User talk:68.0.124.33

The edits and user talk page of User talk:71.41.210.146 inspired me to put a few userboxes here.

Welcome!

Hello, 68.0.124.33, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  -- Tawker 06:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. --68.0.124.33 19:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the recent edit you made to Von Neumann syndrome has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 17:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear fellow wikipedians,

At first glance, it appears that I deleted a bunch of good, encyclopedic information from the Von Neumann syndrome article.

However, if you look carefully, my edit summary says "(moved everything to von Neumann bottleneck)". That seems "informative" to me. What else could I have said that would have been more informative?

Fortunately, both halves of the move have been reverted, avoiding a potential content fork (WP:CFORK).

I hope my comments at Talk:von Neumann syndrome clarify what I want to do.

--68.0.124.33 (talk) 19:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although I would not label your good-faith edit as vandalism (especially since you correctly explained your intentions in the edit summary), your approach unfortunately still violates Wikipedia conventions. In the Wikipedia-specific section of the move help page, it is stated: "Do not move or rename a page by copying/pasting its content, because doing so destroys the edit history." I would encourage you to read that section. Happy editing! CounterFX (talk) 19:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that makes more sense now. So, I'll try to find a better way to make these improvements ... --68.0.124.33 (talk) 20:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I see another user has already explained to you about copy/pasting over re-directs. I'll WP:AGF and remove the warning :-) - Have you thought about creating an account? It'd make communication and editing so much easier! :-) Scarian^{Call me Pat} 20:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are quite right that an article about a hoax may be acceptable if notable enough, e.g. Ern Malley or the Sokal hoax; but a hoax article, falsehood or nonsense submitted to Wikipedia as fact, is a different matter, and "this article is a hoax", if backed up with evidence, is a good argument for deletion. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 21:56, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not edit the article directly if you have questions about an articles accuracy unless you are going to tag the article or change the information. Personal comments should be made on the talk page of an article and not on its main page.Nrswanson (talk) 14:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, the vocal fold article is accurate.

So I see no reason to "tag the article or change the information".

I did think the article could be improved by rearranging the information already there, and also adding a little more information.

I don't understand what you mean by "personal comments", since I don't recall any comments that referred to myself or any other particular person or that were directed at any other particular person.

I suspect you are referring to a question I added to the article (invisible to normal readers), so I moved that question to the talk page -- is that what you wanted?

--68.0.124.33 (talk) 15:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may be surprised to learn that the "invisible question" is recommended by the Wikipedia manual of style WP:BETTER#Make_omissions_explicit_for_other_editors.

If you strongly feel that sort of thing is inappropriate, please change the manual of style. Thank you.

--68.0.124.33 (talk) 16:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input on the recent AFD on Taser controversy. The editors involved with that article would like to continue the discussion on how to proceed and invite you to join the discussion at Talk:Taser controversy. The latest discussions include Talk:Taser controversy#re:Globalise and Talk:Taser controversy#Renaming this article?. Flatscan (talk) 02:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Hard disk drive has been reverted. Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove unwanted links and spam from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. The external links I reverted were matching the following regex rule(s): rule: '\bblogspot\.com' (link(s): http://gaussianwaves.blogspot.com/2008/06/reed-solomon-codes-introduction.html) . If the external link you inserted or changed was to a blog, forum, free web hosting service, or similar site, then please check the information on the external site thorougly. Note that such sites should probably not be linked to if they contain information that is in violation of the creators copyright (see Linking to copyrighted works), or they are not written by a recognised, reliable source. Linking to sites that you are involved with is also strongly discouraged (see conflict of interest).

If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 15:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, please ignore this notice.

I don't think ILLIAC I and ORDVAC were asynchronous, as DE Muller hadn't invented the C-Element yet, I think he was still a physicist at Caltech at the time. Could you please remove these items from the list of asynchronous CPU's. SystemBuilder (talk) 19:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC) (son of D. B. Gillies)[reply]

Dear SystemBuilder,

I assume you are talking about History_of_general_purpose_CPUs#Asynchronous_CPUs.

I think you are right about the timing of the invention of the C-Element.

I honestly admit I have no first-hand or even second-hand experience with either computer.

Thank you for pointing out reasons for doubting some questionable "facts" I posted to Wikipedia. While I have no doubt that I have posted many things to Wikipedia that I will regret after learning they are merely "common misconceptions", in this particular case I seem to have a reference that supports keeping ILLIAC I on the list of asynchronous CPUs.

