This is an archive of my Talk page containing the discussion from about August 10, 2006 through March 31, 2007 minus a few things I want to keep "current".
The current page is, of course, located at User talk:Atlant, as per usual.
Frequency conversion - conversion
I understand your impatience, but I did leave a note that the frequency conversion article was a work in progress! Perhaps on the weekend if my wife does not preempt my schedule. cmacd15:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Someone else complained about it on the talk page, though.
A suggestion:
You can always develop a new page by creating a "/whatever" sort of page off of the old page (for example, Frequency changer/new version), and then, when the new page is complete and ready to go live, you can quickly put all the new content into the old page. Some people create the new page off of the existing article page while others create the new page off of their own user page.
1) I don't see any posts on the talk page besides mine and your..
1a) There was one macro requesting "help" - reverting to OLD content that is already been moved elsewhere is not "help" There are other things to fill in on the article as I was writing it.
2) I have already moved the information that was in that article to the articles I have mentioned as "for ---See"
3) Since I am also refactoring the other article- on pentagrids, some of the information that was previously there has now been moved to the version I wrote, which your actions have HIDDEN.
4) The articles on "Power conversion", roptary converter and motor generator need some serious work.
I mis-spoke. It was an audit trail comment and a person adding the template:cleanup template to the article.
Meanwhile, great, when you finish the new article, put it in place, But until then, an article about "Frequency changers" that discusses mains power frequency changers is better than a half-baked article that takes about mixers. In all honesty, I'm not sure the article should be changed at all, given that you're converting it from an article about a more-common usage of the term to a far less common usage of the term, but I am certain it shouldn't be left under construction for days or weeks at a time.
You nuked some stuff on the Electrical generator page. Deleting the empty section was probably good, it's what I should have done. However, information on selecting a generator is important encyclopedic information. If it doesn't belong in this article, then it belongs somewhere. It's information on how generators work, and how to fix it. That's encyclopedic. The section title might have been poorly chosen, but let's fix that instead of deleting the whole thing. 65.126.124.2123:17, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Generally speaking, Wikipedia frowns on "how-to" stuff. But I was serious in my oblique suggestion that this stuff would be appropriate in an article about Emergency backup generators or some such, and I'll bet there is (or ought to be!) a Wiki article on that specific topic. And if there isn't already an article, then this is your chance to be bold and write one!
He's now gone and nominated Philip H. Farber for deletion. I'll admit its a borderline article, but I think should be kept on principle and to prevent further nominations.
Off the topic, I see you used to work for DEC. First machine I used was a PDP-8 and I worked with PDP-11s, a DEC-10 and VAXen in my day :-) -999 (Talk) 21:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the heads-up; I generally think, given the fact that Wikipedia is nowhere near any ultimate limits on how many articles it can contain, that we can stand to keep borderline articles around. I also notice that some people seem to have definite ideas about certain classes of articles that they just must AfD or support the AfD'ing of.
With regard to DEC, be careful: that was a wonderful time in my life and I always enjoy reminiscing about it, sometimes at great length! ;-)
This is a contentious practice. When removing unicivil words or personal attacks it is a good idea to provide a link to what was removed by placing the url to the dif in [] tags like this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AEarth&diff=71431960&oldid=71430629] which results in a button like this[1].
Also please be more careful are you also removed my valid comment when you did this. This sort of transparency is particularly important when dealing with an individual who feels maligned(rightfuly or not) and can help avoid accusations of censorship during a discussion. Thanks for keeping a cool head while someone yells at you about their religeous beliefs. HighInBC19:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's some sort of bug in the Wikimedia software where it doesn't always flag edit conflicts on "talk" pages so person A's comments end up apparently replacing person B's comments. This isn't the first time this has happened to me, but if an apology will help, then: "I apologize; the removal of your comments was certainly not deliberate."
Unfortunately, it's very intermittent though, which makes it hard to report as a bug; I only know of about three times that it has happened to me in probably several thousands of talk page edits. (In an ironic twist of fate, I just had an edit conflict on the Talk:Earth page reported to me; in this case, I abandoned my edit but when I looked at the talk page history, I was the most-recent editor in the page history anyway! I think there's more than one manifestation of this bug lurking.)
I should get off my butt and report it at Wikimedia, though, because even though it's very intermittent, it's a bug that always causes hard feelings when it does turn up.
Thanks alot for using your position to beaurocrate Wikipaedia and silencing those with whom you disagree. I first thought it was a race related issue, since this comment of mine was removed just as I said I was South African on my user page. --Scotteh19:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The editor that added the bit about the vibrator to the motor-generator page wrote a longer section on the vibrator page, but someone deleted it. It is a bit conversational, but it is an interesting bit of history. It might be OK on the Inverter (electrical) page but I think it is too much historical detail. There are a number of related stubs on historical electronic stuff. I can't see expanding them all to full articles but perhaps they would make sense put together. What do you think? --C J Cowie00:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You know, sometimes Wikipedia acts as a proof point that I've lead a sheltered life ;-). I didn't really understand your edits or your talk-posting to me, and then, about a half-hour later, I said "Oh-h-h-h-h! Is that what C J Cowie was talking about?!". And I just checked, and now I understand. I guess we've got some serious disambiguating to do in the area of vibrators, huh? Because we electronics guys along with the concrete guys seem to be getting stiffed in that article! Well, later today, I'll try to move some pages around so that we can create articles such as:
I think that vibrators (power conversion) were used only in car radios and perhaps a few other limited situations where only DC power was available. Portable tube-type radios apparently used a variety of batteries: A battery (vacuum tubes), B battery (vacuum tubes), C battery (vacuum tubes). I can not find Wikipedia artcles covering portable tube-type radios or car radios. Since the vibrator was constructed like a tube and mounted in a tube socket perhaps their article should be Vibrator (vacuum tube). Another alternative might be to put the vibrator and A, B & C batteries in an article about portable tube-type radios or vacuum tube power supplies. --C J Cowie16:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See the All American Five article for some discussion about portable tube radios. Vibrators (power conversion) also turned up in car-mounted CB radios, but that's another type of radio, of course. I winder if they were also found in portable military radio gear? I'll take a look at my dad's old Navy electronics training manuals and see if they turn up there.
I have added Industrial vibrators (including cement) to the Vibrator article. I am editing the reverted section "Vibrators for early electronics" off line in preparation for restoring it to the Vibrator article as well. The material can be moved if disambiguation and sub-pages should be done. --C J Cowie17:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the history of the edits here. A series on non-grammatical entries keep appearing. In addition, while they reflect something that happended at the Wang Center, they are not a part of its operation on a regualr basis.
So do we list every single one of the outside organizations which rent the Center and put on shows there? I believe NOT.
I am posting this note on the TALK PAGE of the Talk:Wang Center for the Performing Arts in order to solicit other opinionsd as to whether this is kind of thing which should be a part of this article.
Please any comments there: it is the most relevant place for all to see.
Obviously, you don't know a damned thing about grammar, proper punctuation, and how to show that the Jeopardy episodes are part of the larger whole by using quotes, italics, or whatever.
Great job on the page. I was concerned that you had reverted to a "broken" version, rather than just creating the new page directly. But, you took care of it! Although, I am wondering if vibration can be aperiodic... would "aperiodic vibration" be more aptly called "shaking"? I'm not sure if something was vibrating aperiodically that I would ever say that it is vibrating. - grubber16:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As is standard practice on Wikipedia, please feel free be bold and edit my changes mercilessly! But I was trying, at least for the moment, to not go down the rather deep rathole of describing and distinguishing :
Vibrations that are actually periodic but have a very complex frequency spectrum and so a time-domain signal that does not repeat often, versus
Both clearly can exist and we oughtto eventually extend the stub to describe these. But I thought I'd go set some of the Wikilinks back to Vibration first. ;-)
"Shaking" is clearly a close synonym for vibration; shaker tables exist to simulate just this sort of thing, usually replicating earthquakes. But I think we're getting into a region similar to that of the Eskimos, where they have many words to describe frozen precipitation that we might just call (collectively) "snow" ;-).
