User talk:Herbfur/Archive 2
This is an archive of my talk page, which contains any conversations from 22:35 on 27 June 2020 to 24:00 on 31 December 2020. If you're looking for my current talk page, head over to this link. You can also see older conversations at this link. Please don't start new conversations on this page. Thanks for visiting and happy editing!
Thanks for looking at those edits. I knew the IP from Google Chrome had also been active on the Opera article and History of Mozilla Thunderbird but I had not checked the content yet. Meters (talk) 22:37, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
- You're welcome, it was my pleasure :) Thank you for your edits and stay safe! Herbfur (talk) 23:56, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Mac OS 11
[edit]I should have worded it better. What he meant was 20 years from the launch. He meant a decade into the future from a decade ago, which meant 2005. The first public version of Mac OS X was released in 2000 which meant that the end of the 20 years would end up in 2020, which just happens to be now. The technological differences will be none between an Intel Mac on Catalina and an Intel Mac on Big Sur, but on a silicon mac there will be massive differences between the Intel and Silicon versions. There is evidence Face ID could come to the Mac, and touchscreen Macs are speculated based on large amounts of evidence, such Icons being space out more, and of course a touchscreen will be required to ensure better compatibility with iOS apps. Apple will have achieved a universal platform once the silicon transition over. N Subscribe to me (talk) 15:59, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
- @QuarioQuario54321:Hi, thanks for clarifying. I understand your arguments and rationale, but I unfortunately have to disagree with you. While you're right that the Apple Silicon version will be very different, it will still be the same base OS (Unix-based Darwin), just ported to a different architecture. It's similar to the transition to Intel, Mac OS X Leopard was very different from Mac OS X Tiger, but not a different OS. While you're right that this is a very major and important change, this is still a personal interpretation of what is happening. To be very frank about the Steve Jobs quote, I'm not sure if that's helpful in determining the status of Big Sur because Steve Jobs has been gone for years now. Apple might not even be following with Jobs' plans, Tim Cook might have different plans for macOS. Ultimately, my thing has been to take the word of the company as the facts. Craig Federighi described the increment as symbolic in nature, regarding the factors you cited earlier. Apple documentation treats Big Sur as a major improvement to macOS but not a new OS in and of itself. While I respect your opinion and appreciate you putting it forward, I respectfully disagree with you. Herbfur (talk) 16:12, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
2020 presidential election template removal
[edit]I see you removed a template and said we should re-add it at 5 A.M. EST. But shouldn't we re-add the template back to the article sooner than that when election day will officially be here at 12 A.M. EST? Furthermore, some small towns in New Hampshire open and close polls at that time. Prcc27 (talk) 04:01, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Prcc27:I interpreted the template as meaning that the polls are still open/the results are still being tabulated at the current time. I would interpret this to mean that it should be added as soon as the polls open on election day, but some could argue that the election has been ongoing for quite a while because of early voting and the like. This will be moot very soon anyways, so I'm fine if you add the template back if you'd like. Herbfur (talk) 04:48, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- @Prcc27:So I saw this article ([1]) just now, and apparently some people in New Hampshire vote right after midnight on election day? So I think you were right earlier that the template should be added at the stroke of midnight EST. It's obviously too late now, but I'll keep that in mind in the future.Herbfur (talk) 23:06, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
Hiding high severity publicly known security vulnerabilities in MacOS High Sierra
[edit]The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hiding the existence of high severity publicly known security vulnerabilities is not cool. You are again claiming the OS is supported. That's absurd without a source to support it and sources proving otherwise. Safari ships with the OS.--50.201.195.170 (talk) 21:30, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- @50.201.195.17:See the edit summary I provided on my revert. I'm not hiding anything so much as I'm saying, "Not here". There doesn't need to be a source saying High Sierra is supported, it's pretty much self-evident, especially in places where no support policy exists (macOS, iOS, Android...). Once an OS hasn't been receiving updates for a while and a reasonable person can assume that no updates will be released (ie. updates were made for later OS versions, but not this one, which isn't the case for High Sierra), it should be marked as unsupported.Herbfur (talk) 21:33, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- What part of my assertion that you removed "sources proving otherwise" do you not understand? Do you dispute the source? AGAIN: STOP Hiding the existence of high severity publicly known security vulnerabilities in MacOS High Sierra. Expect consequences if you don't revert yourself.