User talk:T4C Fantasy

Move of Intel 80x86 CPU articles to "(microarchitecture)"

You recently move the "Intel 80x86" with x=1..4 articles to "Intel 80x86 (microarchitecture)". I don't see a reason for this. We normally do this only in cases of disambiguity. Also I cannot find any prior discussions in regard to the move. Did I miss something? Please explain. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 08:47, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I did this because of the new format being used to match before and after articles, less confusion and less mess when the title is listed like it is, for example to make the new template being used it was best to keep the titles similar, I hope this explains the reasoning.

Matthew Smith (talk) 12:55, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. While I am certainly open for good solutions beyond the established rules suggested by the MoS (as they do not cover all cases in the best-most possible way), I am not convinced that your title changes actually improved something. I think, you should have asked the community before carrying out these mass-renames. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 08:16, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Missing edit summaries

Hi Matthew. I see that you are heavily editing the Template:Infobox CPU. May I remind you to please give edit summaries so that other editors have a chance to understand what changes you are about to integrate? The general rule is no edit without summary. Given the recent discussions in regard to the other templates, please keep in mind that general changes in the functionality and appearance of the template should be discussed on the talk page first, if there is a chance that other editors might not agree with your edits. Thanks. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 21:18, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I didn't remove any useful sections, I actually did put a few summaries summarizing all of my edits for example complete code rewrite, I made sure to stay away from UI altering of the template and more so improving what information is detailed here is an example of the improved generic template

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_8088

much more organized ^^ --2012-09-02T23:28:36‎ Matthew Anthony Smith

Hm, actually, "I didn't remove any useful section", "complete code rewrite", "improving generic behaviour" are considered weazel words. This is hardly the information people need when they are wondering what you are doing and trying to evaluate your changes without having to spend extra time. With the recent controversal edit history in mind, please stick to the rule to give proper edit summaries with all your edits. This is particularly important since you are working on the live version of the template, not a sandboxed version of it. There should be no edits, which leave the template in an interims state, even if it is only for a very short period of time. If it does not become obvious to other editors, what was changed and that a change is an actual improvement, you are risking that people will revert your changes unseen. A proper edit summary contains explicit information what was changed (from x to y) and why it was changed. You don't need to be verbatim when correcting a mere typo or are adding considerable amounts of new contents, but as soon as you change existing contents or functionality or even remove some, it is necessary to be specific. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 18:19, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Missing parameter(s) in new Infobox CPU template and other issues

Hi Matthew. I just stumbled upon a parameter supported by the old version of the Template:Infobox CPU, which is no longer working since your edits: designfirm. What happened to it? Please reincorporate it. Please note that "designed by" and "manufactured by" are not the same thing for some CPUs, in particular not in the ARM range. Perhaps there are more broken parameters, I haven't checked them all so far. Can you give a detailed summary which parameters no longer work and which new parameters have been added (perhaps best on the template's talk page, so that other editors can help updating the articles accordingly or complain about missing parameters which need to be reincorporated)?

Are you aware of the "What links here" function in the left sidebar? If not, please use it to check that you don't break existing functionality in the several hundred articles using this template while working on it.

This ([1]) is not how to deal with complaints. While the editor wasn't specific, there is obviously something going wrong, and since it is you who has incorporated the changes (and also made some of the Intel articles work with the new template), it is also your duty to find out what's going wrong in the other places and to correct the template accordingly. Why didn't you contact him for better details instead of reverting his revert?

In the various Geforce articles you also reverted multiple edits by other editors ‎and even flagged them as vandalism (one example of many: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=GeForce_600_Series&action=historysubmit&diff=510858249&oldid=510856893). I have gone through them and did not find a single incident of vandalism. Please note, that you must not accuse other editors of vandalism unless they really are vandalizing. Also, you must not suppress other users' edits even if you do not agree with them. The way to solve such problems is to discuss them on the talk page. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 11:32, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

i understand your concern, i have to leave soon but this is what i can tell you about the geforce thing, that user has just created his account just hours before placing no notability* tags and flooding every article with them making them almost unviewable and completely distracting, and those were his ONLY edits, adding obstructive tags not just 1 or 2 but sometimes up to 4 times in 1 page, i understand my editing style isnt up to wiki standards yet but im working on them as best as i can, you must understand that everything i do is for wiki and is not to cause any harm/ or disorderly conduct, i was always taught to work fast and effcient, but i have improved on the comments for cpu template, i understand it is now my duty to make sure everything is compatible, the only thing i did remove is designfirm actually, some i merged with release date/created making it more effcient *the merging that is* i will completely understand your concern and fix it after my appointment.Matthew Smith (talk) 16:10, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I was just about to make much the same points but I see I'm not alone in having concerns about breaking the template. It seems the bulk of your edits have proceeded on the assumption that this template applies only to PC processors and ignore the greater scope of processors in the more general sense. The purpose of infoboxes is to present a SUMMARY of much the same information for articles in the same category in a consistent manner. It does not need to present every conceivable aspect of the chips - that is what the article is for. Extensive entries that simply do not apply to 99% of processors out there do not belong in the infobox since they do not follow from that principle of consistency. Intel and AMD's entire combined product ranges account for a tiny fraction of the set of all processors and this has to be remembered when a general template such as Infobox CPU is considered. The bulk of the template should be equally applicable to an Intel processor, and AMD processor, or non x86 chips - an Alpha or even an embedded chip e.g. an MSP430. If that doesn't remain true the template loses its reason for being. That is not to say some of what you have been adding can't go into the template, but that needs to be a considered position based on discussion. It has been pointed out above that you NEED to seek consensus before making wholesale changes to widely used templates. ﬥ (talk) 21:27, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

AN/I notification

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic User:Matthew Anthony Smith. Thank you. Crispmuncher (talk) 08:07, 6 September 2012 (UTC).