Ramu50

Archive

Other Archives

• FAQ (Index)

Reply, discuss...etc.

• Conflicts History
  • I welcome anybody who are interest to view the conflict history, though I do want to tell you, I do not leave a trail of hatred. In fact I do become friends with them sometimes and asking them for advice, its one of the best way to acquire knowledge. Open your mind, let other give you the insights, in which you haven't forsee for your long years. The more open mind you are the more wise you are, the more mature you will become

Note that most of the conflicts have already been resolved.

I apologize beforehand for my bad habits of using slangs and foul language on Wikipedia.

• Community Conflicts

Resources made just for you

• KnowledgeBase

List of Archives

• Conflicts History
• Community Conflicts
• Junkyard_A

Junkyard archive format

• A = 2007~2008
• B = 2008~2009
• C = 2009~2010

I haven't really created an actual archive, my talk page haven't accumulated to that load yet.

---

Adobe Creative Suite Editions

Below is a matrix of the applications that are bundled in each of the software suites (for version 3.3).

Note: As of version 3.3, Fireworks CS3 is included in CS 3 Design Premium and all editions that included Acrobat 8 Pro, now include Acrobat 9 Pro.

	Design		Web		Production Premium	Master Collection
	Standard	Premium	Standard	Premium
Photoshop CS3
Photoshop CS3 Extended
Illustrator CS3
InDesign CS3
Acrobat 9 Pro
Flash CS3 Professional
Dreamweaver CS3
Fireworks CS3
Contribute CS3
After Effects CS3 Professional
Premiere Pro CS3
Soundbooth CS3
Encore CS3
Shared features, services, and applications
Bridge CS3
Version Cue CS3
Device Central CS3
Stock Photos
Acrobat Connect
Dynamic Link
OnLocation CS3 (Windows only)
Ultra CS3 (Windows only)

HCI edit

In response to your comment about my defintion for HCI TLA, I don't understand why you think it was advertising anything (advertising what?). It was a very neutral definition for the abbreviation and, while lacking completeness, I think it was more accurate than the current definition you added. Bluetooth and USB are not a ports, they are busses. The definitions says something about storage -- storing of what?? It should also make it clear what it's talking about (e.g. electronics or computers) as it's completely out of context, please fix it, thank you. Balrog-kun (talk) 00:46, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

---

Larrabee (GPU)

Hi - The new material that you've added to the article would be better placed in a section of it's own. E_dog95' ^{Hi '} 20:01, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Br

It's not a question of not allowed, it's deprecated. WP:AWB has reasonably smart rule for taking these out, and replacing certain HTML entities with wikimarkup, as well as lot of other minor changes. Rich Farmbrough, 16:21 9 August 2008 (GMT).

You asked why </br> wasn't allowed.Rich Farmbrough, 11:20 10 August 2008 (GMT).

{{Linux Distributions}} move

Hi,

When you moved this template, you broke the talk archive link on the talk page. When moving an article, please check to see if there are talk sub-pages which also need to be fixed. Thanks. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Alternative version of {{Linux distributions}}

Hi again,

Rather than edit warring about this, I have created a copy of your version of the template in your user space, at User:Ramu50/Linux distributions. This will allow you to continue refining it without the continual back-and-forth argument on the {{Linux distributions}} page. When you've finished working on it, it may be an idea to pick an alternative name, such as {{Linux distributions expanded}}, and move the template to there - then we will have a choice of templates to use in different situations. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

You can delete that article, I already created a draft article for myself. --Ramu50 (talk) 20:22, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Where you have it it is impossible to use it, If you don't mind, I would like to actually make a template of it at "User:10nitro/Linux distributions expanded" 10nitro (talk) 22:37, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

You know what, eff it, yes you own the copyright, but by submitting it on Wikipedia, you released it under the GNU LGPL license, which says I can do anything I want with it, as long as I release it under the same license. You expressed on your user page you wanted control over them. I was being courteous, but I'm impatient, seriously, if you have any issues, get on my talk page. I'm an agreeable guy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 10nitro (talk • contribs) 01:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Use and edit the template if you want to, I don't really care. I told you delete it, because it wastes space. By the way looking at Wikipedia it is kind of weird that Wikipedia is not dual license. Because GNU GPL is Closed Source (free to use, but not free to change the source) and therefore viral.

You can change it, but you can't call it the GNU GPL, because it's not. You can't change it on an existing work, because then you are changing the terms of someone else's work. It would be a legal impossibility. ~ 10nitro (talk) 02:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Before I never read LGPL, GFDL or AGP, I actually thought Free Software Foundation was trying to steal Copyrighted software, documents...etc by using Copyleft and the foundation is supported by Freedom of Speech through the Charter of Rights.

