W
Active Editors
Back to Profile

User Talk: RastaKins

Server-side rendered snapshot of this editor's Wikipedia talk page discussions.

<div style="padding: 0px; background: #FFFFFF; border: 1px solid blue;">
<table cellspacing="5" cellpadding="2" style="background: #BFEFFF;">
<tr><td valign="center"><div style="background: #FFFFFF; border: blue solid 1px; padding: 2em; font-family: Segoe UI, sans-serif; font-size: 95%; text-align: justify;">
Hello '''RastaKins''', and '''Welcome ↗ to Wikipedia ↗!''' I hope you like the place and decide to stay.<br>Here are some good links that you might find useful:
float|right ↗

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian ↗! Please be sure to sign your name on talk pages ↗ by using four tildes (<nowiki>~~</nowiki><nowiki>~~</nowiki>) to produce your name and the current date, or just three tildes (<nowiki>~</nowiki><nowiki>~~</nowiki>) to produce your name only. If you have any questions, or are worried/confused about anything at all, you can leave a new message ↗ on my talk page, or put <nowiki>{{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to help you.</nowiki> Happy editing, good luck, and remember: <span style="font-size:medium;">'''''Be Bold! ↗'''''</span>
:—&nbsp;<span style="color:darkorange">'''FireFox'''</span> 17:41, 01 February 2007</div></td></tr></table></div>

Your submission at Articles for creation ↗: Western Digital WD16



<div style="border:solid 1px #57DB1E; background:#E6FFE6; padding:1em; padding-top:0.5em; padding-bottom:0.5em; width:20em; color:black; margin-bottom: 1.5em; margin-left: 1.5em; width: 90%;">50px|left ↗ '''Mike Friese ↗, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.'''<br />

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions. <br />

The article has been assessed as '''C-Class''', which is recorded on its talk page ↗. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top {{AfC talk/C percentage}} of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme ↗ to see how you can improve the article.

<div class="autoconfirmed-show">Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself ↗ without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation ↗ if you prefer.</div>

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the '''<span class="plainlinks">[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Mike_Friese help desk]</span>'''.<span class="unconfirmed-show"> Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself ↗ without posting a request to Articles for creation ↗.</span>

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider {{leave feedback/link|page=Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation|text=leaving us some feedback}}.

Thanks again, and happy editing!
RastaKins (talk) 21:43, 19 December 2021 (UTC)</div><!--Template:Afc talk--> RastaKins (talk) 21:43, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Western Digital WD16 ↗ moved to draftspace



An article you recently created, Western Digital WD16 ↗, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable ↗, independent sources ↗. <small>(? ↗)</small> Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability ↗ is of central importance ↗ on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace ↗ (with a prefix of "<code>Draft:</code>" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline ↗ and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. '''<span style="color:#536895;">Onel</span><span style="color:#ffb300;">5969</span>''' <sup><i style="color:blue">TT me</i></sup> 15:44, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution



25px|Smile emoji ↗ Hi RastaKins! Thank you for your edits to :31-bit computing ↗. It looks like you've copied or moved text from :LGP-30 ↗ into that page, and while you are welcome to re-use the content, Wikipedia's licensing ↗ requires that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied in an edit summary ↗ at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking ↗ to the copied page, e.g., <code>copied content from <nowiki>page name ↗</nowiki>; see that page's history for attribution</code>. If you've copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia ↗. Thanks! DanCherek (talk) 17:10, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

:Thanks for the input. I did not know I was supposed to do that. I have added the attribution to 31-bit computing. RastaKins (talk) 17:45, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation ↗: Western Digital WD16 ↗ (October 14)


<div style="border: solid 1px #FCC; background-color: #F8EEBC; padding: 0.5em 1em; color: #000; margin: 1.5em; width: 90%;"> 50px|left ↗Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation ↗ has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time.<nowiki> </nowiki>The reason left by Nightenbelle was:

{{divbox|gray|3=This submission is not suitable for Wikipedia. Please read 'What Wikipedia is not' ↗ for more information.|}}<!--
--
-->&nbsp;The comment the reviewer left was:

{{divbox|blue|3=WP is not a how-to manual. Also- needs more 3rd party independent references to establish notability.}} Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit ''after they have been resolved''.
{{clear}}

Nightenbelle (talk) 15:52, 14 October 2022 (UTC)</div><!--Template:AfC decline-->

{| style="margin: 0.4em 2em;"
|- style="vertical-align: top;"
| alt=Teahouse logo ↗
| <div style="background-color:#e1e6db; color: #393D38; padding: 1em; font-size: 1.1em; border-radius:10px;box-shadow:-2px -2px 1px #8e8a78;">Hello, '''RastaKins'''!
Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the '''Articles for creation help desk ↗'''. If you have any ''other'' questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the '''Teahouse ↗''', a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Nightenbelle (talk) 15:52, 14 October 2022 (UTC)</div>
|}<!-- Wikipedia:Teahouse/AfC Invitation -->
Category:Wikipedians who have received a Teahouse invitation through AfC ↗


PDP-11 architecture ↗



Thanks for your new text here mentioning coroutines. I tightened the paragraph up a bit. Your Edit Summary says that the text came from a "WD16 article" but I can't figure out what that is. It might help if you added a reference. Spike-from-NH (talk) 20:18, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

:Thanks for the edits. Look for WD16 ↗ in Wikipedia. RastaKins (talk) 14:14, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I get it! I thought you meant "article" as in externally published article. Cheers! Spike-from-NH (talk) 03:00, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

October 2023


30px|link= ↗ You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war ↗. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate ↗ with others, to avoid editing disruptively ↗, and to try to reach a consensus ↗, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:
# '''Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;'''
# '''Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.'''
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page ↗ to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard ↗ or seek dispute resolution ↗. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection ↗. If you engage in an edit war, you '''may be blocked ↗ from editing.''' <!-- Template:uw-ew --> Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 13:14, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

:Note to all: Fountains of Bryn Mawr has disingenuously posted this warning on my talk page. Mawr has been reverting my edits to the history of personal computers ↗ article; I have not been reverting Mawr. See history. I made the initial edit. There is a long discussion on the article's talk ↗ page. Notice Mawr's determined unwillingness to arrive at a consensus or provide constructive editing to improve the article. RastaKins (talk) 19:28, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Alpha Microsystems ↗ revert


Sounds like we have an issue with our source, then. The very title of the ''Dr. Dobbs'' article is "A PDP-11-Like 16-Bit Micro for the S-100 Bus". Why would that make its operating system ↗ more like the PDP-10 ↗ than the PDP-11 ↗? Bumm13 (talk) 21:41, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
:Okay, you're right, the Dr. Dobbs article does make several references to the ''operating system'' having various DecSystem-10 (PDP-10) conventions. Bumm13 (talk) 21:48, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
::What Wilcox is coyly talking about is that he heisted a lot of concepts from TOPS-10. Alpha Micro got sued for this by DEC. In particular from the TOPS-10 ↗ article: "TOPS-10 had a very robust application programming interface (API) that used a mechanism called a UUO or Unimplemented User Operation. UUOs implemented operating system calls in a way that made them look like machine instructions."
::What does this mean for the Alpha Micro? AMOS SVCA B and C operating system calls (see WD16 ↗) used standard PDP-11 addressing modes for their arguments. So you could open a file in any of these ways:
::OPEN file
::OPEN file(R2)
::LEA R2, file; OPEN @R2
::OPEN @(SP)+
::RastaKins (talk) 22:06, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

PDP-11 architecture ↗ bis



I've undone your most recent edit. Yes, MARK is a miserable instruction. But the paragraph you edited sets out the general nature of processor registers (and the idea of orthogonality). Including the exceptional, non-orthogonal, and rarely-used MARK instruction complicates this introduction, and for little benefit. You describe MARK adequately (and better than I had) when we come to it. In fact, MARK's non-orthogonality is not unique; the non-miserable branch instructions all exclusively use R7, and the trap instructions use R6 and R7. Spike-from-NH (talk) 01:32, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

:Good points. The revert was a good move. RastaKins (talk) 03:11, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 5



Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Timeline of computing 1950–1979 ↗, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Speak and Spell ↗. Such links are usually incorrect ↗, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. <small>(Read the FAQ{{*}} Join us at the DPL WikiProject ↗.)</small>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 19:56, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Music genre capitalization



See MOS:GENRECAPS ↗. Dicklyon (talk) 22:57, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

:Thank you for the MOS. And for the helpful update to article. RastaKins (talk) 23:09, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics


{{ivmbox | image = Commons-emblem-notice.svg |imagesize=50px | bg = #E5F8FF | text = You have recently edited a page related to '''post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people''', a topic designated as '''''contentious ↗'''''. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and <em>does <strong>not</strong> imply that there are any issues with your editing</em>.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as ''contentious topics''. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee ↗. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators ↗ have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit <strong>carefully and constructively</strong>, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

<p>Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics ''procedures'', you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard ↗ or you may learn more about this contentious topic here ↗. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{tl|Ctopics/aware}} template. </p>}}<!-- Derived from Template:Contentious topics/alert/first --> 331dot (talk) 23:42, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

CS1 error on General Automation ↗


25px|alt=|link= ↗ Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have '''automatically detected''' that this edit ↗ performed by you, on the page :General Automation ↗, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive ↗, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:Qwerfjkl/Botpreload&editintro=User:Qwerfjkl/boteditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:Qwerfjkl&preloadtitle=Qwerfjkl%20(bot)%20–%20RastaKins&section=new&preloadparams%5b%5d={{FULLPAGENAMEE:General Automation}}&preloadparams%5b%5d=1289273125 report it to my operator].
Thanks, <!-- User:Qwerfjkl (bot)/inform -->Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 15:37, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Signal ↗



Re this edit ↗, Signal (electrical engineering) ↗ redirects to Signal ↗ so simpler and better to avoid the pipe. Am I missing something? ~Kvng (talk) 22:24, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

:Thought it needed disambiguation but I was mistaken. RastaKins (talk) 05:15, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

thank you adding z80



for some inexicable reason I thought I'd added the z80, much appreciated the oversight correction. Lkcl (talk) 05:31, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Letitia James revert



I apologize for my revert here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Letitia_James&diff=prev&oldid=1318571127 ↗. I wasn't paying attention and thought you had removed it from the article body, not the lede. I'm still aligned with the consensus re the lede. Cheers. <small><sub>''signed'', </sub></small>Willondon (talk ↗) 18:12, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

:Thanks for the insight. I thought that's what you intended by your edit note. RastaKins (talk) 19:15, 24 October 2025 (UTC)

On the EV1



In principle, I agree with your ideas about pictures of the EV1. I'm a Saturn historian, myself, so seeing any change towards reducing visibility of Saturn or Saturn-adjacent products is already against everything I stand for. On the other hand, I see where 750h+ is coming from. We can't add every picture willy-nilly and just making an exception for the EV1 without a good reason could be a poor precedent. I've started a topic on the talk page, and I think we could theorize on a good solution that need not infringe on anyone's view of what the article should or should not be.


Thank you for your work on the EV1 article :) TheSaturnLover (talk) 18:37, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message



<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; background-color: #fdf2d5; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
<div class="ivmbox-image" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;flex-basis: 40px">40px ↗</div>
<div class="ivmbox-text">
Hello! Voting in the '''2025 Arbitration Committee elections ↗''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2025|end}}-1 day}}. 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 2025 election, please review the candidates ↗ and submit your choices on the '''2025|poll}}|voting page ↗'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:27, 18 November 2025 (UTC)</small>

</div>
</div>
<!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2025/Coordination/MM/02&oldid=1322758067 -->

Future progress



(from MCS-48 discussion but on avoiding this problem in the future) Actually, the process is to leave the article in its original state and agree a change before making, not try to agree the change after making it. But all that aside, it would be good to make progress on as much as possible from this situation and one area is the process of co-operative discussion. I started my last comment to you with "Thanks for your reply and I hope it's part of peaceful, co-operative and constructive discussion. I don't think anyone needs more arguments, nor gets as far as fast with them instead of co-operation." It's a matter of fair record that you didn't reply and make that happen, which is a pity you felt you couldn't. You have also written "Not a personal attack" and I really believe you, so let's get somewhere and hopefully reach trusting agreement we're on the same page trying to do the same thing and happy to talk constructively. You gotta admit you're a bit of a hard one to reach out to :-) Or we could continue writing what are frankly descending into one-upmanship replies and each walk away with a new opponent each, but that seems very wasteful and a bit tragic really. I think you're probably very experienced in professional engineering and I think I am. We clearly both come here to do what we hope is productive and valuable to others. Look forward to your reply on that.ToaneeM (talk) 22:11, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

:@ToaneeM, the editing experience should be agreeable and fun for all. Indeed, a fun indulgence. Volunteer jobs have to have a reward aspect otherwise it becomes drudgery. I know you must find some reward in your Wiki experiences otherwise you would not have contributed so much for so long.
:Sometimes the experience not positive. After I spent an hour on a good-faith edit, it's not fun to have it reverted. You say, "Actually, the process is to leave the article in its original state and agree a change before making, not try to agree the change after making it." This is exactly opposite of how it works. Contributors are urged to WP:BEBOLD ↗ and research and write new material to create new notable articles and extend existing ones. There are a set of rules, for sure, but if those rules are being adhered to, articles are expected to evolve and the evolution should not be reverted. Wikipedia is a work in progress WP:WIP ↗ and is never completed. It makes no sense for anyone to seek consensus to extend an article. Having a code example in a CPU article is something that has been done for years. The idea that code samples should be removed is a novel initiative. Status quo does not require consensus. Deviation from that might.
:Reverts should be used judiciously. If I encounter a good-faith, but flawed, extension to an article, I will often edit to improve rather than revert so as not to discourage the contributor. This makes it seem more like a collaboration for all.
:ToaneeM, let's keep this a fun indulgence. I am looking forward to more of your contribs in the future.
:PS: It was interesting to hear what systems you worked on. I designed the following chips into commercial products and wrote the code for them, in chronological order: COP400, 8X300, 8049, 8085, 87196, PIC18. Wrote commercially marketed code for PDP-11, 8086, 68000 all written in assembly. Later code was written in C dialects. RastaKins (talk) 01:46, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

Patents in Edwin Howard Armstrong



I saw that you reverted my edit to remove the list of Edwin Howard Armstrong ↗'s patents. Per WP:NOTDIRECTORY ↗, a Wikipedia article should not include lists without context: since each of the inventions and their importance is not explained in article prose (a sentence in the lead is not enough of an explanation), this list for this article would be considered too detailed. Since this article is not a stand-alone list ↗, I do not think WP:LISTCRITERIA ↗ is relevant, but also these patents should probably have their own Wikipedia article in order to be included in this list. If this is to remain in this article (which I don't think it should), all of the external links will need to be removed: external links should only be included in article bodies in rare exceptions, and this list is not one of those exceptions per WP:NOELBODY ↗. I recommend that the list be removed (even if it is mentioned in the article lead) and only the most important patents be mentioned in the article body with their relevance explained. Z1720 (talk) 03:16, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

:@Z1720, I agree it may be a good idea to move the patents to a separate article sort of like a discography ↗. Some of the text of the main article should probably move there too. A bit of work. In the meantime I made a intermediate fix by moving the patents to "External links" and folded them so they take fewer column inches. What do you think? RastaKins (talk) 00:26, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

Talk post about Microprocessor ↗



This ↗ talk post seemed dismissive to me. You found a flaw in my logic but didn't address my main point about the word "interpreting" adding ambiguity. Also, placing the word "EVERY" in all-caps conveys a yell. Wikipedia:Civility ↗ says to be polite. Timhowardriley (talk) 13:27, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

::@Timhowardriley, I did not intend to be snotty. Sorry about that. I thought we were discussing "microcode" v. "machine code" because that was the text I changed. I agree "interpreting" creates ambiguity. Would "decode" be a better choice? RastaKins (talk) 14:49, 8 April 2026 (UTC)
:::Very good. I think to remove "interpreting and" would force the sentence at the instruction set level. Timhowardriley (talk) 02:00, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for revert of performance note



Hello RastaKins,

Apologies and thank you for restoring the performance note on the National Semiconductor SC/MP ↗ article that I had accidentally removed.

Also it's good to see your general contributions in Vintage CPUs. OldCPUs (talk) 19:46, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

SC/MP timing footnote



Hi RastaKins

I have opened a discussion at Talk:National_Semiconductor_SC/MP#Instruction_timing_footnote:_“22_clocks_total”_should_be_qualified_or_replaced ↗ because I think the 11-microcycle figure is sound, but the conversion to “22 clocks total” could be added to.

The issue seems to be that National uses different timing notation for the original SC/MP and the INS8060 / SC/MP II which leads to confusion.

I would appreciate your thoughts on the talk page above.

OldCPUs (talk) 21:04, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Better sources



In regard to your deletion ↗,

You said {{tq|Undid revision 1360316970 by Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) rv good faith edit. WP:OPINION Democracy Now! did not describe the gesture. It was the opinion of Charles R. Davis during a roundtable. Hint: There are better sources out there if you think this detail is important.}}

Hey there, I'm reaching out since I haven't been able to find a better sources than DN and you said there's better sources out there - do you have any pointers/links I could check out to re-add this detail? Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 02:14, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

:@Alexandraaaacs1989, there is a MSNOW article that has more detail, though the interpretation of the picture is by anonymous critics. The picture was taken Chicago. Delaney is in New Jersey. In the 25-year history of Delaney Hall, does this comment on an X post of a picture taken in Chicago warrant inclusion in this article? RastaKins (talk) 14:59, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
::Oh I see, I was looking for RS specific to the DH Nazi salute since I'm working on a new DH article. Yes I'd say a Trump official with a lengthy Wikipedia article doing a Nazi salute in support of ICE agents at Delaney Hall is notable in DH's 25-year history, especially considering this is the most politically significant moment in DH's history. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 15:03, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
::If we can't attribute the Nazi salute accusation to DN, can we at least attribute it to Charles R. Davis? That seems fully appropriate to me. We've established there's A) a Nazi salute that happened ("''allegedly''"), B) reporting on the Nazi salute in a published source by DN, and C) that the salute was made by a notable source, even if it's not a DN article but instead a published manuscript. Alexandraaaacs1989 (talk) 15:05, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
:::@Alexandraaaacs1989, attributing the salute accusation to Charles R. Davis would be accurate. And he's not anonymous. RastaKins (talk) 15:25, 22 June 2026 (UTC)