Talk:Dos

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[NXIVM#Media investigations of DOS|NXIVM]] The anchor (#Media investigations of DOS) has been deleted by other users before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Order

I think that the order of items on this disambiguation page is misleading. I think that far more people expect to see MS-DOS first, while the spanish number 2 definition is kind of silly. A Google Test shows that MS-DOS is the most commonly intended meaning of DOS, followed by the US Department of State. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 18:22, Apr 19, 2004 (UTC)

OK, the new list is basically in order of the links I found from the google test.

Links 1,3,4,5,6,7,9 related to MS-DOS or Disk Operating System related topics

Link 2 was the US Department of State

Link 8 was a report on a large Denial of Service Attack

Link 11 was a site using the number 2 in spanish

The rest of the items on the disambig list were not represented in the first page of google results, so they remain arbitrarily ordered. - DropDeadGorgias (talk) 18:27, Apr 19, 2004 (UTC)

Close, DropDeadGorgias, but no cigar. The vast majority of the links are aimed at DOS not any particular flavour of it, such as DR-DOS or MS-DOS. Many of them are oxymoronic things like "MS-DOS for the IBM PC" - which, of course, didn't exist, as the IBM PC never shipped with MS-DOS!

Anyway, I'm trying to sort this rats nest out. Tannin 08:49, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

True or false?

True or false: there was once a time in history when this dis-ambiguation page was titled simply "DOS" with what is now DOS being something like DOS (system). 66.245.79.225 21:44, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Who cares? Graue 22:15, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The format of this page

IMHO it is important for the reader to know what are abbreviated "DoS" and what are abbreviated "DOS". Having separate paragraphs for each kind of capitalisations seems to be the norm, e.g. see UNO.

Also, it is better to categorise disambigs rather than have one gargantuan Category:disambiguations. Hence the use of {{TLAdisambig}}. Again, see for example, UNO. -- Paddu 14:39, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is a disambiguation page which also disambiguates terms which are not three letter abbreviations, so this template that does not include such terms is not appropriate for this page. Regardless, why is it better to have artificial division of disambiguation pages, and what is wrong with having a disambiguation Category with a multitude of items in it? - Centrx 01:49, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, within the disambiguations of DOS, DoS and dos, the page also has the disambiguation of the TLA DOS, so TLAdisambig is appropriate. Otherwise we would have to split the page into separate disambigs for DOS, DoS and dos, in which case the TLAdisambig would be placed in the disambig for DOS. But clearly, it is better to put all disambigs in one page since readers might not know what is abbreviated DoS and what is abbreviated DOS.

Looking at other uses of TLAdisambig, it is obvious that it is intended to be used in this page too, but I'm not able to find any page that documents the purpose of TLAdisambig or any page that says why gigantic categories are bad. As such, I'm not really interested in TLAdisambig vs. disambig, so I'll leave it for those who are working on categorising disambigs to argue about why TLAdisambig should be used. For now you can change to {{disambig}} if you feel like. I'm sure someone would later change it to TLAdisambig (or some future variant).

Coming to the other change that kept getting reverted, I would like to ensure that the page clearly states what things are called DOS and what are called DoS so our readers don't get the wrong notion that all the things disambiguated are called DOS. I'm not bothered about the particular order of DOS, DoS, etc. but just that we should make it clear what is the correct acronym for each of the cases. Also, we have separate articles for DOS and disk operating system, which are not up for merging, and hence both should be mentioned in this page. -- Paddu 05:35, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel disk operating system is a rare usage, you could move it down. Also a better way of handling "denial of service" which is abbreviated DoS as well as DOS [1] [2] would be fine, but I want to ensure that we make it clear that e.g. the Dept. of State is DoS and density of states is DOS and the band is dos, and disk operating system is DOS. -- Paddu 05:44, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

DOS acronym for denial of service

Unless you can find a few instances of such actual use, it would seem that acronymfinder is simply incorrect about "DOS" being used as the capitalization for "denial of service". - Centrx 17:41, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

2 in Spanish

I don't know why this meaning of "dos" was removed but I put it back up. If you wish to discuss why the meaning of number two doesn't belong here, please do. --Sampi 03:11, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe because it's not an english meaning? Karol 08:24, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, fair enough. Removed. --200.118.96.160 22:05, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Spanish is a common enough language, and dos is a simple enough word that it is common knowledge that dos means two in Spanish. I therefore think it is appropriate for Wikipedia to mention this.--65.96.153.126 02:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed it. This is the English speaking Wikipedia. Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 12:09, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup

I have cleaned up the page. Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 12:09, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Descendants of Slavery

@SereneNecrosis: could you provide some examples of the use of DOS for this? I don't see any in American Descendants of Slavery or in a quick google search. -- Fyrael (talk) 03:57, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here's two examples of mainstream news articles on the subject. I'm curious to know why you think it's appropriate to continually delete this disambiguation entry when it's a pretty straightforward acronym. Descendents of Slaves. Everyone knows that Google searches are tailored to the content that you regularly search and engage with. Maybe try Duckduckgo before you delete additional useful information from a public resource website. In my opinion, your behavior indicates a malicious agenda, and I find it exceedingly inappropriate that you feel the need to gatekeep the access of information on Wikipedia over a self explanatory acronym.

https://www.npr.org/2023/06/30/1185266343/how-should-descendants-of-slavery-honor-their-ancestors-legacy

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/26/us/slavery-descendants-history.html SereneNecrosis (talk) 21:45, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Neither source makes any use of the initialism in reference to this. That is the issue. older ≠ wiser 01:19, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would also suggest that you try to keep baseless accusations to a minimum. Maintaining pages by adhering to Wikipedia policies is not similar to malicious behavior and does not suggest an agenda. -- Fyrael (talk) 03:09, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is not Wikipedia policy to delete relevant information and links to materials because you personally disagree with the exact wording in such a way that conveniently limits access to information about a marginalized ethnic group. SereneNecrosis (talk) 05:06, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Article title: "How should DESCENDENTS OF SLAVERY honor their ancestors' legacy?

