User talk:Arkhandar/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

STOP VANDALISING THE PCI Express Page!

Resolved

Leave the Infobox alone! It's a template that has been used for many many years, and it shows at a quick glance, the various speeds per lane. It has a purpose, leave it alone! STOP VANDALISING THE PCI Express PAGE! If you don't know what you are doing, stay off the page! Thank-you, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark.malewski (talk • contribs) 00:11, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

@Mark.malewski: The cleanup hardly qualifies as WP:VANDALISM. It would be much more productive if you added constructive criticism in what you felt the change negatively impacted the article instead (e.g. quick glance at the lane bandwidth).~ Arkhandar ^{(message me)} 18:25, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

It is NOT a "clean up" when you are vandalizing a page, changing important details and adding INCORRECT information. What you are doing is WP:VANDALISM. The information you are changing is WRONG and INCORRECT. There is a reason for specifying RS specifications (as per PCI Express draft specification) as well as the link/lane bandwidth. (e.g. quick glance at the lane bandwidth). Also you can't state "full duplex" under speed, when that is not hardcoded to a particular speed or duplex (as per PCI Express specifications). It's just like clock, it can be changed and can be variable. Your edits are not adding anything to the page, and instead is making the page worse by adding incorrect information and removing important details. ~ Mark.Malewski ^{(message me)} 18:25, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

It might be best for you to "take a break" and stop engaging in disruptive behavior. Your changes are NOT improving the page. You are changing content, and entering WRONG and INCORRECT information, and removing important details and important information. If you don't know what you are doing, please stay off the page! Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark.malewski (talk • contribs)

@Mark.malewski: Thank you for finally being more specific with your comments. Now, for further comments, let's please refrain to the article's talk page to it's more visible. Thank you ~ Arkhandar ^{(message me)} 00:34, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Arkhandar, this administrator agrees with you that your edits are good-faith and do not rise to the level of vandalism. The other editor has also been cautioned that unfounded accusations of vandalism are unacceptable. I've invited them to engage in civil discussion at the article's talk page, and I invite you to do so as well. I'm also monitoring the situation; you can feel free to otherwise disengage from the user to lessen the amount of...untoward messages you're receiving from them. —C.Fred (talk) 00:37, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@C.Fred: Thank you for the support. I hope we'll be able to sort this out without further issues. Thanks! ~ Arkhandar ^{(message me)} 00:42, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I hope so also. I would like to see a clean start to constructive discussion at the article talk page and not copy-and-pastes of conversations here. —C.Fred (talk) 00:43, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@C.Fred: Me too. I've just notice that my comments are being copy-pasted as well... I'll assume it was done in good-faith, but this kind of stuff getting really tiring. ~ Arkhandar ^{(message me)} 00:46, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Warning: PCI Express

Resolved

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on PCI Express; that means that you are repeatedly changing content to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly vandalizing pages and creating incorrect edits, and stalking users.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
You have been vandalizing pages, vandalizing the PCI Express page, stalking users and vandalizing user's infobox's. Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark.malewski (talk • contribs)

Warning: Harassment

Resolved

Harassment is a pattern of repeated offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to intentionally target a specific person or persons. Usually (but not always), the purpose is to make the target feel threatened or intimidated, and the outcome may be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine, frighten, or discourage them from editing.

Wikipedia must never be misused to harass anyone, whether or not the subject of the harassment is an editor here. Edits constituting harassment will be reverted, deleted, or suppressed, as appropriate, and editors who engage in harassment are subject to blocking.

Harassment can include actions calculated to be noticed by the target and clearly suggestive of targeting them, where no direct communication takes place.

You have been vandalizing pages, and stalking my pages, including the PCI Express page as well as the Draft:Convair_Model_200 page. Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark.malewski (talk • contribs)

@Mark.malewski: First of all, I don't know where you got this idea of me vandalizing whatsoever. I advise you to take a look at the WP:VANDALISM guidelines first to learn a little bit about it before making any unfounded accusations in the future. Second, you are not the WP:OWNER of the PCI Express article. And lastly, regarding the Draft:Convair_Model_200 page, I have literally no idea of what you're talking about; and as you can see from that page's history, I've never touched it.~ Arkhandar ^{(message me)} 00:11, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Warning: Disruptive_editing

Resolved

This guideline concerns gross, obvious and repeated violations of fundamental policies, not subtle questions about which reasonable people may disagree.

A disruptive editor is an editor who exhibits tendencies such as the following:

Is tendentious: continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from other editors. Tendentious editing does not consist only of adding material; some tendentious editors engage in disruptive deletions as well. An example is repeated deletion of reliable sources posted by other editors. Cannot satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability; fails to cite sources, cites unencyclopedic sources, misrepresents reliable sources, or manufactures original research. Engages in "disruptive cite-tagging"; adds unjustified tags to an article when the content tagged is already sourced, uses such tags to suggest that properly sourced article content is questionable. Does not engage in consensus building: a. repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits; b. repeatedly disregards other editors' explanations for their edits. Rejects or ignores community input: resists moderation and/or requests for comment, continuing to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors. In addition, such editors might: Shortcuts WP:DAPE WP:CTDAPE Campaign to drive away productive contributors: act counter to policies and guidelines such as Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Ownership of articles, engage in sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry, etc. on a low level that might not exhaust the general community's patience, but that operates toward an end of exhausting the patience of productive rule-abiding editors on certain articles. Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark.malewski (talk • contribs)