The ILLIAC I Wikipedia article links to ILLIAC I documentation at bitsavers.org, which in turn links to the 1955 report "Illiac Design Techniques", which mentions "Conventional binary counting is unexpectedly difficult when asynchronous circuits are employed." and whose final summary begins "The Illiac is a binary parallel asynchronous computer in which negative numbers are represented as two's complements." . Since that report refers to "the" ILLIAC, and from the 1955 date on the report, I assume it is talking about what we now call the ILLIAC I.

That is why I still believe that the ILLIAC I and the identical ORDVAC were asynchronous, even though I agree that they were not designed using the yet-to-be-invented C-elements.

And that is why I plan to keep them on the list of asynchronous CPUs.

Would it make Wikipedia better if I were to add a more direct reference to this 1955 report to the History_of_general_purpose_CPUs#Asynchronous_CPUs or the Asynchronous_circuit#asynchronous_CPU articles (or both) ?

--68.0.124.33 (talk) 03:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have just reviewed the ILLIAC computer series design documents, and indeed you are right! The counting circuit is grey-coded, and the additive logic looks like swahili to me, and so therefore i believe (as it says in the summary section) that the clock cycle depends on the delay for the logic elements, rather than the other way around, i.e. it's asynchronous (although not the more narrowly defined 'speed independent' ...)

SystemBuilder (talk) 18:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, are you still the same 68.0.124.33 who proposed merging of ARMD (disambiguation) into ARMD?

If so, please be aware that I've actually made a contribution to the ARMD {HDD) page and so have some interest in this.

I'll put further ideas in the ARMD talk page, to which the merge proposal links. Jeh (talk) 06:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've made some changes to the article and left some comments on the talk page. Please do not be discouraged by the anti-social behaviour of the minority here. Really, the good guys are in the majority, it's just a shame you hit a difficult customer. Keep up the good work. By the way, can I suggest that you create an account? We can never be sure that we are always talking to the same person when you edit from an IP address. SpinningSpark 11:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Back in March 2008 you added 'Skip' as an addressing mode. I agree that it should be in the article, but I'm not sure if it is in quite the correct place within the article. Do you know of any current computers which use this addressing mode; if there are some significant current computers which use 'skip' I'll leave that section where it is (possibly with revised wording), if there are some relatively obscure current computers I propose to move that section further down under 'Other addressing modes', otherwise I propose to move it down under 'Obsolete addressing modes'. Murray Langton (talk) 15:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for drawing my attention to this. See Talk:Addressing_mode#Is_.27Skip.27_in_the_right_place.3F. --68.0.124.33 (talk) 19:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See further thoughts at Talk:Addressing_mode Murray Langton (talk) 09:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a new major section: "Conditional code which avoids addressing modes", currently with both 'skip' and 'conditional intructions'. Probably some rewording to follow (by me or you?). Murray Langton (talk) 10:38, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Q10 (text editor) has been reverted. Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove unwanted links and spam from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. The external links I reverted were matching the following regex rule(s): rule: '\bblogspot\.com' (link(s): http://angora-bunny.blogspot.com/2007/11/q10-editor.html) . If the external link you inserted or changed was to a blog, forum, free web hosting service, or similar site, then please check the information on the external site thoroughly. Note that such sites should probably not be linked to if they contain information that is in violation of the creator's copyright (see Linking to copyrighted works), or they are not written by a recognised, reliable source. Linking to sites that you are involved with is also strongly discouraged (see conflict of interest).

If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 00:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, please ignore this notice.

In this case, these blog authors are writing "about themselves", so I think its OK under the WP:SELFPUB policy. So I reverted. Thank you. --68.0.124.33 (talk) 15:43, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Your test on Nanorobotics worked, and has been removed. If you would like to experiment further, please use the sandbox. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Chrisch^Talk 13:56, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake. Thank you for fixing it. --68.0.124.33 (talk) 05:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Two's complement has been reverted.

Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove unwanted links and spam from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. The external links I reverted were matching the following regex rule(s): \bblog(?:cu|fa|harbor|mybrain|post|savy|spot|townhall)?\.com\b (links: http://praisecurseandrecurse.blogspot.com/2006/12/division-bell-tolls-for-me-part-three.html). If the external link you inserted or changed was to a blog, forum, free web hosting service, or similar site, then please check the information on the external site thoroughly. Note that such sites should probably not be linked to if they contain information that is in violation of the creator's copyright (see Linking to copyrighted works), or they are not written by a recognised, reliable source. Linking to sites that you are involved with is also strongly discouraged (see conflict of interest).

