HumphreyW

Resolution of Intel Atom

I've updated the Intel Atom discussion with the best RS that I can find - which is a statement from the vendor that the laptop doesn't support 64 bit. Comments are at the bottom of talk on the Atom, including a rationale as to why it is highly unlikely that you will obtain an "RS" from a vendor for a deliberately created limitation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noasshats (talk • contribs) 00:56, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Your activities on Wikipedia content

So - you've removed this a second time on the grounds that it was "already moved". Fine. Let's split the conversation.

• For reference - the 'original' conversation - both Intel Atom and your activities on Wikipedia in general:
• Talk:Intel_Atom#Intel_Atom_reverts

Also for reference I leave the previous conversation here: [[1]]. This includes your refusal to answer difficult (for you) but reasonable questions (as listed below) a number of times.

This topic relates to your activities on Wikipedia as a whole, rather than the Intel Atom specifically.

It appears as though you are trying to ignore answering the following questions - which I now raise for the fifth time. I include a further question related to the number of these "moved" discussions that are more likely related to the process by which you erase updates to Wikipedia.

Please answer these. From there I'm happy to proceed further based on your answers. These are reasonable questions directly related to the function that you appear to be trying to perform in relation to the Intel Atom web page.

1. Is your "process" or function at Wikipedia to view recently updated pages and instantly revert them if they do not provide citations? Note that you appear to be doing so without any explanation or justification of your action.
2. Please explain the significant number of pages that are marked as "citation needed" for content. The information is still on these pages - yet apparently a reliable source has not been found. In my case however - you erase it trivially without any research. So: please explain all these other pages with citation needed.
3. You appear to be indicating that you claim dominion over the Intel Atom page and its ownership by stating that you will "give me a few days" to find "verifiable information". By saying this you're indicating that you own the pages. That they're "yours" to determine their final status. Do you claim ownership of the page?

Optional question - but valuable information nonetheless

1. How many other 'discussions' have you moved to other pages away from your own Talk page?

Noasshats (talk) 07:44, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I won't be drawn into such discussions. You are free to examine my editing history if you wish. You are also free to report my actions to any of the various administrator notification boards if you feel it would be appropriate. HumphreyW (talk) 07:57, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

So: in short you'll continue to do whatever it is you're currently doing whilst ignoring requests to explain the activities that are visible.

There appears to be no trivial way to track your impact on Wikipedia as a whole (eg "select edits where user=HumphreyW") in order to report your actions. Rather than answer criticisms in any honest manner you're simply putting all burden of discovery onto others (me in this case). Frankly it seems like a way to blow raspberries and then go and hide rather than answer your critics. Noasshats (talk) 08:38, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

You can use this link to follow my contributions. HumphreyW (talk) 08:51, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Humphrey - I'm mellowing; but I'm still seeing a huge number of "reverted edits"... I'm starting to process some 50Gb of data on all page changes. For me this is frankly the easier way to go. Over 500 edits? - mother of God... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noasshats (talk • contribs) 10:55, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I've walked through some of the more recent changes that you've created - and I agree with all of them (10 questions? - wtf?)... I'm dropping the investigative analysis of your actions - however I'm on holiday and feeling the urge to analyse the data anyway (for wider impact of other 'reverter culture' behaviour). I'll also erase this section of your talk page myself in the next day or so. In my case this is a major issue (64 / 32 bit) - and I was guided by the misleading spec sheet on Intel.com and Wikipedia. Sometimes pages need to be fixed to reflect reality - even if the "sources" just don't want to be quoted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noasshats (talk • contribs) 11:29, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Please don't delete anything from here. Ideally content like this should either be left intact or moved elsewhere, but not removed entirely. HumphreyW (talk) 11:44, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Your call - I'll state this for the record then: while I haven't analysed all of your erasures it's also clear that you have been performing useful work by in some cases fixing what is clearly damage by other people. That being said - my own tension arose from a clear and (in my case) undeniable fact ('some Atom powered laptops are only 32 bit') of general use to the public that you erased without comment or qualification. Some "facts" are difficult or impossible to obtain a statement from a verifiable source - as the only 'sources' are corporations/ governments that are disinclined to publish any negative information about themselves. My preference is to have a "reliable source" that is in addition to the standard RS's : Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources#New_type_of_.22reliable_source.22 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noasshats (talk • contribs) 00:13, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

This is not new. And that is why the Wikipedia threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. There are many falsehoods on Wikipedia that have verifiable sources, and there are many truths not on Wikipedia that have no verifiable sources. But this is how Wikipedia works whether we like it or not.

For the record my revert did include the link the the WP:OR policy in the edit summary, so it wasn't actually "erased without comment or qualification". It is desirable that editors become familiar with that policy, and the related policies, in order to understand how Wikipedia works. HumphreyW (talk) 00:36, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Samba school reverts

You are reverting my efforts to clean up the samba school article. I am trying to clean up this article because it is merely copied from the portuguese Wikipedia article and at least 70% of it completely meaningless. A surdo drum, for example, is translated as a "deaf". This make no sense. I changed this, and inserted links to the relevant instruments that a samba school uses, and also did a genereal clean up of the article to make sense of it all. But you hastily revert it. Why? Take a look at the article, sped 10 minutes, and you will see that as it is now it is completely messy and void of english meaning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.81.226.242 (talk) 12:03, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Very well, go ahead. At my first glance it appeared as vandalism. Sorry if I was mistaken. HumphreyW (talk) 12:05, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Just an example: What is the meaning of this sentence: "Usually form part of a battery of the samba school instumentos the following: first of Deaf, deaf second-, third-deaf, box, war, peal, rattle, tambourine, cuíca, agogô, reco-reco, tambourine, and plate"

My guess is that the meaning is: "The "battery"/bateria section of a samba school usually consists of these instruments: Surdo, caixa de guerra (snare drum), repique, chocalho, tamborim, cuíca, agogô, reco-reco and pandeiro.

In order to avoid other editors undoing your work, consider using the "Edit summary" box to explain what you are doing. This helps a lot to show that you are not simply removing things without regard. HumphreyW (talk) 12:15, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps instead - you should READ what updates other people are doing before simply undoing good work. My investigations into your "editing" are continuing. Noasshats (talk) 04:34, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Nashpur

Nashpur to HumphreyW re ''Faster than Light''

Thank you for your previous response.

