Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computing

Requested move at Talk:Hot-potato and cold-potato routing#Requested move 29 August 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Hot-potato and cold-potato routing#Requested move 29 August 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. —usernamekiran (talk) 04:09, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Some help for an Articles for deletion.

I've recently nominated the article Herb Sutter for deletion here. Would love for some additional participants to help us reach a consensus. Industrial Insect (talk) 18:48, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Closed keep ~Kvng (talk) 14:35, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Requested move: Hewlett-Packard and HP Inc.

See Talk:HP Inc.#Merge request Chiffonr (talk) 18:20, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

PDP-8 and the PDP series

The article PDP-9 says: "The 18-bit PDP systems preceding the PDP-9 were the PDP-1, PDP-4 and PDP-7. Its successor was the PDP-15." Wasn't the PDP-8 in there? Also, the predecessor/successor in the info box don't include the PDP-8. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:46, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

OK, I see that these are 18-bit computers, whereas the PDP-8 line are 12-bit computers. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 04:43, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

More opinions needed - is Intel 7 a 7nm or 10nm process?

There is a discussion at Talk:7 nm process § Intel 7 regarding whether the "Intel 7" process node (previously known as 10nm Enhanced SuperFin) should belong in the 7 nm process article, or in the 10 nm process article. One side argues that it should be in 10nm article because most reliable sources call it a 10nm process, while the other side argues that it belongs in 7nm because its density and clock speed characteristics are as good as, if not, better than 7nm process nodes from competing foundries like TSMC or Samsung, and also a lot better than 10nm nodes from the competitors. Any help or more opinions on this matter would be greatly appreciated!

Thanks. — AP 499D25 (talk) 09:08, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

BitTorrent

Today I cleaned up the messy and overloaded intro of the BitTorrent article. It at least looks a ton better over there but there's still a lot of work that need to be done to the rest of the article. There's a lack of sources in too many places, and I think some restructuring is much needed. Anyone willing to improve the article is welcome. (on a side note, I am thinking of nominating Torrent file for deletion). Chifonr (talk) 12:45, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Third party opinion on a hacking claim wanted

At Talk:Julian Assange#Mubarak closing mobile services there is a discussion about According to Andrew O'Hagan, during the 2011 Egyptian revolution when Mubarak tried to close the mobile phone networks, Assange and others at WikiLeaks "hacked into Nortel and fought against Mubarak’s official hackers to reverse the process".". This is supported by a reliable source but no independant source has been found saying any hacking by anyone happened. I think the author probably confused the then current situation with something about Assange in 1991. Report: Egypt Shut Down Net With Big Switch, Not Phone Calls gives a timeline. Do you think what is described sounds reasonable or is extraordinary? If extraordinary then an independent source is required. NadVolum (talk) 10:54, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Context and quotes

O'Hagan said At the time of the Egyptian uprising, Mubarak tried to close down the country’s mobile phone network, a service that came through Canada. Julian and his gang hacked into Nortel and fought against Mubarak’s official hackers to reverse the process. The revolution continued and Julian was satisfied, sitting back in our remote kitchen eating chocolates. [1] Some RSes quote and attribute this

and During my time with Assange there was a moment, it was during the uprising in Cairo, and it became obvious to Mubarak, the leader there, only too late that the revolution was essentially being organized by Blackberries, by social media, and by people fully in connection on their phones. So he closed down the Internet in the country, and I have to give him credit for it. It was an amazing thing to watch. It was new to the novel, new to the cinema, new to any sort of reportage that I’d ever encountered, was that five young people, young hackers in this house, me leaning my back against this typical English Aga, as they went to war from this house with Mubarak’s official hackers, going through the portals of a Canadian telecommunications supplier and fighting them in those dark corridors and finally beating them. [2] said live

Timeline shows intelligence service continues to shut down remaining ISPs until they restored it, so shut down never finished

Related talk Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#What_to_do_when_a_reliable_source_says_something_but_no_evidence_and_it_seems_very_unlikely? Softlem (talk) 11:10, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

See ISP for what they do, an ISP connects a user to the internet. If an ISP can't connect to the world wide web then it can only provide a very limited service to its customers including voice and SMS. The Ramses exchange connected the ISPs to each other and the world wide web and was shut down. The mobile phone voice service was mostly closed down but then allowed to operate again after one day. Analog landlines were not affected by the shutdown. What a portal of a telecoms equipment manufacturer in Canada can do in such circumstances I haven't the foggiest idea and I'd be frankly amazed if Egyptian intelligence officers bothered hacking it. Though I do know the Chinese hacked it to steal their manufacturing designs! NadVolum (talk) 12:20, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

If an ISP can't connect to the world wide web then it can only provide a very limited service And if a service that came through Canada was shut down in Canada then it would never reach Egypt

Please stay on topic. The mobile phone voice service was mostly closed down but then allowed to operate again after one day. Analog landlines were not affected by the shutdown. has nothing to do with what O'Hagan said since we found the second source where he says it was the internet, I thought it might be about calls but the second source sounds like I was wrong. What a portal of a telecoms equipment manufacturer in Canada Nortel did more than that they did telecom and wireline, optical, wireless networking and they bought companies that did too can do in such circumstances I haven't the foggiest idea and I'd be frankly amazed if Egyptian intelligence officers bothered hacking it. What you dont know doesnt help Though I do know the Chinese hacked it to steal their manufacturing designs!

