User talk:Dr unix

Socket F(1207)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Socket F(1207), and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: Socket F. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 19:52, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of AMD Family 10h

A tag has been placed on AMD Family 10h requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 04:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chris I was trying to do a redirection, and I think I have now done it the correct way vs. what the AMD Family 10h article initially had. Please let me know if the redirection was was not done correctly. Dr unix (talk) 23:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of AMD Family10h

An editor has nominated AMD Family10h, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AMD Family10h and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 22:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to x86-64

Regarding binary prefixes, from Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Binary_prefixes

" There is no consensus to use the newer IEC-recommended prefixes in Wikipedia articles to represent binary units. There is consensus that editors should not change prefixes from one style to the other, especially if there is uncertainty as to which term is appropriate within the context—one must be certain whether "100 GB" means binary not decimal units in the material at hand before disambiguation. When this is certain the use of parentheses for binary prefixes, for example "256 KB (256×210 bytes)", is acceptable, as is the use of footnotes to disambiguate prefixes. Use of IEC prefixes is also acceptable for disambiguation (256 KiB). When in doubt, stay with established usage in the article, and follow the lead of the first major contributor. Prefixes in directly quoted passages are never changed; if explanation is necessary, use a more exact measurement in square brackets. " (emphasis added)

You might also refer to http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/binary.html , and to binary prefixes.

Will you please revert your changes to the prefixes? I could, but you are in a better position to retain the other changes you made in the same edit. Jeh (talk) 04:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, someone else just did a simple reversion. I believe I restored all of your other changes other than the reordering of the implementation list. Jeh (talk) 15:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Karen Kurreck, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Track. 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) 10:30, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Notmuch

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Notmuch. zazpot (talk) 18:58, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Dr unix. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Dr unix. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Dr unix. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Dr unix. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:07, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 01:32, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:13, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Article s6 (init)

Good morning Dr unix. You who have knowledge about init could you help with editing the article s6 (init) to get it accepted. Since I think init s6 is very important in Linux environment. Thank you very much --Rstmnq1000 (talk) 00:16, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Socket F(1207)" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Socket F(1207) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 5 § Socket F(1207) until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 16:15, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SSCXWC moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to SSCXWC. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit for review" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Klbrain (talk) 08:58, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What more needs to be added? There were already references to SSCXWC in other Wikipedia articles. Shouldn't there be *some* explanation as to what SSCXWC is? Folks travel across the U.S. and from Asia to attend SSCXWC. Dr UNIX (talk) 03:01, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

January 2025

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to The Epoch Times. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 03:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is NOT a personal POV nor personal analysis. On 15 July 2021, WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said that the COVID-19 lab leak theory had been prematurely discarded by the WHO, following his earlier statements that a potential leak requires "further investigation" and "In June 2022, the WHO's Scientific Advisory Group for Origins of Novel Pathogens (SAGO) published a preliminary report urged a deeper investigation into the possibility of a laboratory leak" per Wikipedia's own article on the subject. The U.S. Defense Department and FBI has discovered strong evidence that COVID-19 most likely leaked from a Chinese lab. Dr UNIX (talk) 05:15, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The medical community in general does not agree with these findings. Scholarly consensus is against a purposefully engineered virus or a planned leak. Binksternet (talk) 06:57, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide references that there is "Scholarly consensus is against a purposefully engineered virus or a planned leak". The WHO, U.S. DoD, and U.S. FBI does not agree that there is consensus. That there are these well established governmental bodies that state there *may* have been a lab leak means this is not "conspiracy theory" that The Epoch Times is being tagged with. Dr UNIX (talk) 07:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you were so sure of your viewpoint, you would be tackling the issue directly by editing the relevant articles such as COVID-19 lab leak theory or SARS-CoV-2. Instead, you are in the backwater of the topic, editing something which is really about the main publication of a cult-like new religion. Binksternet (talk) 07:15, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is a non-sequitur. The claim that The Epoch Times is "far-right" vs. right leaning (note the number of times others have tried to edit the article to be less BIASED and not use charged language, yet has been reverted) is justified based on these references. That I am removing just one of them that can reasonably be justified based on post-2022 assessments of COVID-19 is somehow disturbing to you? I've given 3 governmental agencies that move the needle from "conspiracy theory" (the claim of the reference) to "maybe its true" bothers you based on "point of view"? At this point, I have to question your POV. What are the post-2022 references you have to continue to claim that The Epoch Times spews "conspiracy theory" based on the lab-leak theory? Are you claiming that I have to get involved in editing yet another Wikipedia article in order to remove a now not-relevant site? Dr UNIX (talk) 07:36, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/21670811.2021.1938165#d1e309 "What Are the Key Information Sources Used in the Discussion and Conspiracy Theorising of COVID-19"? The Epoch Times is the *9th* claimed siteing [Fig. 9] well behind YouTube, Twitter (of 2021), Reuters, et al.; yet those sources don't have this reference to claim they are "far-right". Dr UNIX (talk) 07:51, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]