commander such as "the shuttle is flown by a commander, and pilot", it would not be capitalized.) I would appreciate it if you would go back through those articles you've changed and restore the proper capitalization to the crew lists. Thanks! Ariel♥Gold 20:26, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Done. I probably would have caught that if the titles were in front of the name. Since I didn't notice that the positions were also titles, I was switching to the wiki-style lowercase. Note that I reverted by editing and not by using the revert button because I had made other minor changes to the astronauts' pages. Thanks for letting me know. —Voidxor (talk) 07:30, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's why I didn't just rollback the edits, because your edits were doing useful fixes, so it wasn't just a matter of reverting. :) Thanks for the fixes! I hope you have a happy holiday! Ariel♥Gold 09:06, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Least I tried...Casey Novak

[1] Sorry I didn't see you attempt to fix it after you added in the Copyedit-section tag. -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 06:27, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

It's okay. Sorry if I was touchy in my edit summary. In the past I've tagged obviously-biased articles {{POV}}, only to have somebody remove the tag without addressing the issue. Usually it's an editor who has contributed heavily to the article, and is no doubt watching it. Of course they don't feel there's a POV issue; they wrote it! Hence my paranoia over premature tag removal. —voidxor (talk | contrib) 07:52, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Funny how I never really even contributed to that section, nevermind that. Apology accepted. Next time when you add a tag like that to an article, you should actually attempt fixing it the issue like I did...Even if you have no idea on the topic, you still can fix it, hence my little annoyance when an editor tags something then just leaves it. Anyway, barring that, Happy Editing. Thank You -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 08:09, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Alright, thanks! I usually only tag an article if I have no clue how to attack a problem, or don't have time to mess with it. Yes, I'm delegating the work for other editors to do, but that doesn't annul my reason for placing the tag. In the case of Casey Novak, it was when I saw you change "She..." to "Novak..." that I got the idea to simply diversify the pronouns, and leave the bulk of the text alone. Please note that I mean no offense when tagging an article, and that I never accused you of having written the Character section; I was simply drawing an example from my past experience. This isn't personal. —voidxor (talk | contrib) 17:59, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay...sorry if what I said above ^ may of been a little bit of a stretch. Thank You, for your explanation. -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 11:02, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Voidxor

I left a note on the talkpage of the International space station article, explaining my bad behavior. hope that helps, I also hope you'll help out too, as you seem to have some insight into punctuation and grammar, which I am terrible at, I'm going to overhaul the ISS article over the coming months, and although I have an uncanny knack for writing good factual up-to-the-minute information, my grammar is appauling. Look forward to seeing you about and working with you. Penyulap _talk 09:25, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation. I see you have a deep interest in space, and it's great that you contribute your interest to Wikipedia! I'll try to assist with grammar whenever I have time to do so. —voidxor (talk | contrib) 17:38, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

You've spotted my woeful ineptitude ! Yes I'm pathetic at English it's true, though there are a lot of copyeditors who stop by that article so it's not a problem. The ENG:VAR is a problem, it's been a problem for ages, and having taken a neutral stance in the arguments long ago in an attempt to help calm the waters makes me honor-bound not to propose any solution, if there is one. Circumstances have recently changed, removing all stumbling blocks and obstacles that have made fixing it a problem in the past. Looking at your userpage was quite refreshing, and amusing, and I also see you speak pretty much everything there is to speak. I'd invite you if you have time to have a look and offer any opinion or proposal you see fit. Penyulap _talk 10:25, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Huh?! I didn't accuse you of ineptitude. And what does the rest of this have to do with me? —voidxor (talk | contrib) 18:25, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

No, you didn't accuse me of ineptitude, I accused me of ineptitude ! It's true I'm terrible, at grammar. Sorry I wasn't trying to be contentious at all.

