User talk:Dsimic#Number of edits (Oranjelo100)

This user may have left Wikipedia. Dsimic has not edited Wikipedia since July 2016. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

↓

Skip to bottom of the page

↓

Please place new discussions at the bottom of the talk page.

This is Dsimic's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

In a few words, I prefer to keep discussions unfragmented. Thus, if you leave a comment for me here, I will most likely respond to it on this same page‍—‌my talk page‍—‌as an effort to keep the entire conversation in one place. Similarly, if I leave a comment on your talk page, please respond to it there. As a reminder, we can use our watchlists to keep track of when responses are made. At the same time, please feel free to send an alert to me on this page about a comment you have left elsewhere, or simply use the built-in notifications by mentioning my username while posting comments in other places.

Manual of Style
Content Accessibility Biography Disambiguation pages Organizing by subject Gender identity Hidden text Infoboxes Linking Self-references Words to watch
Formatting Abbreviations Capitalization Dates and numbers Pronunciation Spelling Superscripts and subscripts Text formatting Titles of works
Images Captions Image placement Icons Images
Layout Layout Lead section Tables Trivia sections
Lists Lists Lists of works Road junctions Stand-alone lists
By topic area Arts Anime and manga Comics Film Lyrics and poetry Music Music samples Record charts Stringed instruments Novels Television Video games Visual arts Writing about fiction See also: WikiProject style advice Regional Canada China (and Chinese) France (and French) Hawaii India Indonesia Ireland Japan Korea Malaysia Pakistan Philippines Poland Singapore See also: Naming conventions (geographic names) WikiProject style advice Science and technology Chemistry Compound classes Chemicals References and external links Safety Structure drawing Computer science Mathematics Medicine Taxonomy See also: WikiProject style advice Other Blazons Cue sports (Snooker) Islam Latter Day Saints Legal Military history Trademarks See also: WikiProject style advice history legal and cultural religion and education sports and games
Related guidelines Article size Article titles Categories, lists, and navigation templates Categorization Hatnotes Subpages Understandability
Simplified Contents Tips
v t e

I am using your php program that fetches page views statistics for a while as a hobby, and I want to thank you for that. I know that the data that your php program comes from stats.grok.se. There comes now a "better" page view stats provider, which can be visited at tools.wmflabs.org/musikanimal/pageviews. This alternative website looks better, some of the reasons are (1) page view data of more than one article can be viewed simultaneously (2) it can release page view data from both desktop and mobile web. Actually, in the English Wikipedia, on the external tools of the view history tab, the page view statistics link now directs to tools.wmflabs.org/musikanimal/pageviews. The daily page view values of stats.grok.se and tools.wmflabs.org/musikanimal (desktop platform views only) differ slightly. I suggest to create a php program for this alternative page view stat provider if you are interested. They also release CSV and JSON files.CunningRabbitXenon07 (talk) 08:25, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! You're welcome, and I'm glad that you use the PHP program I wrote. :) In the next few days I'll have a look into that alternative data source for monthly traffic stats calculation, especially because the statistics data available from stats.grok.se hasn't been updated since January 21, 2016, which unfortunately makes stats.grok.se no longer usable. Thank you for pointing it out! — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 18:16, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@CunningRabbitXenon07: After quite a while, I finally got around to modifying the PHP program so it uses the page views statistics provided by the Wikimedia Foundation's Pageview API. Please have a look at the modified program code, and I would appreciate if you could see how well it works on your side. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 06:55, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll check it out. CunningRabbitXenon07 (talk) 07:01, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, any feedback would be appreciated! — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 07:06, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I unified the references. I think this is better readable. If you like it the other way, please unify ALL references the same way. --88.71.145.185 (talk) 05:29, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Regarding my edit on the Power supply unit (computer) article, IMHO there's no reasonable excuse for favoring a much less readable format of the Wiki code under the unification umbrella. Consistency is good, of course, but it actually isn't that good when it makes things worse. Each "slice" of better Wiki code readability counts, and we should aim toward consistency-related changes that improve the overall Wiki code readability. Hope you'll agree. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 08:52, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately we don't agree. Your version is much less readable and makes things worse. --88.71.145.185 (talk) 12:47, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quite frankly, there's no way that, for example, this Wiki code snippet:

