User talk:Mipadi/Archive01

You have reached one of Mipadi's archived Talk pages. This archive covers discussion from June 21, 2005 to September 30, 2005. You may also view Mipadi's main Talk page.

Wikipedia Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Mipadi/Archive01, 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! -- Longhair | Talk 15:20, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Green Sea Turtle

outside birds (always caps), there is no hard and fast agreed convention. For example, cetaceans are capped, fish are not. Turtles appear to be capped, so I've gone with the flow. I'll put in a redirect though jimfbleak 1 July 2005 17:06 (UTC)

Okay. I wasn't entirely sure about the guidelines, but go with what you think is most appropriate. – Mipadi July 1, 2005 17:36 (UTC)

Welcoming

Hi there. Just a tip: when you welcome people, use {{subst:welcome}}, not {{welcome}}. That inserts the current text of the template instead of a dynamic inclusion. It reduces server load, and doesn't look so impersonal when someone edits their talk page and realizes your greeting was just a template.

Or, even better, write your own greeting. It's much more personal that way. Isomorphic 3 July 2005 06:29 (UTC)

Thanks. I just like the standard greeting because it provides a lot of useful links, which I found quite handy when I started here. – Mipadi July 3, 2005 14:59 (UTC)

Stub tags

The origins of this thread can be found here.

It does get a little frustrating, dealing with people who don't seem to "get it." This is the second person I've interacted with in the last couple of days who didn't seem to want a stub tag on an article. I wonder if anon users who aren't here very much see the tag as something like an insult, proclaiming "Hey! Short ugly worthless article here!!!" I left a note at this user's talk page, but I doubt I'll get a response. Joyous (talk) July 3, 2005 21:02 (UTC)

Mach kernel

XNU. Dysprosia 4 July 2005 04:53 (UTC)

Right. And XNU is the Mach kernel with some BSD stuff pasted on. Even Apple notes that Mach is at the heart of OS X:

Mac OS X offers a unique combination of technical elements to the discerning geek, such as fine-grained multithreading, Mach 3.0 microkernel, FreeBSD services, tight hardware integration and SMP-safe drivers, as well as zero configuration networking. [1]

– Mipadi July 4, 2005 05:05 (UTC)

Thus XNU is not Mach. Dysprosia 4 July 2005 05:16 (UTC)

How so? It's a slightly modified Mach to work in the context of Mac OS X. Since a good part of Mach's code is used in OS X, it's not improper to say that Mach is used in Mac OS X. – Mipadi July 4, 2005 05:19 (UTC)

Mach is a microkernel. XNU is not. Simply, from Kernel (computer science),

For example, the Mac OS X kernel XNU, while based on the Mach 3.0 microkernel, includes code from the BSD kernel in the same address space in order to cut down on the latency incurred by the traditional microkernel design.

Mach does not do this. Dysprosia 4 July 2005 05:22 (UTC)

Right. And as noted, Apple modified Mach specifically for Mac OS X. For performance purposes, certain operations generally run in userspace in a microkernel were included in kernelspace, in the form of some BSD-based code. Still, a lot of Mach is still in use in Mac OS X, which is why it's not improper to say that Mach is used in OS X. As noted, XNU is Mach, but with some BSD code embedded in kernelspace, not userspace, to help with performance issues. – Mipadi July 4, 2005 05:25 (UTC)

It is incorrect to say to say that Mac OS X uses Mach, because it simply does not -- it uses the XNU kernel. XNU is not Mach, doesn't work like Mach, and doesn't have the same architecture as Mach. It may be correct to say that Mac OS X is Mach based, but to say that it uses Mach and Mach alone is false. Dysprosia 4 July 2005 05:33 (UTC)

Mach kernel states that Mach "is in use in a number of commercial operating systems, notably Mac OS X", which is true. It's a simple logical statement: Mach is used in XNU; XNU is used in Mac OS X; thus, Mach is used in Mac OS X. It may have been modified slightly, yes, but the code is still being used. It is not asserted that "Mach and Mach alone" is used in Mac OS X. – Mipadi July 4, 2005 05:36 (UTC)