You have deleted my edits because of the charge of originality. You have also accused me of having introduced incorrect information to justify your deleting of my edits. Is it inappropriate for me to ask what incorrect information have I introduced? Would you tell me?

I would like to know please which if any of the following claims is wrong and if not wrong would need to be provided appropriate citations for inclusion in the article "Faster-than Light".

1. The earth rotates around its axis once every 24 hours. 2. In a geostatic frame of reference, Alpha Centauri goes around the earth once in every 24 hours. 3. Alpha Centauri is about 4 light years away. Most heavenly objects are even further away. 4. The circumference of a circle is 2 x pi x radius. 5. The distance covered by Alpha Centauri is about 8 x pi light years. 6. 8 pi light years per day is a speed greater than "c". 7. In a geostatic frame most heavenly objects have a speed faster than "c". !!!

In the context of an article like Faster than Light, none of the above claims need citation but let me know of your opinions. I do not think any of the above claims is incontrovertible. I have never seen the above package of claims in print. I do not think the package constitutes original research. It is not original synthesis: it is a simple concatenation. It is true. It is relevant to the Article Faster than Light. By now, it is not even fresh. It does however point to an elephant in the room.

That I confess in an editorial summary that I have not seen an observation in print is not enough to justify your deletions.

You also deleted my other remarks which have nothing to do with the superluminal motion of heavenly objects. What incorrect information did I introduce there?

On a meta level, should this discussion be taking place somewhere else? Is this the right forum for me to be ding-donging with you?Nashpur (talk) 09:08, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Whether of not your questions above are true or not does not matter. The Wikipedia policy, WP:V, has this to say "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". You must supply verifiable sources. HumphreyW (talk) 02:28, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Logicus to HumphreyW:You have deleted Nashpur's attempted contributions to the 'Faster Than Light' article and the 'Modern geocentrism' article. They pointed out that on a geostatic frame of reference the stars must appear to travel faster than light and that this breaches the law of relativist physics that nothing can travel faster than light, on the ground that it is Wiki OR. But the 'Modern geocentrism' article claims

"A belief commonly associated with [modern geocentrism] is that the stars are much closer than they are measured to be and are embedded in a rigid substrate. (Similarly, Neptune would have to be closer than it is measured to be, or else Neptune would have to travel faster than the speed of light, not even in a straight line, to complete an orbit in a supposed 24 hours.)"

So surely on your analysis this unsourced claim about Neptune, and implicitly also about the stars, must also be OR, or else they have a published source not cited here. But you have not deleted them, unlike Nashpur's contribution. Can you therefore provide sources for them ?

Would you also please kindly explain why you claim think Nashpur's claim is mistaken, or else withdraw the claim.

And please don't be so hostile and aggressive to newcomers to Wikipedia who make good faith corrective contributions --Logicus (talk) 17:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Nashpur

Faster than Light article I am still learning about WIKI but I don't see my recently deleted contribution as being "original research". It is fresh in the way it has been put together, but that is perfectly consistent with the WIKI policy and it is not "original research". It adds to the article and not detract from it. The simple bits that go together to make up the contribution are standard text book stuff and hardly in need of verification but if there is a need for verification I am happy to meet it. What exactly do you want verified? As for the mistakes, would it be too much to ask which ones?

In a sense, your deletions are tantamount to vandalism. Is there a process of appeal against your decision? Are you an administrator? Perhaps I am wasting my time writing this to you. I hope not. Nashpur (talk) 12:00, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia policy, WP:NOR, has this to say "Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position." If you can provide appropriate citations from secondary sources then no one will delete your contributions. One of your edit summaries "The observation made here is simple and shocking and not seen in print anywhere by me." clearly shows that your contribution was original research. HumphreyW (talk) 12:15, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Nashpur

No vandalism intended. Is this the place to find what you thought was wrong with my contributions? The Alpha Centauri goes around the earth in 1 day. No? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nashpur (talk • contribs) 16:03, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not for Original research. Your contributions are welcome if you can cite reliable and verifiable sources. HumphreyW (talk) 16:26, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Citrus3511

The first time I put boggy on wiki, i didn't put info, so it got deleted. The second time I put it on, I did put info about Venus. That also got deleted. The 3rd time, I got a message, it said that I needed to put info on it but, I did put info on the second time. --Citrus3511 (talk) 07:57, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Gliese 581 c

The IP who changed the distance of Gliese 581 c was a vandal, but when I went to correct it, I found the sources were saying was 20.5 light years, for example even the first source in the text body says so [2]. If 20.3 light years is truly accepted maybe we should explain the discrepancy to our source(s)? Fletcher (talk) 01:43, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I used that value of 20.3 light years from all the other pages on wikipedia Gliese 581, Gliese 581 b and Gliese 581 d. I understand the value is calculated on the main star's page Gliese 581 from the parallax values (160.91 ± 2.62) here. If the value 160.91 is in error then ideally all the pages should be adjusted together. HumphreyW (talk) 03:04, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for explaining. Fletcher (talk) 21:03, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Alpha Centauri

You reverted my revert regarding Alpha Centauri being brighter than Arcturus. I'm sorry, but you were incorrect.

The point under discussion was the apparant magnitude of the combined light of α Cen A and α Cen B when compared to that of Arcturus. The Alpha Centauri system is, indeed, brighter than Arcturus.

The very next sentence in the article compares Arcturus to α Centuri A alone, where it already states that Arcturus is the brighter. You have conflated two different statements.

I have, once again, reverted to the original, which was correct. B00P (talk) 11:26, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I read your explanation in the talk page of the article. Thanks for taking the time to explain. I thought it was just a simple mistake, but you have made it clear to me now. HumphreyW (talk) 11:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

No problem. B00P (talk) 05:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

The last edit was not spam

I did not understand how my edit classify as spam. GAIA is a bonafide manufactures of Lithium Polymer battery. How can putting a reference to a manufacturer be spam?