Wikipedia owns the copyright, while users don't, hence creating Wikipedia Communities is illegal. Awkwardlly funny --Ramu50 (talk) 01:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the user who submits it is the copyright holder, they just agree to release it under the GFDL, see Wikipedia:Copyrights ~ 10nitro (talk) 02:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Ultra-Mobile PC

Hi, I am also putting this message on User talk:Diego Moya.Because of your interest in Ultra-Mobile PC, you might like to also look at Location-based service and Automotive navigation system. My involvement with them has been just to keep these pages free of link spam. However, all the pages require a fundamental rewrite which I don't have the expertise to do. If either of you felt like having a crack then it would be much appreciated. :-) TerriersFan (talk) 11:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Update

• [Contribs, Automotive navigation system

• Tablet PC
• Advanced Parking Guidance System

Regarding template:ATI and template talk:ATI

You did not read the reply thoroughly on the template talk page, where I did NOT discuss about drivers, HDTV and game console. And do not threaten to report to Administrators again, as you are basically repeating what that anon user's claim about your user conduct on Wikiquette Alert page, and your editing summary containing the threat to report to administrators has been appended into that discussion thread for other editors to see. --203.218.101.133 (talk) 11:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I think there's enough citations in my reply, also as a regular editor, I also have my responsibility to keep relevant pages out of information which will cause confusions (e.g. your "Scorpion platform" claim, your claim about the true name of the AMD 690G chipset being "Radeon X1270 chipset" and many more), it is your problem by not looking into the references I have quoted in the replies, not me giving no citations while doing disruptive edits. --203.218.101.133 (talk) 18:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Just leave the template alone for a moment until we have our little discussion about the "IGP + chipset" is over and we have reach a consensus, will you? --203.218.101.133 (talk) 18:33, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Stop making up synthesis, the article says the following Article: AMD 690 chipset series

“ The marketing name for this chipset on the Intel platform is the Radeon Xpress 1200 series (Radeon Xpress 1200 to Radeon Xpress 1270) while the name for the chipset on the AMD platform is 690G. ”

Also I am still writing my edit against your incorrect information so stop making nonsense statements. --Ramu50 (talk) 18:36, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Look closer, it says "Intel Platform" only, and did I refrain from using the term Radeon Xpress 1250 in the ATI template (Under the section "ATI chipsets"), just look carefully before saying something like that, it only shows that you did not pay attention to other editor's edits. --203.218.101.133 (talk) 18:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello, the AMD Chipsets was placed there for reference, it was made by AMD. So explain yourself why you placed it as an ATI Chipset, when it wasn't made by ATI. --Ramu50 (talk) 18:42, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

It was sold as an ATI product as "ATI Radeon Xpress 1250 chipset" [1], this is more important than who made this, also see this:

“ ATI Radeon™ Xpress 1250 delivers breathtaking integrated graphics performance for the Intel platform. This chipset triples the graphics performance of previous generation IGP products and provides more horsepower for the most demanding 3D games and multimedia applications, and the Windows Vista™ operating system. ”

Also the ATI Radeon Xpress 1250 project was started even before AMD acquisition, therefore in strictly speaking, Radeon Xpress 1250 is made by ATI until the company was taken over, resulting in there were only two motherboard vendors have the right to release the Radeon Xpress 1250 motherboards, as one has already signed contract and another vendor getting the chips is a measure to unload the RS600 inventory. The reference on this can be found in relevant section of the article. --203.218.101.133 (talk) 18:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Sold is not equivalent to creators. AMD only sell it under ATI for marketing purposes. My guess is, it would make ATI more equivalent to Nvidia (since there seems to be a competitor against nForce), becaus most people view AMD as more good at the consumer CPU, workstations and servers...etc, and therefore the enthusiasts don't trust AMD as skillful in the graphics segements. Its like enthusiasts like go to go for nForce chipset for the most part, before X48 is released, because SLI RAM and SLI certified PSU make it look like it is more professional. However, when X48 is introduced, the XMP sort of balance that part out. --Ramu50 (talk) 19:03, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

But the fact is this IGP/chipset is branded ATI and originated from ATI, the creator was changed to AMD after the acquisition, can we just follow the official branding here? If you insist the importance of "creator", it might as well as merging Template:AMD processors, Template:amdsock and Template:ATI into one large AMD template as all of the items are created by AMD after the acquision has taken place, but what I see is this move is obviously meaningless. You got my point? --203.218.101.133 (talk) 19:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

P.S. About why Intel-platform IGP still use ATI branding, AMD re-assigned brands to better promote it's platform approach after the acquisition, GPU products actually has the "Graphics from AMD" line added to it, making something like "ATI Radeon HD 4870 GPU from AMD" as seen on some product boxes. That leaves only Intel chipsets branding remained untouched as "ATI chipsets", as shown here: [2]. --203.218.101.133 (talk) 19:21, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok I didn't see this sentence before. Yeah remove AMD-690 series (from the template). Put it under ATI chipset, they don't deserve the recognition.

