User talk:HyperAccelerated

December 2023

Hello, I'm Itcouldbepossible. I noticed that in this edit to Klarna, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Itcouldbepossible ^Talk 06:09, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I believe you've made a mistake. The edit was intentional and contained an edit summary. I'm confused as to why you're suggesting I add one for future edits. I don't think that the fact that Klarna uses Erlang, Node, or Kafka is important to note -- the two sources in those sections are from Klarna employees themselves (one being from Klarna's engineering blog, the other being a podcast episode with a Klarna employee). The company provides payment services (primarily) for people who aren't software developers, so this section provides unnecessary detail. I could be convinced to go the other way on this if the business focused on software libraries (for which language would be important to note), but that's not the case here.

I'll wait 24 hours for a reply. If I don't hear anything by then, I will reapply the deletion. Thanks for contacting me. HyperAccelerated (talk) 06:26, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Well, I think I am in error yet again. Thanks for pointing that out to me! But as vandalism fighters, we trust the ORES scores of each edit, and during manual review, if we don't see a suitable edit summary, we do at times treat it as vandalism and revert it. In your case, it would have been better if you could write a brief version of what you wrote to me on your talk page as the edit summary. Instead of just 'Delete Technology section', it would have served a better purpose and would have helped me in flagging your edit as a good edit. I hope that sorts things up, but if you want to have further clarifications, please don't hesitate to contact me again. Happy editing, Itcouldbepossible ^Talk 04:16, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

I have also reverted my edit, and restored the version created by you. Itcouldbepossible ^Talk 04:18, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. HyperAccelerated (talk) 17:51, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

February 2024

Hi HyperAccelerated, I saw in December that you added the advert notice to Warp (terminal). I'm looking to improve this page. Could you point out specifically where the article reads like promotional content or fails to be written from a neutral point of view? Thank you so much. Catyeo18 (talk) 15:56, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

It looks better than the last time I read the article, but I think the notice should stay. I don't see why it's worth noting that Warp uses cloud storage or makes their code portable between OSes. These are things that many companies do. HyperAccelerated (talk) 03:42, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Actually, hold up a second. Is this article about a terminal emulator or a company? The lede doesn't match the rest of the article at all. It spends more time talking about the founder's previous jobs and how much they've funded than the actual software. This is an article about software, not people, right? I think most of the History section should go. HyperAccelerated (talk) 04:07, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

The terminal emulator is a company - but I agree, more focus should be on the software, not the company's founder. There used to be a Features section when the article was first created but it got entirely removed. Let me work on improving the article to be more software focused - and I agree, cloud storage and porting OSes are not worth noting. I'll work on this and comment here again when that's done. Thanks for the feedback! Catyeo18 (talk) 23:01, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

PROD

I've been seeing a lot of your nominations in AfD and I wanted to ask if you knew about PROD. If an article has not been sent to AfD or PROD'd before and you think the nomination would not be controversial you can propose deletion instead of sending it to AfD. It saves the AfD folks some time and you can do it through Twinkle. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk) 16:09, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I've heard of it but never used it. To be honest, I'm still somewhat new here and I wasn't sure how much to trust my own judgement, which is why I've been sending stuff to AfD. I suppose I'm not doing a terrible job if you're sending me this, so I'll start using it. Thanks! HyperAccelerated (talk) 00:15, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Notability for Computing articles

Hi, I've noticed you've been active lately in PRODs and AfDs for articles in the Computing wikiproject. I don't disagree with any of them (if I did, I would comment there). I have come across some articles in this wikiproject recently and I feel like I must be missing something because many of them in my opinion do not meet the notability guidelines. I was wondering if you could give me your opinion on TiddlyWiki and SQLAlchemy. The latter is probably most relevant to you due to your recent AfD of Propel (PHP). To be clear I'm not asking you to AfD them, I'm just asking for your opinion. Mokadoshi (talk) 19:33, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for reaching out! I agree there’s a good amount to be cleaned up. For TiddlyWiki, I found this review that’s not currently in the article. I can’t find a second source that would establish notability. If you sent this to AfD, I would predict that it would either result in a weak delete or that people would find sources that would save the article. For SQLAlchemy, there are textbooks written about the library. I would argue that this establishes notability. HyperAccelerated (talk) 04:12, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

May 2024

Please do not delete so much of the work we are struggling hard to create. Sitting some distance away, you might recognise the importance these topics have to the "sum of all human knowledge." Fredericknoronha (talk) 16:02, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Please do not write any correspondence outside of my talk page. Is there something I can help with? HyperAccelerated (talk) 01:25, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Sounds like an m:Inclusionist. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:33, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

New message from Aaron Liu

Hello, HyperAccelerated. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AdaControl.
Message added 11:33, 10 June 2024 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Aaron Liu (talk) 11:33, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Improving LeoCAD

Hi! I have asked for recovery of LeoCAD as a draft at Draft:LeoCAD and tried to improve the content and add more sources. Do you think it can be added now? As it was famous in the past most of the sources that prove notability are offline or recent research stuff therefore I added them. VectorVoyager (talk) 12:24, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

What are the changes and the sources that establish notability? HyperAccelerated (talk) 14:55, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Several offline book sources (isbn:9781430246121, 9781593270544). Used and mentioned in research made for an official IEEE conference. Used in another research by Technical University of Lisbon, mentioned as one of the main Lego digital design tools of the time and demonstrated their own cad software directly confronted with LeoCAD. Citation from Opensource.com and citations from other review sites. 3Dnatives one was already present before article's deletion. VectorVoyager (talk) 01:01, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

The paper from TU Lisbon is great! I think that this is collectively enough for the article to meet WP: GNG. Thanks for your hard work on improving this article! HyperAccelerated (talk) 15:22, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

ADS-AC

Please see [1] , i think this article has enough sources for open source, or this is undecided. Open source is a special case. There is three months from this talk with Boleyn and anyone paying attention to anything. I will not add any more sources, cannot find any more, this is also old, things in time disappear from web. If some wants to delete it, go on and do it right now, there is nothing to wait for. But if it will hang on for another several months, then it's better to drop it. Tkorrovi (talk) 14:19, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Removing tags after no one has paid attention to them for 3 months is not contentious. Do whatever, but i said i'm not going to add more sources, so why these tags again about adding sources, please end it. Tkorrovi (talk) 15:00, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for reaching out. What is your question? HyperAccelerated (talk) 15:03, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

If you want delete it, why these discussions, why do you torture me? Why do you do that? Tkorrovi (talk) 15:05, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

I nominated the article for deletion because I don't believe that the subject meets WP: GNG, and I believe the most appropriate remedy is to delete the article. I understand that this may cause you distress and advise you that reliable sources are the best way to improve articles in this condition. Let me know if there is something specific I can help with, but please be advised that my Talk page is not a place for you to rant about edits that you don't like. HyperAccelerated (talk) 15:13, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

"Advise you that reliable sources are the best way to improve articles in this condition", why do you say that, i said i'm not going to add more sources, means you don't understand my distress. Tkorrovi (talk) 15:35, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

28-bit computing

Agree, the page 28-bit computing really should be deleted. Have started cleaning up refs. -- Egil (talk) Egil (talk) 15:46, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

WP:BLUDGEONING accustations

HyperAccelerated, please take a second to think about the appropriateness of responding to newly presented evidence at an WP:AFD as a form of WP:BLUDGEONING. In no way could that response be viewed as anything other than bad faith and ignoring WP:AGF. New evidence is new evidence. It's not rehashing old arguments, but presenting new content for consideration under the WP:CONSENSUS process. BLUDGEONING requires repetitive arguments already made elsewhere. I understand you were upset by bad behavior on campo's part, but that doesn't excuse your response. I know you can and will do better in future. Best.4meter4 (talk) 17:10, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. HyperAccelerated (talk) 17:13, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Dexas

Hi, could you nominate this one? article for deletion, I don't see that it has references nor is it well written..190.219.102.114 (talk) 22:27, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Looks like this account was blocked for ban evasion... HyperAccelerated (talk) 22:49, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Los Juglares del Dexas (2nd nomination)

Hello, HyperAccelerated,

I see you added this to the daily AFD log page for 11/27 but no AFD page yet exists. Has this article been nominated for a deletion discussion or did you change your mind? If so, maybe you could remove this link from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 November 27. Thank you! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:00, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

I think Twinkle broke when I was trying to write the AfD rationale, and then I changed my mind (I was nominating it on behalf of an IP editor who turned out to be a sockpuppet). It's removed from the log. Let me know if you need anything else. HyperAccelerated (talk) 23:07, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

SCSI command

The outcome of your AFD was merge, and not just redirect. Redirecting and keeping the article are both against the consensus. I can not just restore the article and go against the consensus, and you should not just redirecting the article and go against consensus. The consensus was merge - please revert yourself, and let somebody else take care of the merge. Christian75 (talk) 20:06, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

It is my judgement that the content on the merge target is already sufficient and the merge is complete. This does not violate consensus. If you disagree, your remedy is to add high-quality, sourced content from the merged page to the target. This does not violate consensus either. Thanks. HyperAccelerated (talk) 20:26, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

AFDs

Hello, HyperAccelerated,

You have created a lot of AFDs that were due to be closed tonight (at least my time) but I haven't closed them for one good reason. Only one opinion was offered in most discussions and that was "Merge or Transwiki". However, no merge target article was identified and I don't understand what is being requested by arguing for "transwiki" (is that moving them somewhere else and, if so, where?). I'm leaving them, hoping another closer will have some idea what to do with all of them. But I wanted to let you know that I reviewed them to see if there were some of them that I could close with no success. I have closed thousands of AFD discussions at this point but "transwiki" is a new one outcome for me. I didn't want to relist all of the discussions because another closer might really know what is required here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:05, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I will be honest, I have no clue. I think that "transwiki" is a concession that the articles don't belong on Wikipedia, so they should be (eventually) deleted. I am aware of this AfD of similar articles where the articles stayed up for about a month to give users time to move the material off-wiki and were then subsequently deleted. This option seems a bit complex to me, but it is worth considering. HyperAccelerated (talk) 04:46, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Code page 875 was transwikied to b:Character Encodings/Code Tables/EBCDIC/Code page 875 Christian75 (talk) 15:50, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Well, this is SOME information but we'd need a location for each article and I'm still not sure what "transwiki" means here and what a closer needs to do to enact this outcome. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:58, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

I would suggest discussing with the people who voted Transwiki on their Talk pages. I wish I could give further information, but I'm honestly just as confused as you on this question. HyperAccelerated (talk) 14:43, 12 December 2024 (UTC)