You might be right on that. All-in-all tho, nice job on the page. I think it's a wonderful replacement and addition to WP. - grubber16:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Megan! If you wish, you can E-mail me via Wiki and it will reach me at my current place of employment. Of course, a modest guess at firstname.lastname@company.com would also reach me! ;-) I hope all is well with you and your flock of computers!
This page had a list of vendors that included both legitimare and not-so-legitimate companies. It was listed as being "outside vendors". Linking to some of the leading sources in the industry (there are only about five in the US) seems like a quality addition to the page. What can we do to maintain a quality list and not throw the baby out with the bathwater?
That's an excellent question and one for which I have never come to a completely satisfactory answer. The Wiki guidelines would probably have us include no commercal links, but this is clearly unsatisfactory for a wide variety of topics. On the other hand, we've seen on many topics (possibly including Lenticular) where there's been an explosion of clearly self-serving links, inserted by people who have a commercial interest in those links. It's not uncommon; an article often exists with a reasonable number of not-too-commercial links, and suddenly a bunch of new, blatantly commercial websites, or blogs, or MySpace links pop up on the theory that "everyone else is doing it so I can do it too".
I think there ought to be a balance, but I've never found one that pleases everyone or is stable over a long period without active "monitoring" and pruning effort. I was trying to ignore Lenticular, but we clearly passed over into "commercial link overload" recently. I'm open to suggestions!
I believe that some commercial links add usefulness as both a source for information and of course as a source for the actual product (which many if not most people doing a search for "lenticular" are looking for). I am with World3D. We are one of maybe five dedicated lenticular producers in the U.S. and we are consistently complimented for having a site that is informative and helpful. So informative in fact, that much of what has appeared on the Wiki lenticular page was "borrowed" from our site! Lenstar is apparently a site that is sponsored by those in the trade but does not sell product. I certainly have no objection to their inclusion. But some sites like www.3dprintblog.com are pure garbage spam.
I am the editor of the lenticular and holographics category at DMOZ and have been for years. I am new to this community but it seems to me that the idea remains the same: provide useful information for the reader. Our site used to be #1 in Google on a search for lenticular and has consistently been on page 1. We employ no "tricks". We simply have a helpful informative site and that has been recognized by both algorithms and humans. I hope that you will agree and I hope that we can work together to include other sites that are helpful while excluding sites that are not.
9/22/06
Can't understand why you removed the links as they were helpful and finally manageable. You had indicated yourself that commercial links are not necessarily spam. Please let me know your thinking on this.
I removed them all (again) because once again, the external links section of that article became a magnet for blatantly commercial links. Whichever one was last added pushed me over the edge.
I understand. It sat nicely for a few weeks but eventually, it creeps back in. I hope you will consider not throwing out the baby with the bath water. I believe that the two links there now (one is to our company) are both valuable additions and others might be as well. Most are not. I will do my best to watch it but I hope you will not just dump the good ones when the bad ones pop up. Thanks.
Thanks very much for helping to despam the various optics articles hit by 193.128.223.36 (feynman.ioppublishing.com). I've been fighting that guy for a while, but I didn't know how to go about warning or blocking them. Birge18:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Atlant.
Can you take a lok at the Science ref desk. THere some guy there claiming to be getting 'small' electric shocks off his computer, but he thinks that its ok. I advised him to get things checked professionally.
(I'll write this before I go read the actual posting, then we'll see if I agree with myself. :-) )
The usual phenomenon with lots of big SMPSs is that there's a big RFI filter right at the mains power input; the filter blocks both RFI coming into the supply from the line and power supply hash going back out onto the power line. This filter usually takes the form of an LC "pi" filter on both the neutral and hot lines, usually with pretty substantial capacitors to the safety ground which, of course, is then connected to the chassis of the SMPS and whatever the SMPS itself is then bolted to. If the safety ground lead isn't so hot or is outright disconnected, you find that the capacitors make a voltage divider that puts the chassis at about 50% of the line voltage, and most people can definitely feel that ;-).
At Digital Equipment Corporation, we used to put warning labels on the power cords of our equipment warning folks that the safety ground had to be connected or unsafe amounts of AC leakage current would occur.
Now I'll go read the posting and see if I called it right.
You're welcome; thanks for the "heads-up"! Perhaps if enough people tell them it's a risk, they'll find an earth somewhere? I'm kind of hoping the ESD argument resonantes with them; maybe they'll value their collection of MP3s higher than they value their own personal safety?
Sorry, whether or not it's mentioned there, it's a true fact.
(Sorry, whether or not it's mentioned there, it's a true fact. EL backlight inverter transformers are frequently audible.)
How is this sentence relevant to the section about frequencies of operation? I've heard lots of power transformers humming loudly at audio frequencies and I didn't add that to this section. I don't think it would fit. Another section describing how they make noise might be interesting. I wasn't questioning that the backlight hums. I found it surprising that there is a magnetic core in a wristwatch and the backlight article doesn't mention it so it looked like some wikifiction. I still can't find anything good on google to back this up. Don't wristwatches use some sort of piezoelectric solid state device?-Crunchy Numbers03:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ps, I resisted the urge to make fun of true facts.
ps, I resisted the urge to make fun of true facts.
Look, I gave you a perfectly good straight line; what you choose to do with it is your business. ;-)
Seriously, EL backlight circuits commonly use either transformers or inductors. Here's an article from EE Times Asia describing the sort of inductors that are typically used:
The transformers are similar. Transformers are typically driven using a two-transistor free-running oscillator while the inductors often use a dedicated EL or LED driver IC.
But I'll go back and read the statement in context in the transformer article and see if I still think it belongs there.
Heh; small matter, hardly worth mentioning, but are you sure about your picture? I see one tape head on the left: a set of windings and a gap. There should be 6 of these assemblies spaced around the drum. Since you took the pictures, maybe you can double-check. No big deal, but it does look like only one type head. +ILike2BeAnonymous00:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Two heads on the left, one head on the right
I'm 100% certain of the picture. While you can't see all the details, if you were holding the head drum in your hand you could circuit trace the various transformer windings to the various head windings, and this would unambiguously make the case. But even in the provided picture, if you look at the high-resolution version of it, you will see that the left "head" is actually two separate heads. Look at the brass-looking bits; see how one faces left and one faces right? In particular, compare them to the single head farther to the right; see how it consists of just one brass bit? My assumption is that the two heads on the left are the normal-mode video head and its associated Hi-Fi sound recording head (which records a much longer-wavelength signal deeper into the videotape, but on essentially exactly the same track as the video track); the head on the right is the "special effects" head for good quality playback in scan mode (when the tracking is different). The other side of the drum has, of course, a symmetrical set of three more heads.
If I had a microscope camera, I'd take a better picture for you ;-). Maybe if I have a chance tomorrow, I'll see what the old Nikon is capable of shooting when pointed at just those two heads on the left.
But there's absolutely no doubt that that picture is a picture of three flying heads.
I can't say for certain (as it was my wife who produced the image) but I'm sure that if she did anything, it didn't extend beyond "auto levels" and red eye removal. Why do you ask? Do you suspect that I'm actually Katie Couric in disguise ;-)? By the way, you can see another image of me here [2].
What would you consider a suitable citation for pre-twisting being unneccessary before installing wire-nuts? In that case, shouldn't there also be a suitable citation for the mention on Scotchlok connectors? I considered adding a citation link to one of the product pages, but that would have been an arbitrary choice of which product, and in any case the link to the product line already exists at the start of the article.
Pre-twisting has not been required for many years now, and virtually all of the products on the Ideal Industries page cited in the article (a link I added) explicitly state that they do not need pre-twisting. The products which do not make an explicit statement are for automated installation (OEM, etc), and they certainly do not need pre-twisting. Alan15:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A reference to an Ideal Industries page would obviously be fine; they'd know! ;-)
I just spoke to a (US) licensed electrician about this. While he agrees that twisting the wires is not required by code (all that's required is a "mechanically sound connection", and a "listed pressure connector" used by itself meets that criterion), he states that he and his associates still twist the wires and cites the following reasons:
It makes for a more-workmanlike job.
When there are several conductors (more than two), it makes it much easier to fit the wire nut.
When you remove the wire nut, twisted conductors assure that the connection doesn't spring apart. While we all assume the circuit is dead, it's just as well that it not disconnect itself when you remove the wire nut.
Thanks. Good points from your electrician; as an un-licensed ("amateur"?) electrician, I agree and think they should be incorporated into the article. Do I have (or need?) your permission to use your words? I'll also take a picture of one to add to the article. Alan16:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think permission is implicit on Wikipedia, but thanks for asking! Yes, of course you have my permission to use (and/or mercilessly edit) my words.
The change that probably triggered my "revert" response was "opportunistic infections". That compound term is very widely used and so I felt it should be allowed to stand as it was. I also thought "between an infected person and others" was important. Even though this is technically redundant, it heads off those folks who feel that AIDS arises spontaneously as a punishment for bad behavior.
Finally, the question of American English versus Commonwealth English spellings is touchy; generally, one shouldn't change that so don't make "favours" into "favors" or vice-versa.
fake rolex not only made in China, most good quailty fake rolex are made in japan, please seach "japan made rolex" in google, you can see many. And
South Koera, Vietnam, thailand etc. many countries in Asia also made Fake Rolex.
I don't have source?(how to find source with illegal product?) only wrote China, Hong Kong Taiwan Macau is bias.
After adding some weblinks to wikipedia pages I notice that you have removed it marking as spam.
I do not understand why you are marking my links as spam because I've only added external links to useful resources from a non-commercial Website. Technick.net is a free NON-COMMERCIAL site since 1998 with the same spirit of Wikipedia. Since Internet early days, I've personally spent thousand of hours to collect useful information and write guides without getting a penny.
Consider also that the most pinouts listed on Wikipedia are probably derived from Technick.net that was the first collection of pinouts on BSS networks on early 90' and then in Internet.
Also I'm a bit surprised because I notice that you haven't removed links to Websites like "pinouts.ru" that have taken a lot of content from historical sites like www.technick.net just to make revenues from advertising.
Well, I don't remember your links in particular, but strictly speaking, whether you're non-commercial or not has no bearing on whether or not your links are linkspam. If you're posting links that promote your own site, you're spamming Wikipedia. And if I remember correctly, I'm not the only one removing your links.
By the way, the fact that other links may also be spam doesn't excuse yours.
1. I've added only useful links to resources that wasn't available on wikipedia pages.
2. I think that www.technick.net must be cited as a reference on most of the wikipedia pinouts page because we have published it first. In fact our project is started in 1991, online on BBS in 1994 and on Internet in 1998. Most of the pinouts pages around the Web are started just as clones of the Technick.net content. A citation on an external links section is the minimum tribute for the efforts of this site.
5. Technick.net is a reliable source:
5.1. We have several written permissions from some hardware manufacturers to publish their pinouts and infos. I don't think that wikipedia or other sites have the same permissions.
5.2. Technick.net has been selected as a useful and trusted site by the National Science Teachers Association (http://www.scilinks.org/) and dozens of other associations.
5.3. Technick.net has received dozens of awards for it's quality and content.
5.4. Technick.net has written important pages of the Internet history and has been also positively reviewed by dozens of specialized magazines around the world.
6. Technick.net is not a commercial site.
7. Seems that you are making discrimination between links, you are not using only one measure.
But these are your links you're promoting. As I understand the Wiki policy, that is not allowed. You are spamming Wiki with your links. Shall we ask an administrator for advice?
When you say your you are not considering that Technick.net is not a personal or commercial website but a free information website exactly as wikipedia is.
I don't think that my links are violating any wikipedia rule, in fact, as stated on WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided you may distinguish the following cases:
1. "if the subject of an article has an official website, then it should be linked to even if it contains factually inaccurate material": this is the case for the pages that list pinouts that were first written on Technick.net.
2. "A website that you own or maintain, [...] Wikipedia editors decide whether to add the link" this is the case for the links that do not fall on first point (just few links). Let me say that I have added only links to a pages that contains resources not available on wikipedia pages so, I think that an editor may decide in favor of this kind of links. Also, this rule about the ownership of a Website could be easily avoided using another account/person to make the same thing.
You have removed some links and maintained others that published a content that was clearly derived from technick.net. In this way you penalizing trusted sites like Technik.net in favour of sites that were builded freely getting our work just to make some revenues from advertising. Did you have any economical interests in this sites?
Please stop saying that I'm "spamming". I respect your opinion but you are defaming me, please be careful with your statements.
Please don't use "legal" words like "defaming"; they are also against policy: WP:LEGAL. Meanwhile, because we're not understanding each other, I'll post a pointer to this discussion over on the Administrators' Noticeboard; we'll let them help us decide.
Hi Atlant. Thanks for the note, and in particular thanks for the pointers to Wikipedia guidelines and related material. I'm just a novice here, but I hope to contribute some over time. Translating material of interest to me into Dutch is part of what I have in mind.
No problem. I assumed it was a bug, especially since I was agreeing with you. Given that Allen seems to attact somewhat controversial comments, however, I asked to be sure. · j e r s y k otalk · 16:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Greg Bear
I've been corresponding with Greg's wife Astrid in another online forum for years, so I have an inside link there. I know that Greg is a really thoughtful and considerate person who wouldn't do anything to slant his article, but I've seen people get tripped up time and again when they edit their own articles and get frustrated because they don't know enough about Wikipedia to do it without offending some of the oldtime editors. It can turn into a really bad experience, when really all the person is trying to do is correct an error or add something they feel is important.
Anyway, I don't think I'm betraying a confidence by quoting some of Astrid's reply to me:
Boy, did that spark some interesting discussions in our household!
Yes, Greg did add some material to his article, with the goal of, well, adding more information. He didn’t take out anything, even if it was more opinion-based than fact based. In an interesting generational divide, the dear children were appalled, appalled, that Dad had touched his own Wikipedia article, even with benign intent and action. It seemed like an okay idea to me, thus clearly relegating me to the camp of “older than dirt”! Issues of who knows more about someone, themselves or other people; how groups of activists can control dissemination of information about their pet topics on Wikipedia; what the nature of history and fact is; who are all these people and why do they have so much time on their hands, were only some of things we tossed around.
Anyway, thanks for the heads up. Perhaps Wikipedia is becoming almost God-like in its character – no sparrow falling unnoticed, so to speak. A distributed God. Hmm . . .
Thanks! I was deliberately mild in my AN/I posting because I honestly don't have any firm opinion about folks editing their own bios; I'd imagine some could do it accurately and others would fall fatally to the temptation to "adjust reality". Me? I doubt I'll ever have to face that moral challenge — drat! In any case, I'm glad Greg is here; I'm sure he'll be an asset to Wikipedia.