To say that since XNU is based on Mach, thus Mach "is in use" in OS X is rather misleading and the correctness of the statement is weak. I can say that BSD software "is in use" in Windows, or that POSIX "is in use" in Windows, because a few command line tools are based on BSD code, and that Windows has a very weak POSIX layer; both which are technically true, but because there is no comment made as to how BSD software "is in use" in Windows, or to the quality of the POSIX layer, the statements are deliberately vague. Vagueness is not a characteristic becoming of an encyclopedia. It is firstly inaccurate to imply (which, due to the vagueness of the statement, is what you are doing) that Mac OS X uses Mach for its kernel because it simply doesn't, and secondly it is more factual to describe operating systems which are based solely on Mach and are not just tangentially related, rather than making use of vague statements to tie OS X to Mach -- one would not characterise POSIX by saying that "POSIX is in use in a number of commercial operating systems, notably Windows". Dysprosia 4 July 2005 05:51 (UTC)

I still think it's quite a leap to say that Mach is not used in OS X. XNU is Mach with a BSD subsystem running in kernelspace, instead of userspace where it normally would be in a microkernel system. Keep in mind that this was the very same way Mach 2.5 worked—it wasn't until Mach 3.0 that the BSD parts were completely separated.

It is true that the XNU kernel does function differently in many ways than the Mach 3.0 kernel, but I think it's definitely a stretch to say that OS X does not use the Mach kernel at all. It uses it in a highly modified way that is different from how it used in other OS'es, but the point remains that the kernel is embedded at the heart of OS X; but yes, other code running in kernelspace makes XNU behave differently than Mach 3.0. However, I don't find it factually inaccurate to say that Mach is used in OS X.

Basically, I see it this way: the Mach microkernel does form the heart of XNU, which is OS X's kernel; however, some code runs alongside the Mach code in XNU, thus altering the behavior of Mach. However, this does not nullify the fact that Mach is used in XNU, and thus OS X; it just means that Mach is used in a slightly different way.

And yes, I know you provided a few examples, but let's be honest, those are vastly different than saying that Mach is used in OS X. – Mipadi July 4, 2005 06:12 (UTC)

No, the examples are not "vastly different". You are making an argument to the connotations of the words "is in use". The examples I provided you also made use of the words "is in use" in exactly the same way as you are doing in the article. You have not spoken to the argument that, because you are saying that Mach "is in use" in OS X, that this implies that Mach is OS X's kernel, and thus it is not such a "leap" to say that Mach is not used in OS X. Would you find it accurate to say that Windows is used in OS X? Clearly, Windows is not a part of the OS X operating system, even though it can run under VMware.

I am not saying that the article should not mention OS X at all. I am saying that because Mach is a microkernel, and is intended primarily to be used as a microkernel, and that XNU is not a microkernel (XNU is not just "slightly different" from Mach then, in this respect), it should not be the primary example of the use of Mach, just like Windows should not be the primary example of the POSIX API. Dysprosia 4 July 2005 06:29 (UTC)

Well, again, I note that it was Mach 2.5, not 3.0, that was used in NeXTSTEP, and Mach 2.5 did include BSD userland code as part of the kernel, for performance purposes. It wasn't until 3.0 that Mach was truly a microkernel. – Mipadi July 4, 2005 15:13 (UTC)

<<

Mach was intended to be a microkernel from the beginning. You can't say that because it wasn't implemented as such in early versions, then it's relevant to describe non-microkernels in relation to it in the first paragraph.