The comments on article images

Resolved

Several of your comments on the main article's images of characters from the Mario series are commenting on how these images should be from the characters main series. Some of them, such as with Mario's and Toad's article, actually have their images from the mainline Mario series. EDIT: Sorry about the confusion, I did not know it was a warning. (Oinkers42) (talk) 19:23, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

@(Oinkers42): It's okay, don't worry about it. Thanks for staying alert :) ~ Arkhandar ^{(message me)} 19:40, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Cyberpunk 2077

Resolved

Hello, I'm WikiHannibal. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Cyberpunk 2077, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Specifically, this diff. WikiHannibal (talk) 16:29, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Unnecessary templates

Resolved

It’s come to my attention that you are the creator of a number of the questionable templates I’ve brought up for discussion at WP:VG. You may want to chime in there, and/or slow down on their creation, because these sort of chronology templates have a general consensus against existence, both historically, and currently, based on the trajectory of the discussion. Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games#Unnecessary_templates - thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 12:17, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: Thanks for sending a message! I've only created two actually, being Template:Xenoblade Chronicles chronology and Template:Donkey Kong chronology. The latter, I actually regret creating, given that while its contents are true and verifiable, I don't think they're actually notable enough to warrant a template like this, unlike similar others. That's why I didn't make any further to other articles. I'll join the discussion. Thanks! ~ Arkhandar ^{(message me)} 16:04, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

PCI Express Page Infobox Discussion

Resolved

I posted my comments on the PCI_Express Talk page, discussing the differences between Gbps and GT/s (and WHY they are NOT the same). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:PCI_Express#Infobox

Everything else seems to look ok as of June 2, 2020 at 22:58PM (from the last known edit/revision as of June 1, 2020 at 6:20PM by consensus discussion)

As per consensus, I also agree with keeping the "GT/s" and also the "in each direction" phrase, as it's scientifically correct.

Please don't remove the GT/s, and please leave the "in each direction" phrase, as this terminology is scientifically correct. (I don't want to get into a lengthy debate/discussion over this, but @Zac67 and Digital Brains already covered this, and PCI Express specifications state GT/s. I have posted links as to the difference between the two. You can read about that here. But newer bus architectures like the front side bus, Quick Path Interconnect, PCI Express and HyperTransport operate at the rate of a few GT/s (and PCI-SIG uses GT/s).

Hopefully this has resolved any issues, and hopefully we can stop making any edits to the PCI Express page. Thank-you!

I hope there are no hard feelings, and I thank you for your contributions that you make to Wikipedia, but I just want to ensure (as an engineer) that the PCI Express page remains "factually correct". I believe the most recent version is factually correct, and hopefully we are done making edits/changes until the PCI Express 7.0 specification is announced (2023 era) and PCI Express 7.0 specification is released (in 2025 era?)

Have a nice day! Thank-you! (If you are still upset about anything, please send me a private message, but I hope that the InfoBox discussion has resolved any mistakes or misnomers that you may have had). But as of today, everything looks good. Thank-you! Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark.malewski (talk • contribs)

@Mark.malewski: Thanks for reaching out! If you look at the consensus result, all the things you're noting will be accounted for and not changed. In fact, it was never part of the edits to remove the "GT/s" entries. Unrelated to that, I'd like to give you a friendly reminder to sign your all your comments by writing 4 "~" characters (or by using the UI), and that you only start new talk page sections at the bottom of the page. Thanks! ~ Arkhandar ^{(message me)} 23:22, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Edit without consensus and BRD

Resolved

Stop re-adding the chronology to the Xenoblade article.

• Follow WP:BRD. You boldly added it. I reverted it. The current step is “discuss”, not “revert it into the article again”.
• Discussions are ongoing, but there’s clearly no consensus for inclusion. There’s like 3-4 people who oppose, and only you who support. Literally no one else has voiced support of the template.

I know you’ve been away for a bit, but surely you at least remember the basics? Sergecross73 msg me 00:40, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: I do remember hahah I was just hoping there would be an exception due to the fact that the prose is inaccurate. Thanks ~ Arkhandar ^{(message me)} 00:59, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

That would be a reason to fix the prose, not edit war that template back into the article... Sergecross73 msg me 00:42, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: Fair enough. But until then, it would make more sense to leave the cited material in imo ~ Arkhandar ^{(message me)} 01:33, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Have you checked the discussion? It’s headed towards an unanimous “delete”. And hardcoding it is not a valid work around - the consensus is to delete the content itself. It’s going to be gone in a few days, so you may as well start working on a better solution with the prose. Sergecross73 msg me 02:16, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

File information

Resolved

Can you update the file information pages and add the source for the added files from the Mario series? (Oinkers42) (talk) 18:50, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@(Oinkers42): Sure, I'll have a look. I was sure I updated as I uploaded. ~ Arkhandar ^{(message me)} 22:21, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

@(Oinkers42): Done! ;) ~ Arkhandar ^{(message me)} 23:16, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks.(Oinkers42) (talk) 23:55, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6