“ The AMD 690 chipset series is a chipset family developed and manufactured by AMD subsidiary ATI for the AMD platform. ”

Other that need changing are.

• HLSL2GLSL is a shader programming language. It is a rendering technologies govern by part of the OpenGL and DirectX framework.

Regarding about GPU technologies. I am constantly wondering about how to change it. GPU technologies refer only the technologies that is implanted on the graphic card. Because most technologies are design for DirectX and OpenGL frameworks (Quartz framework for Apple could be use in the future). Those technologies are choices that developers can make, whether or not the graphic cards or GPU support it. I heard rumors about it have to be specific, but never look into to it before, since they usually only appear at Nvision, SIGGRAPH and other important conference which I am no expert on. So I suggest we do this

Technologies

• Chipset (subgroup)
  • Hypermemory

• GPU (subgroup)
  • HyperZ
  • PowerPlay

• Multi Card (subgroup)
  • AMR
  • Crossfire
  • CrossfireX

HDTV is changed to Multimedia

• TV Tuners: All-in-Wonder (UVD)
• Handheld: Imageon
• HDTV: Xilleon

Developement

• Open Platform Approach (this is for both AMD and ATI)

Others

• Shaders: (HLSL2GLSL  · TruForm)
• Hardware Acceleration

Still wondering about the Platform part. --Ramu50 (talk) 19:41, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Some of my thoughts:

Please do not remove the 690G chipset entry, although the two things are similar in hardware and is made by ATI, but they are different products with different brands (though either brands belong to AMD) and both have market notability, so I think it's better to keep it separated as two entries, don't merge them, just keep them there, to avoid somebody asking "why can't I find information about that Radeon Xpress 1250 chipset?".

HyperMemory is not mianly a chipset feature, it's "[an] innovative technology that enables a reduction in the amount of on-board memory on a graphics card without compromising its overall performance" (Man, how I hate marketing speak!), it includes IGP and discrete GPUs [3]. So I suggest it became a category of its own.

UVD does not belong to All-in-Wonder but it's part of the "AVIVO HD technology" [4], in which this technology is present in mainly Radeon HD 2000/3000/4000 series of graphics cards, and in the "All-in-Wonder HD" product (bascially an HD 3650+TV tuner product), but rather UVD relates to Xilleon in terms of hardware or relates to AVIVO HD to account for the Multimedia capabilities present in graphics cards.

How many platforms do AMD have? If you rule out the codenames, it's just three, Desktop, Notebook/Mobile and Server, where the Desktop platform is further divided into Mainstream business, Mainstream consumer and Enthusiast consumer desktop platforms, the main difference between the last two? IGP or discrete chipset. What about Business? The focus on managability (ASF 2.0, DASH 1.0 etc.). (Roadmaps: page 22-25 of [5]: Notebook platform, Mainstream business platform, Mainstream consumer platform and Enthusiast consumer platform respectively, Server platform for more than 2 processors: [6])

I think shader technologies should merge into GPU technologies, since shaders are part of the GPU. Also HLSL2GLSL is a shading language translator in its roots, so can it group with drivers to make a "Drivers and software" section? Maybe some more GPU software entries such as ATI GPU ShaderAnalyser?

Some of the hardware acceleration items are not ATI hardware exclusive (See here as Adobe Photoshop CS4 uses OpenGL for GPU acceleration, not via CAL or GPGPU layers from AMD, but we'll have to wait and see until Photoshop CS4 is out), so it may not be appropriate time to include this yet, it's just what I think. --203.218.101.133 (talk) 21:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I have made a preview version with a bit alteration since open platform approach is now limited to notebook platform only (as seen on server roadmap and desktop roadmap listed above that both now require all AMD hardware), the preview can be viewed at User:ILoveMyComputer/Sandbox page. (Forget that username.) --203.218.101.133 (talk) 21:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

= = zzzz. Damn too busy working on other stuff and was studying test for tomorrow. I will continue Template: ATI later. --Ramu50 (talk) 03:56, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

From User talk:203.218.101.133:

“ It occured to me that most of the technologies that we missed, most of them are more relevant to OpenGL and DirectX framework and to be honest, most people in the graphic industry don't even understand these technologies that well, unless they are a driver developer, graphic engineer at SiS, Nvidia, ATI, SGI...etc. So let keep the original template for the time being and I will try and reduce the developement. I will develope the new template, if you want to get involved I seriously suggest you learn you graphic term before you edit or I must report you to an adminastrator, because constantly putting on false information is simply unacceptable in Wikipedia.