--50.201.195.170 (talk) 21:38, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- OK, please calm down and stop making threats. Chillax, we're all here to improve the article (WP:GF) and nobody here is deliberately trying to harm the encyclopedia. Let's stay civil here. Like I said earlier, the existence of vulnerabilities doesn't really belong in the infobox in my opinion. I think this info would be better placed in the body of the article, in the Safari section (if there is one), or in a different article (Safari (web browser) or maybe Safari version history). Also, like I said, sources really aren't needed because the statement is self-evident. The precedent from other articles has been to use the manner in which Apple has been releasing updates to determine support status, subject to community consensus (as was done with iOS 12). This means that if an update or 2 were released for later OSes, but not this one, this OS is unsupported. But if the OS just got an update, it's supported. It's a good precedent and I think it works fine for this article. Sources aren't really needed in this situation, although, the Apple Security Updates Page would probably be a sufficient source if you absolutely want one. Herbfur (talk) 21:46, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- I AGF. After umpteen reverts and the above, I warned you and started asking blunt questions. (A warning isn't a threat.) I asked What part of my assertion that you removed "sources proving otherwise" do you not understand? You didn't answer. What part of "Safari 14 was updated. Safari 13 was not. The latest version of Safari for the OS is NOT supported." do you dispute or not understand? You've repeatedly completely reverted my edits, and show no willingness to compromise, even after I warned you. And I'm the one who noted and provided a source showing it recently got an update, which you removed. Do you accept that Safari 13 is not supported or not?--50.201.195.170 (talk) 22:13, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- I don't think you're assuming AGF when you're saying that you're "warning me", that's often said about bad faith editing (and this comes off as condescending to me, even if that's not your intention). If we were talking good faith edits, we'd be discussing, not warning. Anyways, I really don't want this to turn into a heated argument. Let's keep it cool here, there's no reason to act aggressively. To be clear I reverted 2 of your edits before you came to my talk page. That's well within Wikipedia policy (WP:3RR). The edit removing the sources was mainly done to remove the date, as I felt that was unnecessary. You can add back the source if you want, but I've already established that I don't really think it's needed. The part about Safari isn't about a dispute, I was literally the editor who changed the respective support statuses of Safari 13 and 14 on the Safari version history article when Safari 14 was released, it's that I don't think the infobox is the right place to put this info. It's already on the Safari version history article and it's not really in the scope of the infobox. You can add it to the body of the article if you want (WP:Be bold), I really don't care, but I don't agree with where you placed the information. The support status is about the OS only, not individual components of the OS (Windows 7 says nothing about Microsoft Edge support, even after it was subsequently added in an OS update). This whole time you're arguing with me and talking about "not compromising" when I have no opposition to your material or its accuracy, but rather where you placed it. This info doesn't belong in the infobox, but I would be in favor of your addition of this material to the body of the article, or perhaps other articles. Go ahead and add the info, just not in the infobox. If you still want to add it to the infobox, please take it to the macOS High Sierra Talk Page for community consensus. Herbfur (talk) 22:44, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- I AGF. I'm being VERY compromising - by leaving your edit.
Since the latest version of Safari for the OS is NOT supported, I do not understand and I have yet to see an argument for keeping MacOS High Sierra mislabeled as supported when it contains high severity publicly known security vulnerabilities in the browser component. You are insisting on keeping it prominently MISlabeled in the infobox. (Do you deny this? No.) How does that improve the article, exactly? How is that a good faith edit exactly? I have tried but can't think of a plausible explanation for doing so in good faith.
Also, you present no evidence that the support status [for either OS you mention) is "about the OS only". You just state it as 'the truth'. 50.201.195.170 (talk) 03:43, 11 November 2020 (UTC)- I didn't make any edit about it being supported, so much as I maintained the more or less status quo since 2017. If you're going to talk about good faith, you need to go talk to every other editor who edited the page since then. I'm telling you right now, I don't like your tone. You've been rude, aggressive, and unkind this whole discussion. I am absolutely not interested in continuing this discussion as a result. Talk about it on the talk page all you want, but I'm not changing my stance and you'll have to go convince other people. Even then, this will probably be a moot issue in under 48 hours. Goodbye, please don't respond here again, I'm absolutely not continuing this discussion. Herbfur (talk) 03:47, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
- I've now added a reference to the support status anyways, so your whole argument is now moot. Please don't come here with your aggressive messages again. Herbfur (talk) 03:51, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
- Your comments are about "Hiding security vulnerabilities", but this information is already in the article. It's not like it says "Supported" and says nothing about vulnerabilities. I think this is just making a mountain out of a molehill and there's really no solid reason to complain about the support status. Herbfur (talk) 03:57, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
- I AGF. I'm being VERY compromising - by leaving your edit.