Not sure about your revert at Metropolis (film) (here). I agree that it looked suspicious, particularly with the lowercase "g" and the anon editor, but the US version is dealt with in the paragraph just after that one, and seems to be at odds with this one. I've never seen the German version, so I don't know which is right, but the Machine Man in the US version can't be both sentient and an automaton. This needs a bit more looking into. Your thoughts? Kafziel14:11, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't sure about it either. (And I'm not sure the lower-case "g" is a useful clue; it seems common in many European languages to downcase stuff that most English speakers would upcase and I can't remember the current rules for German right now.) What triggered me, though, was the discussion above our suspicious sentence that stated that the American version of the character was an automaton. This seemed to match well with the earlier version of the dubious sentence.
But if you feel I'm wrong, please revert me.
The best way to truly resolve this would probably be to post the old and new text along with a question on the article's "talk" page.
Good idea. Sorry for the slow reply; I've been all over Google looking for a source that could help shed some light on this but couldn't come up with anything. Then I got sidetracked, reading people's college essays and whatnot. :) KafzielTalk14:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Let's keep talking about it then. First, 3RR is about once a day, and second, use of discussions based on policy is how wikipedia works. If you'd be ok with swinging back by the talk page.. --Improv03:51, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Busy building a kitchen today -- see you on the talk page soon...
When you're creating an AfD page, make sure you click the link called "pre-loaded debate" on the template, or else it messes up the AfD listing. "Have a good day now", as your compatriots say (or so I'm told)... yandman14:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help! As you might guess, this is the first time I've ever nominated an article for deletion. Generally, I'm an inclusionist, but this article is clearly spam for the company that makes that thing. If I'd seen it two days earlier, I'd just have speedy'd it.
Malber would like to nominate you to be an administrator. Please visit Wikipedia:Requests for adminship to see what this process entails, and then contact Malber to accept or decline the nomination. A page has been created for your nomination at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Atlant. If you accept the nomination, you must formally state your acceptance and answer the questions on that page. Once you have answered the questions, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so.
You're welcome. You may want to carefully consider your answer to question one. This is where you demonstrate your need for the admin tools. I mentioned WikiGnomism in my failed RfA and it was used as a reason why I didn't need the tools. I see that you've been a vandal fighter. You may want to mention that. Just some advice. —Malber (talk • contribs) 11:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Im pleased to note that you are in the second category (having quietly and patiently worked for it) and you can expect my support. 8-)--Light current00:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What a straight line! But just this once, I'll resist the opportunity and just humbly say "Thank you!".
The info you have added to the grapefruit article is good but it is too long. Talking about more drug interactions may be a bit too much. Drug interactions is overpowering the entire article. Please do your best to shorten your worthy contributions. Thank you so much. --GrapefruitFarmer00:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I didn't see the earlier text. I've vastly trimmed my contribution ;-) .
Seems too willing to depend on IAR and SNOW - what the heck does that mean? (I often skip edit summaries, because the Rollback button doesn't allow them - I definitely wouldn't get admin-ification today). - DavidWBrooks13:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
'Seems to me that if WP:IAR is an official policy (which it is), then as an administrator, I should damn sure depend on it. Colo[u]r me confused, I guess ;-).
Sorry I put the question in there, but it's part of my standards and I should be consistent in my own noms. I think you answered it well—I'm looking for if the nominee understands the spirit of IAR. It's not a bad policy, but I see far too many admins quote it when the action taken doesn't clearly help the project and the admin shows a lack of understanding of true policy. I think badlydrawnjeff has misunderstood you. I think the edit counts issue is silly; it's only become a standard for some in the past few months. I find it cumbersome to have to justify every spelling correction and comma splice fix. —Malber (talk • contribs) 14:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No worries! Like Popeye the Sailor Man, "I Yam what I Yam", and folks will either accept that or not. I'm not here anonymously (anyone who wanted to could be on the phone to me within 1 minute of Google time) and I edit on Wikipedia with exactly the same ethical standards, consideration of my fellow editors, and general approach that I apply in the rest of my life.
I wouldn't bother answering any more about the IAR issue. It's a waste of time because, despite what they claim, you'll never convince the dissenters to change their minds. It doesn't hurt your case to just let the other guy get the last word. Everyone who looks at the issue will see that you've answered the question. Everyone who just jumps on the opposition bandwagon won't see that, but there's nothing you can do to stop them anyway. KafzielTalk19:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm rapidly coming to your point of view -- thank you for that counsel! This is clearly a personal hot button for some folks.
Actually, I'm always open to discussion of the question, and it would really help clarify matters for both of us if you'd clarify your thoughts. Best wishes, Xoloz23:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My point was not that you're not open to discussion (I suppose there's always that .1% of RfA voters who actually change their vote to anything but neutral), but that even after all the discussion thus far you are at square one. Arguing on an RfA never helps anyone. Since he stopped answering he's gotten four support votes and no more oppose votes. Absolutely everything constructive has already been said, and nobody else seems to have any questions about it. If it wasn't enough, there's not much more that can be done in any kind of positive and constructive way. KafzielTalk01:03, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're looking at this as a wee bit of a campaign... what is to be gained is a better understanding of each other. I'd really appreciate it if Atlant would share his frank view of IAR -- outside of the RfA -- just so we could each get perspective on the other's point of view. I think your view of RfA is a bit odd, too -- I've changed "votes" at least a dozen times this year. Best wishes, Xoloz02:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(Just happening by) I'm inclined to agree with Kafziel and with Xoloz: you would likely do well not to engage at RfA in extended colloquies over "votes" but would surely do well to continue discussions with RfA participants outside of the RfA, perhaps at the RfA's talk page. FWIW, like Xoloz I often change my "vote" during the pendency of an RfA (or refrain from participating in the discussion until issues about which I am concerned are fully fleshed out); even if such change is facially to neutral, the concomitant comments often change substantively, which changes might well, one would hope, provide the prospective admin with more feedback from the community and provide those who partake subsequently in a given RfA something more about which to think. Notwithstanding that the value of ignoring all rules here is qualitatively different from that of ignoring all rules in government and law courts, a fellow ACLU member might remind you that IAR is essentially the spirit that underlies nearly every alibertarian decision taken by the present administration... :) Joe04:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if I were to view this solely as a campaign, then what I ought to do is find those positions that will garner the most votes and stick to them, recognizing that taking any actual stances will also drive away some votes. Presumably, the stated positions might not even correspond to what I actually believe, but might instead be the results of consultations with advisors, focus groups, or polls.
But I'm not going to do that. This isn't a campaign, it's more like a job interview. I have the skills and a demonstrated willingness to work that I think would be assets to the encyclopedia. So I'll simply set out those views that I actually hold. And, at the moment, the position I've taken vis-a-vis WP:IAR is not only a pretty accurate, complete-yet-still-concise representation of how I feel about IAR, but it also seems to be garnering votes.
I'm sorry for those votes that I won't get; perhaps as a result of this interviewing process I won't be "hired". But as I said, I think I've laid out my views (on the topics that I've been asked about) accurately, clearly, and concisely. If my views are not a sufficient match for the other participants in the project, then in the long run, we'll both end up happier if I'm not hired. So I'll gladly answer new questions that are posed to me, but I don't see any reason to continue arguing the IAR issue; I think those things worth saying have mostly all been said already.