There are references to several other commercial companies in this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.254.166.23 (talk) 19:23, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

It is just a link to a company selling batteries. It does not add to the encyclopaedic content of the article. HumphreyW (talk) 19:37, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Murphy's law deletion

Nature always sides with the hidden flaw. In general, I agree with deleting these (this article used to be far, far worse for this) but this one is specifically identified as Murphy's law on what appears to be an official West Point page that cadets are obliged to learn by heart. That at least makes it notable, even if it isn't historically accurate. SpinningSpark 07:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, no problem, I will leave it there from now on. HumphreyW (talk) 07:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Sam Kantimathi

Hello. I've had to remove your proposed deletion for Sam Kantimathi because it's been proposed for deletion in the past, and someone believed it should not be deleted. It's not possible to re-propose deletion, but necessary to go through a full articles for deletion process. If I hadn't done this, the closing admin would have done, and I make no comment on the article at all. CJPargeter (talk) 07:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the update and advice. HumphreyW (talk) 07:48, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, the AfD page is very confusing. So many "if this ..." and "if that ...", I'm not sure I know what is the proper thing to do. Rather than mess things up yet again I'll just leave it alone and try to keep myself out of trouble. HumphreyW (talk) 07:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

adding evolving technology aspect

Hi Humphrey,

I do not understand why my contribution was taken out.

There is no link to any external web page in the content at all. The foot note points to a page of an ongoing physical experiment. The fact that many people are needed, to perform the experiment should not be a 'dubious' aspect. And if Wiki is not supporting science, what is it good for anyway...

On what grounds did you classify the page as dubious?

Regards Walter --Waltgith (talk) 04:20, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

There are two major problems with your contribution. Firstly, you marked your edit as minor when it was not minor. Secondly, the website is not a quality reference suitable for an encyclopaedia. The site does not appear to have any notable people behind it, there is not any mention of scientific studies on the possible chance of success and I can not find any references to other places/site that might validate the experiment the site is describing. In short, it appears quite to be a user/fan page style of website asking for participants rather than expanding scientific knowledge. If this is incorrect then please feel free to show where/how it is of scientific significance.

Also note that Wikipedia is not a place for links to everywhere, it tries to be of high quality and high standards where possible. Things like users websites (with very few exceptions) are generally not acceptable for such purposes. HumphreyW (talk) 05:10, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, compared to the time travel entry my small paragraph seemed minor to me. But of course minor is surely a definable term and I may not know the Wiki definition. I apologise for this. When Einstein published his first work, he was not a notable person at all. Wouldn't you agree? But still his work was very valuable for the scientific community. And also I can not see the major difference between the Time Traveler Convention at MIT and the linked experiment. The experimental settings are very similar, only that the technology would have been evolved by 2012. --Waltgith (talk) 09:21, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Just FYI, you can see the Wikipedia article about minor edits from my link. Also feel free to search for Wikipedia about acceptable links for references. HumphreyW (talk) 09:26, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Metamaterial

Hi, Sorry. We were editing the same section at the same time. I was adding content and creating new sub sections and apparently I inadvertantly undid some of your spelling corrections. I apologize for that. I will go through your corrections, one by one, and restore your corrections. I don't want you to think your work is in vain. Thank you for the great job you are doing. And please continue. Ti-30X (talk) 05:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey, no problem, I'll let you do your thing for another few days (or so) and then I'll go though it again. HumphreyW (talk) 05:21, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Battery charger

Hi HumphreyW, referencing this kind of info 'properly' is difficult, due to a lack of stable authoratative souce, but these two may help 1)http://www.instructables.com/id/Ipod_Touch_Charger_100_works/ and 2) http://www.usb.org/developers/usbfaq/#pow_dis 79.76.177.165 (talk) 11:32, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

In your second reference I can't find any mention of a charger. In the first reference (it appears to be a just a hobbyist website) it states 150kOhm, different from your submission of 10k-15kOhm. I also doubt the reliability of the source, a single hobbyist website is not generally considered an authoritative source. Plus your submission fails to mention on what (or what type of) device where this circuit would be useful and where its use would be harmful. For these reasons I will revert again. Please feel free to find a reliable source that has more complete information with some sort of testing methodology to back up claims, and also possibly provide details about how and where the modification can be used properly. HumphreyW (talk) 12:10, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I find your actions unhelpful. revertion is a easy action on your part. I carefully selected my wording so as to aid and educate a viewer with information with which to further their understanding. An unknowledgable viewer (not yourself) attempting to implement accidental harmful use would have failed to harm due to ommision of a 'basic given fact', that any knowledgable user would have implemented. Regarding 10to15Kohm versus 150kohm, this is, you had researched the topic further is a matter of varied opinion. If my tone appears unfriendly or terse, it is not intended to, i only wish to convey accurate communication. I wish to use my time better to elucidate topics within this great work of ours. 79.76.177.165 (talk) 12:36, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Please review the policy Wikipedia:Reliable sources, also Wikipedia:Reliable_source_examples#Are_weblogs_reliable_sources.3F HumphreyW (talk) 12:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Venus day

Good morning. I Realized the linked page states 1.92 days for venus year: so I changed the wikipedia venus page in other languages: everybody in that languagues pointed me it was wrong. From sunrise to sunrise is 243,0187. I do not understand why do you prefer having a wrong wikipedia English page, diferent than French, German, Spanish, etc. ....

It is Wikipedia policy to follow the sources, see WP:V "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". If you have a better more reliable reference source then you are free to make edits to show the new source. However the original figure of 1.92 is actually correct. Perhaps you have mistakenly forgotten that Venus rotates in retrograde motion. This means the days are quicker than you might expect. HumphreyW (talk) 09:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Good afternoon: I thought that information of wikipedia was source: if you look you can read that: "..Sidereal rotation period -243.018 5 .." Of course - means Venus (As Uranus) rotates in retrograde, but it takes 243,0187 days from sunrise to sunrise. I still do not understand why you do prefer having a wrong wikipedia English (taking wrong sources) page (specially if you have references like: Clabon Walter Allen and Arthur N. Cox (2000). Allen's Astrophysical Quantities. Springer. pp. 296. ISBN 0387987460), diferent than French, German, Spanish, etc. ....

