RastaKins

Hello RastaKins, and Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some good links that you might find useful: float The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Help pages Tutorial Picture tutorial How to write a great article Manual of Style Template messages Sandbox I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please be sure to sign your name on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or just three tildes (~~~) 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 {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to help you. Happy editing, good luck, and remember: Be Bold! — FireFox 17:41, 01 February 2007

Your submission at Articles for creation: Western Digital WD16

Mike Friese, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

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

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 23% 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.

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.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. 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.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

RastaKins (talk) 21:43, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

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. (?) 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 "Draft:" 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. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:44, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

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., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. 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)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Nightenbelle was:

This submission is not suitable for Wikipedia. Please read 'What Wikipedia is not' for more information.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

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.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Western Digital WD16 and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Nightenbelle (talk) 15:52, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

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)

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

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:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. 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. 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. (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) 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

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 does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

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 carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

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 {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

331dot (talk) 23:42, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

CS1 error on General Automation

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:

• A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, 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 . 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. _signed, 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

Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. 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 voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:27, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

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)