|
||||||||||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ethernet Exchange until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.DefaultFree ( talk) 18:43, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
You have redirected this to defunct radio stations in New York. I presume this is accidental as the station was based in North Carolina? AusLondonder ( talk) 19:23, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi, you've removed a deletion proposition template from the First Premiership of Waldemar Pawlak article. The reason you've stated is actually legitimate in my opinion, however the topic is allready covered and the content that would suposedly be merged can allready be found in the First Premiership subsection of the Waldemar Pawlak's article. (The referencing of the section is an other issue). -- Antoni12345 ( talk) 11:23, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Reverted good faith edits by Ale2006 (talk): Bit ordering is defined at the physical layer, not by IP.
Bits can be numbered 0 to 7 either starting from the most significant bit or from the least significant one. The diagram numbers bits, but doesn't explain based on which convention. That way, it requires guesswork to establish, for example, whether the version can be obtained by byte[0] & 0xf
rather than byte[0] >> 4
.
ale ( talk) 14:22, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
You de-PRODded it. Did anyone actually contest deletion? Or was it because I tried briefly to make sense of it (but failed). As I wrote at the talk page, it is entirely not notable. Not now and never was. -- 𝕁𝕄𝔽 ( talk) 08:27, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
Women in Red | April 2024, Volume 10, Issue 4, Numbers 293, 294, 302, 303, 304
Announcements
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
-- Lajmmoore ( talk 19:42, 30 March 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging
How do I create a quote? -- Mryoulmamah ( talk) 07:02, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
The screenshot provided was DPCM as can be seen there is no point on the same level from the last one. GalaxyDoge72 ( talk) 06:27, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Your feedback is requested at
Talk:1967 Lake Erie skydiving disaster on a "Engineering and technology" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of
Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by
removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 21:30, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Hello King, How do I create an article about me on Wikipedia? -- Isaac Anyanwu ( talk) 09:32, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Hi Kvng - Is there a way to ensure that my draft page for Canadian Climate Institute is still in the queue for review? There's a bit of a long backstory with this one, but I submitted it for review about six weeks ago. I see now that the disclaimer at the top says it could take up to two months to review, so perhaps it's on the docket but hasn't had the chance to have a review yet. For background this page was soft deleted recently. The original editor who submitted for deletion put it back as draft so that it could undergo review for publication. Since submission for deletion it's been updated to remove promotional language, update conflict of interest, and add multiple sources etc. The draft page is here /info/en/?search=Draft:Canadian_Climate_Institute any help or guidance here is much appreciated. -- AndrewJPatrick ( talk) 17:13, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Hi there,
I noticed that you objected my deletion request for the Engschrift article some days ago, and suggested instead it be merged. Once this is done, which article do you suggest it be redirected to? Engschrift refers to condensed variants of DIN 1451, Austria and Tern.
Thanks. EthanL13 | talk 19:03, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
You have removed the PROD and redirected this article to list of credit unions in the United States, however the credit union is not American. AusLondonder ( talk) 22:46, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Greetings. While 'no deadlines' is an interesting essay, it is just that, and it most definitely does not supercede the strict requirements for verifiability. Unsourced material that has not been challenged can be left as it is, if no editor is bothered by a lack of citations. However, once challenged, the requirements are clear: "Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. Whether and how quickly material should be initially removed for not having an inline citation to a reliable source depends on the material and the overall state of the article. In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references. Consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step."
The material was challenged a year and a half ago. That is more than adequate time for an interested editor to cite the material.
As you have chosen to restore the challenged material, may I assume you are going to add adequate citations? Your user page suggests that you are a subject-matter expert here. I have considerable experience in networking and internetworking, but don't consider myself expert. If not, yes, I would be willing to take a go at it, but generally speaking the responsibility lies with the editor who adds unsourced material, not the editor who removes it. cheers.
anastrophe,
an editor he is. 17:31, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
Sometimes I swear that I go to extraordinary efforts to be a dimbulb. I see now that you did add a cite, and since the cite in its entirety is specific to the section, that should be more than adequate. Apologies for my error. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 01:41, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for removing the duplicate QoS that I added to the Cable Modem article. I should have checked the rest of the article.
However, I was wondering why you removed the expansion of CDLP and DOCSIS. Now, nowhere in the article does it explain that CDLP means "Cable Data Link Protocol" and "DOCSIS" means "Data Over Cable Service Interface Specification"
My goal is to expand each acronym on first use "term (acronym)" and if the term or acronym has it's own article, then I'll link to it, staying aware of DUPLINK.
Currently, the linking on this page is varied:
PSTN (telephone network) - Acronym and term linked together - (this is the example I used)
Digital Video Broadcasting ( DVB) - term and acronym as separate links
Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM) - only the term linked
UDP only the acronym linked, and it is not expanded to "User Datagram Protocol" anywhere in the article.
I prefer linking both the term and the acronym, as in [[ the article | term (acronym) ]] , so that both link to the informative article, which could have been named for the term, or the acronym.
So, I'd like to clean up and expand the article, but wanted to first get your input on which form to use, and also a heads up that on what I'm planning so we can agree and not get into a revert fest on this. Although, I sometimes don't know why I care for consistency, since there is nothing to prevent someone from diving in and totally changing it all next week. Let me know what you think when you get a chance. • Bobsd • ( talk) 18:29, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
You suggest a merge to International Organization of Migration- what content do you think should be merged? AusLondonder ( talk) 00:10, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Computer network naming scheme until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.Mangoe ( talk) 00:23, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Women in Red | May 2024, Volume 10, Issue 5, Numbers 293, 294, 305, 306, 307
Announcements from other communities
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
-- Lajmmoore ( talk 06:17, 28 April 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging
|
||||||||||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ethernet Exchange until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.DefaultFree ( talk) 18:43, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
You have redirected this to defunct radio stations in New York. I presume this is accidental as the station was based in North Carolina? AusLondonder ( talk) 19:23, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi, you've removed a deletion proposition template from the First Premiership of Waldemar Pawlak article. The reason you've stated is actually legitimate in my opinion, however the topic is allready covered and the content that would suposedly be merged can allready be found in the First Premiership subsection of the Waldemar Pawlak's article. (The referencing of the section is an other issue). -- Antoni12345 ( talk) 11:23, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Reverted good faith edits by Ale2006 (talk): Bit ordering is defined at the physical layer, not by IP.