Sidereal period is not the same as sunrise to sunrise. Retrograde rotation causes the "day" to be shorter. Try it with two coins. Rotate one coin retrograde while orbiting another fixed coin and count the number of "sunrises" it sees. HumphreyW (talk) 14:10, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

If you desire more proof then have a look at the NASA fact sheet. If shows the Length of Day (hours) = 2802 (116.75 days) and the Orbital Period (days) = 224.7 - giving a year of 1.92 days. HumphreyW (talk) 14:29, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, you are right, i'm not considering the retrograde rotation, sorry. i will correct in wiki spanish. greetings Hprmedina (talk) 17:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Fowler-Noll-Vo hash function

In the spirit of compromise, I've edited down the article to a size that I think is reasonable, given the notability and reliable sources. I would appreciate your input. Phil Spectre (talk) 23:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Primary cell

While I am one of the more aggressive to use speedy close, there does not appear to be any pressing need to speedy close the move request of Primary cell. 199.125.109.96 (talk) 23:17, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

On the other hand the same editor has made a ridiculous number of similar move requests. What I am going to do first is combine them into one multimove request. 199.125.109.96 (talk) 23:31, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Radio frequency

Hi HumphreyW,

We both tried to undo the vandalism on the Radio frequency page at the same time - it's in an intermediate state now. I'll leave it for an hour or so before trying to fix, in case you're still working on it. GyroMagician (talk) 07:49, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I got a bit confused but reverted back to a previous good version.HumphreyW (talk) 07:52, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Well done, you've untangled it. The talk page for 145.103.246.233 is telling - difficult to know what to do when it's a school, but somebody there is certainly creating an annoying amount of work. GyroMagician (talk) 07:57, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi HumphreyW,

Just wanted to ask if you cleared the interwiki link because it already was on the spanish version of Radiofrequency. I ask because I'm actually a newbie and don't know too much about the rules on wikipedia. Thanks in advance. Paulmasters 00:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

The interwiki link has been there for a long time. It points to es:Radiofrecuencia. I have not cleared the interwiki link, it is still there. HumphreyW (talk) 01:23, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah! Ok now I get it! Sorry didn't notice it before. Thanks. Paulmasters 21:34, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Non-integer representation

I have nominated Non-integer representation, an article that you've contributed to, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Non-integer representation. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. — sligocki (talk) 00:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

MurmurHash

Since you were involved in the FNV AFD, you would probably be interested in this one. Phil Spectre (talk) 00:24, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Please review edit to template

You added an article to a navbox, but later that article got renamed. There have been reverts on eliminating the re-direct. Would you please review? I recommend the version without the redirect in it. Amientan (talk) 04:30, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I have changed the template. HumphreyW (talk) 04:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Edits by 216.239.82.80

Hi HumphreyW,

I am not sure why you have problems with my corrections to the faster than light article.

SR is an EXPLANATION of how the universe is and what can be detected or measured. It is NOT a mechanism that prohibits or prevents a speed faster than c, even though that is, unfortunately, a very very common misunderstanding.

Denise —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.239.82.80 (talk) 02:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Important Resource Removed from Circuit Board page

I am writing to inform you that an important resource was removed from the circuit board page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circuit_boards). It has served as an important resource for the printed circuit board industry on Wikipedia for the past two and 1/2 years. I built that to serve as a resource and it has continued to be posted as resource on Wikipedia for over 2 years. Please review the historical records and you will see how far back that listing has been posted.

Suddenly, it was removed and I've tried several times to add it again but it doesn't appear to stay up. The only reason I can think of for it to be removed is that the web site was updated and the page was pointing to the old site. Or it was recently recommended by a searcher that I add (Printed Circuit Boards) after PCB to make it clearer as to what the glossary was describing. I'm bummed because the listing has been up for so long and I haven't touched it in over 2 1/2 years. I've since done research on your content guidelines and I guess this was not the right thing to do.

I hope you consider adding this listing back to the page as it was before. Here is where it was listed (and what it said):

===Others===

• PCB Glossary of Terms

Please feel free to contact me via my account if you need to further discuss. I will make it a point to review the information before making any changes or updates.

BSchneed (talk) 03:36, 2 April 2010 (UTC)PCB Universe

Also, I sent a request to Reference Desk and received the following feedback:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Computing

Important Resource Removed from Circuit Board page

PCB Universe (talk) 20:22, 29 March 2010 (UTC)PCB Universe

It seems that an edit war is taking place. User:HumphreyW is removing the link because it is a commercial site; this seems like an invalid reason to remove the link; WP:EL does not forbid commercial sites anyway. However, the appropriate place to address this issue is the article talk page. Nimur (talk) 21:25, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

HumphreyW (talk | contribs)

(rm commercial site as per WP:EL Undid revision 352775477 by 97.120.186.130 (talk))

Finally, trying to avoid the company name issue, I set up a new account and tried to post the information and again it was removed:

Undid revision 352784571 by HumphreyW (talk)

Can you explain why you keep removing something now that has been posted on this site for over 2 1/2 years? I'd really appreciate you allowing this link to be added back onto this page.

Please feel free to contact me via my account if you need to further discuss.

BSchneed (talk) 03:36, 2 April 2010 (UTC)BSchnned

Your link fails criteria 5 at links to be avoided "Links to web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services", and self promotion. The website you link to is there to sell products. There are many other PCB makers that also 'glossary of terms' webpages (some even more comprehensive). The entire site primary exists as a commercial enterprise. Sorry, but this really looks like link spam to me. I am sure you have spent many hours making the page you link to, but promoting your own commercial website within Wikipedia is not what Wikipdedia is about. HumphreyW (talk) 03:48, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your response, but I disagree. You haven't answered my point that this link has existed for on this page as a resource for 2 1/2 years doing exactly what it was intended to do, be a resource that compliments this page on Wikipedia. During all of this time it has never been deemed "criteria 5" until it was modified. I don't understand why this request is being blocked and why you feel it is considered spam now when it hasn't been a problem over the last 2 1/2 years? In the information I provided to you above, another editor stated, "User:HumphreyW is removing the link because it is a commercial site; this seems like an invalid reason to remove the link; WP:EL does not forbid commercial sites anyway. "This is why I asked for the link to be added back as it was, not to keep the one that was modified. Also, I've created a personal account to avoid the name issue mentioned above, so I'm still don't understand why this is something that you don't feel should be included on this page? I'm trying to follow all of the rules as outlined by Wikipedia to show you that after 2 1/2 years of no problems, I made an honest mistake and am trying my best to rectify this. I'm hoping you can see this rather than thinking I'm trying to spam this page. BSchneed (talk) 16:25, 2 April 2010 (UTC)BSchneed

The length of time a link exists adds no value to it. The period of existence is not some badge that is attached that improves its standing. Why do you consider this particular link to be so important anyway? Would you be happy if I found a better link from a completing PCB manufacturer and posted that link instead? The point is that your only reason to want the link so much is to drive traffic to your site. HumphreyW (talk) 17:28, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I still disagree with your reply, "The length of time a link exists adds no value to it." If a link has been a resource on the circuit board page for 2 1/2 years, there is value for that link because it has remained a resource on Wikipedia for that time. If another resource was better then why hasn't it been replaced in the past 2 1/2 years? Your comment, "Sorry, but this really looks like link spam to me." is confusing because if it were spam then why has this resource link remained on this page as a resource for the past 2 1/2 years and not replaced with another resource that wasn't considered spam?

