User talk:Rutebega

Archives

1, 2

artificial intelligence

note that i posted this text on the artificial intelignece tlak page as well.

ok i will state my original rationale in creating this section as well as the subsections.

first a bit of background: as you may know AI programs are different in many ways from conventional programs in the sense that thay are networks. as such thay are Massively parallel and have certain computational requirements on software as well as hardware level in order to perform their intended function. much research has been dedicated to find suitable hardware for this perpose. and the amount of opinions on that research even more so.

as of the time of this writing, (Thursday, June 11, 2020) thare are 3 main approaches to hardware designed for ai reaserch and application

1) conventional hardware von Neumann architecture specifically graphics processing units. if you look at the Wikipedia article: AI accelerator under the section "history of ai acceleration" it covers the topic quite well. 2)memristors (and yes, i know the use of memristors in AI is controversial but that shouldn't be a reason to leave it out ?) 3)neuromorphic hardware: (see the wikipedia article Neuromorphic engineering) like the one's Brainchip Inc and intel are currently manufacturing. it should be noted that neuromorphic computing is recognized as an essential technology for the future of AI so much so that the human brain project(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Brain_Project) has an entire research section dedicated to it. see the wikipedia articles spinnaker and brainsclaes

my intention was to take this specific aspect of AI (hardware) and include it in the general article of AI. the subsections represent the aspects of the specific topic as explained above.

update 1:59pm same day : it seems that the hardware section i wrote has been deleated in its place a sub-subsection titled "hardware imrpovments" under subsection evaluating progress. the paragraph written dosent mention enuromorphic or other alternative computing arcitectures in any way. also why cant it just be a section on its own? its noteworthy enough

-RJJ4y7 — Preceding unsigned comment added by RJJ4y7 (talk • contribs) 14:51, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

LF Top Songs

LF Top Songs - popular project official pages https://posts.google.com/share/ZazhHI6x, please do not delete ~~ 1hitsmusic —Preceding undated comment added 20:00, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1hitsmusic (talk · contribs), please join the deletion discussion to explain why it should not be deleted. Do not remove the deletion template as you have here. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing. If you have questions, see our Guide to Deletion or ask me here. This essay may also help. Thank you. —Rutebega (talk) 20:14, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A page LF Top Songs cannot be deleted because it represents the official music brand. ~~ 1hitsmusic —Preceding undated comment added 20:24, 6 July 2019 (UTC) I guess this is how I am supposed to contact people on the site? Well I removed content I found blatantly unreasonable or terribly bias. I did not find it offensive as much as intellectually dishonest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRedTomahawk (talk • contribs) 01:00, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi Rutebega,

The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey about your experience with Wikipedia and Wikimedia. The purpose of this survey is to learn how well the Foundation is supporting your work on wiki and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 16:29, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

can i be administrator

Can i be admin Thoriso Kaekae (talk) 08:14, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Content removal

Hi Rutebega. I removed the listing for the "Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency" under "The Reagan Cabinet" because it was not given cabinet ranking under the Presidency of Ronald Reagan. It wasn't given cabinet ranking until 1993, during the Presidency of Bill Clinton. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.2.40.212 (talk) 01:11, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@99.2.40.212: Ah, that would make sense. That information would be useful to have on the US Cabinet or EPA Administrator pages, but alas, wikipedia is not finished. I've reinstated the changes I reverted. Certain kinds of edits it really helps to leave an edit summary so nobody thinks you're just deleting willy-nilly, especially since you'll receive a lot more scrutiny as an IP user. I appreciate you setting me straight; keep up the good work. —Rutebega (talk) 22:11, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Having an issue uploading a new version of an image

I'm trying to upload a clearer version of File:Darkseid Final Crisis Vol 1 6 Variant.png, but I'm only able to see the older version appear.--Teridax122 (talk) 17:42, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Teridax122, sorry for the delayed response; I think it was just that you were reverted/your newer version was deleted. The Darkseid image you're working on is copyrighted, so it has to comply with Wikipedia's policy on non-free content. Normally, uploading a higher resolution would be welcomed, but with non-free images, it's often required that they only be detailed enough for the needs of the article(s), usually just to identify whatever is pictured. Let me know if you have any more questions. —Rutebega (talk) 16:04, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A survey to improve the community consultation outreach process

Hello!

The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.

Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.

The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.

Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:45, 13 November 2019 (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) 00:14, 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) 02:28, 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) 00:30, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:08, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Earl Thomas Conley discography

the album is not called don't make it easy for me it's called don't make it easy Wweman3853 (talk) 03:34, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Wweman3853 Do you have a reliable source? —Rutebega (talk) 03:37, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes here it is https://music.amazon.com/albums/B015J9F6A0 Wweman3853 (talk) 03:45, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Wweman3853 I question whether amazon.com is truly a reliable source, especially if it directly contradicts billboard, but you are welcome to bring it up on the talk page. —Rutebega (talk) 03:58, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May 2023

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your edits to Hartheim killing centre, please use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history, as well as helping prevent edit conflicts. Below the edit box is a Show preview button. Pressing this will show you what the article will look like without actually saving it.

The *Show preview* button is right next to the *Publish changes* button and below the edit summary field.

It is strongly recommended that you use this before saving. If you have any questions, contact the help desk for assistance. Thank you. - Sumanuil. _{(talk to me)} 03:28, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your signature

Hello Rutebega, I was wondering if you could please take a quick second to change your signature to [[User:Rutebega|Rutebega]] ([[User talk:Rutebega|talk]])? Your current signature uses ... tags, which create obsolete HTML lint errors. The new signature will look exactly like your old one. Thank you so much! House Blaster^talk 17:49, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks for the heads up, I wouldn't have known! —Rutebega (talk) 18:01, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about it! If we needed to know everything about this place before editing, I don't think we would have any editors left! Best, House Blaster^talk 19:52, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:40, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to other languages.

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 23:10, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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) 00:29, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Oligosynthesis for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Oligosynthesis 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/Oligosynthesis until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 until the discussion has finished.

Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:45, 31 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

aUI (constructed language)

copy of email: Hello Rutebega, You obviously have much experience in editing Wikipedia, and we (+ my PhD linguist associate) are also dedicated in having correct information presented on aUI, The Language of Space (as I am still the one with the most knowledge and source material on the subject).

After the article was recommended for keeping we noticed you deleted over half the content for reasons of unsourced material. Could you please explain further how we might improve the article? The nature of this subject is that the authentic information about it will necessarily be mostly self published or self reported. But I will add info that references the three peer reviewed or third party sources.

As you know, I was not the original contributor but mainly wanted to correct misinformation that was originally present (in this article as well as elsewhere on the internet - such as the sensationalized idea that my father learned aUI from an extraterrestial (the website says it was his "boyhood vision" that partly served as his inspiration, which is not an actual occurrence.)

Were you by change an attendee of the recent WorldCon in Seattle? I was invited to present a workshop there on aUI.

Thanks so much for your understanding and help...and trusting you 'don't bite', Andrea Weilgart Patten Cosmicomandi (talk) 18:42, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cosmicomandi, thanks for your message. Wikipedia is a community project, and because of that a lot of the communication here makes heavy references to the body of policies and guidelines the community has developed over the years. It works, but it can also feel bureaucratic and intimidating, which isn't good. As much as I can, I will try to explain things plainly and keep the assigned reading to a minimum, although I do find the more I read, the more I understand, the better I can make use of my time here.

Now, to the point: how to improve the article? First of all, as a general rule, I would encourage you to never edit the article directly, and instead make suggestions or requests on the talk page that other editors can then complete. As for what to suggest, the possibilities are endless. The main thing to bear in mind (and actually the first "pillar" of Wikipedia) is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Add things that you would expect to find in a complete, detailed, and accurate encyclopedia article on aUI, and remove things that would be out of place. Crucially though, every statement added to any Wikipedia article must be backed up by a high-quality source. This policy is called verifiability, and it's the way we ensure the information in our encyclopedia is accurate. I might know something absolutely for certain, but if I add it to an article and someone who doesn't know me comes across it, how do they know I'm not just making it up? One way we often express this is that Wikipedia never reports "original research", we only summarize what generally trustworthy sources of information have already said.