You again have not spoken to the argument that, because you are saying that Mach "is in use" in OS X, that this implies that Mach is OS X's kernel, and this implication is false. Do you agree with me now on this issue or not? Dysprosia 5 July 2005 01:19 (UTC)

No. I still think you're wrong. – Mipadi July 5, 2005 01:36 (UTC)

And what argument have you come up with to back up this statement? A simple statement that my examples are "vastly different" with no argument to justify this; no argument whatsoever to against that the implication that I have repeatedly stated; no argument against the misleading nature of the wording; no argument against the relevance of describing hybrid kernels in an article about a microkernel. What are you expecting me to say or do here? Dysprosia 5 July 2005 02:44 (UTC)

Do what you want. For the record, I don't feel as though you have proven your point, and I still think you are wrong, but it's not a big deal. You're going to edit what you want, anyway, and I think it's a minor point. Personally I think discussions like these are more suited to SlashDot than here. – Mipadi July 5, 2005 03:36 (UTC)

When there are matters due to the factuality and accuracy of an article, they need to be discussed. The issue is resolved now thanks to Grunt's edit. Dysprosia 5 July 2005 03:38 (UTC)

Ryan Cawdor wiki page

Any specifics you want me to wikify?

In particular, it is a good idea to follow standard Wikipedia protocol involving formatting, grammar, and the link. Also, it is important to include links to other Wikipedia articles so as to integrate the article into the rest of Wikipedia. Information involing guidelines are including as part of the {{wikify}} text.

I left a message on your talk page that also specified some of these concerns. Thank you! – Mipadi July 5, 2005 18:49 (UTC)

Magic cookie grammer edit

Re: http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Magic_cookie&diff=18274161&oldid=16276449

Wouldn't changing the comma to a semicolon done the same trick with fewer words?

Just curious about my grammer.

Regards, --kop 17:40, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it could be done either way. – Mipadi 04:37, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

Wookieepedia

Hey, Mipadi, I was just reading your very well-written article on the Krytos virus, and seeing how you are such a huge fan of Star Wars, I would like to invite you to another wiki project dubbed Wookieepedia aka the Star Wars Wiki. I hope you can bring the same expertise and skill in writing great articles there, and you will have much more freedom and room to work with these articles than on Wikipedia, which may decide that they are not notable enough. That being said I don't want you quit using or contributing to Wikipedia, but for the SW alternative, the Wookieepedia will appreciate your help. -- Riffsyphon1024 06:29, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you! I'll take a look at that ASAP. – Mipadi 15:45, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Post-hardcore / Texas is the reason

Hey, I just saw that you modified some text in someone else's discussion on Talk:Post-hardcore. This is usually considered rude, especially since the link that you "fixed" works (it redirects to the correct article). Even if someone writes a link incorrectly, another user should not fix it when on a talk page. Furthermore, the page Texas is the reason is incorrectly named, and you know that, but this is why it redirects to the correctly named Texas is the Reason. Since "Texas is the reason" is a common misspelling of the topic, it is useful to make the page with that name smoothly redirect to the correct page, rather than give the searching user an error or other message. I've reverted your speedy deletion note on Texas is the reason back to a redirect. I don't know if you know any of these policies, so I'm just telling you about them. :) —Tarnas 06:37, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I understand the reasoning. Thanks for the tip! – Mipadi 03:05, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

ToC on List of Star Wars planets pages

I was just wondering...why did you remove the Table of Contents from the List of Star Wars planets pages? It makes the page look unproffesional, in my opinion, and it also makes it harder to find out which planets are actually in there and which ones aren't. bob rulz 14:32, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

They are not present on the A-B and C-D pages, and those pages look a lot more organized. Having a list of dozens of planets seems to be a poor choice at the beginning of the article. The horizontal alphabetized list of contents should be used here, but there seems to be no point for that, either, since the contents of the page contain only two or three letters, anyway. — Mipadi 14:36, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Headings

The origins of this thread can be found here.