--Ramu50 (talk) 20:20, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

”

You are not going to put all these technologies into Wikipedia, are you? Although I have no rights to determine, but I would like you to remember the Wikipedia policy of notability that "non-notable items" (as decided by the consensus of editors reached during discussions) will be deleted. Also, developer's side of things is not so appropriate to be put in an encyclopedia since they are too specific for other readers who have no knowledge in that area to read unless you can make then as general as you can. I suggest you to think again before including them into Wikipedia. Also, you did not read my cited links doesn't mean that I have put false information on Wikipedia and it also doesn't mean that you are right or I am wrong, that's all I would like to say. --203.218.193.235 (talk) 09:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

P.S. If you have the time, I would like you to explain the term "desktop platforms" in this AMD presentation slide: http://en.expreview.com/img/review/Kuma/amdcpu_platform.png Thank you. --203.218.193.235 (talk) 18:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Template:Sun Microsystems

SQLJ

If you don't understand the products and technologies in the template, please research on the web before making changes. To name a few of your incorrect edits: SQLJ has nothing to do with Sun, Project blackbox is not JavaStation, X4500 is a storage product (or data server) but the rest of the Sun Fire line is not. -- Raysonho (talk) 03:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Please STOP adding the template with wrong information now!! If you want to change anything, read the discussions at Template talk:Sun Microsystems. -- Raysonho (talk) 15:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

This is the LAST warning. Before you make other changes, discuss on the talk page. I don't want to make this unpleasant. -- Raysonho (talk) 02:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

ANI report on recent behaviour

I've opened a new thread on your recent behaviour on the admin noticeboard. Your continual tendicious editing in spite of being repeatedly asked not to and dealt with in good faith has left me little alternative. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

ANI report

Hello, Ramu50. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Rilak (talk) 06:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Template:Ziff Davis

Template:Ziff Davis currently includes many redlinks. If you have any reason to think that one or more of these redlinks has a reasonable chance of being turned into an article (eg, there are sources to suggest the topics concerned are notable) please could you give those reasons on Template talk:Ziff Davis. The articles themselves do not have to be created immediately, but there should be some reason to believe that the articles could exist and the redlinks would prompt people to work on those articles. Without such reasons, I believe the redlinks should be removed as is currently being suggested on the talk page. Thanks. 82.211.95.178 (talk) 14:22, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Minor edits (tips)

Just letting you know, the minor edit button is meant to be used only in cases of very superficial changes, such as typographical errors, spelling, or minor formatting changes. If you're actually adding or deleting content, you don't need to check that box. Thanks! Dayewalker (talk) 07:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Mentoring?

An admin suggested that your editing skills may improve with mentoring [7]. Do you know a more experienced editor with whom you get along, and who would be willing to work with you in that respect? Sincerely, VG ☎ 15:27, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Content disputes

Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and when editors cannot agree on exactly what the content should be, they should discuss how to make use of the available reliable sources with regard to our core policies on content: Neutral point of view, No original research and Verifiability. When contributing to these discussions, editors must be civil and assume good faith of others - that is, assume that other editors are here to improve Wikipedia. The aim of these discussions is to achieve a consensus - this does not mean that everyone is in agreement, but that there is a clear way forward that most or all editors will consent to. When a consensus isn't clear, there are a variety of dispute resolution techniques that can be used to seek wider input.

But even when a consensus is clear, some editors refuse to accept it. Tendentious editing (editing based on the belief that everyone else is wrong), edit-warring (reverting back and forth), and personal attacks (criticising other editors rather than the content), are termed disruptive editing and are very harmful to the process of building an encyclopaedia.

This is where the admins step in. It is our job to prevent disruption as much as possible, and for this reason we're given tools that let us, for example, protect a particular page from being edited, or block a particular editor from editing any page.

