Misplaced Pages

User talk:Mdwh

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Gatoclass (talk | contribs) at 06:36, 2 May 2006 (→pre-emptive multitasking). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 06:36, 2 May 2006 by Gatoclass (talk | contribs) (→pre-emptive multitasking)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

A welcome from Sango123

Hello, Mdwh, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions; I hope you like the place and decide to stay. We're glad to have you in our community! Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Though we all make goofy mistakes, here is what Misplaced Pages is not. If you have any questions or concerns, don't hesitate to see the help pages or add a question to the village pump. The Community Portal can also be very useful.

Happy editing!

-- Sango123 (talk) 00:23, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you need help with anything or simply wish to say hello. :)

Emo

Hey - if Deathrocker keeps adding the sentence about "nu emo" to the article, don't be afraid to remove it. The admins are already aware of his history of edit warring, and he doesn't seem to fear violating the three revert rule. (Just make sure not to violate it yourself.) -- ChrisB 17:41, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Blank user page

MySpace

Whatever your views on whether an article should contain certain information, it's a bit rude to cut it with an edit summary of "rv" and no further explanation. If you had not been logged in, that's the kind of edit I would revert as vandalism. I recognise you wrote a note on talk though. It would have come off a lot more friendly had you written "rv. See talk for reasons" or similar. Give it a try next time. Anyway, I've provided sources and tightened the paragraph up so I hope you'll agree that between us, we improved it, and that's the main thing. James James 02:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

There was nothing rude in my revert - to be honest, the addition itself looked like vandalism (yet another "some ppl on MySpace do such-and-such). You reverted, and then I took it to the Talk page, explaining my reasons, rather than engaging in an edit war. I don't see the need to justify everything one reverts on a talk page first time round, just as there is no need for everyone to justify every addition on the talk page. Did you explain your revert on the talk page, first time round? No. I've already brought this up on the talk page, before you posted this here, so I don't see what the point of bringing this up here is rather than debating the issue there. Mdwh 02:57, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
I justified my revert in the edit summary. You didn't bother. And you have now removed sourced information without sufficient explanation, except that you don't think it's "notable". You have not "debated it" on the talkpage. You didn't actually "debate it" anywhere. Your response is here, on your talkpage, not on mine, which I am only seeing by chance because I have come to ask why you have removed sourced information. It may not be notable that a large user community has nudity (although Misplaced Pages, a comparable community, does not have nude photos of its users that I know of), but it's of note that it specifically disallows it, that it still happens, and that it has been noted in the press. Not just that, but it is the stated reason for some schools' action against the site. Now I don't know what your standard of "notability" is, but I ask you to reconsider. Notability is not good grounds for censoring critical elements of a Misplaced Pages article, particularly when it's easy enough to establish it, as I have. James James 06:55, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
There is no requirement to discuss every change on Misplaced Pages before making it (see Misplaced Pages:Be Bold and Misplaced Pages:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle).
WP:CIVIL is about being rude, and "not making an edit summary" most certainly does not qualify.
I'm not sure what you mean by "removing sourced information" - rather than removing it, I have compromised by keeping it, but improving it in a way that reflects what is notable. Not being notable is a sufficient reason for removing something from Misplaced Pages, so that doesn't matter that it is my "only" reason.
Misplaced Pages works by people making edits. You seem to think you can make edits, and then have no one revert or change them. First you criticise my lack of an edit summary - but now you still criticise my change, despite my clear explanation. If you disagree with my change, then be bold and either improve it or revert it - or discuss on the Talk page.
Lastly, I'm replying here and not your talk page because you posted on my talk page, and it's awkward to split a discussion across two pages. Mdwh 22:56, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Political Friendster

In regards to listing at List of social networking sites, I would like to point out that Political Friendster is indeed a social network (and notable), as it utilizes the exact same premise of sites like Friendster and Myspace. Just because profiles of individuals are created by other people, does that not qualify it for the list? Individuals and organizations are created all the time in non-autobiographical ways on the other more "traditional" social networks and those are considered acceptable to list. Any comments? --Howrealisreal 02:10, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

AmigaOS

Howdy, the idea behind my edit of the Garbage description was to make it OS and country inclusive. Rather than compare something to one concept why not broaden it to something that a lot more people can relate to? Sure, 95% of people use Windows and 100% of people reading WP are from the USA (lol jokeing) But isn't assuming that your reader knowns only one simile being a bit narrow in your POV? (BTW all the Apples running OSX at my Uni refer to it as the wastebasket and I'm not in the UK)

I'm okay with leaving it as it stands but if you reconsider your stance then ... yay! Cheers, Monotonehell 14:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes I agree the important thing is that AmigaOS called it "trashcan". Mabey we should search to see if there are any more articles like Recycle Bin and merge them all into one good article that covers the concept generically and shows examples from all OSs? As having lots of silly OS specific articles is redundant. I especially like how the existing Recycle Bin article makes it sound like Win95 invented the concept and all other OSs 'renamed' it to "trash". How misleading.
Of course this would require a load of research and making a little historical "trash through the ages" essay. Sounds like work .. yuck. lol Monotonehell

"Gay Pride" series?