Although a power supply with a larger than needed power rating will have an extra margin of safety against overloading, such a unit is often less efficient and wastes more electricity at lower loads than a more appropriately sized unit. For example, a 900-watt power supply with the [[80 Plus Silver]] efficiency rating (which means that such a power supply is designed to be at least 85-percent efficient for loads above 180&nbsp;W) may only be 73% efficient when the load is lower than 100&nbsp;W, which is a typical idle power for a desktop computer. Thus, for a 100&nbsp;W load, losses for this supply would be 37&nbsp;W; if the same power supply was put under a 450&nbsp;W load, for which the supply's efficiency peaks at 89%, the loss would be only 56&nbsp;W despite supplying 4.5 times the useful power.<ref>{{cite web | url = http://www.anandtech.com/show/2624/3 | title = Debunking Power Supply Myths | date = 2008-09-22 | accessdate = 2014-10-07 | author = Christoph Katzer | publisher = [[AnandTech]] | page = 3}}</ref><ref>{{cite web | url = http://www.coolermaster.com/xresserver01-DLFILE-P130218025925ba-F13032500212140.html | title = Cooler Master UCP Product Sheet | year = 2008 | accessdate = 2014-10-11 | publisher = [[Cooler Master]] | format = PDF}}</ref> For a comparison, a 500-watt power supply carrying the [[80 Plus Bronze]] efficiency rating (which means that such a power supply is designed to be at least 82-percent efficient for loads above 100&nbsp;W) may provide an 84-percent efficiency for a 100&nbsp;W load, wasting only 19&nbsp;W.<ref>{{cite web | url = http://www.anandtech.com/show/4908/silverstone-strider-plus-500w-modular-power/4 | title = SilverStone Strider Plus{{snd}} 500&nbsp;W Modular Power | date = 2011-10-10 | accessdate = 2014-10-11 | author = Martin Kaffei | publisher = [[AnandTech]] | page = 4}}</ref>

is better or more readable than its nicely formatted equivalent:

Although a power supply with a larger than needed power rating will have an extra margin of safety against overloading, such a unit is often less efficient and wastes more electricity at lower loads than a more appropriately sized unit. For example, a 900-watt power supply with the [[80 Plus Silver]] efficiency rating (which means that such a power supply is designed to be at least 85-percent efficient for loads above 180&nbsp;W) may only be 73% efficient when the load is lower than 100&nbsp;W, which is a typical idle power for a desktop computer. Thus, for a 100&nbsp;W load, losses for this supply would be 37&nbsp;W; if the same power supply was put under a 450&nbsp;W load, for which the supply's efficiency peaks at 89%, the loss would be only 56&nbsp;W despite supplying 4.5 times the useful power.<ref>{{cite web
 | url = http://www.anandtech.com/show/2624/3
 | title = Debunking Power Supply Myths
 | date = 2008-09-22 | accessdate = 2014-10-07
 | author = Christoph Katzer | publisher = [[AnandTech]]
 | page = 3
}}</ref><ref>{{cite web
 | url = http://www.coolermaster.com/xresserver01-DLFILE-P130218025925ba-F13032500212140.html
 | title = Cooler Master UCP Product Sheet
 | year = 2008 | accessdate = 2014-10-11
 | publisher = [[Cooler Master]] | format = PDF
}}</ref> For a comparison, a 500-watt power supply carrying the [[80 Plus Bronze]] efficiency rating (which means that such a power supply is designed to be at least 82-percent efficient for loads above 100&nbsp;W) may provide an 84-percent efficiency for a 100&nbsp;W load, wasting only 19&nbsp;W.<ref>{{cite web
 | url = http://www.anandtech.com/show/4908/silverstone-strider-plus-500w-modular-power/4
 | title = SilverStone Strider Plus{{snd}} 500&nbsp;W Modular Power
 | date = 2011-10-10 | accessdate = 2014-10-11
 | author = Martin Kaffei | publisher = [[AnandTech]]
 | page = 4
}}</ref>

It's pretty much obvious to anyone who had spent at least some time editing Wiki code manually or doing some other source-level computer programming. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 23:03, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I wrote already: We don't agree. --88.71.145.185 (talk) 07:29, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's perfectly fine, we don't need to agree on everything, and I've tried to explain why I find one of the versions more readable. I would appreciate if you would also elaborate your standpoint a bit further. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 19:54, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed that you have removed my content GNU/Linux from the Linux distribution page. Can you tell me why? Why it can't be called as GNU/Linux? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balajisource (talk • contribs) 17:27, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Regarding my revert on the Linux distribution article, not using "GNU/Linux" is a longstanding consensus on Wikipedia, in short because using "GNU/Linux" is considered a non-neutral point of view. Please see the following resources for further information and background:

• The MOS:LINUX guideline, which provides a brief summary
• The following discussions and extended summaries provided under the Talk:Linux talk page:
  • Talk:Linux/Name
  • Talk:Linux/Archive 41 § Page move: GNU/Linux
  • Talk:Linux/Referring to this article

All this should answer your question in detail. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 23:55, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

r.e. CPU cache hmm. what I was trying to do is get 'definitive links' that define terms precisely, i.e. increasing the fidelity of link information all round (increasing wikipedias value for AI e.g. thought-vectors... it's all about labelled data, and we have a great open resource here.)