If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 02:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, please ignore this notice.

moved to User talk:SimonTrew#a place for everything.2C and everything in its place

I believe that this is an IP ‘account’.—Jchthys 02:34, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

moved to User talk:SimonTrew#a place for everything.2C and everything in its place

Hello 68.etc. You have a sentence in the Substitution–permutation networks article on how they compare to Feistel networks, with a reference to a paper. The claim might be correct, but the reference does not seem to explain it. As I see, that paper simply makes the same claim about "modern CPUs", and refers to Feistel's 1971 Scientific American paper, which says nothing about this, especially about modern CPU's... If you had any better reference, that would be great. --GaborPete (talk) 07:08, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm merely repeating a claim from page 40 of "The Skein Hash Function Family" 2008.

Alas, that paper makes that claim briefly made in passing, with no explanation nor reference to an explanation.

Alas, I don't have a reference that has a complete, explicit explanation.

Perhaps Schneier et. al. and Preneel et. al. thought it was too obvious to require an explanation?

I think I can "prove" Schneier's claim with the following argument:

• With a substitution–permutation network, a single bit flip in the input could affect all the output bits of that round. With a Feistel network, a single bit flip in the L half of the input affects 1 bit in the output of that round. A single bit flip in the R half of the input could affect, at most, half the output bits of that round. Therefore, Feistel networks require more rounds than substitution–permutation networks to get the same amount of confusion and diffusion.
• Because each output byte of each round depends only on the input bytes of that round (and the key), if you have enough execution units, each byte can be calculated independently and simultaneously, in parallel with the other bytes. Although substitution–permutation networks do much more "work" on each round, they have more "inherent parallelism" ("Principles and Performance of Cryptographic Algorithms" by Bart Preneel, Vincent Rijmen, and Antoon Bosselaers) than Feistel networks.
• When Schneier et. al. and Preneel et. al. refer to a "modern CPU", they are referring to a CPU with lots of execution units -- a superscalar CPU, SIMD CPU, or VLIW CPU. (This argument may not apply to recent (and therefore arguably "modern") CPUs with few execution units, such as chips designed for smart cards and nearly all reconfigurable FPGA "soft processors").
• Because the results of each round -- a Feistel round or a substitution–permutation round -- depend on the results of the previous round, each round takes a minimum of 1 clock cycle, and they can not be calculated in parallel.

Therefore,

• For a given amount of confusion and diffusion, and given a CPU with lots of execution units, a SP network can be computed in fewer clock cycles than a Feistel network.

Should you or I add an explanation like this to the Substitution–permutation network article, to meet the WP:OBVIOUS policy?

Or are you and I forbidden from adding an explanation like this by the WP:OR policy -- the best we can do is add the Preneel et. al. reference? --68.0.124.33 (talk) 21:53, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thorough reply.

I agree that it can be regarded "obvious" that an SP network has more parallelism than a Feistel network. I don't think we need to include a proof of that (your first bullet point). But it could be nice to include a reference that explains this notion: either the reference you gave, or parallel computing maybe, or both?

That modern CPU's can make use of this parallelism I did expect, but I have no actual knowledge whatsoever. Again some reference is needed here; the one-sentence explanation you gave and the reference execution unit seem fine.

Possibly, your smart card side-remark could be incorporated into the sentence "there are some differences that make either this or that more applicable in certain situations" of the article? I vaguely recall I have read somewhere that smartcards do like Feistel systems. But again, I don't know.

As you might have guessed from these replies, I'm not a computer scientist, so maybe it's better if you make these edits?

--GaborPete (talk) 05:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome.

I added a few more words to the substitution–permutation network article to try to meet the WP:OBVIOUS policy.

Feel free to add more or all of the "proof" I sketched out above if you think that would improve Wikipedia.

--68.0.124.33 (talk) 03:56, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Mimivirus has been reverted.
Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove unwanted links and spam from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. The external links I reverted were matching the following regex rule(s): \bwordpress\.com (links: http://en.wordpress.com/tag/mamavirus/).
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 19:02, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, please ignore this notice.