Bits can be numbered 0 to 7 either starting from the most significant bit or from the least significant one. The diagram numbers bits, but doesn't explain based on which convention. That way, it requires guesswork to establish, for example, whether the version can be obtained by byte[0] & 0xf
rather than byte[0] >> 4
.
ale ( talk) 14:22, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
You de-PRODded it. Did anyone actually contest deletion? Or was it because I tried briefly to make sense of it (but failed). As I wrote at the talk page, it is entirely not notable. Not now and never was. -- 𝕁𝕄𝔽 ( talk) 08:27, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
Women in Red | April 2024, Volume 10, Issue 4, Numbers 293, 294, 302, 303, 304
Announcements
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
-- Lajmmoore ( talk 19:42, 30 March 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging
How do I create a quote? -- Mryoulmamah ( talk) 07:02, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
The screenshot provided was DPCM as can be seen there is no point on the same level from the last one. GalaxyDoge72 ( talk) 06:27, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Your feedback is requested at
Talk:1967 Lake Erie skydiving disaster on a "Engineering and technology" Good Article nomination. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of
Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by
removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 21:30, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Hello King, How do I create an article about me on Wikipedia? -- Isaac Anyanwu ( talk) 09:32, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Hi Kvng - Is there a way to ensure that my draft page for Canadian Climate Institute is still in the queue for review? There's a bit of a long backstory with this one, but I submitted it for review about six weeks ago. I see now that the disclaimer at the top says it could take up to two months to review, so perhaps it's on the docket but hasn't had the chance to have a review yet. For background this page was soft deleted recently. The original editor who submitted for deletion put it back as draft so that it could undergo review for publication. Since submission for deletion it's been updated to remove promotional language, update conflict of interest, and add multiple sources etc. The draft page is here /info/en/?search=Draft:Canadian_Climate_Institute any help or guidance here is much appreciated. -- AndrewJPatrick ( talk) 17:13, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Hi there,
I noticed that you objected my deletion request for the Engschrift article some days ago, and suggested instead it be merged. Once this is done, which article do you suggest it be redirected to? Engschrift refers to condensed variants of DIN 1451, Austria and Tern.
Thanks. EthanL13 | talk 19:03, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
You have removed the PROD and redirected this article to list of credit unions in the United States, however the credit union is not American. AusLondonder ( talk) 22:46, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Greetings. While 'no deadlines' is an interesting essay, it is just that, and it most definitely does not supercede the strict requirements for verifiability. Unsourced material that has not been challenged can be left as it is, if no editor is bothered by a lack of citations. However, once challenged, the requirements are clear: "Any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the material may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. Whether and how quickly material should be initially removed for not having an inline citation to a reliable source depends on the material and the overall state of the article. In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references. Consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step."
The material was challenged a year and a half ago. That is more than adequate time for an interested editor to cite the material.
As you have chosen to restore the challenged material, may I assume you are going to add adequate citations? Your user page suggests that you are a subject-matter expert here. I have considerable experience in networking and internetworking, but don't consider myself expert. If not, yes, I would be willing to take a go at it, but generally speaking the responsibility lies with the editor who adds unsourced material, not the editor who removes it. cheers.
anastrophe,
an editor he is. 17:31, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
Sometimes I swear that I go to extraordinary efforts to be a dimbulb. I see now that you did add a cite, and since the cite in its entirety is specific to the section, that should be more than adequate. Apologies for my error. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 01:41, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for removing the duplicate QoS that I added to the Cable Modem article. I should have checked the rest of the article.
However, I was wondering why you removed the expansion of CDLP and DOCSIS. Now, nowhere in the article does it explain that CDLP means "Cable Data Link Protocol" and "DOCSIS" means "Data Over Cable Service Interface Specification"
My goal is to expand each acronym on first use "term (acronym)" and if the term or acronym has it's own article, then I'll link to it, staying aware of DUPLINK.
Currently, the linking on this page is varied:
PSTN (telephone network) - Acronym and term linked together - (this is the example I used)
Digital Video Broadcasting ( DVB) - term and acronym as separate links
Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM) - only the term linked
UDP only the acronym linked, and it is not expanded to "User Datagram Protocol" anywhere in the article.
I prefer linking both the term and the acronym, as in [[ the article | term (acronym) ]] , so that both link to the informative article, which could have been named for the term, or the acronym.
So, I'd like to clean up and expand the article, but wanted to first get your input on which form to use, and also a heads up that on what I'm planning so we can agree and not get into a revert fest on this. Although, I sometimes don't know why I care for consistency, since there is nothing to prevent someone from diving in and totally changing it all next week. Let me know what you think when you get a chance. • Bobsd • ( talk) 18:29, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
You suggest a merge to International Organization of Migration- what content do you think should be merged? AusLondonder ( talk) 00:10, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Computer network naming scheme until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.Mangoe ( talk) 00:23, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Women in Red | May 2024, Volume 10, Issue 5, Numbers 293, 294, 305, 306, 307
Announcements from other communities
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
-- Lajmmoore ( talk 06:17, 28 April 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging