Hello, AP 499D25! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place ((helpme)) on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Peaceray (talk) 16:31, 22 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Getting Started Introduction • Contributing to Wikipedia • Your first article The five pillars of Wikipedia • Simplified ruleset How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Get help at the Teahouse Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions Department directory Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Verifiability • No original research Reliable sources • Citing sources • Content guidelines What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style (Simplified) • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sockpuppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists The Signpost (Wikipedia's newspaper) Things to do Task Center • Be bold in editing Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Copy editing • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguation • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Peaceray (talk) 16:31, 22 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Please help me with... Why isn't this table rendering correctly?

Specifically, the last entry, at the bottom, is out of place. It should be placed after the "Ryzen 3", and completed with the other columns that have extended "rowspan", according to its code. AP 499D25 (talk) 02:03, 23 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My addition of a field separator causes the row to render correctly, but adds an unwanted column to the end. Maybe there's a clue there, but I don't yet see how to fix the problem. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:56, 23 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Inspecting the page's HTML I see that the 3100U line is being considered a tfoot where other tables have empty tfoots. It feels like some count is off somewhere, but I still don't see it. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:08, 23 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have actually tried putting a field separator after the last table entry beforehand, and like you say it does make the row render correctly, but is not an ideal solution.

I have also tried changing the exclamation mark (!) to a pipe (|) for that specific entry so it is no longer a "heading" cell (i.e. does not have the bold text and darker grey background), and that also makes the row show up correctly, but it is still not an ideal solution either.

Interestingly, if I switch to visual editor mode, the table shows up correctly.

Anyways, thanks for your efforts to help.

— AP 499D25 (talk) 04:38, 23 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

One other experiment I tried was to reduce the rowspan of one of the fields from the previous line - I tried release date and GPU model - and in both cases, having some additional data on the 3300u line caused it to render correctly (but those data were duplicates from the line above). In other words, providing at least one row-data field fixes it.

You say it looks right in VE but still renders wrong at the HTML stage? Curiouser and curiouser. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:53, 23 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've done some (extensive) digging, and I actually think this is a bug with the sortable nature of the table. For the purposes of getting a minimal test case, I dropped the wikitable styling so it's a little hard to see, but this table renders correctly:

Whereas this table does not:

The only difference here is the definition of the only cell in the last row as a header or a normal cell (| vs !). If you drop the sortable aspect of the table, both render correctly:

versus

For now, I've made an edit to the table to make the last row have more than one column (by duplicating the release date column instead of using a rowspan), and that seems to have fixed it, and it's probably the least-invasive way of fixing it short of fixing the software. stwalkerster (talk) 11:18, 23 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've put into the history another approach of dealing with the problem - when all the data in a row would just be spanned from the row above, simply combine the second header item with the first.

And I raised the question of whether this requirement for there to be unique data in a row applies to rows other than the last row, as in this example. I may try noodling around with that possibility, just to check. @Stwalkerster: thanks for looking at this interesting thing. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:26, 23 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just came up with a more seamless workaround: make the cell a non-header, and instead, make the text bold and change the background colour to the one used by the header cells. Though I'm not sure if it's something that would be frowned upon or not. On the actual article/template there would be an HTML comment explaining why it's been done.

Thanks a lot for the help efforts both of you.

— AP 499D25 (talk) 01:05, 24 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's not ideal to "fake" a column header with styling. Many assistive technologies (such as screenreaders) ignore styling and rely on the actual underlying HTML tag. As your proposed workaround would use the wrong tag type for the header, it may confuse screenreaders and other assistive technologies. As such, I'd recommend against that approach. stwalkerster (talk) 21:42, 24 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's what I kind of had in mind too, hence the "not sure if it'd be frowned upon" comment. Will be changing it back since one of the reasons why I was updating the tables, was due to accessibility concerns. AP 499D25 (talk) 13:25, 25 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I didn't like the faked header more for aesthetics reasons, but if there are accessibility reasons, I'll let them trump my ideas of elegance.

I tried adding a row to one of the tables, early, like data row 2, and arranged for it to inherit all of its entries from the row above. It initially rendered okay, but if I sort the table, the row disappears entirely. Pinging @Stwalkerster: — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:51, 26 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looks the best aesthetically indeed.

Hmm, interesting find!

Just note that I'm going to be clearing the sandbox and using it for next uses shortly, if you are still there.

