User talk:Mark.malewski

Aviation articles

You might find it easier to start with aclean template by using Template:WPAVIATION creator--Petebutt (talk) 18:18, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong aircraft

Presumably all the Convair 116 bits will be eradicated?--Petebutt (talk) 18:18, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Convair Model 200

Hi Mark, are you finished with your major work on Draft:Convair Model 200? To my somewhat-experienced wiki-eyes, it looks good enough to go to mainspace as -is, but I wanted to see if you had anything left you needed to work on first. I'll give you a few days to respond, and the make my own decision if I don't hear back from you. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 22:38, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I believe it should be good! We can always add some additional “polish” later, but it’s fine! Thanks! Mark.malewski (talk) 21:50, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May 2020

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on User talk:Arkhandar. I do not see anything in that user's conduct that indicates they are editing in bad faith. Thus, your accusations of vandalism are inappropriate. If you have a concern about article or infobox content, I suggest you engage in a civil discussion at the article in question's talk page. However, continued unfounded accusations of vandalism are unacceptable and could be viewed as a personal attack and dealt with accordingly. —C.Fred (talk) 00:33, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You can stop making false accusations.

I am not attacking anyone. We have already discussed it, and the issue is resolved. I am stating that the information/changes that they are making are incorrect and vandalism. You keep saying it's in "good faith" but it's wrong and incorrect. It's called vandalism.

It would be best for everyone to "take a break" and leave the PCI Express page alone. I'm sure there are other pages that he can vandalize.

It doesn't matter how many times you say something that is wrong, it's still wrong. I understand that not all Wikipedia editors are ENGINEERS, but I would suggest unless you are an engineer (with a Master's or Doctoral degree) that it would be best to stop making changes or stating things that are wrong or false.

As for detailed RS-FEC (528/514) you can reference here (see page 10): https://download.tek.com/document/65W_61045_0_Gen4Rx-Testing_AN.PDF

A common FEC (Forward Error Correcting) choice is RS-FEC(528/514) which encodes 5140 data bits in 528 ten bit symbols and can correct a minimum of 7 errors and a maximum of 70 at a cost of just under 3% overhead.

This is what is used in PCI Express (Gen4 and later).

I am done with this discussion. Please stay off my page. Thank-you!