The Eng:var has nothing to do with you, it's just something that I want to stir interest in generally. It's just me trying to ask people to have a say, but nobody needs to, or wants to, take an interest in it at the moment. It's all good. It'll come up again on a regular basis, it always does. Penyulap _talk 03:00, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of memory fragmentation page

Sir, You have deleted the memory fragmentation page and redirected it to fragmentation(computers) page. However, fragmentation in computers is a broad concept . It includes various forms like file-fragmetation , disk fragmentation , external hard disk fragmentation , memory fragmentation etc. The memory fragmentation article was specifically aimed at giving information about system memory fragmentation (which leads to performance degradation. Consequently, I had given suitable information about factors like overhead and memory allocator policy. There is an article on wikipedia related to file fragmentation!!! I feel there should be no problem if there is also an article related specifically to memory fragmentation as viewers will get well-grouped , better information on this topic. I hope you remove the redirection and discuss this topic once. Rushikesh ghatpande (talk) 07:31, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't have the ability to delete pages; the Memory fragmentation article was deleted by an administrator (see the deletion log). The stated reason was A10: Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic. This refers to Fragmentation (computer), from which you had clearly copied text. What little you added, in an attempt to be memory-specific, does not warrant a separate article. Fragmentation is the same phenomenon regardless of the medium: memory, file, disk, internal, external. If there are subtle differences, they should be mentioned in the fragmentation article.

You may want to see Wikipedia:Why was my page deleted?. In addition, your English is very poor. Perhaps you could contribute more effectively on the Hindi Wikipedia. —voidxor ^{(talk | contrib)} 06:40, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

ThankYou regarding file systems API

I am glad to know that someone at least reads the article I updated. A severe deficiency in the wiki is not knowing if anyone reads what you write.

Regarding references, most of what I have written (especially in this area) are generalized and non-platform specific. I have had extensive personal experience over 40 years. I find it difficult to spend time researching a reference to support my writing. Some of which is no longer available. It's hard enough finding the time to write the article. It's not that I disagree with the concept.

If "I" were to author a book, would it be appropriate to write an article and reference my book?

Any suggestions would be appreciated. DG12 (talk) 15:48, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Regarding readership, Wikipedia's policy is that editors should be blind to page-view stats because it promotes hit-count competition among editors and among articles. However, feel free to use this third-party hit counter to satisfy your curiosity.

On references, please be careful not to contribute original research. If you are indeed paraphrasing information you learned elsewhere, please cite those sources. I know it's annoying, but it's necessary. Otherwise, other editors look at your contributions and wonder, "Does this contain original research, plagiarizism, copyright violations, libel, bias, or plain ol' falsehoods?"

Obviously it's preferable to cite your own book than nothing at all. But even with good intentions, it looks suspicious. Ideally, another editor will write the article using your book as a source. —voidxor ^{(talk | contrib)} 02:45, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Rollback

I have granted rollback rights to your account; the reason for this is because after a review of some of your contributions, I believe you can be trusted to use rollback correctly: for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck and thanks. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:01, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Fantastic! Thanks! – voidxor ^{(talk | contrib)} 21:20, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

What are you doing?

You created a huge mess in the CFR article by deleting the paragraph that leads into the cite of the Kelleher case, which results in a horribly confusing non sequitur. (That's what was being discussed on the talk page.) Plus it sounds like you are unfamiliar with federal administrative law, in which the plain English manuals are often more important for day-to-day contact with federal agencies than the regulations or statutes (unless one is dealing directly with agency lawyers). Famous examples are the USPTO's MPEP, IRS's IRM, SSA's POMS, and the CMS Online Manual System. --Coolcaesar (talk) 14:15, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Well then I suppose you can cite it, right? No? Can't find a reliable source for your opinions and weasel words:

• "...must be carefully drafted in highly technical language..."
• "Unfortunately, the vast majority of employees of the federal government are not lawyers..."
• "...it would ask too much to force them to directly read, interpret, and apply the convoluted content of the CFR..."
• "...very simple language that any layperson can follow..."

I will try to repair any continuity error I caused in the article's prose. That doesn't negate my reasons for removing "your" unreferenced text, however. Please work with me to repair the problem, instead of name calling in edit summaries. – voidxor ^{(talk | contrib)} 02:14, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I.e. and e.g.