AP 499D25 (talk) 09:23, 26 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

AP 499D25, please direct your email to the Oversight list. Emailing a single oversighter a list of 40 - 50 links gathered over a period of time that may or may not need oversighting or revdeleting (and some of the links I checked don't need either) is not the best game plan. Please send the links to the oversight email as you come across them. -- Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:12, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

I am trying to install DisamAssist. I added it to my common.js page according to its installation instructions (note, I also have another user script installed, OneClickArchive), and the only result is that I was signed out of Wikipedia and it looked as if all my settings were reset when I refreshed WP first time. Upon second refresh I became signed in again but was greeted with a "you are signed in centrally" message or something like that. As of now I still don't have "disambiguate links" button in the top toolbar under the "More" dropdown.

AP 499D25 (talk) 05:18, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What do you see when you got to Archbishopric of Cologne? I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 06:22, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh there we go, I see a "Disambiguate links" button there.

The page I was trying to use DisamAssist on, was Out-of-order execution. It doesn't appear there at all. AP 499D25 (talk) 08:18, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just as a note about the ((help me)) request - this is not really something that it is useful for. If you are having issues with a script, you should try the Village Pump or the Teahouse for assistance. Primefac (talk) 12:28, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh, sorry. Go right on ahead and make the necessary corrections. :) 172.92.204.120 (talk) 01:59, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your addition looked pretty alright to me, well-sourced and everything. Personally I would've left it there for others to improve on. Don't be afraid about making mistakes, see WP:BOLD. Have a lovely day, thank you. AP 499D25 (talk) 02:04, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi AP 499D25. After reviewing your request, I have enabled rollback on your account. Please keep the following things in mind while using rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle or RedWarn.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war.
• If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
• Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into trouble or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:07, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Moved from #Welcome!

lpc 110.38.129.143 (talk) 13:32, 19 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	Thank you for removing those (Ip Address) harassment messages from my talk page! Layah50♪ ( 話して～! ) 08:29, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks! I noticed the report on AIV and saw that it was ongoing, so I just wanted to help by with the situation a bit. AP 499D25 (talk) 09:01, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Greetings!
Hello user AP you were right, apparently the WikiLoop bot might've flagged you're edits as vandalism due to removals of large-amount of texts and I have restored you're edits again.
Happy contributings! ⭐️ Starkex ⭐️ 📧 ✍️ 08:07, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Makes sense. Thanks for the response! AP 499D25 (talk) 08:40, 22 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

		The Teamwork Barnstar
		Thanks for helping out with those vandals earlier! — CAPTAIN JTK (talk) 14:05, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

sorry, i had been up to 4am last night, so i was kinda loopy. i know i said some things i shouldn't have. i just wanted to screw around since i already got banned from the discord server i was doing that in. I am def not that larry guy. i just sat looking at recent changes waiting for something interesting to happen. sorry for rude comments n' shit. im surprised you didnt block me. thanks i guess. 104.235.70.23 (talk) 04:05, 30 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

edit: so you DID block me. but i can somehow come here and apologize. funni. 104.235.70.23 (talk) 05:15, 30 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What!? I didn't block you. I'm not even an administrator, so I can't do so anyways. I encourage you to contribute constructively to this encyclopedia, however if you are just here to mess around and make edits like this as well as write random things on user talk pages (example 1, example 2) then you are not welcome to the encyclopedia I'm afraid. Although I'm not an admin, I can review / investigate the editing history of editors and report them to administrators accordingly if the pattern suggests they are not here to build an encyclopedia. AP 499D25 (talk) 07:25, 30 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Stop changing my edits fa ggot 2404:4408:8A36:F400:DC9C:5AB8:C5A6:843F (talk) 08:38, 30 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

those examples you have arent me... the third link was me though. i do kinda have interest in Wikipedia but my motivation leaves very fast if im being honest 104.235.70.23 (talk) 09:05, 30 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

i should probably go to bead because im starting to feel goofy again 104.235.70.23 (talk) 09:08, 30 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, the issue with 124.197.207.130 is not a content dispute, it is a disruptive blocked IP hopper. I'm just giving the IP no recognition. John Yunshire (talk) 16:30, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@John Yunshire Thanks for the response. Would you mind telling me what account or IP they are block evading? I've looked at the block log of the latest three IPs and they all look empty to me.

I strongly suggest that you request semi-protection for each affected page over at WP:RPP to minimise further disruption. AP 499D25 (talk) 00:39, 3 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there, I noticed your comments on that page. I want to talk a bit about that. A key thing that seems to be going on is that there are a number of editors who seem very focused on trimming lists of technical lists down to the point where technical users can't get much value from them. I would like to see some pages modernized but I also would like to see if I can get enough support to push back against the supposed consensus that led to some technical article lists get more or less totally blanked out - like happened to the EXMOR page which used to have an associated list of Sony image sensors. --Edwin Herdman (talk) 05:19, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Edwin Herdman,

It's just a thought I had as I stumbled upon that talk page discussion in my occassional visit to the Nvidia GPUs list article. I am mostly an editor that focusses on AMD CPU and GPU articles, and maybe a bit of Intel CPU, far more familiar with those. I absolutely believe the list does need some trimming down, some trivial non-Wikipedia-worthy info shall be removed if there's any, and efficiency of the tables could be increased (as an aside example, look at List of AMD graphics processing units, the old GPU tables near the top of the article have so much blank space in cells, have those "API support" columns, whereas with the newer GPU tables like RX 7000 series for example, the data in the tables are neatly presented, certain columns like release date and price are combined, and there is no "API support" column).

Maybe I'll come back and look at the Nvidia GPUs list article again after I finish my list of to-do items on those AMD and Intel articles (one of which is a merge involving nearly half a dozen articles, into one). — AP 499D25 (talk) 11:17, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the reply, AP 499D25. That sounds great to me, I'll keep an eye going. In the meantime I am trying to keep an eye out for other technology articles which may be threatened by what I'll call "overzealous pruning." I think there is a happy medium here, if everybody communicates. Unfortunately some other tech articles with lists are so obscure that somebody can go in and totally change them before the page editors can have a say. --Edwin Herdman (talk) 02:37, 22 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For helping revert that vandalism for that annoying LTA. Cheers, 47.227.95.73 (talk) 11:11, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

From your contributions I see that you have started editing Wikipedia only recently, and mostly concern yourself with reverting and leaving warning messages. It seems that you were keen to do some reverting today and decided to pick on my common sense edit to "General Relativity". If you really could not see that regurgitating a table of contents was not useful, read WP:NONFICTION#Headers. "An exhaustive list of contents, without any editorial commentary or significance, should not be included". 131.251.253.112 (talk) 17:17, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, first of all I would like to say thanks for bringing this to attention on my talk page.

I'm going to continue this discussion on the article talk page, as it is a better centralised place to discuss content disputes, and I'm not sure if the other editor (Nerd271) would 100% agree with this.

Since you've made three reverts in a 24-hour period, you should not make any further reverts now (per WP:3RR), until you get some consensus for your edits first.

There's a Wikipedia guideline called Bold, revert, discuss, which states that if you've made a bold edit, and it gets reverted, the next step to take is to discuss it with the other editor, going forward. This is how content disputes are best handled. Repeatedly restoring the edit on the other hand, is seen as highly disruptive.

Hope that helps.

P.s. Before making this edit, I did consider the strengths and weaknesses of the removal and its argument. I had a browse through the Manual of Style and could not find any guidelines stating that book articles should not have contents and versions sections. I had a look at other articles in categories like Category:Physics textbooks, and found that many of them like Introduction to Electrodynamics, The Feynman Lectures on Physics, and Classical Mechanics (Goldstein) also had contents and versions sections, so this all appeared fine to me. — AP 499D25 (talk) 02:19, 25 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Regarding [that edit] I reverted, I cleared the userpage of the vandalism warning from your underlining of the fact that it was an edit to the sandbox, not a main space article. Such edits are not worth reverting I suppose. Anyway, thanks for pointing it out to me. ButterCashier (talk) 12:19, 28 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for your efforts, but now List of Intel Core processors is a complete mess, because it's just too darned big. When you preview an edit, at the top you get a warning, "Warning: Post-expand include size is too large. Some templates will not be included." That means the page does not work and if you scroll down far enough, you'll start to see a bunch of stuff like

Template:CpulistTemplate:CpulistTemplate:CpulistTemplate:CpulistTemplate:CpulistTemplate:CpulistTemplate:End

which means that templates are not expanding.

Another artifact of this same problem is that the page is listed at Lint errors: Table tag that should be deleted. As far as I can tell, there is nothing wrong with any table in this article, it's just that the article is too darned big. —Anomalocaris (talk) 07:45, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Anomalocaris Hi, I am well aware of this problem, and did notice it during the merge process. In fact I am currently trying to communicate with other editors on various talk pages (Intel Core, List of) about what should be done due to the PEIS limit being exceeded. I will definitely try and get this sorted soon, which may involve splitting up the page based on timeline (article 1 covers 1st to 10th gen, article 2 covers 11th to 20th etc).

Indeed, nothing's wrong with the individual tables in the article, in fact if you source edit just a specific section, like mobile Core i 8th gen for example, and click preview, the table will display fine.

The List of Core 2, i3, i5, i7, i9 content were copied to the List of Intel Core article as part of a discussed merge. I have actually intentionally not turned those former / source pages into redirects yet, because of the merged page not being fully ready yet. — AP 499D25 (talk) 08:21, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, your edit special:diff/1161549313 remove RAM speed from the table but do not add RAM speed in the outside table list. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 17:15, 25 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Visite fortuitement prolongée I am aware of that, but thanks for the notice anyway. If you scroll down a bit, you'll notice some of the newer tables such as Rocket Lake do have memory speeds stated in the list above the table. The reason why I didn't put the speeds for tables of many of the older CPU generations yet is I need to verify what CPUs support what speeds (whether they're all the same, or if some low-end models are rated for lower speeds than the rest), as well as figure out how to put it all neatly in one sentence in the case of varying speed support. I was a bit skeptical seeing some 1st gen Core i CPUs support DDR3 1333 MT/s, as I had always thought those CPUs only supported up to 1066 MT/s, off the top of my head.

There's still an awful lot of more work to be done with the rework of the table layouts on that article, as I've only just done desktop 1st to 11th gen, with 12-13th gen desktop, alongside all the mobile CPUs and the embedded CPUs to do. So for the moment I'm focussed on the bigger stuff first before the smaller stuff such as missing minor information. — AP 499D25 (talk) 04:52, 26 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi--I restored your version. I cannot easily restore all the sandboxes you asked for--for one thing, they are blocked, but they are still the creator, so I don't feel I can easily move their material to your user space. Does that make sense? You are welcome to ask another administrator for their opinion; I've just never had that kind of situation before. Sorry. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:04, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Drmies: Thank you for the response!

Regarding the sandboxes: it'd definitely not be wise to restore them to public view, for sure. What I was looking for, was copies of the source code to be e-mailed to me. I came across this tidbit from the top of the WP:RFU page:

In the second use case, this page is also intended to serve as a central location to request that deleted content be "userfied", i.e., restored as a draft or emailed to you;

Anyways, I think I will make the request for copies of those deleted sandboxes there. — AP 499D25 (talk) 05:52, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. I'm trying to understand what happened in a revert that you (I think?) did to my edit on States_and_territories_of_Australia. Note that I'm not complaining about the revert, just trying to figure out what went on. As I see it ...

20:11, June 1, 2023‎ Dinkenfunkle talk contribs‎ m 64,468 bytes +3‎ →‎top: corrected possible typo ("fdp") that made no sense, to read "civil authorties", reflecting the wikilink to which it refers.

... is the edit that I made, and the description that I put there is the only change that I made, ... inside a wikilink I changed "fdp" to "civil". That's it. It's still there.

It's now tagged as reverted, BUT as far as I can see the edit that I made is still there, and some other stuff, some of which does seem to be vandalism, has changed. (the {Use Australian English|date=October 2023} date has been set to 2013, and the actual vandalism, changing the name of McDonald Island to kfc Island was swapped back.)

So, I didn't make those other changes, and my edit is still there, but somehow I'm tagged with a revert. Do you see how that might be confusing? And the revert comment (Reverted more vandalism from the IP) seems to suggest that it was my IP that was responsible for the vandalism. (That's probably the bit that I am little cranky about.)

Any thoughts? Dinkenfunkle 05:45, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Dinkenfunkle: Hi there,

Initially I came across the vandalism / unconstructive edits from the IP editor (195.221.59.248), and noticed you had already changed back part of their edit back to how it was before (i.e. the fdp part). However, I saw that there were still some other graffiti introduced by the IP editor that hadn't been reverted (i.e. October 2023, kfc Island), so I edited the article to change just those things back.

What happened was that when I made my edit, the system flagged it as a manual revert, as I published a version of the page that exactly matches the contents of revision 1154407273 by User:Chipmunkdavis, hence causing a "reverted" flag to be placed on the revisions between it and my edit.