Honestly, I'm a bit taken back by your comment, "The point is that your only reason to want the link so much is to drive traffic to your site." My intention is and always has been to re-instate a previously deleted resource link that has been posted on this page for the past 2 1/2 years untouched and now has been removed since an edit was made. Had I not edited it (based on feedback from a site visitor) then this link would still be posted on this resource page, correct? And, had it not been edited, it would have remained on this page and not deleted. I don't understand why last week it was fine and this week it's considered spam? So again, I'm merely asking that this resource link be added back to this page in its original state (as it was last week). —Preceding unsigned comment added by BSchneed (talk • contribs) 20:56, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I have seen vandalism that has lasted just as long, but that doesn't make it any more likely to stay there once it is noticed. I'm not saying the link is vandalism, just that your claim about the length of time it remains has no bearing on the argument. Up till now you have been fortunate that it was not noticed before. But now that your free advertising has been noticed it has been removed. HumphreyW (talk) 03:16, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

This link is a resource for this page and has been since this page began, regardless of your claim that it is purely "free advertising". Based on your response, are you are implying that every commercial site listed on this page is there solely for the purpose of "free advertising"? I disagree and feel that there are some great resources along with "vandalism" as you call it. However, I would like to point out that the following listings contain some resource information (some not at all), but you would need to remove based on your previous statements:

SECTION: Do-it-yourself (DIY) guides:

Easy Printed Circuit Board Fabrication Using Laser Printer Toner Transfer - "free adversting" & sell Google AdSense

How to make PCBs at home in 1 hour & W I T H O U T special materials ? - "free adversting" & sell Google AdSense

PCBs Fabrication Methods - "free adversting" & sell Google AdSense

Making PCBs using DIY cnc hardware - "free adversting" & sell Google AdSense

Making PCBs by hand using an etch-resist pen (no printer or special paper needed) - "free adversting" & sells Amazon and Google AdSense

SECTION: Others

General Information on Printed Board Programs - "free advertising" to sell amazon book on homepage

PCB Trace Impedance Calculator - landing page for UltraCAD Design, Inc.

Free Online PCB Gerber File Viewer - front for PCB Manufacturer to bring in new clients

According to your response, all of these sites are taking advantage of the "free advertising" and many have put up Google Ads or Amazon products directly on that page to take advantage of the "free advertising". Our page remains as it was and will continue to do so because it is a resource destination.

Based on your comment, "Up till now you have been fortunate that it was not noticed before. But now that your free advertising has been noticed it has been removed." Now you have been made aware of these other listings, I assume you will remove all of these listings as well since they promote and advertise products directly on the destination pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BSchneed (talk • contribs) 17:29, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Sure, if I get time to have a look then I may just do as you suggest. Thanks for pointing them out. BTW: if they clearly don't meet the WP:EL policy criteria then anyone can edit and remove them. HumphreyW (talk) 18:27, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

You still never answered my question. Do you feel that every commercial site listed on this page is there solely for the purpose of "free advertising"? It appears that other editors don't share your view so I'm trying to understand what, in your mind, it would take to have this PCB glossary included on this page? If you let me know, then I can work to try and make that happen. However, compared to the other resources on this page, our current page doesn't have any Google ads or isn't selling books or products on Amazon. So what about the PCB Glossary resource page is it that you find so offensive that you feel it outweighs the resource it provides? —Preceding unsigned comment added by BSchneed (talk • contribs) 23:30, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

You have a very clear conflict of interest here. I won't get drawn into your arguments about other sites. The simple fact is that your particular link is a 100% commercial site that exists for one purpose. The "glossary" page presents visitors with copious links to get quotes from you and your capabilities, and information about how to contact you and where your factory is, and so on. In general it has a lot of advertising for you. Find another way to advertise your site, Wikipedia is not an advertising platform. HumphreyW (talk) 00:24, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Why is it that you are reluctant to answer my specific questions? I will ask you again, "It appears that other editors don't share your view so I'm trying to understand what, in your mind, it would take to have this PCB glossary included on this page? If you let me know, then I can work to try and make that happen. " Should it exist on a different site or perhaps connected to our blog? I'm looking for help from you and all I seem to get in return is "free advertising" or "Find another way to advertise your site". If I'm wasting your time and should speak to someone else regarding this matter, then please direct me to someone who is more open to discuss rather than dismiss. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BSchneed (talk • contribs) 16:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I misunderstood your position, but because of your COI it is really not a good idea for you to be arguing so strongly to have your own site linked from Wikipedia. It is generally much better received when other, non-involved editors, link it when they find it is useful, reliable and authoritative. But your question has no specific answer. In general, blogs are definitely not considered as reliable sources. So, no, your blog would probably not be suitable. I hope you have read the pages I am linking to because they have the Wikipedia policies there. If you haven't been reading them, please do, because it is likely you can find your answers there. Here they are again in case you missed them: WP:EL, WP:COI, WP:RS, Self published sites HumphreyW (talk) 17:11, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for understanding and providing the information. I will perhaps try and find a better way to present this information once I've reviewed these guidelines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BSchneed (talk • contribs) 00:48, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Faster than light

Sorry, I don't know if you'll see this. But I've been blocked from articles, discussion pages, and even, it seems, most talk pages. And as I pointed out that the blocking was unjustified, I don't expect that will change any time soon. So I don't know if you'll even see this. 216.239.82.80 (talk) 10:51, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I saw. You can request to unblock again, but this time don't say not to unblock. The last time when you requested an unblock you actually asked to stay blocked! I expect it was just a typing mistake on your part, so just ask again and be a bit more careful to read what you actually are asking for. HumphreyW (talk) 13:20, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:BOLD

Thanks. :-) --NapoliRoma (talk) 14:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Vasm

I picked the article from a wikify list. Trying also to de-orphan, but if my See also's are wrong then do delete them. Sorry about that. Slightsmile (talk) 01:31, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

If the "see also"'s have lots of other assemblers listed then it would be a good place to put Vasm also. But to put it out there on it's own with no others it gives it too much weight. Readers may think there is only one assembler in the whole world. HumphreyW (talk) 01:40, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Samuel Johnson Jr.

