Please reply on the same page. I will usually notice replies on pages where I have recently posted just as quickly as anything posted here, since such pages are added to my watchlist. Plus the discussion is more continuous when it appears in the one place. Vadmium (talk) 06:58, 27 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Hyperlinks in “Vector”
Welcome!
Hello, Vadmium, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!
And I have some remarks about your edits at Vector (spatial). It is a good idea to put links only if they are indeed very relevant in the current context. In that article, links to symbol, boldface, or arrows, are not that helpful, and the last one is not even about usual arrows, rather a racing team. Just a comment. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 01:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the welcome. I suppose some of those links are not too helpful, though I don't know if they are unhelpful. I wouldn't be too fussed if you changed them. Especially the arrows one—oops mustn't have checked it. Vadmium02:49, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Electrical virtual ground phenomenon versus Virtual earth online mapping product
Vadmium, there is no connection between the electrical virtual ground phenomenon and the virtual earth online mapping product (excepting the name). So, please remove the insertion. Circuit-fantasist17:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the topics are unrelated. I think the link is valuable, assuming it was added to help people find an article about Microsoft's Virtual Earth, so I don't plan on removing it. But if you really think it should be removed then go ahead. Vadmium00:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"an hacked"
Just letting you know that "flash an hacked BIOS" should probably have been changed to "a hacked" not "and hacked" in this diff, which I'm going to fix now. Vadmium23:24, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I didn’t make it clear but I think I already understand what the diagram is illustrating; therefore I don’t think I’m the best person to be saying how valuable it is. My main worry was about integrating it into the whole article without repeating existing parts that are already rather wordy and full of equivalent diagrams. Anyhow, your extra paragraph is rather large and seems to do more than just relate to the diagram. For instance it mentions the convenience of reading BE values in memory dumps and reversal issues with LE, which is also mentioned in the “History” and “Example” sections. Vadmium (talk) 14:20, 12 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]
I'm not entirely sure in what sense you're using "shared" (or "compile time", for that matter, but you may just have meant "link time") in your recent change of library to say "Static libraries are usually only shared at compile time" rather than "Static libraries, by definition, cannot be shared". See my comment on Talk:Library (computing) (and respond there, rather than on my talk page). Guy Harris (talk) 21:14, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mass "substing"
Hello, Vadmium...
I'm sorry for any trouble that has cause, I thought I was helping.
I guess I'll just stick to removing vandalism with Huggle!
I suspect the "web page" ref you were deleting was the Wikipedia article. It looks like someone referenced the Wikipedia article in a book. A new WP editor got confused and thought you were supposed to put references "to" the Wikipedia article in the References section. --Marc Kupper|talk05:02, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, could you take another look at this termplate? It looks like two alphabetic notings are mixing (click for footnote and then cklick back again does not match). -DePiep (talk) 15:18, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I had a look at the template page, and also the pages it’s transcluded such as Unicode character property#Script and I can’t see anything wrong. I tried all the footnotes a–f and a couple of the ones for g and h and they all seem to lead back where they came from. Which specific ones do you think are mixed up? Vadmium (talk, contribs) 23:51, 14 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Template is used in ISO 15924. In row Bass, the Remark has footnote "g". Clicking leads to the footnote "g.", in the list of a...h (all correct, so far). This footnote has multiple backlinks called "a"..."l". When I click this "a" it links (jumps) to "g" (in Bass row), not to an "a". This is not as expected. (my suggestion: your edit is an improvement, but there should not be two alphabetic lists intertwined. IMO, all footnotes can be in one series).
Hmm, I see what you mean. There are multiple references linking to the same g footnote, and there are back links with labels a–l at that footnote which are meant to correspond to each of the references to the footnote. I see that the two uses of the alphabetical labels might be confusing.