This is why I cut so much content out of the article. If it doesn't have a source, then it isn't verifiable, no matter who added it. Sources that are connected to the article subject, like autobiographies or official press releases, have some value but are generally only seen as reliable for establishing a person or organization's own perspective or version of events, and only to the extent those details are suitable for an encyclopedia article. You might think that nobody could be a better authority on a person or their work than that person themself, but another one of those pillars is that Wikipedia always has a neutral point of view. Readers trust us to give them the facts, and let them draw their own conclusions, and that's just impossible without having independent sources that provide an impartial accounting. Another angle is that if a topic has not been discussed at any length by any reliable, independent source, it likely isn't (yet) important enough to merit an article in the first place. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia after all, not an indiscriminate collection of information.

Where does this leave us then? Well, it turns out there are multiple, independent, reliable sources that talk about aUI and your father's work on it. Another editor was able to track some of them down during the deletion discussion, and you may have noticed I copied those to a new section at the bottom of the article talk page. All that needs to be done is to read through (and in some cases translate) them, summarize the information relevant to aUI specifically, and add that in an appropriate location along with a citation to the source used. In your case, you could do this all on the talk page under a new section and append a specific request that the text be added on your behalf. Just doing that would improve the article a lot!

But what if that isn't enough? There may be major facts that newspapers and academic publications left out entirely. These "reliable sources" might give a totally wrong impression of who your father was and what his life's work was all about! Is there anything you can do about it? Sort of, and I'll get to it, but mostly no. Again, Wikipedia only repeats what generally reliable sources have said, and that means sometimes Wikipedia is just wrong. Having seen how the sausage is made, I'm sometimes amazed it's ever right! Remember that what appears on Wikipedia is not the final, absolute truth on ANYTHING. Sometimes it's okay to have a little chuckle about the things you know that Wikipedia readers haven't even dreamed of! Don't tear your hair out or lose sleep over what anybody on Wikipedia thinks.

You don't have to give up hope, either. It seems like you already have a great platform outside of Wikipedia to share your knowledge. Work on your website, keep giving presentations, talk to academics and journalists if they'll listen. That's where reliable sources come from! If something isn't verifiable now, it might be in a few years. Wikipedia is, and forever will be, a work in progress.

I apologize if this reply is overly long, or rehashes what you already knew. I just wanted to make sure you totally understand what's going on and why. Like I said, many people are overwhelmed with seemingly an entire other encyclopedia they have to read just to be able to edit Wikipedia. That's not the spirit of the project, but collaboration does often require some form of compromise. Since you asked, I was not in attendance at WorldCon but I hope you were able to leave an impression on some interested minds who came to your workshop. As a final note, you are always welcome here to ask about anything Wikipedia-related (or of course to reply to me), but I want to make sure you know I don't have any kind of official status, and other than being experienced and in good standing, what I say or do doesn't have more sway than any other user. If you do have questions about how to edit or about aspects of the community that seem confusing or opaque, the Teahouse is another great resource with volunteers who can answer questions or help you with any other issues that might arise.

Good luck in all your endeavors, and happy editing! :) —Rutebega (talk) 00:19, 4 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Hi and thanks for your recent participation in AfD. I would like to hear your thoughts about the process. Please check this survey if you are willing to respond.Czarking0 (talk) 02:13, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Explain undo

I expanded on what a pin tumbler is and referred to the original inverter as well. The current lead is short per Wikipedia. I have been a locksmith for more than 20 years. What is your lock experience? Lockdude246 (talk) 16:27, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lockdude246, thank you for trying to expand the lead section. I reverted your changes because I felt they were not appropriate for the lead, as described in our relevant consensus-based guideline, MOS:LEAD. You removed the basic definition of the term, and replaced it with more detailed information about its history and mechanical function that belong later in the article. The overall length of the lead depends on the amount of information in the article, so it's not unsurprising this one is under 100 words. That said, I think a short sentence at the end summarizing the last section about lockpicking and other vulnerabilities would be reasonable. If you do change the first two sentences, make sure they are still concise while providing important context, and remember to follow MOS:BOLDTITLE. —Rutebega (talk) 16:57, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I have good intentions. I am trying to get better at writing and meeting guidelines. Lockdude246 (talk) 17:19, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Lockdude246 don't sweat it! I went ahead and combined your edits with the important parts of the existing lead, which is probably what I should have done in the first place instead of just reverting you. If you need help with guidelines or anything else, feel free to ask. I've never been a locksmith, but I've been editing here almost 14 years now. I hope you stick around too! :) —Rutebega (talk) 17:34, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Fringe Theories Noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Geogene (talk) 19:31, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]