Ok... now what? Once the proposal for deletion has been discussed and the result was "keep", how should we proceed to add the "other Samuel Johnson" to the info in the dictionary article? There will be much to be done, starting in this article, then mentioning it in the good doctor's one, and probably in many others which link to them. And, certainly, there will be "much ado about"... something. Or some things.

I paste a passage of the book's card in the National Library of Australia:

A school dictionary [...] / By Samuel Johnson, Jun'r. ; Published according to act of Congress
Description: New-Haven:: Printed and sold by Edward O'Brien, who holds the copy-right for 
the states of Connecticut and New-York., [1797 or 1798] 
198 p. ; 13 cm. (12mo)  
Series: Early American imprints. Series I, Evans (1639-1800); no. 30640. 
Notes: First English dictionary compiled by an American.
Dated 1796 by Evans; however, probably not issued before 1797, as O'Brien was a member
of the firm of Tiebout & O'Brien until April 5, 1797. Sometime in 1798 he removed to St. John,  
New Brunswick.
Errata note, p. 198.

all the best!

--Betty VH (talk) 16:02, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

x86-64: physical address width

Thank you for your support! Jeh (talk) 18:44, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

3 GB barrier (and another thing...)

I just took a lot of the refs I found and used in the new "physical address details" section at x86-64 and used them to completely rewrite the 3 GB barrier article. I'd appreciate any comments. It might be best to read my new version first, then the previous, mostly hopeless version. Jeh (talk) 11:26, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, the new version is a lot more professional looking. Although quite a few unreferenced sections exist. HumphreyW (talk) 12:14, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 07:53, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi HumphreyW, I just wanted to thank you for removing the unhelpful (to put it mildly) posts by the IP editor on Talk:Albert Einstein, I was just considering doing that myself. Thanks again, Quasihuman (talk) 11:22, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Your welcome. It was an eyesore, that is for sure. HumphreyW (talk) 14:04, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Time travel article

How does "scanning the list" have anything to do with further references to understand the content "if needed" when that's the entire point of the section the bullet list heads? A bullet list isn't appropriate at the head of a long-form prose section where the list is explained anyway, and certainly not at the head of the article. It needs to come out, as does the other one. MSJapan (talk) 14:47, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Rover

Having "as of" won't make the information any less outdated if something does change. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 22:51, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but having "as of" does give the reader extra understanding that the information may be out of date, and the reader can then do more research if they desire to see if it has changed. Removing "as of" tends to suggest that the information is current and accurate, suggesting to the reader that there is no need to doubt it for accuracy. HumphreyW (talk) 23:58, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Every current fact on Wikipedia is subject to change. We don't put an "as of" disclaimer in front of, say, every person's date of birth stating they're still alive "as of July" or some such thing. We state the fact as it is, and rely on our editors to correct it if and when the need arises. The "as of" template makes sense for things that are expected to change quickly and go unnoticed by most editors; in this case, in all likelihood, that rover will be sitting in its position, silent and undisturbed, long after you and I are dead. On the other hand, if it did suddenly start transmitting again, the article would be updated within minutes.

Putting "as of" means the statement is absolutely guaranteed to be outdated every month. Removing it means it's always accurate unless something changes. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 02:05, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

If and when NASA declare Spirit a lost cause and decide to stop trying to communicate with it then the article can be changed to state the last date of contact as a final date. But currently NASA have not done that, and they are not yet prepared to declare it as such. Wikipedia should not be in the habit of pre-empting things that are not yet decided by the sources. Currently, according to NASA, Spirit is still in an unknown state, they would know better than anyone else when to declare that it is no longer capable of communicating. Your assertion that the article would be updated in minutes is not a given fact. It might be updated quickly and it might not also.

I don't understand your second comment "Putting "as of" means the statement is absolutely guaranteed to be outdated every month". I don't see how the "as of" guarantees it is out of date. I thought it simply says that at the time the article was edited that that was the current situation. It alerts the reader to the fact that this information might now be incorrect. Why is that a bad thing? There are many articles with "as of"s that are from years ago. This allows readers to decide if they want to check to see if anything has changed in the meantime. HumphreyW (talk) 05:02, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

It's a bad thing because we are not in the business of informing readers that the information might be incorrect; we are in the business of making sure the information is correct. And we don't have to "allow" readers to check the facts; they are always encouraged to do so. As you say, having an "as of" tells readers that the information might be incorrect; it does that by implying that the article has not been properly maintained and fact-checked since that time, which is not true. This is why it should be used very sparingly, and only on statements which are likely to quickly become incorrect. You evidently know it looks bad to have an outdated month; your first edit to the article was to change the date of the template. For what reason, if not to keep it from looking outdated? That's the same reason it later had to be updated from June to July, and the reason it will eventually need be updated from July to August. In perpetuity, potentially.

I will concede that it's possible Spirit might suddenly start broadcasting again, but I also maintain—personally guarantee, if you like—that the article will be updated as soon as the event hits the news. Ideally, the statement should be rewritten to be timeless. Short of that, we should not be artificially inspiring doubt in our content when it's clear there are plenty of editors taking care of the page. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 08:25, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it is not "inspiring doubt", but instead it is showing all the facts as they are known. Honest reporting of information. I would not have known to check for updates if the original state of the article simply said the last date of communication was March with no other indication that it may change in the future. I only updated it because I did some further research and thought I might as well make it current. This is a good thing, the reader can know when the information was last updated. If the information becomes stale after a few months then someone might want to check if it has changed and update it, but there is no requirement to do that, at least they know it might be wrong.