Never? If that is the rule, then please discuss it with our Manual of Style people, so that rule will be observed more strictly than what our present guideline recommends. Art LaPella (talk) 19:23, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Alright. I worded that too definitively. I think I had confused the MOS (comma may or may not be used) with what I had learned in school (no comma). Although I personally dislike redundant punctuation, I shan't edit it in the future. – voidxor ^{(talk | contrib)} 05:55, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Domain Names are case insensitive

Domain Names are case insensitive, see Domain_names#Technical_requirements_and_process • Sbmeirow • Talk • 15:55, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I know. Most people write them as lowercase though to avoid author-dependent arbitrary capitalization. The domain name www.EXamPLE.com is permissible, for example, but is not how most people type it.

While we're criticizing each other's capitalization, "Domain Names" is not a proper noun and should not be capitalized other than the first word in a sentence. – voidxor ^{(talk | contrib)} 05:38, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Come to the First Topeka Meetup, January 15!

Come celebrate Wikipedia Day with other Kansas Wikipedians sponsored by Wikimedians Active in Local Regions in the United States (WALRUS) and hosted by the Topeka and Shawnee Public Library. Come chat, hang out and enjoy good company while find out more about Wikipedia in our regional community! RSVP at Wikipedia:Meetup/Topeka/Wikipedia_Day.

If you can't come, but still want to find out about events in the greater Topeka region sign up for future notifications at Wikipedia:Meetup/Topeka/Invite list.

Hope to see you there Sadads (talk) 20:02, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I've already signed up! – voidxor ^{(talk | contrib)} 05:13, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Samsung Rugby Smart - ClockworkMod ?

Hi Voidxor

My name is Tom (refreshmanager@gmail.com). I saw your Rugby Smart in ClockworkMod Recovery Mode, that was suprise me. I'm currently using Rugby Smart, i'm finding all elements to make ClockworkMod Recovery works on my phone, but turn out the result is failed. Can you tell me how you can run ClockworkMod on Rugby Smart ?

Thanks for participate.

Best regard Tom — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.187.68.29 (talk) 12:36, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

From the external links section of the Samsung Rugby Smart article, first root your Rugby Smart. Second, replace the stock recovery, Third, install CyanogenMod 9. Note that these procedures will wipe all of your data! – voidxor ^{(talk | contrib)} 07:33, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Nice to meet you

Hi there, it was nice to meet with you at the meetup. It was nice to talk to you and find a active wikipedian in kansas. So I created a GLAM group for kansas, mailing list for topeka and a facebook page linked from here Wikipedia:Meetup/Topeka . I would like to organize some more meetups at different historic sites in topeka (and even lawrence), go there and take photos, collect information and work on the articles. It could be a great group event. please let me know what you think, and sign up on the mailing list if you like. we also took pictures of the evening if you want to review them or publish some.

it would be great to organize a meetup in Lawrence next, please help compile a list of GLAM items for Lawrence and we can start to go there as well.

thanks, James Michael DuPont (talk) 13:56, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

It was nice to meet you too! I would be glad to help your efforts (as I'm available, anyway). But as I said, I'm not familiar with GLAM or Wikipedia's classroom efforts yet, and would prefer to take a backseat role. I'm sure I'll learn how these operate from you and Sadads. For now, just tell me when and where! By "GLAM items for Lawrence", are you asking for my recommendation on venues? – voidxor ^{(talk | contrib)} 08:16, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

thanks on Lightspeed

Nice to see a domain matter expert on Lightspeed Financial. Cheers, tedder (talk) 05:11, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Need clarification

Hi Voidxor,

Thanks for welcoming me to Wikipedia. I'm obviously a rookie as I noticed that you keep undoing my changes to the unRAID section of the Non-standard RAID levels. I work for the company that invented and sells unRAID, which has been around since 2005. Can you me understand how to make my changes stick?

Re: uncited paragraph - If I add a link (to our website page that talks about the benefits of unRAID) to the paragraph that talks about the advantages of unRAID, will that do? Re: Capitalization - Wasn't sure what you were referring to here. If it was regarding changing "UnRAID", "unRAID" is the correct capitalization, but you were probably referring to something else. Re: Missing spaces - Wasn't sure about this one. Re: Breaking existing references - If we think existing references are inappropriate, how do we get those changed?

