User talk:Rpawson
Welcome
[edit]Welcome!
Hello, Rpawson, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Tutorial
- How to edit a page and How to develop articles
- How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!
Ysangkok (talk) 01:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Nomination of The Myth of the Harvard Architecture for deletion
[edit]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Myth of the Harvard Architecture 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.
Pichpich (talk) 19:34, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
- Rpawson, the essay Wikipedia:Expert editors may be of some help in explaining what is going on. One of the things it says is
Please do not use Wikipedia to promote your own papers (see WP:REFSPAM and WP:SELFCITE)
. StarryGrandma (talk) 20:56, 1 October 2022 (UTC) - I accept the criticism. However, I would like to point out that in posting The Myth of the Harvard architecture, my motivation was not to promote my paper. In the long run, I would have no problem in seeing the Myth of the Harvard Architecture deleted as an article. My motivation is to try to draw attention to the nonsense that is in the articles entitled 'Harvard architecture' and 'modified Harvard architecture'. I have been concerned about this for some years. Both of those articles are flagged as having multiple problems including, but not limited to, a complete lack of solid references. My initial thought, having succeeded in getting my paper through peer review and into the IEEE Annals of the History of Computing, was simply to start re-writing those two articles (actually I believe there should only be one - 'Harvard architecture' covering 'modified Harvard architecture' also and with the latter redirecting to the former). But I was worried that I would be accused of vandalism. My paper is the first rigorous analysis of this subject. If I were permitted to make substantial changes to those articles, including making them more rigorous and with proper referencing, but removing the many false (and unsupported) statements within them, I reiterate that I would be more than happy that there should be no separate article on 'The Myth...'. My motivation in creating the article was just to raise awareness of how many false statements there are in those two articles.
- I would also like to draw your attention to the fact that in my edits, I stated explicitly that I would prefer it if someone else would make these edits - because I did not, and do not, wish it to come across as seeking to promote my paper. My interest is in setting the record straight on the Harvard architecture, not in having the credit for it. That said, given that my paper is the only peer-reviewed paper on this whole subject, I would expect to see some reference to it. Rpawson (talk) 21:46, 1 October 2022 (UTC)