I think you are incorrect when you say "we are not in the business of informing readers that the information might be incorrect". The opposite is in fact true. Wikipedia is striving to be as accurate as possible but there is no guarantee (even your personal guarantee is not enough since circumstances change and/or you cannot be on Wikipedia 24 hours a day) that articles get updated instantly. I might check an article and see some data thinking it is correct but later discover that five minutes before the situation had changed. Without something to alert me that the data is subject to variance over time then I would have been misinformed, not presented with all the facts as they were known. HumphreyW (talk) 14:18, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

ARM architecture

I replied to your comment at Talk:ARM architecture Widefox (talk) 13:47, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage

Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:36, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, HumphreyW. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#What_can_be_done_when_a_user_makes_multiple_accounts_to_post_the_same_text.3F.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Perseus, Son of Zeus 16:30, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Accelerating spaceship

Hi HumphreyW,

Here's the situation: Suppose at time 0, the photon is at position x=0, and the spaceship is at position x=a for some headstart value a greater than 0. Suppose the spaceship, at any time t, is moving to the right at velocity v(t), always less than c but approaching it asymptotically. Both photon and spaceship move in the +x direction.

Then in the laboratory frame, at time t, the photon is at position $x=ct\,\!$, whereas the spaceship is at position $a+\int _{0}^{t}v(u)\,du$. That means the spaceship is ahead of the photon by a distance $a-\int _{0}^{t}[c-v(u)]\,du$, where $c-v(u)\,\!$ is always positive.

So the question is whether $a-\int _{0}^{t}[c-v(u)]\,du$ is always positive; that is, whether $\int _{0}^{t}[c-v(u)]\,du$ is always less than $a\,\!$.

This depends on what happens to the improper integral $\int _{0}^{\infty }[c-v(u)]\,du$. If the improper integral diverges, or converges to a value greater than $a\,\!$, then the photon will indeed overtake the spaceship. However, if it converges to a value less than $a\,\!$, then the photon will always be behind the spaceship, and indeed there will be a positive value $a-\int _{0}^{\infty }[c-v(u)]\,du$ such that the photon is always at least that far behind the spaceship in the lab frame. If it converges to exactly $a\,\!$, then the photon will approach the spaceship in the limit (as seen in the lab frame) but will never reach it. --Trovatore (talk) 04:18, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Your equation omits one important thing. The acceleration is in the local time frame. The value of "t" is not constant, time dilation comes into effect. Consider a=1 meter. After about 3 nanoseconds the photon passes the spaceship. The spaceship has barely gained any speed after 3 ns at 1g, how can it outrun the photon? HumphreyW (talk) 04:27, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Obviously if you start a spaceship one meter ahead of you, accelerating at 1 gravity from a standing start, you can hit it with a laser pointer.

In the above I didn't say anything about what the acceleration was, or whether it was constant, or anything. What you need is to be able to get the velocity v(t) at time t (t as measured in the lab frame) to be such that the improper integral $\int _{0}^{\infty }[c-v(t)]\,dt$ converges. Then you have to give the ship a headstart at least equal to the value of that integral. If you do that, the photon can never catch up.

For constant acceleration of 1g in the ship frame, if I recall correctly, you need a headstart of about 1 light-year. But that's a complicated calculation, because you have to translate everything into the lab frame. I don't need to do that for the analysis above — I was just showing you why it's possible to have a situation where, even though the photon is always going faster than the ship, it can never catch up. --Trovatore (talk) 04:38, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Link Removal

Just wondering why you removed the link to http://www.myautorepairadvice.com/car_battery_problems.html on the car battery page. I added it because I thought it would be a great encyclopedic link to an outside source about car batteries. Porterpotti (talk) 20:21, 20 July 2011 (UTC

The link does not comply with Wikipedia guidelines WP:EL. It is neither authoritative nor encyclopaedic in nature. The website appears to be primarily for commerce. Please read the Links normally to be avoided section, particularly point 5. HumphreyW (talk) 02:04, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Your use of Rollback

This is improper use of Rollback. The Rollback tool may only be used as policy allows, and not to revert good-faith edits.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

IEC prefixes

Thank you for directing me to the MOSNUM page in response to my IEC prefix edits on the x86-64 page. I took some time and read much of the debate that has been happening and am very disheartened to see scientific prefixes classified as a stylistic issue at all. I suppose I gave Wikipedia (computer scientists in general?) too much credit by assuming they would value accuracy over tradition. Liberulo (talk) 07:05, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Ball grid array packages

Regarding this, if some BGA package connections are so dense it is impossible to solder by hand then it remains true that some components are impossible to solder by hand even if some of them can with difficulty. That is only logic. SpinningSpark 22:34, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Well I'm not sure I agree with your logic there. Impossible is a very strong term. Some people can be very skilled at certain actions and I would not be too surprised to learn that someone out there can actually hand solder those big BGA chips. I would suggest that unless it has been proven that it really is genuinely impossible to do by hand then the article should not be claiming impossibility. HumphreyW (talk) 00:19, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Come on, the balls are soldered directly on to surface pads. You simply cannot get a hand tool under there on a multi-row device. Here's a source that says its imposssible and here's one that says it is often impossible. SpinningSpark 09:48, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Primary source books written by random people don't impress me much. IMO the claim of impossibility is far too strong. Hot-air hand tools operated by skilled workers can achieve some pretty amazing things. Just because a couple of random authors can't do something doesn't make it impossible. Just for comparison here are a couple of commercial hand tool BGA rework systems: renex and ZX-CP300. HumphreyW (talk) 09:22, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Workstations like that are not really what is meant by hand-soldering. It's manual low-volume, but hardly hand tools. I hardly think that manufacturers marketing claims make more reliable sources than quality textbooks, nor are Michael Pecht and Jennie S. Hwang random authors. SpinningSpark 17:01, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Addition of heading at MOSNUM

Hi, sorry to have reverted your addition, but it seems to be counter to the structure. Could you raise it at the talk page if there's a problem? Thanks and cheers. Tony (talk) 13:28, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Miniclip edit

Why have you deletd my edit on Miniclip? If you actually did research on my edit, you will find that MikeVernon is a popular player on miniclip with hundreds of awards and animation on sketch star. If you claim this is "original research" you should go to Miniclip.com yourself before removing information like that. Wikipedia is a place to post information about topics. I did just that and you are punishing me for it. You are a power tripper and have no respect. Please stop deleting information that is relevant and truthful from wikipedia1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by MikeVernon (talk • contribs)

