GODhack~enwiki

Hi GODhack,

I noticed you have removed Image:Benzopyrene DNA adduct 1JDG.png and Image:A-DNA, B-DNA and Z-DNA.png from DNA:

• 
  Benzopyrene DNA adduct 1JDG.png
• 
  A-DNA, B-DNA and Z-DNA.png

I have reinserted them, because I cannot see any problem with them - in fact, they positively enhance the article. What did you mean when you said in your edit summary that the benzoypyrene image was very unclear, maybe bad?

Next time you feel you want to remove an image, I think everyone would appreciate it if you discussed the situation first at the article's talk page and waited for consensus (if it comes) before removing the image.

Ben (talk) 12:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

OK I will start discussion about them.

Please remember to mark your edits, such as your recent edits to DNA, as minor if (and only if) they genuinely are minor edits (see Help:Minor edit). Marking a major change as a minor one is considered poor etiquette. The rule of thumb is that only an edit that consists solely of spelling corrections, formatting changes, or rearranging of text without modifying content should be flagged as a 'minor edit.' Thank you. Tim Vickers (talk) 13:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi,
I think I see where you're trying to steer the sentence, but its intended point actually has nothing to do with whether an application might benefit from 64-bitness or not.

The rev-1 sentence,

Because the full 32-bit instruction set remains implemented in silicon without any intervening emulation, existing 32-bit applications run with no compatibility or performance penalties.

...is intended to say that all existing x86 apps can continue to run unmodified on x86-64 processors, and will perform just as they would on equivalent x86 processors.

Adding "that do not benefit from 64-bit features" now divides this pool of existing apps into two classes. How do apps in these two classes run on x86-64?

1. Applications that do not benefit from 64-bit features: no penalties
2. Applications that benefit from 64-bit features: no penalties

That is, they're the same for what this sentence is asserting.

But adding the clause, which now makes the sentence say explicitly only that apps in class 1 have no penalties, implies that those in class 2 do have penalties. The logical conclusion would be that class 2 binaries should be run on x86 chips, not on x86-64 chips, for best performance.

I think what you're actually trying to say is that class 2 apps should be recoded and/or recompiled for even better performance and/or functionality. This is of course true, but adding the given clause to the above sentence, which is really only intended to talk about backwards compatibility, does not make that assertion.

Does that make sense? Regards, NapoliRoma (talk) 16:14, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I do not want steer anything, I simply want to keep it as close to source as possible. 17:28, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:RedEclipse.gif. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 16:06, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Zeitgeist, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ubuntu (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:28, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Whose been a busy little nuxivore then? Too busy to observe the courtesies concerning the wrights and rongs of editing other folks' user pages, as opposed to talk pages? Look, I am terribly sorry to treat your subsequent amygdalin edits with such apparent inattention, but some summary arbitrarian seems to have edited them all out. I'll just have to wait till you reinstate them before showing your views their appropriate respect. Just please don't confuse me by boning up on your pharmacology before your next post!  ;-) JonRichfield (talk) 18:09, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Why you protect lies in wikipedia covered by wrong citations?

Your recent editing history at amygdalin shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. MastCell ^Talk 20:04, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I will not bother to edit that crap which lies about citations or discuss something wit lier trying to protect those lies and you protect lies in here by canceling all edits and leaving de-facto shit in it congratulations!

GH, you appear to have omitted to include the message in your recent message on my talk page. I must of course applaud the improvement in your behaviour, in at least addressing the talk page instead of the user page ( addressing the latter being a twisted sort of ad hominem when you come down to it, don't you think?) but I admit that in going to so much trouble to say nothing, you have me nailed to the barn door; as a polemical tactic it left me with no option for response. Neat. Very neat. Congratulations! JonRichfield (talk) 06:10, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 21:00, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

00:05, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

13:06, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Red Eclipse is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Red Eclipse until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. czar 02:33, 16 May 2016 (UTC)