Second article, first sentence: "Some American DESCENDANTS OF ENSLAVED PEOPLE and others whose ancestors profited are using online portals to collaborate and reckon with their shared family pasts." SereneNecrosis (talk) 05:00, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To avoid endless lists of thought up acronyms, which would make this disambiguation list unusable, we can only add commonly used acronyms. For that aim, User:Fyrael asked for evidence of the general use of the acronym DOS in this context. A written out quote is no evidence of the use of the specific acronym, nor is the claim that it is obvious the specific acronym can be made. Arnoutf (talk) 13:25, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SereneNecrosis Are you really suggesting DOEP as an acronym? Doug Weller talk 14:37, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unusable??? For the addition of a single common usage??? Where can I report this man for racism. I'm fully serious, there is no other excuse for this behavior besides eugenicist compulsion at this point. SereneNecrosis (talk) 21:45, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SereneNecrosis: This is starting to look very bad for you with regards to civility and disruptive behavior. I suggest to pause from restoring your edit and engage in actual discussion here rather than name-calling. older ≠ wiser 21:58, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I find it infinitely more disruptive and uncivil that this information is being gatekept in a way that CLEARLY imposes an agenda on this website. It's against the 5 pillars, and so is the refusal to acknowledge the sources provided. If news articles and the Wikipedia listing for DOS isn't enough, what is?? Shall I cite common Twitter usage of the acronym, to be scoffed at as yet another unreliable source?? Shall I pull up lists of activists who use this acronym and be accused of politicism?? Shall I pull up lists of common non-activists who use this acronym and be scolded that they are just a few common people?? In what world does the acronym get added to this disambiguation page without protest from individuals with this agenda? By the pushback I have received, I would wager they'd never allow it, even if I cited God. SereneNecrosis (talk) 22:06, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How about assuming good faith and engaging in civil discourse rather than name-calling? It is difficult to properly engage with someone who is on a crusade to right great wrongs. I have interacted with the other editors here and they are quite level-headed and reasonable. No one is trying to suppress anything based on an ideological agenda. All we are looking for is clarity that the initialism is commonly used in reliable sources to refer to the group. That's all. So far, this is lacking. older ≠ wiser 22:12, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.blackemergmanagersassociation.org/2020/07/dr-norris-shelton-american-slaves-inc_28.html?m=1 SereneNecrosis (talk) 22:23, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What is that supposed to show? Unless I'm missing something, the initialism is not mentioned at all in that. older ≠ wiser 22:27, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This "Dr. Norris Shelton" was cited as a user of the DOS acronym, for the same advocacy on behalf of this ethnic group (BEFORE the hashtag ADOS movement popularized the the longer acronym of the same meaning) in the talk section of the ADOS article.

If you accuse me of the agenda of "Righting Wrongs," I will not deny that, AS IT IS OUR PRIMARY FUNCTION AS EDITORS. Further, you admit by this quip that you know yourself to be WRONG. SereneNecrosis (talk) 22:28, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Where is he cited as such? I do not see any mention of the initialism anywhere in that source. older ≠ wiser 22:36, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's an acronym for the term Descendents Of Slaves.

The title of the interview is "ONE MAN’S UNORTHODOX APPROACH TO SEEKING REPARATIONS FOR THE DESCENDANTS OF SLAVES"

Would you deny the existence of AAPI or BIPOC because most formal interviews and articles spell the acronyms out? SereneNecrosis (talk) 22:43, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

None of us deny the concept or even the phrase "Descendants of Slaves". We are asking for sources that use the abbreviation D.O.S. to represent the phrase, which is the criteria for inclusion on this page. Actually it looks like there was an oversight here, as none of us have pointed out the style page that specifies that requirement: MOS:DABABBREV. I should have included that earlier, but honestly when I first made the topic I assumed you would have some sources already handy and we'd be done. By the way, I would suggest actually reading the right great wrongs linked above since you incorrectly believe that righting wrongs is our primary goal here. It is not. -- Fyrael (talk) 00:40, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/S1479-364420180000021004/full/html

https://m.facebook.com/groups/1661939830681340/ SereneNecrosis (talk) 01:13, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: transitive verb, To prepare (written material) for publication or presentation, as by correcting, revising, or adapting. SereneNecrosis (talk) 01:20, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"The function for the historically Black college and university (HBCU) has always been a hallmark of resolve educational inclusion and justice to promote the Negro identity, and develop social and economic mobility. Yet despite diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) determinations popular today, the authors contend that to cater to subpopulations outside of the Black community creates a marginalization and distraction from their historic purpose and legacy. As a necessary function of relevance, the focus of underserved populations on HBCU campuses should, instead, unwaveringly remain on African-Americans, descendants of slaves (DoS). " SereneNecrosis (talk) 01:42, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SereneNecrosis has been blocked for 31 hours. Their block appeal makes interesting reading. Doug Weller talk 07:25, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]