Any suggestions? It was originally using {{ref}} and {{note}} templates, and I changed it to use <ref> "cite.php" tags (Help:Footnotes). I suspect the alphabetical back links may be the only kind available with that system. I could try using {{ref label}} and {{note label}} I guess, which apparently can avoid the problem of duplicate HTML element identifiers, though it’s not quite as neat as the <ref> system. Or maybe use capital letters for the footnotes? Do you think upper-case footnotes and lower-case back links would be confusing? Vadmium (talk, contribs) 12:22, 15 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Eh, I'd say use one system for all, within the template. I think the system you added is better. I have not researched the options/problems you describe here.
If I remember well, I did not use <ref> in these templates because it requires some ref list outside the template (in the article page, so not controlled by the template) OR the template has a <reflist> inside, which can have effect on regular referencelist in the article (so there's always a bad end). -DePiep (talk) 13:30, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I had a go at using the {{cnote2}} set of templates instead, and now there are no alphabetical back links at all. Hope it improves things. Also I’ve been doing similar conversions for quite a few other tables with footnotes. The ones that come to mind (in case the problem should be fixed in them as well) are:
Some things have improved. But hey, I see this: in the template we are talking about, row "Hung" has footnote "g", but the footnote has no backlink to Hung-row. And why is there still a typed "g" in the footnotes anyway? -DePiep (talk) 21:25, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I’m out of ideas. Perhaps if you think the backlinks are helpful, you could convert the whole “pipeline” footnote into a paragraph, and explicitly list each “Hung”, “Bass”, etc script (twelve in total I think) that it applies to. I think listing all twelve backlinks would really only be useful if it is easy to identify where they each lead.
The g in the footnote list introduces the footnote matching the superscript [g] labels in the table. It would certainly be useful in a non-hypertext printed version, and I think probably also useful for matching the footnotes in the usual online hypertext version.
I was unaware of any issues with my changes until you raised them. Originally there were single backlinks for each footnote linking to the multiple entries in the table, which is apparently invalid HTML, and mentioned at Template:Ref/doc#Labels must be unique. That was the reason driving my changes. I’m certainly aware of these extra issues with backlinks now and I’ve mentioned the alphabetical backlink one in the help, currently at Help:Footnotes#Predefined groups. Vadmium (talk, contribs) 01:39, 22 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]
All right. Shortly I might dive into this. So far I have refrained from editing in this, because I did not want to interfere with your edits (which would be very, very annoying I think). -DePiep (talk) 13:49, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"ASCIIZ"
That was the name most commonly used (or one of the names commonly used) in the DOS programming world, as documented in The New Peter Norton Programmer's Guide to the IBM PC & PS/2 etc. AnonMoos (talk) 06:13, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your considerable help last night. Your "Oops, how did that get there?" edit summary was referring to a problem that I had earlier when I hit an "edit conflict" and did not understand how I was supposed to "merge". I have not found the answer on the Help page.
I wondered if you had any advice.
I was very impressed with how you were able to link me directly to my example edit page within The Sopranos revision history and I wanted to know the meaning of [{{fullurl:The... (obviously the rest makes complete sense.)
My “oops” thing was entirely my fault; no conflict with anyone else. As I was writing my second response, I opened The Sopranos in a new tab, and I must have selected the URL and pasted it with the middle mouse button without realising (too easy to do with a Linux computer).
A real edit conflict is when you take one version of a page and change it, but in the meantime someone else has also changed it. It’s rather annoying, but you have to review what the other change is, and redo your changes on top of it if they are still relevant. Main point that I can remember when I last got an edit conflict is that there are actually two edit boxes presented and your changes are still in one of them, so it might be a good idea to copy them somewhere safe. Sometimes if you use the section editing instead of editing the whole page I think you can avoid conflicts with edits to different sections.
The Help:fullurl page might be useful to you, but it’s a bit technical. Basically you write the name of a wiki page and it generates the rest of the URL or address including en.wikipedia.org or whatever. I only used it because I probably know more than is healthy to know about the Media Wiki software that is used on Wikipedia :). For most people it’s probably simpler to just load up the special page that shows the diff or whatever, copy the URL, and then paste it directly into the conversation, which pretty much has the same effect. Vadmium (talk, contribs) 01:13, 27 January 2012 (UTC).[reply]
Once again, I am indebted to you. You explain matters so clearly and make what would seem to me initially as incomprehensible, perfectly understandable. I am enjoying learning so much about "computing" since I started on Wikipedia last autumn. I find it therapeutic for "the old brain"... shall be hitting 70 in April.