Heh, no problem. I really believe you will make a great admin. I know that the RfA week is living hell, as people basically make positive and negative comments about you. Remember to always keep your cool, and don't let things bother you. That was the one mistake I made in my RfA, which led to a lot of sudden opposition towards the end of it. (Regardless, I finished 60/9/4) Nishkid6401:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
RE: My RfA
Sure thing! You obviously have extensive experience; you've been involved with computers longer than I've been alive, it seems :). I'm sure you'll be a great administrator and thanks for taking the time out to drop me a line! Cheers hoopydinkConas tá tú?13:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, if anyone should be an admin here it's you, I was quite amazed that you weren't one already. In fact, it was your user page showing up on a Google search that got me interested in Wikipedia in the first place. Good luck! Archer709:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"The most elaborate forms are usen in schools and laboratories or by developers of electronic circuits. Their outputs are regulated, adjustable and deliver up to 5 amperes at 30 volts." could well be improved especially the spelling or perhaps it should be relocated. But I am prepared to offer as many references as you would like to support the statement. My experiences with power supplies including design, manufacture and repair are limited to about 50 years. The reason for deleting this part of my contribution "Revert a comment that probably arises from limited experience." doesn't realy apply. Cakeandicecream10:10, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In all honesty, I misread your statement and so missed the part about developers of electronic circuits, focusing mainly on schools (which I've never found to be all that well equipped). I'm sorry I did that but I'd definitely focus on development labs rather than schools; the high-end Agilent supplies and other similar supplies from other vendors are certainly pretty sophisticated supplies. On the other hand, "most sophisticated" is likely to be a PoV statement: the sophistication of any power supply depends on which parameters we're focusing on.
Thanks for the quick response. As an administrator I can well imagine that you're under considerable pressure getting errors out of contributions. I've inadvertantly caused enough myself. Many courses in electronics that I have attended are so-called "Hands On" courses meaning that the students actually experiment with circuits they had just learned in theory. For such circuits we used power supplies with an adjustable voltage output and an adjustable current limiters. I had assumed that this is general practice. Of course, schools with better resources can afford better equipment, One supplier of such power supplies claimed that the ones he offered had been built in Russia and were left over from deliveries to french schools. (The circuits were quite strange, used exotic components and had no protection against false connections.) Should you still have doubts I would be quite happy to send you corresponding documents (in French and Russian) by email. That supplier is long since bankrupt, the manufacturer most probably also. I've discarded his catalog. Cakeandicecream11:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not an administrator yet, although I hope to be by day's end Tuesday!
I understand your point. The sorts of supplies that are common in teaching environments are certainly adjustable voltage, and thankfully almost always have adjustable current-limiters (see smoke test and magic smoke :-) ). But when I think of a truly sophisticated supply, I think of one that has digital control, digital, accurate instrumentation, GPIB programming, and the ability to slew quickly from voltage to voltage. Perhaps it's even a "four-quadrant" device, able to both sink and source both positive and negative current. It's probably also quite high-powered yet still reasonably compact.
But there's nothing that makes my opinion here "special", so please be bold and re-edit the power supply article as you see fit. There are enough people who edit that article that I'm sure we'll come to an accurate description that's acceptable to everyone.
Hello, I am a new Wikipedian and am asking for your guidance. Recently you place a 'clean up' tag on Race to the Right and I would like a little direction in what you were looking for. Thanks...and, a reply on my talk page or on the talk page in question would be highly appreciated. tony garcia22:40, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Wiki articles have a certain "style" to them; that's what I meant by "Wikification" (in the audit trail comment). For example, the keyword(s) that appear in the very beginning of the article ought to be bolded (so Race to the RIght). (Because those words are bolded further along, it looks like maybe that first paragraph in the article was added later but no one adjusted the "markup".) Also, there are lots of words around the article that can be Wikilinked to other articles. For example, talk show.
The article also needs some general editing. For example, karoke appears to be a misspelling of karaoke.
The cleanup tag wasn't meant to imply that there's anything radically wrong with the article; it just needs, well, "cleanup". And there's no better practice for you to become an experienced Wikipedian -- welcome, and best wishes!
You're now an admin, so have fun using the new tools to help make the project better. Do the best you can to take into account the spirit of the comments in your RfA to the extent that they can help you be a better editor and a greater asset to the project. As you get the hang of the new tools use them to help clear out the backlogs, but still use them conservatively, especially the punitive ones like blocking, and especially at first. Polite warnings and de-escalating the situation can go a long way instead of antagonizing. Also, re-read the policies as necessary before acting. Other than that have fun, and again, congrats. - TaxmanTalk 12:21, October 18, 2006
Thanks! I'll certainly try to do my best, but rest assured, I'll start slowly and carefully!
Congratulations! You survived the RfA and now you're admin! Have fun with your new tools. If you have any questions regarding admin-related tasks, feel free to contact me. =) Nishkid6401:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(I'm finally getting around to replying to my talk page) No worries - glad to see it passed ;). No painting the house involved, just hanging around doing as little as possible. :D james(talk)11:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Guidance for a new admin, please
That's how I've seen it done, more often than not; it makes sense to me because, in the vast majority of cases, these editors will not be back—at least, not with that user name (grin). There has been the rare occasion in which an editor will make a compelling case for a block reduction; in that event, I simply revert the talk page. Hope this helps. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c)20:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No apologies needed! That (the list of the long-term serial offenders) is just one of the many ropes that I've clearly got to learn as I step into these responsibilities -- thanks for your help as I learn!
Thanks! If I can be of any help along the way (I've learned a couple of things in a few months [grin]), let me know. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c)14:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I happened to have RadioKirk's userpage on my watchlist (from occasional conversations) and I had the vandal's userpage on my watchlist from having issued the first warning to the vandal. So I put 2+2 together and arrived at "time for a brief block".
I happened to notice that the footnotes on your user page are out of sync (reference 3 points to note 4). Feel free to delete this after reading. --Boson17:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know :-(. But the day I was trying to make it right, it just didn't seem willing to cooperate, so I figured I'd put it aside and worry about it another day. Thanks for reminding me; I'll try again later this evening.
Just so you don't think you're going insane, the reason "people" keep changing the voice of Genie is because "they" are actually sockpuppts of Woodylogan. He basically runs around and edits family movie-related articles, inserting misinformation and then editing any related articles to conceal the vandalism. Any changes by IPs caught doing this should be reverted immediately. --Wafulz22:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I just wondered if there was some Dan C. website out there that had all these folks fired up. Clearly, they're wrong because a) there's no legitimate website out there from Disney to IMDB that suggests the Genie was anyone other than Robin Williams, and b) I know the movie and I can recognize Robin Williams, and there's no doubt in the world that the Genie is Williams.
I'll just keep reverting and (probably) issuing blocks as the evidence accumulates.
Hello there, I recently saw your final warning on User talk:172.207.14.102. Well he's been persistent enough to both vandalize my user page as well as a user's called Dina. Thank you for your time. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Persian Poet Gal (talk • contribs) .
They won't be bothering you again for at least a while ;-).
for the reverting of vandalism on my user page. it was some kids at school, i showed them wikis for a research project and they ruins stuff. 65.147.175.3501:34, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome, but you seem to have become logged-out.
Thanks! I actually had the Cillium diffs open in another tab, so your message is very timely. Unfortunately, for anonymous posters (editing from an IP address rather than a username), Wiki policy tends to want a "last warning" within the last 24 hours, so I've warned the editor again. But I'll keep an eye on them for the next little while.
I edited the "Forums" section and the "Online Community" section. Mostly, what I did to other peoples work was some reorganization. I tried to not delete anything that other people had written. I added a section on terms, and I expanded the section on the forum reorganzation.
I'm posting here to ask what I did wrong. Did you have a problem with the point of view of what I wrote, or did you consider it to be original research? Would you be so kind as to explain how I have offended?
It's entirely possible I was mistaken, but what "pushed my button" was your edit summary: "This edit needs more cowbell."; that sort of set me up to consider your string of edits as "flippant". The article about DU is extremely contentious, often vandalized, and subject to many, many WP:POV pushers. I think I looked at the last edit of yours, (erroneously) decided it was a bogus edit, and pushed the "Rollback" button (which undid all of the edits back to the edit by whomever editted the article last before you). I should have looked at the diff which would have summarized all of your edits at once.