In fact, if you compare that revision by Chipmunkdavis with my edit, you'll notice that both revisions are exactly the same and there are no differences between them. (diff)

I wanted to note down that my intention was to undo more of the unconstructive edits from the IP, and not the edit from you, so I wrote in the edit summary, "Reverted more vandalism from the IP".

By the IP, I was referring to the anonymous editor under the IP address 195.221.59.248 (contribs), and not logged-in editors from a certain IP address obviously.

Hope that makes things clear to you, I'm sorry about any potential confusion that I may have caused.

In short summary, it is just an unintended side effect of publishing a version of a page that has exactly the same contents in it as a previous revision. — AP 499D25 (talk) 10:04, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok. It's just a system thing that picks up the intervening edits. No prob. Thanks for the explanation! Dinkenfunkle 10:19, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, sorry if this is weird I don't know how Wikipedia is.

I am one of proponents who tried to save the Exmor page but sadly both admins over there seems to be hell bent keeping it from existing.

I don't know how to write to the dispute resoluiton. What do I do?

Here is what I wrote. probably 2k+ words but yeah

Summary of dispute by Guyfromturkey

Hi I am the person that wrote from multiple IP's due to forgetting to make account. (88.230.43.132---88.230.44.144) and tried my best to refute every single point in 88.230.43.132. I honestly think the Wikipedia is a whole isn't really dictated by rules but rather common sense.

Point 1 Wikipedia explictly allows this - Ignore All Rules -

Note:Sorry if this looks bit too raw. I don't know much about official editing so please don't wade it off as "wade of text nobody is going to read that" as it happened in talk page.

"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules" explictly says "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.". This rule is over a decade old and the simple fact that how this page was fought all between the world from GMT-12 zones like Australia to the GMT 0 of Europe and Argentina.

Point 2 "Fancruft"

The fancruft is about how fans make excessively detailed lists about TV show characters. This page was edited by lots of people and I honestly don't understand why would anyone decide to fan over only one single companys sensors. Sadly I don't really have computer know how but I wouldn't say anyone would decide to only "fan" over only one company when improving Wikipedia.

The editors who want this list to get removed simply think "This list doesn't help anyone other than small subset of developers" which is horrendous because this benefitted not just some developers who nobody knows how many used but as I told multiple times. Friends and family that I showed this to help what to buy.

Only people "fanning" over this article were the editors putting call to delete on seperate Exmor list within an hour of its posting by RM12

Point 3 Wikipedia expliclty has criteria of putting technology lists and "Catalogue"

From the horses mouth

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories,_lists,_and_navigation_templates A category is probably inappropriate if the answer to the following questions is "no":

Is it possible to write a few paragraphs or more on the subject of a category, explaining it? If you go to the article from the category, will it be obvious why it's there? Is the category subject prominently discussed in the article?

Both are fullfilled in article+list of Exmor or used to be before it was chopped off.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lists https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Contents/Lists

All these pages are listed in official mainpage of list of lists. There are explict tutorials on how to make lists and manuals of stlyes. I am willing to bet this page wasted/spent someone megabytes when all they wanted was lookup two CPU's meanwhile this page is 151k and is "too much" even though it also has details what phone used what.

More so these pages are actual catalogues with Part Numbers and suggested pricing in dollars and Exmor and isocell is none of that besides it's really weird how ISOCELL is biased how it's not removed but Exmor list is

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_Core_i7_processors - This page has zero references is probably over megabytes and isn't even split but thanks to community feedback someone is planning to redesign the table. This page was edited over the years and it has less than 50 references

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_Xeon_processors_(Broadwell-based) - zero references

Point 4 Literally everyone in the internet wants this list to be killed.

https://www.flickr.com/groups/camerawiki/discuss/72157721917937671/

It was suggested in Wikipedia that this page was more fitting for camera-wiki multiple times but when I went there nobody was interested and editwar articles like this aren't welcome and I should go make my own website.

The only alternative is said to be "It's Sony's job to have this list" but let's be honest with ourselves. Why would they pan out such simple technical information about their sensors and smartphone companies?

The separate list was shot down in less than a week after getting marked for deletion within less than a hour by one of the admins that were opposed to this list even though seperate lists like that are allowed all the way across the wikipedia.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Sony_Exmor_image_sensors&action=edit&redlink=1

Point 5 Internet is a plenty allready and whose is it to decide what is too much whetever size or detail?