An alternative is to create a 'glossary page' for 'microarchitecture' ? I've tried doing this here, creating a Glossary of computer graphics; but the problem is I found myself replicating lots of information, and the link structure gets *more complex*, with extra indirects. So I switched to trying this.. modifying existing articles to contain more specific link targets. the 'defn/term' templates seem handy where a section per term might be overkill.

Whats the best compromise here? I would ideally at least like the redirects to hit the specify term, rather than just the heading.

>> r.e. "That "CACHE-LINES" is an explicit anchor, which is useful as explicit anchors allow redirects to continue working if sections are renamed at some point in time "

This is the point of making definitive definitions of terms - they *dont* get renamed. (you just redirect synonyms to them). Fewer symbols/names to keep track of

>> " is a great destination for non-native English speakers looking to improve their written English"

.. my thinking is increasing link 'accuracy' increases the chances of automatic translation tools improving (it's 'labelled data',& adding more 'machine-processable' structure). A redirect into the body of text itself would be a hint that the meaning of the sentence is a definition of that specific term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fmadd (talk • contribs) 20:09, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Quite frankly, I'd say that creating glossaries is a battle that's lost before it even started, simply because complex computing-related terms need rather lengthy, contextual explanations. Thus, as you've already indirectly concluded, it would be pretty much an attempt to create articles within articles, which wouldn't make much sense, if you agree. As we know, computing stuff is rather complex, so the readers simply need to read the articles in order to get a good grasp. No kind of simplification can replace thorough reading, IMHO.

Furthermore, redirects leading to article sections are fine – people simply need to read all that, if they want to learn something, and we have certain formatting styles in place to aid in spotting the actual redirected terms. Having definitive term definitions would be nice, but it would essentially clash with the above-described inability to simplify complex things without pointlessly creating articles within articles. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 21:07, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What I've subsequently done is amended the Glossary of computer hardware terms page. I guess I can continue to stick more definitions here. (the fact the page already existed meant it wasn't too laborious). On the other hand it still seems out of place describing 'cache lines' etc in the same glossary as 'mouse', 'usb stick' etc. . I've stuck a big suggestion in the 'village pump'. What I dream of now is a system where pages contain their own summary line (by default the first lines..), and 'micro-articles'(for simple definitions) , and glossaries would be automatically assembled from categories. (but we are where we are). When computers are working right, they help us manage complexity with their ability to sort and track dependancies and so on (and that extends to their own tools & docs.). I've still got this 'itch' with linear algebra/matrix maths too. ComputerHardware<-->ComputerGraphics<-->LinearAlgebra .. again another 'graph' of inter-related terms, many of which are repeated between pages. a single hierarchical location is often too limiting. a general purpose 'many:many' mapping with dynamic gathering would be much better. Fmadd (talk) 21:46, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

These are rather interesting ideas about automated content generation, but I wouldn't put my money on them. See, Wikipedia's main power comes from its diversity and lack of strictly enforced rules, and you'd need strict technical enforcement for any kind of automated content generation to work properly. Such an enforcement would "kill the buzz", IMHO; just see what our Manual of Style does to new editors, and it (although very extensive) isn't enforced by any means.

Have you already checked out our Wiktionary to see how would it fit your intentions toward creating usable glossaries? For example, the Wiktionary "mouse" entry already contains various glossary-style descriptions, so you might just want to improve already existing entries and create new ones where suitable. At the same time, true glossaries might be created by using some kind of code-level tagging on Wiktionary pages, which might be actually doable. Just thinking aloud. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 23:14, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I entirely agree with you. I used the visual editor instead of modifying the wiki code directly. I simply added the mention about Haskell. Yet when I saved, the visual editor somehow decided to reorganize the wiki code for the whole infobox. --Anareth (talk) 07:51, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I'm glad that you agree with my edit on the Hack (programming language) article, and this example clearly shows that the VisualEditor is still a weird beast having a strange mind of its own. :) — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 10:38, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dsimic, I have a question regarding your recent edit, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Linux_kernel&oldid=725063821. If I'm understanding MOS:PMC correctly, than it seems that the typo should just be fixed, as it doesn't seem textually important (mentioned in the WL), so I'm curious why you used [sic] instead. --Michael Reed (talk) 16:10, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Yes, you're right about my edit on the Linux kernel article. According to the MOS:PMC guideline, "trivial spelling and typographic errors should simply be corrected without comment", so I went ahead and reverted my edit, restoring the earlier typo fix. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 16:38, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick response! Wikipedia's excess of rules seems to be a blessing and a curse, as it's impossible to remember all of them ;) --Michael Reed (talk) 16:54, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing it out in the first place. :) Yes, we have numerous rules and guidelines, but that's a necessity for having (as much as possible) consistent writing style across the Wikipedia as a whole. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 22:11, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have a proposal at Template talk:Comparison of memory cards#Proposal to transpose that could certainly use another opinion, if you care to weigh in. Thanks! – voidxor 19:52, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Sure thing, I just had a detailed look at the {{Comparison of memory cards}} template and provided my opinion on its talk page. IMHO, it's a rather debatable layout change proposal, and we have more similar tables around that don't employ the usual attributes/records layout, for example the ones in LGA 1150 § Haswell chipsets section. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 09:12, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a section (ddAuto) which is very related to dd utility but you removed it in (Revision as of 09:54, 29 April 2016) with a justification of what seems to be promotional content. What is your suggestion to improve the section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.149.91.152 (talk)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on HardenedBSD requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Pyrusca (talk) 23:10, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dragan,