However, I would probably still have objected to, for example, your soft pedaling of the details about the I/P forum and the Gungeon. The fact that these topics need to be "isolated" away from public view is an important fact about the culture at DU and I think that needs to stay in the article.
Regardless, my opinion is just one among a million or so Wikipedians, so don't take me too seriously; I certainly didn't feel strongly enough about your edits to consider them vandalism so feel free to re-apply them. I won't intervene in this particular edit again.
Hi Atlant, thanks for the reply. You are right that my last comment was flippant. One lesson I might take from this is not to make pithy statements in the Edit Summary. :)
I'll take your advice about soft-pedalling the Gun Dungeon and the Israeli/Palestinian conflict forums. I didn't mean to tuck those forums in a closet, and looking at what I wrote after a night's sleep I can see your point. When I start putting my edits back in, I'll keep that in mind.
I am just starting a new page. You seem to be knowledgeable on art of the late 19th century based on your contributions to the Monet page. You are welcome to make any revisions on my Haystacks (Monet) page. I have a long way to go. I was wondering if there is a category for Series Paintings. This is my second Series (Campbell's Soup Cans). I am also wondering if the term series is a serious enough art term to deserve mention on the Series dab page. I am an art hack who has never studied formally. I have never painted. I attend about 3-5 exhibits a year though. P.S. Please reply to my discussion page because I am asking several people for their opinions TonyTheTiger18:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be knowledgeable on art of the late 19th century based on your contributions to the Monet page.
Oh man, I wish! My big claim to fame is that I can probably tell a Monet from a Manet! I'll certainly look at the page, but please don't be surprised if I have nothing to add to your work.
I would highly suggest you run a CheckUser on 81.117.200.37 (not me), Z Lopez (not me), and me (T Gholson) and it will show that I'm not related to any of those. This is wishful thinking on JBKramer's part. Someone please suggest a CheckUser, before I suggest one myself, but I have no idea how. T Gholson16:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
George Allen
Actually, my comment was in reference to Eixo. Eixo's contributions appear to be good (barnstars, even), making the vandalism to the Allen article perplexing. The order of the edits to the article were confusing, and I should have been more clear in my edit summary. · j e r s y k otalk · 00:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, more from Eixo here. Perhaps you should block until we can figure out if the account is compromised (just a suggestion, I'm not trying to tell you what to do with your mop ;) ). · j e r s y k otalk · 00:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey! Did you ever see the networking driver that Fermilab put out for VAX, RT-11, and RSX-11M? I was the architect of that one! BenBurch17:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so; did it implement some sort of point-to-point DR-to-DR link? What higher-level protocols did it support?
Mostly I saw home-grown drivers. Because the DR11-W had those cool (where's the sarcasm tag?) "Write-zero-to-clear" status bits in the main Control and Status Register, I ended up talking to nearly everyone who ever wrote a driver, explaining how to not lose interrupts by accidentally clearing those bits. Well, I talked to everyone until I eventually re-wrote the User's Guide and made it very clear where the traps were.
I never got to Fermilab, either, even though I would very much have liked to. I did get to go to Vandenberg Air Force Base, where the DR11-W was the interface to the missile auto-destruct system, though. That was cool.
It implemented sockets, though at the time we had never heard of the unix/Arpa socket architecture, we re-invented it. A task could declare its affinity for a particular packet type code, and then when a packet appeared on the link would either get an AST to alert it to place a read, or would have a pending read for that type satisfied. We did not buffer the data as DECNET did, but instead DMA-ed from one task's core to another's. It was very fast! [6][7]
Kewl! Yes, the DR11-W provided about the fastest inter-computer communications that one could manage back in those days.
We broke all of the RSX rules and had a protocol in a driver rather than an ACP. And made it work. It was bulletproof. Vicky White (Still at Fermi) taught me the basics of how a proper state machine operates, and I have used her wisdom throughout my subsequent career. The driver as I originally wrote it was a mess, but she and I re-wrote it as a state machine and it was great! This was the first device driver I ever wrote. BenBurch18:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Question on DU article
Should I recuse myself there. I am trying to be objective, but nobody will grant me an assumption of good faith there. I stepped into this because I saw an IP user being treated uncivilly, but it has mushroomed into something dangerously close to WP:POINT. BenBurch21:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The DU article is a classic Wiki battleground; clearly it draws partisans from both sides and true WP:NPOV may never be achieved, at least for very long. And specifically for you, I think you're in a difficult position, being both an editor and a sometimes subject of the article. I think I'd agree with you that taking a step back is probably a good idea. It's a shame we can't convince some of the other editors to do the same for a while.
I made my exit. Let's see if they can obey Wikipedia policy just this once. I really doubt it! I am just as happy to not "defend" DU whose Admin's I am rather upset with. BenBurch03:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies on Behalf of IP Address 64.39.127.245
I'd like to apologize for IP Address 64.39.127.245 which, unfortunately, committed acts of vandalism on Jew (disambiguation). The attack was unfortunate and irresponsible. I tell you this because I've used the IP Address although I did not in fact make the edit.
However, I'd also like to regretfully inform you that the address is widely used because it is a school IP Address. Therefore, it is almost impossible to tell who is using it irresponsibly just by the address. In spite of this however I would hardly blame you if you banned the address from editing Wikipedia. If you did so it would become necessary for any school users of Wikipedia to simply acquire acounts, which they should do anyway.
I'm sorry that users of this address have caused Wikipedia problems and apologize wholeheartedly on behalf of the entire community. Nivenus 17:49, November 13 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you wrote to me; I don't think I've intervened in the affairs of User:64.39.127.245 yet. Are you sure you typed the correct IP address? But I would encourage you to add a note to the User talk:64.39.127.245 page (or the appropriate user page(s)) explaining that this is a shared IP, operated by the (Whatever) School District. Generally, admins are careful about banning a shared IP, although I can say that, for me, it depends a lot on ratio of good edits to vandalistic edits coming from that IP. And, as you noted, anyone can create a personal account and avoid getting caught up in most of the mess surrounding an anonymous IP.
Thanks for writing, and thanks for anything you can do proactively from your end to help keep Wikipedia improving!
Thanks for catching my error... I set out to revert the previous bit of vandalism (something about cheese, I think) so I opened the history in a new tab - but forgot to double-check that nothing had been done in the interim. Cheers. --Ckatzchatspy22:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No worries! I appreciate all attempts to help -- Thanks!
Hi Atlant, I posted a heading on the Rolex discussion page regarding external links and those that are linkspam. I'd appreciate your feedback there. Cheers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.92.0.17 (talk • contribs) .
Hi, I reported the IP (193.61.101.9) that you have blocked for vandalism, but I strongly suspect that the user Cascader operates from the same IP. Would you be able to investigate and see whether Cascader also deserves a block.
hi Atlant, random stranger here. I noticed your history with DEC and I have a rather curious question... in about 1996 I was fresh from college and got a summer contract job for Kimberly Clark in Mobile Alabama as a top-level "problem engineer" during their systemwide upgrade. They had just purchased a very specialized paper plant, and were upgrading their entire network (all servers, desktops, CAD and CAM). I remember in the midst of the upgrade we always had to make provisions for legacy support of the vaxen they employed. The corporate IT guys insisted that all the CAM and production interfaces (from VAX to machine) were too specialized/big/expensive to re-engineer for newer platforms. I specifically remember them purchasing all vax parts and resources they could find, citing impending EoS/EoL from digital. Do you have any direct knowledge of that particular use/problem? I was with IBM for a time, and they carried on OS/2 support for an extra half-decade to support ATM's that (still probably) run OS/2. Anyway, was vax ever so specialized that a solution couldn't be implemented in emulation? Just curious about an insider's view! /Blaxthos21:01, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have any direct experience with the Kimberly Clark situation, but it wasn't uncommon. And there were several aspects to that question of migration.