This information should give you the basis to fully understand the following:-

You've been involved in several content disputes recently, and several editors have voiced concerns about your conduct. It seems that you are willing to engage in edit-warring and that you are not willing to respect or recognise consensus. If this continues, you may be blocked from editing, to prevent disruption to Wikipedia. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Because I don't feel that I can personally resolve these issues, I have started another discussion at the admins' noticeboard here. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

--Ramu50 (talk) 03:11, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Grid and Distributed computing articles

What on earth do you doubt about these articles connections to parallel computing that led to these two fact tags [8] [9]? They are clearly correct statements... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:04, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

They are no evidence. --Ramu50 (talk) 03:06, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

If you think that you should not be editing any of these topics. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:10, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I intend on contributing those articles, and besides what are you getting at anyway. --Ramu50 (talk) 03:11, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

You are not showing that you understand the topic well enough to help organize and categorize it. Trying to do so when you do not understand it is destructive to Wikipedia's information. Please stop. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:22, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Georgewilliamherbert is exactly right -- your edits so far demonstrate an extremely flawed or nonexistent understanding of these topics. Raul654 (talk) 03:30, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

For the least as a starter so far the all the templates that were in a conflict, if they are any reverts, I do discuss it at talk page straightaway, unlike other users who aren't willing to change. Yes I am going to look into Parallel Computing topics and contribute later, its just that after that Georgewilliamherbert attitude of an template incidents, I do not tolerate that kind of attitude at all in Wikipedia. --Ramu50 (talk) 03:32, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Ramu50: You are NOT contributing!! Your edits are flawed, and I believe your contribution to commons violates other people's copyright. -- Raysonho (talk) 03:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Ramu, the templates were not in conflict. If they were, then we would see lots of editing to those templates. You were the only one to edit some of them for days, if not weeks or months. Those templates were relatively stable, as most templates are. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:45, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Advice

Ramu, you have a number of people complaining about your style on templates. While it is fine to disagree, your method of editing is quite concerning. The repeated reversions to a template, when it is clear to outsiders that you haven't even read the main articles that the templates discuss, and then your aggressively talk page usage is not conducive to working here. Reviewing Template talk:Parallel computing, while I agree that it shouldn't require a mastery of the material to discuss the subject, you should have some idea before you revise the template. Per above, you need to go to the talk page FIRST and form a consensus, getting others to agree with you, before going after the templates. Let me put it this way: after this many people disagree with what you are doing, isn't it possible that you may need to learn a bit more about what to do here? There is a community aspect here and you have to deal with that as well. Last warning though: if you edit another template like you did at Template:Nvidia without edit summaries for edits like this, you will be blocked. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:41, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Ramu, your editing on computer-related articles is highly disruptive. From the comments you've made, it's clear that you are editing a topic that you don't understand very well. Also, you've been making personal attacks on Georgewilliamherbert. Both of these behaviors must immediately cease.

Also, from your comments, I don't believe you are native english speaker. I think some of the problems you are having here might stem from language-related communications difficulties. I don't really have a suggestion for this except you might want to be more careful about what you write on talk pages, to avoid miscommunications. Raul654 (talk) 03:57, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

go away

Since apparently you havn't bothered to check my talk page yourself to see my reply, I shall comment here, instead.

Check the date on the tag. I don't remember why I added it but it must have been for a good reason at the time as I'm not in the habit of adding BS tags to things.

Also, you can retract your legal threats right away. I don't take kindly to people trying to push me around, especially when you obviously don't understand the policy in question. Anyone can add a copyvio tag if they think the article contains information that violates someone's copyright or is directly c/ped from somewhere else. Had you done a little research, you would know this. Jtrainor (talk) 09:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:ANI notice again

Ramu, you seem to have ignored all the other discussions at the noticeboard but you really should pay attention to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Request_immediate_uninvolved_admin_block and comment there. We are discussing restricting you from editing templates completely. In fact, if I see one more edit from you to a template or an article without you having discussed things beforehand that is controversial, I'm blocking you. This many editors cannot be wrong and I myself am getting tired of following after you. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot

You guys should STOP the bot immediately, it is adding every single columns incorrectly, resulting incorrect total numbers. The total for the rows are ok. --Ramu50 (talk) 23:34, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Can you give me a link to the table you mean? I spot-checked a couple tables and they seem correct. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:39, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Index. I tested 3 times each on both Excel and my Graphing Calculators and the first column numbers are added incorrectly. --Ramu50 (talk) 23:42, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The first column there is correct. There are 260+23+73+142+3239+463+3711+1217+1784 = 10912 assessed top-importance articles, and 10912 + 267 = 11179 total top-importance articles. The "Assessed" row is a subtotal. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:04, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh I see, thanks for the info. --Ramu50 (talk) 00:11, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Announcements

APEX conflicts

I am archiving the contents APEX conflicts later, since during Blocking period I can't my own edit users subpage, which I think maybe a bug.