Thanks. Lorimer9 (talk) 01:19, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Please note that I did not undo all of your changes; I undid some and fixed some in an effort to cleanup the Non-standard RAID levels article to Wikipedia's standards. Every paragraph is expected to be properly cited, although sometimes a single reference can be used to validate the facts in multiple paragraphs in which case it will appear at least once per paragraph. As far as capitalization, I did correct "UnRAID" to "unRAID". Look at the diff for my edit to see a side by side comparison of what I've changed. As far as spaces, I corrected "asthe" to "as the". As far as breaking existing references, don't start the URL by duplicating "http://".

There's nothing wrong with being a rookie; every editor has been one at one point. However, the bigger issues here are your apparent conflict of interest and citing of your company's website—a primary source. – voidxor ^{(talk | contrib)} 07:35, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

William Blake Editathon at KSU

The GLAM-Wiki Collaboration with the William Blake Archive would like to invite you to join us either digitally or physically in Manhattan, Kansas for a William Blake Editathon at the Beach Museum of Art at Kansas State University on Oct. 11. For more information or to sign up go to the editathon page, Sadads (talk) 13:23, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

You are receiving this message because your username was listed at Wikipedia:Meetup/Kansas/Invite list. If you don't want to hear more about meetups in the region, please remove yourself from that list.

I work normal business hours—maybe next time! – voidxor ^{(talk | contrib)} 04:27, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

November 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Nested RAID levels may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s and 2 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. 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:

• {{See also|Non-standard RAID levels#Linux MD RAID 10]]

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 05:11, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Good find BracketBot! I have fixed my typo. Thanks! – voidxor ^{(talk | contrib)} 05:40, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for helping with my posting!

Hi Voidxor, Thanks so much for helping with my posting. I was motivated to add information to "silo" and "stovepipe" wiki pages to credit my father who coined the original term "functional silo syndrome". Might you be interested in making similar improvements to Stovepipe (organisation) and Stovepiping? I greatly appreciate your sending me the help information and will definitely take a look at that.

Susanlynn123 (talk) 04:08, 22 October 2013 (UTC)susanlynn123

Thanks for the feedback! I'm glad I could help and will gladly take a look at the other two articles. – voidxor ^{(talk | contrib)} 06:21, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Voidxor! In spite of "functional silo syndrome" and "information silo" sharing the term "silo", I believe that "functional silo syndrome" in its original definition relates more to organizations and is a closer match to the wiki page "stovepipe (organisation)." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Susanlynn123 (talk • contribs) 09:30, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

If "functional silo syndrome" is that different from information silo, perhaps it should be a standalone article. It would have to be notable, though. – voidxor ^{(talk | contrib)} 21:05, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Do you think another possibility might be shifting the Etymology section and references from the "information silo" wiki page to the "stovepipe (organisation)" wiki page? Susanlynn123 (talk) 07:08, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I personally wouldn't because "etymology" is the origin of a word or phrase and "functional silo syndrome" does nothing to explain what stoves and their pipes have to do with business information. – voidxor ^{(talk | contrib)} 06:39, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

RAID: Revision history on 05:54, 25 November 2013

Voidxor, I note that you undid my revision 583060599 by mike.pietrzyk on the RAID 10 portion of the table with the following comment: “That depends on the number of drives in each RAID 1 array (there can be more than two!)” I agree, but based on a write performance of (n/2)X I had assumed a series of 2 disk mirrors. I would like to suggest we change the space efficiency from: "2/n" to: "(Number of RAID 1 sets)/n". The Read and Write performance would then be: (Number of RAID 1 sets)X. I would also suggest we change the text of "limit 5" from: "Raid 10 can only lose one drive per span up to the max of 2/n drives." to: "Raid 10 can only lose one drive per span." With you approval, Mike Mike.pietrzyk (talk) 18:05, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Those changes look great to me! I suggest we come up with another variable for the number of RAID 1 sets, perhaps "m". Also, please note that you never need my approval to make a change, but collaboration is always appreciated! – voidxor ^{(talk | contrib)} 07:30, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Your reversion of my edit to "Nested RAID levels"