As you may recall, DEC did not provide any emulation layer to allow VAX binaries to run unmodified on Alpha systems; instead, they forced users to recompile from source. It wasn't for any hard-and-fast technical reasons, it was mostly just a managment choice. (Much of the code that was needed was already available; remember, the MicroVAX is a major subsetting of the full VAX instruction set.) To me at the time, and to many looking back in retrospect now, that was a major mistake, but none of the high mucky-mucks were asking my opinion at the time ;-). (Meanwhile, Apple proved that an emulation layer kept the users happy as they moved from Motorola68K to PPC and then from PPC to IA32 machines. And, as I recall, IBM has done well supporting ancient OS/360 customers right on up to Z/OS.) So some users stuck with VAX because they wouldn't or even couldn't recompile from sources.
A few other users were more constrained. In government contracts, in certain applications certified by regulatory agencies, the users simply couldn't change anything about the systems. These users had no flexibility to migrate to Alpha so they stuck with VAX.
Oddly enough, nowadays, by far the fastest VAXes (and PDP-11s, PDP-10s, and PDP-8s) are the emulators. Bob Supnik and others have designed entire system emulations and, running on modern hardware, these blow the doors off of any of the real systems that DEC ever shipped.
When I was working at Commonwealth Edison in their nuclear systems group, I was amazed to fine that ancient Westinghouse computers, then 25 years old, ran the nuclear plants. The reason for this is that those machines were the ones qualified for those plants by the Atomic Energy Commission, and replacing them would be much more expensive than having technicians laboriously repair boards at the component level to keep them in operation. BenBurch03:57, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly right -- I used to deal regularly with AEC of Canada; it turns out that that CANDU nuclear reactors were certified with a fuel-management system that was designed around PDP-11/70s running RSX, and they needed to maintain that exact configuration into perpetuity in order for the plants to stay certified. So they created a plan where they bought a substantial number of spare systems, etc., etc. I had an open invitation to visit the Darlington, Ontario plant, but never took my counterpart upon it; I wish I had.
It was also a very common situation in military contracts. A given release of a program typically ran cradle-to-grave with the exact same hardware, and plans needed to be made to ensure logistical backup for all of the program's components until the program's planned end-of-life. And when we look at the, for example, the B-52 experience, we find that even planned ends-of-life often don't end the life of a given program ;-).
And that's why articles about Weblogs and web communities will always, by definition, be crap. Until someone writes a tell-all book about DU, there will never be a Wiki-acceptable source for most of the truly interesting stuff. Hmm, a book about DU... Now there's an idea...
We could broaden the scope a bit - and make it "an equal opportunity destroyer" by including FR too. "A Rock and A Hard Place; The stange case of two dysfunctional cyber-twins." --BenBurch14:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that that would be an interesting way to approach the subject, but I really have tried to stay "blissfully ignorant" of the goings on in that other place; maybe we need to recruit some co-authors?
You reverted to a version that retained the unjustified deletion of an appropriate image; was that your intention? Because I think the removal may have been vandalism, or at least unnecessary. Anchoress03:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted out the addition of:
i like cheese!
But I'll look back and see if there's further vandalism by another editor.
Hi Alant. I noticed that you were the admin who s-protected Jaws. You may want to review the WP:NOPRO policy on protecting featured articles on the main page. Just a heads up, I assume your protect was in good faith. —Malber (talk • contribs) 19:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware of the policy (and the one thing I'll admit to having done wrong is not placing a posting at WP:AN). I also watched the artice get vandalized many times in a few minutes, all by anons. It's a fine line we walk. I see Raul654 unprotected it and 15 minutes later, 64.21.100.130 decided the article needed "Your mom" in the infobox. Hu12 ended up cleaning that up, but Raul654 hasn't been seen again. It's since been vandalized at least 8 more times by newbies and anons in the hour after it was unsprotected. But hey, maybe Wiki needs more people reading about how Jaws is related to Moby Penis, ehh?
Thank you for your prolific and excellent work -- it is appreciated by many, including this old RT-11 user. But...I am concerned about the continuation of the misuse of the trademark "Charactron" to include electrical-output CRTs better described as "monoscopes."
I've added a little to the Charactron page but wanted to check with you before making any major additions and certainly before any major deletions. My background is in display engineering and I have lots of documentation (and devices) of the Charactron line of products from Hughes and the entire Convair to Lexel lineage, but nothing included electrical readout devices, nor dot-matrix devices from any monoscope supplier. Any information you could supply would be greatly appreciated for my edification as well as for our fleshing out the page.
You sound a lot better-informed (and certainly more-directly-informed) about this particular topic than I am, so I would strongly encourage you to be bold and make such changes as you deem necessary (especially where trademarked products are involved).
My first direct experiences in character generation come shortly after the age of any of the "creative"/"inventive" character generators such as monoscopes, character plates in '029 keypunches, diode ROMs, and the like. That is, I began working with computers in the age of the Signetics 2513 (IIRC) 5x7 character generator ROM (and I probably could still find one of those in my junkbox). So I defer to your knowledge.
(But thank you very much for your kind words regarding my contributions!)
I dare not be too bold when in the presence of those who know of the original metal mask ROMs, namely the keypunch matrix character plate! But that is, after all, the synergy of Wikipedia. The collective experience. That, and feedback fixes most everything -- ask any engineer.
Hi! Would you look at the section currently in dispute there. I think I am right to want to have this reaction in the piece, but User:Jinxmchue is on record as hating my guts and wanting to undo anything I do on Wikipedia, and he keeps deleting it. Am I wrong here? If so, just tell me and I'll back down, but I think this is simple revenge on his part and him trying to push his political POV. --BenBurch20:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Antifuse article
I added the "see also" section on the Antifuse article. I mentioned Actel because they manufacture antifuse based FPGA. I believe they were the first to use antifuse in semiconductor devices. I believe this makes the link relevant. I would have added Quicklogic (the other antifuse FPGA manufacturer) as well, if the article had existed. I do agree that the Actel article needs a lot of info and cleanup. ɤіɡʍаɦɤʘʟʟ22:23, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Power supply article
Thanks for your comment on the imaginative 'aviation' section. I'll give it a few days and delete the whole thing. You might be interested to learn that I am running a DEC Alpha workstation in one of our main engine test cells, on Tru64 Unix. I also have another one as a development system.
I got a laugh out of the rant you quote on your user page. It reminds me of the cartoon in which Porky calls Daffy a no-good, lying, thieving, backstabbing, treacherous, double-dealing, unsanitary old duck. Daffy, greatly insulted, replies, "UNSANITARY?" Your correspondent's use of "self-indulgent" is similar to Porky's line.
Thanks for writing! Long before the days of Alpha, I actually spent some time working on PDP-11s that were doing data collection from US Navy jet engine test cells. I never got to see an actual run, though. Classified and all that...
And thanks for your kind words regarding the rant!
I noticed you have reverted my changes to the Carol Shea-Porter article on wikipedia, commenting that I don't get to advertise on wikipedia. I'm not trying to advertise, but I do notice there is an article from another blog sourced in support of carol shea-porter. How is a source in opposition any different than a source in support? If you could explain the difference, that would certainly help me. thanks. minorpeace
That's easy: remove the other blog. Policies are clear here: blogs don't get linked and for biographies of living persons, Wikipedia is especially careful to kepp things strictly fact based.
So, is it acceptable to attribute direct quotes to the candidate, and put those in the article? I'm sorry, I just don't know all the rules quite yet. Thanks for you help.
Yes, but keep in mind that for a bio, you (essentially) must have a reference and WP:NPOV still applies, so if your were to load up the article with anti-Shea-Porter material, it won't stand.