---

MID article

I am also archiving the MID documents I wrote at MID talk page, as already noted before I am no going to be involved in high importance Wikipedia Article.

This is the Documents I am refering in case you guys are wondering.

• Talk:Mobile Internet Devices#Revision Dispute - Nov 3

you can use the documents or make a copy of the document if you wish, due to the policy of Wikipedia anything that is contributed should be kept, so if they team at the talk page feels it must kept, I will make an archive. But in the future if any of guys brought it up, I am instantly reporting you guys to adminastrators for bias action without any warning, because I already told you guys

Do whatever you want with the discussion, I am not thinking of contributing to Wikipedia 
anymore for the most part.

Time Contributed: 22:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC) --- For evidence see Talk Page History.

--Ramu50 (talk) 20:12, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Silicon-germanium

Hi Ramu50,

Thanks for contributing to the article, but I'm quite confused about why you keep adding the external link about diamond semiconductors. This really is a completely distinct materials system from SiGe and I'm afraid I can't see the relevance to the article. There's some discussion of diamond as a semiconductor material in the Diamond article, so your link might be better placed there. Can you shed any light on this for me? Papa November (talk) 23:25, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Rude and hostile edits

this edit was grossly inappropriate for Wikipedia.

You have been repeatedly warned not to insult and threaten people - your chosing to do it again, without provocation, was a complete violation of Wikipedia policy and norms of community behavior.

You should be ashamed of yourself. I am requesting that an uninvolved administrator block you.

This is not a reasonable way to contribute. If you want to be constructive, you have to do it another way. If you are just here to butt heads, there's a limited patience for that. Please either reform your behavior or chose to stop editing before we force you to permanently stop by indefinitely blocking you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes I did said that, and I apologize at the WP:ANI thread. But to be quite honest I don't give a f''k towards Chris Chunningham for his constant personal attacks and hypocracy spreading flase rumor on me and I have report him today. He brags and act immature, can't even make a simple explanation. Yes my works may sucks (as I have contribute several reference documents in attempt to help the Wikipedians having a greater depth of understanding). One which cause enormous amount of conflicts, because it was the first contributions.

In case you are interested.

• ATAPI
• MID
• Cloud Computing (right now writing on the better document).

I am not mad with you, at least you are willing to be legitimate, after all with the experience of an adminstrators.

I was even thinking about what User:Jtrainor. Yeah true enough I should change, but then again, as if Wikipedians really care about my opinion for Christ sake. --Ramu50 (talk) 03:28, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, you should change. You won't become a happy or successful wikipedia editor until you learn to work with others, instead of against them. That means paying attention to what others are telling you as you learn how it's done; and Stifle! Dicklyon (talk) 04:23, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Userboxes

Regarding Userboxes (note to Maurice Carbonaro)

Notice: All of your Userboxes should be placed underWikipedia:Userboxes#Gallery and in the sub-article accordingly. Wikipedia categorization isn't reserved for your own personal use, please stop wasting Wikipedia resources. Thanks. --Ramu50 (talk) 02:39, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Answer to Ramu50

Hi Ramu50,
thanks for writing me!
I didn't know about Wikipedia categorization for userboxes placed under Wikipedia:Userboxes#Gallery.
Thaks for telling me...
I will transfer all my Userboxes there A.S.A.P.
Have a nice day.

Maurice Carbonaro (talk) 10:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Sorry I wasn't being bald. --Ramu50 (talk) 17:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, right...

So my single unfinished, test-only, userbox, is "wasting Wikipedia resources", you say? Er... no, it isn't. I'll transfer it to a definite category if and when I think it's good enough for general usage: maybe tomorrow, maybe in five years. To be clear: my user page's "playground" section is none of your business, and I'd pretty much prefer it to remain that way.

Have a nice day. -- alexgieg (talk) 13:32, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Then I am reporting to you the WP:ANI straight away. As stated before Wikipedia is not for own "personal usage." I never stated your cateogrization is incorrect, I stated that Categorization are use for classifying articles, lists and other Wikipedia resources. Userpages and userboxes are not amongst any of those. Also Wikipedia is not a place for you "test" on anthing, with that being stated, I think it is quite evident "testing" is considered as personal benefits which Wikipedia doesn't support. --Ramu50 (talk) 17:31, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Uh... Ramu50, please stop that. There's nothing wrong with people testing userboxes or having personal userboxes. You're grossly misinterpreting our policy on userboxes here. Please don't go around warning people about policies if you're not familiar with them in depth. Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:14, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia "never" reserve Categorization for Userboxes, and the Userboxes article is there for a reason. Also Wikipedia place the Reference Desk and Help Desk on the main page so user will make use of it, not wasting the irrelevant content that is irrelevant to Encyclopedia, Almanac...etc. --Ramu50 (talk) 03:16, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

You misunderstand the policy. Stop warning people about policy you don't understand.