Greetings and felicitations. I notice that you reverted my edit to the Nested RAID levels article. I added the {{clear}} template because in wide browser windows the image in the "RAID 60 (RAID 6+0)" section protrudes well into the "References" section. Would you please be so kind as to undo your reversion?—DocWatson42 (talk) 09:25, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I understand the purpose of the {{Clear}} template. In this particular case, however, there is already a {{Clear}} template just below the ==References== heading. Either way, the image is kept from interfering with the reference list columns. The benefit of having the template below ==References== is that the height of the References heading is utilized left of the image, where there would otherwise be an inch more white space. – voidxor ^{(talk | contrib)} 06:02, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I beg your pardon—not everyone has understood the template's purpose in these cases. I had not noticed the other {{clear}} template, and though I would esthetically prefer the trade-off of more white space (in the See also section) for the image not intruding into the References section, I will bow out and not continue to argue the case furhter.—DocWatson42 (talk) 23:21, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits

This guideline outlines the ordering of section WP:MEDMOS. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:58, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Upcoming Wikimedia event in Lawrence Kansas!

You are invited to the Lawrence Wikipedia Tutorial on April 8, 2014 at the Lawrence Public Library. Experienced editors invited to help new users learn how to use the Wikipedia and build the community in Lawrence, Kansas. See Lawrence Wikipedia Tutorial.

James Michael DuPont (talk) 21:36, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Count me in! – voidxor ^{(talk | contrib)} 04:14, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Raid 10 Attributes

Raid 10 in all cases I have ever seen has two mirrored drives per span. The space efficiency 2/n does not accurately depict the standard configuration. However, given a non-standard configuration of 3 or more drives per span 2/n does not work either. I believe the best representation for space efficiency for RAID 10 should be spans/n.

The Read performance of (n/spans)x is also misleading. This would infer the read performance only increase with striping and not the mirrors. If this was true the read performance for RAID 1 should be 1x. Rtw915 (talk) 13:25, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Please keep in mind that this is an encyclopedia and not limited to the cases you've seen. That said, if you provide citations to reliable sources with your additions, they have a better chance of standing. – voidxor ^{(talk | contrib)} 05:26, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

PDU page

Greetings Voidxor. As a new Wikipedia user, can you explain to me the difference between the other links you've removed from the Wikipedia "Protocol Distribution Unit (PDU)" page and the APC link that remains? I can't understand what relevant information it leads to besides an APC product page. I'm trying to understand Wikipedia's conflict of interest and advertisement policies. I understand plagiarism is unacceptable in the Wikipedia community, but seeing as you've seemingly removed all of the other links I can't grasp the concept fully. Please expain if you would. Your explanation may allow me to edit Wikipedia without having my edits reverted. Thank you. Techguy4792 (talk) 16:45, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Which article are we talking about, power distribution unit? If so, which edits are yours? It appears that you haven't edited that article. – voidxor ^{(talk | contrib)} 05:15, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

My apologies. Yes, Power distribution unit- I must have seen "Protocol Data Unit" when searching PDU. I was going to add information from various companies but read the talk page first to learn more and saw your explanation to user IsItJustFantasy. Rather than waste my time adding information that will be changed, I figured I should ask you first. I got the impression that adding any company's information would ultimately result in a reversion. Can you please clarify the difference between the APC source and others that have been removed? Techguy4792 (talk) 14:34, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

It looks like you are doing your do diligence, which is good. Helpful additions to Wikipedia are always appreciated. As long as you don't plagiarize (which would be a violation of the WP:COPYVIO policy), advertize (a violation of WP:SPAM), or add material that supports your own company or criticizes competitors (see WP:COI), you should be fine. Welcome to Wikipedia and happy editing! – voidxor ^{(talk | contrib)} 06:15, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

So I read the advertising page, and my question remains. What is the difference between the APC link that is still on the page and all the other company links that have been removed? From what I can tell, that APC link serves the same purpose as all of the other links that were taken down and it should also be removed for advertising since it presents no pertinent information and just leads to an APC product list (if it does contain relevant info, please explain how). Again, I'm just trying to understand what constitutes advertising for a specific company. If there isn't a valid reason for the link, it should be taken down like the rest. Thanks Techguy4792 (talk) 18:03, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

The APC page is a reference; it supports the facts in the paragraph followed by the little ^[4] citation. Other links and references would likely have been removed for violating WP:COI, WP:SPAM, or WP:COPYVIO. I would be glad to narrow it down further if you could provide an example of a link that was removed, or the date of its removal. – voidxor ^{(talk | contrib)}