The originator of the Series put them on stuff we were editing (which was clearly about the Bisexual community). We were surprised, but assumed that it was just someone using "Gay Pride" in the generic sense and they meant what might currently be termed LGBT Pride.

So while finally getting around to some "housekeeping" we added them to relevant some "linked" articles to be polite.

But since you are the second person who has questioned it, I have already gone back to Series originator explained what happened and asked that very question.

We'll wait for answer and then proceed from there. Is that OK? CyntWorkStuff 23:34, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Goth article

That was a nice elimination of those parenthetical words. Well done. I have no idea what they meant, but I'm a bit timid with that particular article just at the moment. It's easy to stir up trouble on it inadvertently. :tape: Metamagician3000 08:54, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I did a whole lot yesterday to polish it back up as much as I could, and I see that you and others have since done a bit of work. I reckon this has now become a good article. How far away from featured article quality do you think it is? I suppose it might need more references to support it, but otherwise it looks like good stuff to me. Metamagician3000 07:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Just wanted to thank you for the pratical reverts you've done to the page recently. That's all :) --Adrift* 09:04, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

What do you think of my changes to the Amiga article?

Hi,

I've been messing considerably with the Amiga article, all in good faith of course. Please let me know what you think of the changes. I want to do some more but I don't want to go too far without knowing that there is consensus behind what I'm doing. Long live the Amiga. - Richardcavell 11:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

AA/AGA

Hi,

Amiga Format magazine (probably the most reliable print source) definitely seems to regard AA and AGA as two different things, though they are similar. Look at my discussion under Advanced Graphics Architecture for more. I'll accept the claim that AA and AGA were from the same generation, but I'm pretty sure they weren't the same thing. - Richardcavell 05:14, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Mdwh, sorry, I got it all wrong. Please feel free to undo all the separation of AA/AGA that I've done. (But the technical details are otherwise correct!) - Richardcavell 02:41, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Escom/Amiga

Hi, I note your change to the Amiga article owing to Escom's re-release of the A1200 and A4000. Were these the original technology? Were they PowerPC variants? - Richardcavell 03:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Whoa

So you're interested in both Amiga computers and BDSM! Are you an atheist too? JIP | Talk 09:17, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Self Harm page

Hi there, I'm getting in touch as you've done recent work on the self-harm article. I've done a fair bit of study on this subject recently, so reckon I'm in a position to go through and get a good load of citations in there. What I propose, is moving to using the tag to make this easier, and then I'll go through and get citations in, and replace some of the "some people" type areas with referenced viewpoints, trying to get multiple view is where there are opposing views. Obviously this'll involve a bit of rewriting and adding so I wondered if you have any feedback on this before I start. Acidsaturation 07:42, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


Hi again - have been working on the psychology section a bit - Realised when I started going through it that it needed quite abit of work - lots of repetition, also I had a few bits I wanted to add.. I'm working on it here : User:Acidsaturation/notebook#Psychology_section_in_progress if you want to have a look - i'd welcome input. Acidsaturation 16:05, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Your user page

I see your user page was originally created by a vandal, and you blanked it. Because I'm an admin, I can delete your user page if you don't want to have anything there. Would this be OK? JIP | Talk 18:53, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

pre-emptive multitasking

Hi there Mdwh. Just to let you know that the reason I removed the qualifier "pre-emptive" and replaced it with "true" under the Amiga OS section is because I thought the "pre-emptive" qualifier was a bit too technical for that part of the article. I figured the average reader would only need to understand that the Amiga was multitasking, which is a major feature which set it apart from its rivals. If one adds the qualifier "pre-emptive", an uninformed reader might wrongly assume that it just had a different form of multitasking to the other machines then available. I haven't reverted your change though.

Really though, the whole OS section needs a rewrite, since it almost exclusively talks about the Amiga's lack of memory protection, which hardly gives an accurate description of the unique features of the OS. I've really only written it that way because I started out by making some minor adjustments to someone else's contribution. I don't really have the time to do a rewrite ATM. Regards, Gatoclass 06:36, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

User talk:Mdwh Add topic