There's no requirement that userboxes be centrally listed. Ones which are user specific or not of general interest can and often are located under a users' own page. There is no requirement that 100% of a person's Wikipedia involvement be focused purely on the encyclopedia - describing yourself, and a little side communications, are acceptable uses of the project's userspaces. If that's all you're doing here, or most of what you're doing here, then that's a problem. But as long as one mostly does encyclopedia things things then some of the rest is ok. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:41, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia related resources, such as WikiProjects, Wikimedia Commons, Wikinews, Wikibooks...etc are all acceptable, but userbox are not, they are for personal usage. --Ramu50 (talk) 03:43, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Sir, you're a troll, sir. And a meta-troll at that. Well, maybe not, but I won't feed you anymore, and I suggest others follow suit. Bye! -- alexgieg (talk) 10:41, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Userfied templates, ANI

I've split / userfied the Solaris and Java templates from Template talk:Sun Microsystems#Proposal Template to user:Ramu50/Solaris and user:Ramu50/Java as this is an unrelated subject, per discussion on that talk page.

In addition, please notify users if you are taking them to ANI in future. I extended this courtesy to you in the past. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:19, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Omnigo

I've reverted your "Omnigo"-related edits on Microsoft articles. I'm really truly stumped as to why you put any of this into the encyclopedia; the article you provided as a source is from more than a year ago, was entirely unsubstantiated at the time, and has not been reported on since. On what basis could you or anyone justify updating the Microsoft Surface article so say that this product's underlying operating system is based on "Omnigo"? It's based on Windows Vista; this is well-established by Microsoft itself as well as a variety of press reports.

Please try to be more careful about this sort of thing in the future. Do your research, and make sure you know what you are talking about before making changes to the encyclopedia. This is really important. There's really no reason for you to be working on Wikipedia if you aren't going to make a proper effort to ensure the content you add is actually correct. Thanks. Warren -talk- 01:41, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Botnet

I just reverted your edits to Botnet. An unregistered user added a large block of copyrighted text, which was summarily removed. You erroneously reversed the removal and labeled it as vandalism. Please, spend a few moments to look into a situation before throwing a vandal label at established editors. Googling the first sentence of the text brings up this link, from which the entire text was copied and pasted with slight edits. I've reverted your re-addition of the text. Thank you. Rurik (talk) 03:35, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

XNU

please don't re-add XNU to Template:FOSS. Letdorf already explained correctly why it doesn't belong there. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:08, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Last warning

I've warned you before. I've blocked you before. It's been enough. No more edit warring at all from you or it's indefinite. One more and you are done. Use the template talk pages and discuss your changes. Frankly, I feel I should block you for trying to insert Small office/home office into Template:Linux. I'm not sure what in the world would make you think that an article on office types belongs on the template for Linux but I'm not playing games with you. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:12, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for repeated abuse of editing privileges. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

Looking over Template talk:FOSS, I see a continued pattern of, I'll just call it, intentional ignorance and incivility. You clearly haven't learned anything from all the warnings, discussions, and even blocks. Playing games like here and continuing to be uncivil to others here is enough for me. Blocked until you learn how to work with other people. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:20, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Ramu50 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

The FOSS article has show absolutely no evidence, that the definition FOSS must mean both Free and Open Source, that is a totally made up original research and it is totally unsourced. The FOSS article merely explain a brief history, contributions...etc. Its quite obvious you and other users are immature to accept such a simple fact contributed by the Linux foundation. I don't even know why you edit Wikipedia, if you insists on editing Linux related contents, if you can't even accept the founder idea of Linux contributors. You are such a loser, you blocked me due to hatred, and inability to accept the fact, while you can violated any rule you wish in Wikipedia, but not allowing any users to contribute consensus discussion on talk pages. Can't believe such a loser like you even existed. Last time when you block me on in regards to Template:Nvidia, you didn't know that I wasn't reverting the template. I actually took my version and also included submit by the users involved in 3RR to see if the consensus will agree with me, before drastic discussion of changing the entire is needed. During your misconception of 3RR, I fixed repetitive links on there, added the links and consolidated, even though I didn't the enemy consensus. You are so immature, not you can't even see a better version should be made, but a discussion should start. Anyhow I am not going to argue with your immaturity and insolence since your already has an advantage as an administrators, and its quite obvious that your have no ability to edit in Wikipedia, since in AMD template you weren't able to provide any evidence in many of the subgroups expansion and also you choose not to be involved and doing anything you like.