OK, but this APC page doesn't support any of the facts in the paragraph. It is simply a product list. There is one paragraph of information in the reference, and unless I'm missing something here, the link to APC serves no purpose. If you disagree, can you point out what claims are specifically supported by this reference? I don't see any. Techguy4792 (talk) 15:14, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Keep in mind I did not add the reference to APC. That said, it does appear to support the fact that cabinet PDUs are typically used in data centers, are often multiphase, and feature top and bottom cable entry. – voidxor ^{(talk | contrib)} 23:20, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your help

Thanks for your help with the wikipedia tutorial, we received a small check for that day and I would like to share it with your.

We have two upcoming events, http://flosokaks.thefr33.com/events/wiki-warriors for the next two thursdays from 2-4 at the library

and the makerfaire kc : https://sites.google.com/site/flosokaks/events/makerfairekc

if you want to join us,

mike James Michael DuPont (talk) 12:07, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the offer, but I attended the event at the library as a volunteer effort. Would you mind donating my portion to either the Wikimedia Foundation or the Electronic Frontier Foundation? You are certainly welcome to put it in my name if you choose.

Since I work normal business hours, I'll be unable to attend Wiki Warriors. I'll let you know if I plan to attend the MakerFaire. – voidxor ^{(talk | contrib)} 04:36, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Citations

Ref your deletion at Lead-acid battery. I have restored the marterial. Wikipedia does not require citations for everything and particularly not for anything regarded as common knowledge. Wikipedia only demands that the claim is documented somewhere. For example: a citation is not required for a claim that the sky is blue. The phenomonon of sulphation is widely understood throughout the electrical engineering industry and widely documented in any text book that covers lead-acid batteries. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 10:28, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Please do not compare complex chemistry to the fact that the sky is blue; chemistry that is obvious to you might not be obvious to everybody. Also, I'm in the electrical engineering industry and cannot substantiate any of that content with my personal knowledge. I would like to see the material cited—as would the person who added the {{Refimprove section}} tag.

And please read Wikipedia:You do need to cite that the sky is blue before using so-called "common knowledge" as an excuse for omitting citations in the future. Thanks. – voidxor ^{(talk | contrib)} 05:35, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

July 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Compact car 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.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• | Minicompact car || < {{Convert|85|cuft|m3|abbr=on}}
• [[File:Vauxhall Astra Mk6 002.jpg|thumb|[[Vauxhall Astra]], a re-branded [[Opel Astra]] ([[General Motors]] Group<ref>{{cite web |title=UK July 2012: Mercedes C-Class hits highest ranking

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 06:14, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I was actually meaning to use the greater-than and less-than signs but have switched to HTML entities instead. Thanks BracketBot! – voidxor ^{(talk | contrib)} 04:59, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

"E.g." vs. "for example"

Hello there! Regarding your revert, it's just fine and the only reason why I originally went with substituting "e.g." with "for example" is because I've read somewhere in the Manual of Style (or somewhere else, hm?) that the non-abbreaviated form is preferred as "e.g." is estimated to be dying off slowly etc. Unfortunately, I'm unable to find that recommendation again. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 08:30, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Glossary of rail transport terms

There is currently a discussion at WP:ANI regarding mass deletion of content. The thread is Unneeded mass deletion of content in Glossary of rail transport terms.The discussion is about the topic Glossary of rail transport terms. Thank you.

--Aaron-Tripel (talk) 20:21, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

RAID-Z (non-standard RAID levels)

Hello there. First and foremost, I want to apologize if I came off as accusing you of malice for removing the RAID-Z section. I was just confused why the section was deleted while a user was actively editing it. Secondly, I'd like to take you up on your offer in aiding to re-build the section. I'm not an advanced Wikipedian by any means, but I'd like to improve that section because of the importance it holds. Thank you for any help you are able to offer Jchap1590 (talk) 04:14, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Don't worry about it; I didn't take offense to anything you said, and I certainly didn't feel that you were accusing me of malice.