I did it because that is how headings appear on the articles of the other Episodes of Star Wars. Copperchair 23:53, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I can understand an attempt to be consistent; however, capitalizing all words in a title is against the MoS, so instead of changing all of them to be capitalized, they should all be changed to conform to the MoS. – Mipadi 02:56, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Original Trilogy is a proper noun when referred to Star Wars. Have you heard about "The Original Trilogy Collection" of Hasbro Star Wars toys that came out last year? And I'm not "plugging my ears and running around screaming, "I CAN'T HEAR YOU!"". I always answer all the comments left on my talk page. Copperchair 23:44, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm checking in here because this seems to be where the discussion of this is. "The Original Trilogy Collection" is a proper noun because it's the title of something, namely, the aforementioned collection of toys. I'm going to agree with everyone except Copperchair here and say that "original trilogy" isn't really a proper noun. — Phil Welch 00:13, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, if you are going to contact me, do so with at least some semblance of respect. I'm not sure what you are referring to when you accuse me of removing comments from my talk page, but I assure you that I have removed no comments from my talk page; simply checking the history the page will tell you that much.

Furthermore, in terms of the issue regarding the capitalization of "original trilogy", it is capitalized when used as part of, say, a trademark (as in "The Original Trilogy Collection") but I don't think saying something like "Anakin Skywalker is known as Darth Vader in the original trilogy" warrants it being capitalized as though it is a proper noun.

Thirdly, I simply posed the question in order to get some comments from other users. It is juvenile to insult me simply because I and a few other people disagree with you. For the layperson, that means grow up. – Mipadi 03:08, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion; it appears my failure to sign my admonition of Copperchair on his Talk page has led you to (incorrectly) believe that Copperchair was attacking you, when in reality, I was merely reinforcing your point with Copperchair. Again, sorry about the confusion.—chris.lawson (talk) 04:00, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, okay. I see now. Thanks! – Mipadi 04:02, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Greymatter

Thanks for (creating and) formatting the Greymatter page, I don't know all the conventions (obviously). I figured Greymatter needed a better page than that and I'm quite the addict to the software. The page looks better than WordPress' and Movable Type's pages! We should be proud! Lesley

No problem! The page does contain a lot of useful information now, I think. – Mipadi 12:13, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Anakin/Vader

If you wanna head to Talk:Darth Vader and read up on the issue, go ahead. Copperchair and I were having an interesting discussion (after he stopped being aggressive about it) that I was going to continue and then refactor, but before we got to do that, someone came to give a third opinion, siding with me. This seemed apparent from his original post, but he clarified it later when Copperchair violated it. Copperchair, of course, agreed to follow the third opinion, but has of yet not done any such thing. In the meantime, I've found the actual shooting scripts of the films in question (as well as I could) and posted links to them, which seem to resolve the matter. Copperchair is beyond reason though. As you've dealt with his blatant assholery in the past I'd like you to give your thoughts there. I don't want to write up an RfC but it may be our only choice at this point. To be clear, I don't think he's a bad guy, he's just a little attached to his idiosyncratic beliefs to the point where he doesn't accept any idea he disagrees with (cf. his ideas about proper nouns). Still, I don't like when someone doesn't keep their word, and if he's going to stand in the way of my making Darth Vader featured-article-quality (in my own eyes as well as those of WP itself), something should be done about it. — Phil Welch 03:20, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Invid article split

Thanks for the info. They were originally seperate pages, but I'd merged them together as no one had really done anything with them, to the point that they would have been viable candidates for VFD. Glad to see that there's enough info now to expand them again. Thanks again. ^_^--Mitsukai 02:06, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

VfD on Saniel Bonder

Mipadi, please vote on the VfD for Saniel Bonder.

Template error

Re recent Star Wars: X-wing (series) edit: Mipadi, you do know that that template is misspelled, right? It should be Iron Fist, not Iron First. --Maru (talk) 23:04, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I did not notice that, but it's easy enough to change. Thanks. – Mipadi 01:51, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

dword

whoops. my mistake. a dword is just 32-bit data

Working title italics

The origins of this thread can be found here.

The italize the working titles in Episodes I and II. Copperchair 03:36, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mipadi's response can be read here.

RfC for Copperchair

Please take a look here.--chris.lawson 03:47, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]