your tool is not working anymore since stats.grok.se is gone. I think we must port it to the pageviews API.--Kopiersperre (talk) 13:18, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 00:34, 27 December 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Dear Dragan, Two things: first, I've gotten involved with a huge new initiative ( http://www.mdpi.com/2076-0752/6/2/5 ) regarding which I've attempted to contact you directly; and second -- and without spending very much time at all on this, and only if you have some familiarity with Wikipedia image formattin g -- could you give me a pointer or two about how to get rid of some of the white space around the image I've added to the blast (protocol) page -- but without reducing image size?Synchronist (talk) 17:39, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.

There is an AfD entry on a software product that I opened a long time ago, but it has received zero responses so far (apparently due to a glitch). I was wondering if you'd be interested in taking a look at it. This discussion is at:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apache Mobile Filter

Thanks

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 12:12, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Should MoS shortcut redirects be sorted to certain specific maintenance categories? An Rfc has been opened on this talk page to answer that question. Your sentiments would be appreciated!  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  17:12, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

...to you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:42, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I introduced a proposal at Talk:New Zealand DX class locomotive#Class register notability, and believe it could benefit from your two cents. As always, I value your independent opinion. Since this is a notability matter, I am specifically asking you because we should get opinions outside of WikiProject Trains for balance. Thanks for your help! – voidxor 01:06, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As you're one of the editors most active on the OpenZFS article, I especially wanted to ask your views at an RFC I just opened.

• Talk:ZFS#RFC: merging or reorganizing ZFS and OpenZFS to more accurately represent the implementations of ZFS.

Thank you. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:58, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I am one of the contributors to the open source SSH server called Teleport. We have a fairly active and growing community and the question of starting a wikipedia page comes up a lot. I am also a fan of various OSS projects by CoreOS and noticed that you've been contributing to those pages (that you for that!), that's how I decided to reach out and ask for guidance. Do you think we can connect via Skype or Google Hangout? Thank you!

(Ekontsevoy (talk) 16:51, 26 April 2018 (UTC)).[reply]

Hi, I'm Enwebb. Dsimic, thanks for creating OVN!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Thank you for your contribution. Wikipedia depends on verifiability; please consider adding references to this page, as it currently has none.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Enwebb (talk) 23:34, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain your change summary: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Default_route&diff=prev&oldid=718310978

This was one of my first larger contributions. I was a little disappointed to see it deleted. I was quite frustrated to see that the comment was nearly unintelligible. I still don't know what you mean by "feeling good". If you're going to erase someone's contribution please meet their effort halfway with a good explanation.

Cdosborn (talk) 22:19, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect ConsoleKit. Since you had some involvement with the ConsoleKit redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 21:29, 29 February 2020 (UTC).[reply]
21:29, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Reballing. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 10#Reballing until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. pandakekok9 (talk) Junk the Philippine anti-terror law! 08:37, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see you reverted the page I wrote for PMCI WG^[1]. Can you tell why? This page was prepared by the WG itself to create a framework for all the standards developed by it (NC-SI, MCTP, PLDM, SPDM). Eliel Louzoun (talk) 06:14, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Please note that it wasn't me who reverted the article contents introduced in revision 977375518 of the PMCI article. The revert was actually performed by Onel5969 in revision 977379187, whose edit summary clearly states that the provided contents failed to satisfy the Wikipedia's article notability requirements. In a few words, you need to provide better references. 46.239.13.70 (talk) 09:05, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Linux layers/Test 1 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Q28 (talk) 05:04, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect is being discussed for deletion. Your opinions are welcomed.Greatder (talk) 02:45, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Hardened BSD has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 29 § Hardened BSD until a consensus is reached. Greatder (talk) 11:20, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Type hint has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 February 6 § Type hint until a consensus is reached. Duckmather (talk) 02:44, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Type hinting has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 February 6 § Type hinting until a consensus is reached. Duckmather (talk) 02:45, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Hotchips has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 October 24 § Hotchips until a consensus is reached. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:59, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]