As far as "while a user was actively editing it", how was anybody supposed to know that you were actively editing it? Your changes are only seen by others when you click the "Save page" button. Nobody can see you typing. If your worried about being interrupted while you take your time with your edits, try building your content and adding suitable references in a sandbox, and then copying and pasting your wiki code into the article all at once.

I'm glad you help you or the article however I can. Just let me know where you need assistance. – voidxor ^{(talk | contrib)} 04:43, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I could use some help making the diagrams showing how the blocks are mirrored (like in standard RAID levels), which can be found on pages 3, 4 & 6 of this paper: ZFS and RAID-Z: The Über-FS?. I'm not sure how to do that. Thanks, Jchap1590 (talk) 18:45, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not very skilled at making vector graphics. Cburnett made the diagrams on Standard RAID levels. Perhaps you could try asking him for help on his talk page. – voidxor ^{(talk | contrib)} 05:05, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) As an alternative, you could simply put a detailed drawing request in our Graphics Lab/Illustration workshop. BTDT a few times, with great results. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 20:51, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the suggestions.. how can I create a sandbox and share it with you guys so I can get input on what I put together? Jchap1590 (talk) 19:16, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Rather than a sandbox (which would be routinely wiped), I'd suggest creating a subpage in your user space. For example, you could create a page at User:Jchap1590/RAID-Z, play with it all you want (no rush because it shouldn't be deleted), and ask Dsimic or myself for help as you find necessary. Then, when you're happy with your creation, simply copy and paste your code into the article. – voidxor ^{(talk | contrib)} 21:39, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Awesome! Thanks so much for the help :) I will notify once I've gotten a couple paragraphs together. Jchap1590 (talk) 01:58, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Glossary of rail transport terms, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 4-4-2. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 17:42, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Fixed! Thanks DPL bot! – voidxor ^{(talk | contrib)} 18:17, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

User talk:Peter Horn# November

American style truck showing the names of its parts. From US Army Field Manual FM 55-20, Figure 8-8, Department of the Army, Washington DC

Hello
Just because the 1970 Car and Locomotive Cyclopedia Of American Pracice Car and locomotive cyclopedia, is not readily available outside of the offices of the railway industry, that does not mean that that it is not a “reliable source”. Any edition of the so called CAR and LOCOMOTIVE CYCLOPEDIA has a ‘’General Index Car And Locomotive Parts And Products’’ (all caps theirs). In case of the 1970 edition it is on page 1055. Actually there are two kinds of center plates, a "female" one that is an integral part of the truck bolster and a "male" center plate that is attached to the rail car or is an integral part of an "end casting". The latter types do not appear on the illustration which shows only the "female" plate on the bolster. Peter Horn User talk 23:52, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

PS, mea culpa, it was not my intention to be sarcastic. I hope that Car and locomotive cyclopedia is a satisfactory reference. Peter Horn User talk 16:14, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Peter Horn, it's not that the Car and Locomotive 'Cyclopedia isn't a good reference; it's that your citation of it was lazily done. In order to ensure that you aren't plagiarizing or doing original research, Wikipedia readers and other editors need to be able to follow your citations back to your source of the facts. Saying, "See any edition of...," as you did, doesn't help anybody. You may know that any edition will discuss centerplates, but you need to name one. Which volume? Which page? Please spell out exactly where the rest of us can look to support the facts you're adding.

I assumed that you were taking a sarcastic shortcut to Wikipedia's citation requirement by saying, "See any edition of..." In other words, I thought that you were essentially communicating, "Yeah, I get that Voidxor wants me to cite my source, but come on! Everybody in the industry knows what a centerplate is!" If this is not the case, I apologize for accusing you of sarcasm. We'll work on citation skills together. Just let me know how I can help or if you have any questions.

Just FYI, if a source's formatting is to use ALL CAPS, it can be corrected to the grammatically appropriate capitalization (like Title Case, for titles) when used on Wikipedia.