Hi- Your help is needed! Could you add your instruction & table to the Wikitext examples help page? It really explains things to those of us that aren't experts in writing wikitext, and I'm glad to finally have the answer! See: Help talk:Wikitext examples#Definition List with colon character. Thanks! --Funandtrvl (talk) 06:55, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. You are welcome. --68.0.124.33 (talk) 22:32, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit that you made to the page CPU cache has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Please use the sandbox for testing any edits; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing for further information. Thank you. Mr. moose (talk) 05:10, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That edit was, I think, deleted without proper consideration. I think the "CPU cache" article should say something about current research in cache design, in particular energy used. Please feel free to replace my edits with a better description of current research, or better references, or both. --68.0.124.33 (talk) 06:37, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed your change to the Place_and_route page in which you claim that Place-and-Route is also called "layout". I have never heard these two terms used synonymously, and I tend to disagree with your edit. However, rather than revert it, I'd like to know why you think this to be the case. In my experience (which spans over 25 years and includes a textbook on the subject) "layout" is a general term for the geometric description of a circuit whereas "place and route" is a specific way of creating layout. I await a reply, but if I don't hear from you, I will revert your edit. Thanks. strubin (talk) 02:16, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Around here, PCB designers say "I'm going to layout this board now" and "I'm going to place and route this board now" and "Time to tape out this board" pretty much interchangeably. Of course, they don't literally mean "tape" -- I suspect many of them are so young they've never actually touched rubylith or handled PCB artwork film.

I see that PCB designers elsewhere also use "layout" as a verb.

For example,

• "Layout the board with a split ground plane, but ... both the functional performance and the EMC performance of the board will be better with the single ground plane." -- Henry Ott
• "To layout the board, you first place the parts and then place the routes to connect the parts." -- The Fab Lab program, part of the MIT’s Center for Bits and Atoms
• "PCB layout can be performed manually (using CAD) or in combination with an Autorouter. ... When we layout boards, we usually try to ..." -- AirBorn Electronics.
• "we can rapidly layout out your board and deliver to you Gerber files." -- Layout Only
• "... At this stage of the PCB layout, the components need to be placed onto the printed circuit board so that they are available to be moved and set in place later." -- Radio-Electronics
• "It would have been easier to layout the board with the ground pins on the outside edge." Mark Whitis
• "After the circuit design is captured in a schematic, then the PCB layout can begin." -- schematic capture

I am a torn between

• I want Wikipedia articles to clearly describe actions and things relevant to the topic, without confusion. Perhaps it would reduce confusion if the Wikipedia article never used the word "layout" to refers to the action of a human (or autorouter) placing parts and drawing traces, but instead always used the word "layout" to refer to the the static final geometry of a circuit (either "on film" layout, or a layout in some digital format).
• I also want Wikipedia articles to describe the words used by the people who actually do this stuff, so others can understand what they are saying -- following the "descriptive not prescriptive" and Wikipedia:Explain jargon guideline.

Perhaps we can explain away the fact that some people use layout as a verb (or as a process) as a poetic use of metonym? --68.0.124.33 (talk) 03:42, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What you say is true...placing and routing are certainly the steps involved in doing layout. So I would agree that it could be mentioned later in the article that place-and-route are the essential steps required to do any layout, manual or automated. Perhaps the thing I found most jarring was that you presented this as a synonym, and that it appeared in the very first sentence of the article. If you want to rearrange it as you described, it would soften the linkage and that would be fine. strubin (talk) 00:48, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I delayed using "layout" as a verb until much later in the article. Please feel free to make further improvements. --68.0.124.33 (talk) 04:21, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this edit, I like this kind of stuff. :) Paradoctor (talk) 18:46, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed your addition on the 'July effect' from Calendar effect, since it is not an economic calendar effect. I'm not sure whether there are better articls for this addition, or whether 'calendar effect' should really be restricted to economic effects, but it really didn't fit there the way you added to it. Han-Kwang (t) 16:04, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's not (directly) an economic effect.

The 'July effect' seems to me to be worth mentioning in some more appropriate encyclopedia article.

As far as I know, there is no other, better article for this addition.

I'm going to temporarily mention such non-economic effects in the "calendar effect" article.

If there actually is some other, better article for non-economic calender-related effects, or such an article is later created, please move all such non-economic effects from the "calendar effect" article to that other, more appropriate article.

Thank you. --68.0.124.33 (talk) 17:30, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did with this edit to Rounding, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article.  Chzz  ►  20:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly did not expect that edit to be challenged. I added a few references, as you requested. --68.0.124.33 (talk) 17:46, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/automatic factory, a page you created has not been edited in at least 180 days. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace. If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13. Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:54, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/compliance center, a page you created has not been edited in at least 180 days. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace. If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13. Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:56, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello 68.0.124.33. It has now been over six months since you last edited your article submission, entitled automatic factory.

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note, however, that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/automatic factory}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. -- ^t numbermaniac ^c 02:29, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello 68.0.124.33. It has now been over six months since you last edited your article submission, entitled compliance center.

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note, however, that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/compliance center}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. -- ^t numbermaniac ^c 02:48, 22 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]