Decline reason:

That personal attack on your unblock request was a very good demonstration, based on your history, of why you've been indefblocked. — Blueboy96 03:57, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Say whatever you want, I already know the nobody is going to unblock me and I don't really care that much, since the fact is I am sure there have been infinite similar occurrence like this happening as we speak.

The reality for Wikipedia is they are Labelled as anything else but positive. Even a study suggested that 40% of the contents are not reliable. ref - Wikipedia can pose a Health

Go ahead and be immature and good riddance if people stop donating to Wikipedia. Because the only fact you guys are trying to seemingly prove is you are better than anyone else, or more neutrally speaking is. Wikipedian is only promoting its Wikipedian idea of Information Privatizing. Or else why would notability policy be even created, may I ask. Its obvious Wikipedia are trying to make up a constant excuse, how come there are MIT students who managed to found the UDDI way to solve the problem while you can't. You can keep on making excuses for the rest of your life, but the fact is you will NEVER be successful and you always be stereotyped. So be immature and better you die fast without a soul.

Wikipedia isn't considered reliable by many because jerkoffs like you intentionally edit the encyclopedia so that it is inaccurate. So please, kindly, take your bullshit and get out of here. Warren -talk- 04:21, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

As if any bullshit loser will even listen to you, you guys can't even edit on the same topics with the passion for 1 year, while I already edit continously on the field of computing for almost 9 months. Give me a fucking break losers, you guys can't even make a freaking documentation, for god sake can't even understand a simple virtualization technologies classification and Cloud Computing and you guys called yourself you know your stuff, as if any loser would even believe in you no wonder Wikipedia has so many mebers, but less than 50% are actively contributing. What are you guys, bunch of 2 years old still living in wonderland of D&D.

Even a simple ThinkWiki has been mentioned more time than the official Wikipedia, keep on bragging I'll see how far you can fail.

By the way even if I am a jerk, than you are worse than a dog. Because you guys obviously can't solve any problems at all with the useless Wikipedian policy, since this Category page already shows Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages you wanna bet that even all the criminals in the USA jail doesn't add up in any way comparable to the numbers of people you idiots blocked. Wikipedia, yea sure your administrators can kiss a dog ass before you got even make any breakthrough even on Earth, never mind about loser your wild fantasy about life on other planets, because you ain't gonna see it. A fool who only is narrowminded, how very sad, do I need to pity you. --Ramu50 (talk) 05:11, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

If this is somehow a request to be unblocked, you need to use the unblock template again. Otherwise, I doubt anyone is going to be reading this. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:49, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Ramu, if you would like to request unblocking, you must file a polite request using the {{unblock}} template. Please read WP:UNBLOCK and WP:GAB if you would like to do this. This is your last chance however. If you put any more personal attacks or inappropriate comments on this talk page, then I will be forced to prevent you from editing it.

To reiterate - if you are incivil or offensive on this page once more, you will be unable to request unblocking. Papa November (talk) 10:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I know how the procedure of unblocking should be done, and it is not I choose not to, but rather what is the point even I get unblock. The previous incidents of conflict seems to be nothing more than a series of hatred chain reaction. Can you not tell from User contributions history do you not see my contributions has dramatically decrease from roughly 50+ to around 15 per day, because I am more involve with talk page. So if I am the only one that is changing while other insist on their old fashion than it would be better for you to delete my account. --Ramu50 (talk) 22:48, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

By the way, may I ask why you guys keep on evading my questions. I said if the users doesn't understand my point, he should of pointed out, but the users insist on not do. And exactly why I am being scapegoat for his uncooperative actions? I know it is quite evident I have violated WP:civil, but how his is the opposing users correct, if his isn't willing to cooperate. The statement I said on FOSS wasn't even a threat, its just stating if his not willing to cooperate, than obviously his voted is not accounted, that already WP:CONS (consensus). Uncooperative matters is for administrators to deal with, it certainly isn't my job to do it why I do have to deal with it immature action. --Ramu50 (talk) 01:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Ramu50 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

This is NOT a request, but I want to know why is personal commentary on the reason for blocking!

Decline reason:

No reason given for unblock. Your talk page will be protected, since you're abusing the unblock template. — TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

ANI case

Hello, Ramu50. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. You can find the specific section here. Jeh (talk) 07:41, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of User:Ramu50/IDE

A tag has been placed on User:Ramu50/IDE, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam as well as Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Alexius08 (talk) 01:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

requesting unblock

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Ramu50 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I wish to get unblock how do I do so.

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you
  1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. only (talk) 11:45, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.