Please cite a reliable source. Matthew Thompson ^{talk to me bro!} 10:03, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		HumphreyW, for your tireless and knowledgeable efforts to improve the quality of Wikipedia by helping purge it of goofy edits and puerile vandalism, I hereby award you this barnstar. Thank you! Regards, RJH (talk) 04:24, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

New Horizons's or New Horizons'

You undid my changes at New Horizons. According to Apostrophe, my usage of s's is controversial (but not necessarily wrong). I did it because (1) I thought it would be more consistent -- seeing as there are existing s's's ( ;-) ) in the article -- and (2) it formats better with the italics (although I don't see the problem in the subtitle of this comment :-( ). Mark Hurd (talk) 02:39, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

For the formatting you can use {{'}} template to prevent the apostrophe being interpreted as mark-up. For the usage I see that either form is acceptable according to the MOS. HumphreyW (talk) 03:00, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Juno

Before making the change from billion to millions, please get consensus on the change on the article's talk page first.--RadioFan (talk) 01:04, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I didn't make the change. It has always been Millions, but some IP editor came along and changed it to Billions without any discussion. HumphreyW (talk) 05:35, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Programmable Metallization Cell

Why did you remove the edits I put in for Programmable Metallization Cell. There is much that has changed in the industry and it is not reflected in the wiki site. Infineon no longer exists as a developer and Adesto is now the lead developer of CBRAM. In addition there is work that is on going at Sony and NEC that is important. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emckernan (talk • contribs) 18:12, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

March 2012

Your recent editing history at Fahrenheit shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 05:28, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

You are right. Thank you for the reminder. HumphreyW (talk) 10:11, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, HumphreyW. You have new messages at TheGeneralUser's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

TheGeneralUser (talk) 07:52, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

LDPC

You removed the link to www.ldpc-decoder.com. I wonder why, since the site contains quite a bit of information you won't find elsewhere in literature or the internet. I'm using it and especially the LDPC code database for my daily work now. I think it has a high value for people working on LDPC codes, even though it is provided by a company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.246.218.4 (talk) 10:24, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

It is easy to find with Google if someone wants such a thing. Wikipedia is intended to be an encyclopaedia, not a textbook. HumphreyW (talk) 11:02, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, but isn't this argument valid for any other link on the site? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.246.218.4 (talk) 12:08, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Read about Wikipedia's policy regarding external links. HumphreyW (talk) 12:15, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

from UP

Humphry W, please stop inappropriately removing the references I have added to the Lithium Polymer battery page. In common with references to other entities, on the same page, Lockheed Martin, Hyundi, Audi and others, the developments with this technology in the field, particularly when it relates to very high discharge battery packs are highly specific, and to draw general reference is not only misleading, in this instance it is actively dangerous - in an identical sense to removing the references to "David Blaine" could mislead an adventurous member of the public to attempt freezing himself in a block of ice for a week by merely stating the feat as attributable to a human body. Therefore the quality of the information is materially harmed and the public endangered by your actions in removing that resource). Please do not do it again. Thank you.

Hello "‎Seb az86556", you forgot to sign the above paragraph. Are you user "Julian_Cox" that is spamming the LiPo page? I fail to see how removing link spam is dangerous in any way. Please explain why you are posting about links added by "Julian_Cox". Are you using a sock puppet? Should I open a sock puppet investigation? HumphreyW (talk) 00:07, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

About your reverts on Pluto

Hello there, there is no policy on whatever you used as a reason to remove the artistic impression from Pluto's page. In Eris (dwarf planet) there are two artistic images. Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 05:37, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I didn't quote any policy. As my edit summary states, the image is unnecessary. It adds no encyclopaedic value to the article. HumphreyW (talk) 05:46, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

September 2012

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Intel Atom. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Codename Lisa (talk) 20:34, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Gambler's fallacy

I have reverted your edit claiming original research because it is not original research, as searching up the reference will show you. Next time please just ask for a reference.

PS: Are you always this rude? Banedon (talk) 07:53, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Synthetic fibres

You were too quick of the mark on that deletion. Sure it is a lousy edit in the wrong place and may be a copyvio- but it looks like the sort of summary found in a post 16 vocational textbook thus well within scope. As this is the time of year that students would be starting a module on Synthetics, we need to investigate that. New editors must be encouraged- there is enough work to go round <understatement>. Thanks however for policing out the spam and vandalism. --ClemRutter (talk) 11:11, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

NTFS

I would like to know why you deleted the link toward by blog on NFTS Data Deduplication. I didn't mean to pollute. The post I linked is pretty complete and technically reliable, and, as long as in the last NTFS version in Widnwos Server 2012 there is Data Deduplication and nobody has yet talked about it, I don't see why I shouldn't be mentioning it. Here's the link you should have read before acting: http://www.happysysadm.com/2012/10/data-deduplication-in-windows-server.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.80.39.41 (talk) 14:00, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

The WP policy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RS#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29 clearly mentions blogs as non acceptable sources. I am not doubting your technical accuracy but for WP standards there needs to be a reputable references. HumphreyW (talk) 14:08, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I understand, even if I think that the accuracy of a information ensues from the information itself and not from its container. Also, is there a way a blog canbecome a reputable reference? Respect anyway for your dedicated work in keeping WP reliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.80.39.41 (talk) 14:17, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Goethe

I apologize if I caused some problems with the links - it certainly wasn't my intention. It's just my lack of information about the way how things work on Wikipedia. I've read the Wikipedia's instructions on adding links, but I still have some doubts. Can i feel free to ask you for additional instruction? Best regards! --Eki777 (talk) 18:26, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Assembly Language

You reverted my edit on Assembly Language with: "Misleading changes giving inaccurate portrayal of how things work." Please explain which part you have a problem with, I fixed a few grammatical errors and I want to fixed them again. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by EvilKeyboardCat (talk • contribs) 07:26, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Your changes were more than simple grammatical errors. You changed the meaning of the sentences. I disagree with the changes because they mislead the reader. HumphreyW (talk) 07:30, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is dead

Humphrey,

No offence.Just my thought wikipedi is dead for me from now on.I guess search engines think like me cause i do not see any wikipedia articles dominating first pages for sometime.

Can this be stopped.Sure but there has to be a transparent prodecure to select editors and articles but only by professionals.This has been a place for link building ans seo gurus and lost credibility.

Good luck. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fffdervis (talk • contribs) 11:46, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:41, 24 November 2015 (UTC)