It has been said multiple times that 151kilobytes of data being "too much". Meanwhile in reality even if someone were to use dialup it would take less than 5 seconds to download. which corresponds to what lag most browsers have loading a page. Wikipedia isn't going to bankrupt overnight because of web traffic of 151k of text while the logo image alone is probably double of that.

It is also said that how it can be done so only the "major" sensors should be included but how are we going to keep a track of that? What if one of the sensors not included in the list gets used in some smartphone? Will it be really worth it to save some pixels on someones screen to making a wikipedia contributor to have a easier to adding what phones used the sensor in "Notes" section?

Summary

151k isn't all that big in age of 10 Gigabit internet and 5G networks and its negligible on dial up and ever decreasing hosting prices. Literally nobody is benefitting of how "151k of extra useless information should be removed" when there are allready pages full of actual catalogue grade part numbers and MSRP's Guyfromturkey (talk) 17:02, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello and welcome @Guyfromturkey! Thanks for chipping in on this. I have created a section heading "Summary of dispute by Guyfromturkey" on the DRN page where you can add your statement regarding what should be done / what should be the outcome for the Exmor page.

I have checked the word count of the summary you wrote above and it appears to be well within the word limit at 880 words. However, just keep in mind that this is supposed to be a summary, so the more concise and shorter, the better. Anyways, you can add your statement on the noticeboard page by clicking edit next to "Summary of dispute by Guyfromturkey" and adding your statement there. Don't forget to sign it with the four tildes (~~~~), as the message will not be automatically signed unlike using the new topic or reply tools of a talk page. — AP 499D25 (talk) 03:01, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the help. I hope we can actually improve Wikipedia and all these lists. Guyfromturkey (talk) 05:06, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the welcome. If I might, a more hospitable welcome might be: "Hello, and thank you for your contributions to ___! If you are interested in obtaining additional editing privileges, I suggest you create an account. Happy editing!"

The way it was worded, it nearly seemed that "if you are interested in editing" you were perhaps less than welcome as an IP. Which I'm sure is not what you intend. Cheers. 2603:7000:2101:AA00:71BF:46EA:CE27:4F87 (talk) 06:28, 2 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Appreciated! It's a short pre-written welcome message (Template: ((Thanks))), that I placed using Twinkle. I suppose I could make a suggestion on the talk page there about it.

I did not know you've been editing here for quite some time! Due to the potentially rapidly and sometimes significantly changing nature of IP addresses, it can become hard at times for me to keep track of who this IP address continues from, and even whether this editor is relatively new or is an experienced anonymous editor. A major advantage of using an account is you have all your contributions and talk page messages in one place, even if your IP address or location changes. Thanks! — AP 499D25 (talk) 06:59, 2 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello,

What will be done with Draft:Meteor Lake now that a distinct article has been created in the encyclopedic namespace? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 08:19, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Visite fortuitement prolongée Well, one of the things you could do, is to simply do nothing. Draft articles that haven't been edited for six months will be automatically deleted.

Another thing we could do, is request that the revisions on the draft be merged into the actual article if we wanna copy some bits of info from the draft into the article while still maintaining attribution. (Wikipedia:Requests for history merge)

A third option (which is a bit of a crazy one) is if you believe the Meteor Lake article in its current state isn't very useful / doesn't contain significant encyclopedic information, then perhaps you could send it through one of the deletion processes such as PROD or AfD and get it possibly deleted. Then once it's deleted we continue working on the draft as before, and eventually get it published.

You can also ask this question at the Wikipedia:Help desk if you'd like more info about it. — AP 499D25 (talk) 06:00, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi AP 499D25.Thank you for your message. In the interests of saving both time & energy, as you put it, I won't make any further comments on this issue. Let's just see how it plays out. Regards, Technopat (talk) 09:26, 28 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello again. Lately, I've noticed another Italian IP, 79.26.79.197, making edits to Anastacia-related articles, mostly by adding official YouTube links. Considering the IP addresses of both 62.211.233.175 and 79.26.79.197 originate from the Puglia region (as well as previous IPs), I'm thinking that 79/62 is avoiding the active partial block set upon them to persuade them to respond on talk pages. They only reason I haven't reported them is because they aren't being disruptive and adding a ton on external links like they usually do, but I'm almost positive that this is the same person. What say you? ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 11:11, 31 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@ResolutionsPerMinute Hi. I just had a look at it, and I'm fairly positive on this too, seeing how they both are/were focussed on song articles, mostly adding Youtube external links to them, and how they never use edit summaries. Though, they definitely don't seem to be as vigourous with adding external links (i.e. not adding as many of them) as before. It's worth noting the partial block on the 62.211.233.175 IP is about to elapse in less than two days, so an SPI report would probably not be the most appropriate option here.