Thanks again for catching it, not sure how it went through. Tried to stop it and refreshed to see if it went through, but didn't show up for whatever reason. Thought it was strange, but when it didn't display the edit I thought it hadn't gone through. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:23, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I made the change you suggested to the “Archives” box and removed the FAQ box. The trick seems to be to use a plain unnamed parameter rather than list. I might see about documenting this on the {{Archives}} page as well. Vadmium (talk, contribs) 01:17, 26 August 2012 (UTC).[reply]
No problem. I saw your note on the talk page. I think I was only copying from what was used in the article at the time, because I’m not familiar with any standard notation for any kind of complement (other than maybe the occasional prime mark, or an overline for one's complements). Vadmium (talk, contribs) 07:10, 15 September 2012 (UTC).[reply]
You found words and links far better than I imagined! :-)
I put in the Wikipedia:Easter_egg#EGG
as my best attempt to get something in there.
Thanks for fixing it :-)
Also...WOW! Your reorganization of the sorting examples will really help people learning about the sort command!
Greetings, I've noticed your interest in articles relating to C/C++ and would like to invite you to join the WikiProject C/C++, a group of Wikipedians devoted to improving articles related to C and C++. If you're interested, please consider adding yourself to the list of participants and joining the discussion on the talkpage. --—Sowlos
fcntl.h page redirect
Hi,
The page should redirect to POSIX instead of file descriptors, as file descriptors are a Computer Science concept, while Fcntl.h is a part of the POSIX specification. Please revert your edit to that page that changed the redirect from POSIX to File descriptors.
Hi Zarcadia. My edit that you pointed out would have been just to keep the page simple, using the redirect September 11, 2001 attacks rather than a piped link. I did not intend to offend you with it, so I'm sorry that I did and thanks for letting me know. I guess the edit comment comes across a bit snappy. I certainly agree that the New York WTC would be the primary topic here. Vadmium (talk, contribs) 09:38, 21 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Ulrich Drepper, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.
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 "Click here to 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, you can place a request here. Oneiros (talk) 11:41, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I guess my edit summary was a bit grumpy. I usually think italics or quote signs are better than a code font, but I can tolerate it. Beforehand, I saw instructions to include “copula=are”, or to include “plural=true”, and it took me a while to figure out what you meant about “on” and “yes”. Now I understand they are substitutes for “true”, and I hope unifying the formatting will help others understand this better. Vadmium (talk, contribs) 10:53, 28 September 2014 (UTC).[reply]
I agree that the formatting should've been more consistent, so thanks for repairing. The default <code> formatting seemed to be amended not so long ago – at least, I think, as produced by Firefox-type browsers – so I was wondering what you might prefer. Perhaps the "plain" option here might be more viable (cf. Examples section in the documentation). Regards, Sardanaphalus (talk) 17:18, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No general preference for having the box or not. Without a box, "|plural=true" needs quotes or something for it to read well, but with the box, |plural=true is fine on its own. If it were up to me, I might simply avoid the monospace font, something like
To change the copula from is to are, include "copula=are" or "plural=true" (or "on", "yes", etc). For example, {{contrast|copula=are|Y|Z}} . . .
Discussion to move "String" to "String (disambiguation)"
In order to make way for moving Draft:String to article space to take the place as the primary topic, I've posted a proposal at Talk:String#Requested move 16 January 2017 to move the disambiguation page currently at "String" to "String (disambiguation)". Your input would be helpful to establish a common consensus on whether or not this move, or something else, should be done. I look forward to your thoughts on the matter. You've been notified because you were involved in the initial discussion that led to the proposal. The Transhumanist23:28, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