- I don't think you're assuming AGF when you're saying that you're "warning me", that's often said about bad faith editing (and this comes off as condescending to me, even if that's not your intention). If we were talking good faith edits, we'd be discussing, not warning. Anyways, I really don't want this to turn into a heated argument. Let's keep it cool here, there's no reason to act aggressively. To be clear I reverted 2 of your edits before you came to my talk page. That's well within Wikipedia policy (WP:3RR). The edit removing the sources was mainly done to remove the date, as I felt that was unnecessary. You can add back the source if you want, but I've already established that I don't really think it's needed. The part about Safari isn't about a dispute, I was literally the editor who changed the respective support statuses of Safari 13 and 14 on the Safari version history article when Safari 14 was released, it's that I don't think the infobox is the right place to put this info. It's already on the Safari version history article and it's not really in the scope of the infobox. You can add it to the body of the article if you want (WP:Be bold), I really don't care, but I don't agree with where you placed the information. The support status is about the OS only, not individual components of the OS (Windows 7 says nothing about Microsoft Edge support, even after it was subsequently added in an OS update). This whole time you're arguing with me and talking about "not compromising" when I have no opposition to your material or its accuracy, but rather where you placed it. This info doesn't belong in the infobox, but I would be in favor of your addition of this material to the body of the article, or perhaps other articles. Go ahead and add the info, just not in the infobox. If you still want to add it to the infobox, please take it to the macOS High Sierra Talk Page for community consensus. Herbfur (talk) 22:44, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- I AGF. After umpteen reverts and the above, I warned you and started asking blunt questions. (A warning isn't a threat.) I asked What part of my assertion that you removed "sources proving otherwise" do you not understand? You didn't answer. What part of "Safari 14 was updated. Safari 13 was not. The latest version of Safari for the OS is NOT supported." do you dispute or not understand? You've repeatedly completely reverted my edits, and show no willingness to compromise, even after I warned you. And I'm the one who noted and provided a source showing it recently got an update, which you removed. Do you accept that Safari 13 is not supported or not?--50.201.195.170 (talk) 22:13, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- OK, please calm down and stop making threats. Chillax, we're all here to improve the article (WP:GF) and nobody here is deliberately trying to harm the encyclopedia. Let's stay civil here. Like I said earlier, the existence of vulnerabilities doesn't really belong in the infobox in my opinion. I think this info would be better placed in the body of the article, in the Safari section (if there is one), or in a different article (Safari (web browser) or maybe Safari version history). Also, like I said, sources really aren't needed because the statement is self-evident. The precedent from other articles has been to use the manner in which Apple has been releasing updates to determine support status, subject to community consensus (as was done with iOS 12). This means that if an update or 2 were released for later OSes, but not this one, this OS is unsupported. But if the OS just got an update, it's supported. It's a good precedent and I think it works fine for this article. Sources aren't really needed in this situation, although, the Apple Security Updates Page would probably be a sufficient source if you absolutely want one. Herbfur (talk) 21:46, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- What part of my assertion that you removed "sources proving otherwise" do you not understand? Do you dispute the source? AGAIN: STOP Hiding the existence of high severity publicly known security vulnerabilities in MacOS High Sierra. Expect consequences if you don't revert yourself.--50.201.195.170 (talk) 21:38, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message
[edit] | 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 |
Your contributed article, Latest stable software release/iOS 12
[edit]
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Latest stable software release/iOS 12. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Template:Latest stable software release/iOS 12. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Template:Latest stable software release/iOS 12. If you have new information to add, you might want to discuss it at [[Talk:Template:Latest stable software release/iOS 12|the article's talk page]].
If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. ... discospinster talk 04:44, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Discospinster:Oh shoot, sorry, I think I must have published it in the wrong space. I meant to publish it as a template but I think I must've accidentally published it in the mainspace instead. I probably must've looked it up in the mainspace and didn't find it, which led me to duplicate it. Yes, please delete it. Herbfur (talk) 04:48, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
- I figured that's what happened. I will delete it. ... discospinster talk 15:24, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
[edit]
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. OfficerCow (talk) 04:51, 30 December 2020 (UTC)