I'd say wait for a day or two and see how it goes, try and engage discussion with the user if necessary. And then if the edit warring and no communication starts again, that's when we get another ANEW or an ANI report going on this. — AP 499D25 (talk) 11:36, 31 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just don't know what to say anymore. some users come out of nowhere and delete entire "wp:trivia" off articles and now it's isocell page sensor list .

is there anything that can be done? Guyfromturkey (talk) 15:35, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey @AP 499D25! I'm not super experienced at ANI; for reports like Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#BalticBowser:_Weird_Attack_"Blog"_on_Talk_Page,_may_be_NOTHERE, is there a better way for me to be phrasing or structuring that? I'm honestly a bit surprised it read like a content dispute, and I'm not really sure what I should have done differently. I'd genuinely appreciate advice here, thanks. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 15:58, 1 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Responded at ANI. — AP 499D25 (talk) 05:37, 2 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thinking about your summer break? Think about joining other Wikipedians and Wikimedians in Golden Bay / Mohua! Details are on the meetup page. There's heaps of interesting stuff to work on e.g. the oldest extant waka or New Zealand's oldest ongoing legal case. Or you may spend your time taking photos and then upload them.

Golden Bay is hard to get to and the airline flying into Tākaka uses small planes, so we are holding some seats from and to Wellington and we are offering attendees a $200 travel subsidy to help with costs.

Be in touch with Schwede66 if this event interests you and you'd like to discuss logistics. Schwede66 09:14, 13 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2024!

Hello AP 499D25, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2024. Happy editing, TheWikiCyclone (talk) 04:54, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply] Spread the love by adding ((subst:Seasonal Greetings)) to other user talk pages.

TheWikiCyclone (talk) 04:54, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, you too! — AP 499D25 (talk) 07:06, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Happy New Year!

AP 499D25,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Abishe (talk) 21:00, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding ((subst:Happy New Year fireworks)) to user talk pages.

Abishe (talk) 21:00, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Thank you for reverting the vandalism to Gay Bathhouse and sending the user a warning. I was Googling how to issue a warning and see you were already on top of it :) OiYoiYoink (talk) 16:56, 20 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks!

I used the editing assistant Twinkle to place the warning template. They can be placed manually without tools also. WP:UWT has a list of all the various user warning, notice and notification templates there are. :)

Regards, — AP 499D25 (talk) 04:32, 21 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh the hypocrisy, projection, and gatekeeping.

For one, you can’t uphold edits that delete or downplay long-standing additions that establish American and other national credit on pages like New Wave music, Progressive rock, Electronic rock, and more, especially when these edits are carried out by IPs and sockpuppet accounts. To then uphold edits and gatekeep pages to maintain British credit on a vast array of music genre pages(many of which it doesn’t deserve to be credited on, if the US is being removed from the New Wave page), is ridiculous. That is OBVIOUSLY biased POV-pushing.

You also can’t possibly accuse others of “anti-British/pro-American POV-pushing” when “anti-American/pro-British POV-pushing” dominates the music pages on Wikipedia. You people uphold deletions of the US from cultural origins of genre pages, even when perpetrated by random IPs. You call any attempt to do the same to the UK “anti-British POV-pushing”. You remove any attempt to source an American perspective on the development of a genre, and yet even pages for music styles that originated in America favor an obnoxiously “Anglocentric” perspective. Any attempt to balance this perspective is met with backlash, bans, and accusations of sockpuppetry, mostly from British users. Any third party individual would recognize the obviously systemic anti-American bias here. Yes, there is an obvious attempt by a network of Wikipedians to appropriate credit for the development of Rock music to Britain, from America. YOU are engaged in anti-American/pro-British POV-pushing. You are not going to make the accusation otherwise again, and we will keep editing until a compromise is met. 24.14.196.245 (talk) 03:19, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You obviously seem to be another IP sock of User:Dcasey98, given that you restored the edits made by your previous account Christeningchristina on the pages Power pop and Talk:Psychedelic rock, huh? — AP 499D25 (talk) 03:54, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]