Also, I personally wouldn't use that image in the glossary because it will be too small to read. If you happen to create a centerplate article (properly cited, of course), the image could be useful there. – voidxor ^{(talk | contrib)} 01:16, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Easely "fixed" by clicking on the image. Peter Horn User talk 13:39, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I know that, and you know that, but we should assume that not all readers know enough about Wikipedia to know that a thumbnail can be enlarged by clicking. Keep in mind, that's a feature of Wikipedia's user interface, and most websites don't do the same. – voidxor ^{(talk | contrib)} 17:46, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

There is a bit of a problem here. The center plate on a truck is not a part that can be separated from the truck bolster but is an integral, inseparable, part of that bolster and can therefore not be illustrated by itself except perhaps as an enlarged detail of the bolster. The bolster usually is a casting and the ring shown on the illustration is part of that casting. If the bolster is a weldment that ring is welded onto the rest of the bolster and the round flat space within that ring is called the center plate. I have started Truck parts. More later. Peter Horn User talk 15:43, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, there's no way to picture it without the details being too small to be legible. I was suggesting that we simply do without a photo on that particular definition. Not every definition needs a photo. For example, you can't really photograph a verb. Thus, it's totally fine to have a definition in the glossary without an associated image. – voidxor ^{(talk | contrib)} 18:12, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Ah yes, but the drawing above points to the center plate as well as all other parts and as such it is a nice stop gap especially if the image is enlarged. Click on the image and you'llbe given the source which happens to be the US army. Peter Horn User talk 21:14, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Come to think of it, one could incorporate the source info into the caption as a reference or citation. Peter Horn User talk 21:23, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

The Car and locomotive cyclopedia is an annual publication. It would not be practical to give page numbers for each separate edition. I happen to have the 1970 edition and the likely hood that anyone else might still have that edition are slim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter Horn (talk • contribs) 05:34, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Peter Horn, why is the idea of citing your sources so foreign to you? When you add facts to Wikipedia, you are expected to name the document where you learned said facts. Nobody is suggesting that you must list every possible source—just your source. It doesn't matter how old or rare that document is; just cite it (including the volume number and page number in this particular case, please)!

Also, the <ref>...</ref> tags go outside of the punctuation, not before the punctuation. – voidxor ^{(talk | contrib)} 00:16, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Date format in Linux articles

Hello! Any chances, please, for you to have a look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Software § Date format in release history sections of Linux articles and possibly comment there by providing your point of view? The whole thing is pretty much poorly discussed with only a few editors actually discussing it, while it seems to be affecting more than a few articles (and the date format seems to be extending beyond the tables into references, please see history of the Linux distribution article). Any contributions to the discussion would be highly appreciated! — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 02:39, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Dsimic, I've worked with you on the RAID articles for awhile now, so you probably know that I prefer the ISO date format anywhere that space is tight, like tables and references. Are you sure that you aren't canvassing? – voidxor ^{(talk | contrib)} 23:39, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, ISO dates are fine per se, and I'm not trying to influence the outcome of that discussion. There were simply too few editors trying to establish a new WikiProject guideline, and some of them weren't open to a sensible discussion. With more editors participating in that discussion, a broader consensus could be reached, which may be whatever we end up with. At the same time, that guideline-to-be already started to be applied to more than a few articles, even before it's established, what pretty much urged for opinions from more editors. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 03:49, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I'll read it and comment. I'm always glad to through in my two cents. – voidxor ^{(talk | contrib)} 03:52, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 03:57, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:The Wikipedia Library/Journals

Hey Voidxor, you should take advantage of some of the donations at WP:The Wikipedia Library/Journals. We like to make sure that Wikipedia editors get access to high quality sources when they need it. If you think one of the open access opportunities would be beneficial, I would strongly recommend applying for them! Sadads (talk) 16:55, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm aware of these offers but haven't had a need as of yet. I'll apply the next time I run into a pay wall. – voidxor ^{(talk | contrib)} 18:28, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Good luck

Trying to get attention to the unreferenced content at "species" article. It looks like this has been going on forever, with a couple editors insisting that the way it is, is the way it is. It will take a commitment of several editors to make anything happen there, I think. 50.141.76.6 (talk) 13:47, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I'll watch the article and insist that the situation you speak of doesn't get worse. Unfortunately, some editors love their soapbox so much that they will fight to the death to defend it. For the rest of us, we can't verify the facts as given—or even that they weren't plagiarized! – voidxor ^{(talk | contrib)} 06:24, 28 November 2014 (UTC)