I gave source quotes and links. Our opinions and OR dont matter. If you want the project to say something we should let them. If you want to argue, go to Talk:Julian_Assange#Mubarak_closing_mobile_services. Edtirs here know where to look Softlem (talk) 12:33, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Your "What you dont know doesn't help" is why I'm here. If people here can't figure out a way hacking in Canada can help when the internet in Egypt is switched off then it really is an extraordinary claim. We may all be ignorant and there is a way but it would still be an extraordinary claim. NadVolum (talk) 12:55, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Your "What you dont know doesn't help" is why I'm here. I know its why posted here, saying it again doesnt help

If people here can't figure out a way hacking in Canada can help when the internet in Egypt is switched off Please stop oversimplifying the timeline and what O'Hagan said

then it really is an extraordinary claim People here not being able to reverse solve something more than 10 years after without all the skill Assange had and information Wikileaks had then, more than we have, doesnt make it an extraordinary claim. If they say its impossible that going through the portals of a company that does telecom and wireline, optical, wireless networking and helped build Egypt's telecom infrastructure before, can help when Egypt's mobile phone network came through Canada and Egypt tried to shut it down then its probably an extraordinary claim

For now we should leave it for the people here Softlem (talk) 13:20, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

An alternative that Assange was telling him of his exploits in 1991 and he mixed it up with the current events in 2011 is altogether quite easily possible. NadVolum (talk) 10:04, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

The bit that probably is true is that the people with Assange cheered when the internet was switched back on after five days. But it is pretty obvious they played no part in that and "fighting them in those dark corridors and finally beating them" is a bullshit interpretation of what was happening by O'Hagan. Assange's team couldn't switch on the Ramses exchange and the ISPs did what the government told them to do. NadVolum (talk) 10:21, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

You wanted WikiProject opinions. Stop giving yours and telling them what to think and what is pretty obvious and what your WP:OR and WP:SPECULATION is Softlem (talk) 11:59, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

It was you who went on that it had to be impossible before it could be considered extraordinary - and then only probably extraordinary! Why are you so desperate to include this stupidity without even the tiniest corroboration and when some non-technical bloke like him could easily make the obvious mistake? NadVolum (talk) 12:48, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

It was you who said that people here had to explain it to you or it was extraordinary. Why are you so desperate to exclude something that has 6 or more sources it?

Im just asking you to not stop WP:BLUDGEONING and wait for someone here to reply and until then accept @HaeB told you Reliable sources do not owe you "evidence". You are a Wikipedia editor, not a judge in a criminal court case or a peer reviewer of submissions to a scientific journal.

If you want opinions from WikiProject stop bludgeoning and wait for them to reply. If you want to say you know better than the RS who saw it, find something new to say or wait for a question or get an RS to publish you so we can cite you Softlem (talk) 13:01, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Would you just stop with that six sources please. They all are just quoting Andrew O'Hagan, and attributing it to him. They are citations showing he said it, nothing else. There was no reason for any of them to have it fact checked. That is the sort of thing that makes me ask why are you so desperate to haveit in? NadVolum (talk) 15:54, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

I said they all attribute it to him.

There was no reason for any of them to have it fact checked. You asked at Verifiability and HaeB said all these reliable sources have made a judgment about his statements

why are you so desperate to haveit in? You said you would support its inclusion if you actually believed there was some truth in it rather than O'Hagan mixing up things by mistake. Why are you so desperate to remove something you agree is DUE because of OR? You wanted this process and comments so let the process happen and wait for comments and assume good faith Softlem (talk) 16:11, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

As to my reasons it alleges Assange once again hacked Nortel like he did in 1991 and was convicted of. As far as I can see every single one of O'Hagan's statements about it has big problems. I don't think it is right to reproduce an allegation of a crime with such unlikely evidence without any backup. Especially when he could easily have mixed it up with 1991. Just about anything besides another quote of what Andrew O'Hagen said is all I'm asking for, for instance that Nortel really did control part of the mobile phone service or its systems were hacked or some evidence of hacking in Egypt during the shutdown or some explanation of how he could actually do anything in Egypt. I don't require evidence Assange restored the internet after defeating Mubarak's hackers like Andrew says. What are your reasons for wanting it in? NadVolum (talk) 16:44, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

What are your reasons for wanting it in? Its DUE like you said and an RS saw it and like HaeB said reliable sources have made a judgment about his statements and no one denied it Softlem (talk) 17:16, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Those reliable sources are just others copying what O'Hagan said and saying he said it. They're not independent sources and they're not even in the least interested if it is true or not, they're just doing things like advertising his book. You just shouldn't do that, it's wrong. I'm finding it hard to assume good faith on youtr part. NadVolum (talk) 01:56, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Anyway I'm abandoning this. It is obvious nobody on this project is going to respond and I'm not going to find people with relevant experience elsewhere to give an opinion. I'm sorry it is so easy for rubbish to be stuck into Wikipedia. NadVolum (talk) 08:01, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

References

Requested move at Talk:Convertible laptop#Requested move 11 October 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Convertible laptop#Requested move 11 October 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 15:33, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

CMSwire at WP:RSN

Here canvassing in an attempt to get more discussion for a topic I started at RSN related to the publication cmswire.com. Since the source is pertinent to this project and used on a lot of pages that fall under this project, would hope someone can weight in on the discussion. CNMall41 (talk) 04:18, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

The 'country' of Razer Inc.

See Talk:Razer Inc.#"American-Singaporean" where I questioned whether Razer is best described as an 'American-Singaporean' company. Cfsprt (talk) 14:49, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello, Please note that 3dfx, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 13 November 2023 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team

FAR for Digital media use and mental health

I have nominated Digital media use and mental health for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:02, 24 November 2023 (UTC)