Jerusalem's Lot is also a short story by king. If the sign said Jerusalem's Lot, I would say its just as much a reference to this as it is to Salem's Lot, if not moreso. Didn't notice that it wasn't properly linking to Jerusalem's Lot though. thats been fixed. and i've left Salems lot on there since you seem to think it has to be so. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.206.125.100 (talk • contribs).
Thanks! I was unaware of the short story! I don't have any data one way or the other as to which story King is referring to; perhaps we should post the question on the article's talk page?
No problem, since the two are loosely relating. stating that the joke refers to both is technically correct. i'm fine with leaving it as is if no one has any objections. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.206.125.100 (talk • contribs).
Your response to the Physics shortcuts question
Hi, Altant: I thought your response to the original poster was (considering that it was the first and so far only answer) a little bit biting. Would you consider removing or editing it (perhaps to include a useful response with the joke), in the interests of supporting good-faith, useful answers to good-faith questions? Thanks in advance. Anchoress17:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do you really think it was that "good faith" of a question? This user couldn't even be bothered to sign their post, yet they want a high school (slight assumption there) physics course handed to them in some way. Normally, I'm pretty open to fishing expeditions on the Reference Desks, but this one must have just contained one too many triggers for me. Perhaps it was their claim to be "ambitious".
In any case, I think I'll postpone editing my answer for now; I hope you'll forgive me. We'll see how that thread develops.
I absolutely think the question was good-faith; the original poster doesn't have an account, and lots of folks who edit from IPs don't know how to sign their posts (in fact lots of people with account don't either). I think you're assuming a lot of bad faith here... What is to be lost by providing useful, respectful, kind answers? Or if you can't do that, saying nothing? Anchoress17:41, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in any case, while you were writing back to me, I was editing. It's still rather frank, but at least now it's moderately informative. See what you think...
I have been working together with user skeeves to make this article a bit better, and somewhat more complete.
What I would like to ask is to re-consider the merging with Kerosene lamps. We are working on a couple of other Kerosene Lamps pages for different types and brands.
If they all would be merged, the page would not be found so well and grow to be very long.
Howdy! I've tried to revert some vandalism at the Salvador Dalí-page, but it seems my try was uneffective. Would you take a look at it? 194.109.22.14709:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like you picked the wrong version to revert to. In any case, someone's already taken care of it, but thanks for letting me know!
Any possibility that you'd consider putting your signature at the end of the last sentence of your messages, rather than as a new paragraph? IMO, saves space and is more easily parsed. YMMV. --Tagishsimon(talk)
I've been asked this before (here) and my answer remains the same: For votes and other cases where lots of people are checking-in with just one line each, I put my signature on that line. For everything else, I put my signature on its own line as I find full block style[9] much easier to read. (Opinions obviously vary ;-). )
Thanks for moving the comment left by 89.241.186.226 to my talk page. I'm not exactly sure how I missed it on my user page for 3 hours. I did find the comment itself to be pretty funny. I definitely didn't put the pieces together when I first reverted his edits to "the sandbox" and left him a message. --Onorem13:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome! I'll assume good faith on their part for now, but it was certainly amusing!
I have just finished rewriting the RD guidelines Wikipedia:Reference desk/guidelines and, as you are a respected editor and Admin, I would appreciate your comments on them. (When you have time of course 8-)
Yes, I'll certainly look, but I can't promise to add anything to the conversation. I experience intense mental pain as I try to read the non-contributing censors setting out a bunch of rules on how we actual contributors should behave.
I read the guidelines, and they sound great to me. I made a very few technical edits and a few "copyediting" edits; bless or remove them as you see fit.
RE: Removing links to "How To Pick a Pin Tumbler Lock" at RemodelingMySpace.com
While I appreciate that from a certain perspective the links I posted could be construed as merely "for advertising or promotion", I put them there because I felt that they added merit to the article(s). EG: on the page [10] - which is about 'bumping' or, picking a pin tumbler lock, there are other references to 'how-to' there, and adding our link is merely another perspective (a how to with legal warnings and links to legal references here). Note that on our page linked to we are not selling anything. Whereas - on this page: [11] - where we posted a link to tips on considerations for hiring a locksmith (which is valuable information) - right above is a link to this site "Home Security Tips" [[12]] which is CLEARLY just a business website looking for link promotion. From the same wikipedia page, there is a link to [[13]] titled "Typical UK NDE locksmith services : Discreet Security Solutions" which is an article about nefarious locksmiths in England - yet you removed our article on what to look for in a locksmith??
Can you please explain your reasoning? - Again, we don't sell anything on our website (except ad space) - mostly everything we link to is a free resource or valuable service to the visitor. If selling adspace is a bad thing then there are a lot of external links that should be removed from wikipedia.
Thanks for all your time and effort put into the wikipedia project (I hope they crush Google!) :)!
Also, I am very new to this so please forgive any of my newbie mistakes - not even sure if I'm posting this where I should be?!
Paul M.
ADDED:
Hey Atlant;
Never mind the above post I made - I just read post #26 - "Why are you marking my posts as spam?
Now I get it - the links are to MY site. Too bad, but understandable.
Anyone know where I can buy a Wikipedia editor? ;)
Thanks again.
Thanks for understanding. Our policies on external links are some of the hardest stuff to enforce because there's no "bright line" that separates useful links from spammy links.
I 'm trying to be polite in explaining the way we work here but any advice I give him seems to be returned by a long essay from him on how little I know about the subject, and therefore I have no right to interfere.
Also he very seldom signs his posts and interleaves his answers inside my posts which makes it very diffficult to continue the discussion. I spent about 2 hours tonight trying to refactor the talk page so that people could see what was being said and by whom. I had to proxy sign about 20 of his posts.
Sorry to bother you again Atlant, but Tubenut still seems to be very aggressive and is deleting my polite postings (about Wikiquette and not modifying others posts) to his talk page. Could you have another word pleas? Thanks! 8-)--Light current19:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, hows the new job?
You know what they say: Gain an administrator, lose an editor. I've certainly been spending less time doing actual productive work on the encyclopedia.
Meanwhile with regard to tube amps, my experience certainly extends back that far (and into some pretty high-quality single-channel, high-powered amps from the 60s), but I'm a pragmatist and an objectivist when it comes to evaluating hi-fi components, and by the late 70s, I think transistorised amps had surpassed tube (valve) amps in every respect from power capability, frequency response, and distortion right through to MTBF. Don't like the way transistor amps clip compared to tube amps? Don't drive them into clipping. And unlike tube amps, it's trivially easy to have hundreds of watts of low-ditortion, low-impedance power on tap. And now, with the coming of Class-D (switching) amplifiers, hundreds of watts of power now takes less space than did 50-watt amplifiers in the 70s and these amps burn very little standby power when they're idling, so the AV amp in the sitting in the cupboard below my TV can deliver 5.1 channels of audio at 125 Watts per channel without the need for a cooling fan in the cupboard.
Yes I think really a big difference between tubes and transistors is the overload performance. I just wonder why no one thought of putting a soft limiter on transistor amps (to get that smooth tube sound). Maybe they have. THe only thing Ive seen is clipping indicators that tell you you should turn down the gain.
The other main difference seems to be that the damping factor is not that high and this may accentuate cetain portions ao the frequency response. If there is less NFB at band edges (due to o/p transformer limitations, )this would tend to accentuate the response at low and high frequencies giving a 'presence' boost that may sound prefereable to a flat response. So hey presto, you get a warm, in your face ears lifelike sound that doent sound too bad on the loud bits. ? 8-?--Light current00:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
New Hampshire
hey, jerk! that's an important link i put up there. just because you didn't put it there, taht doesn't make it inappropriate. its an important movement in the state and people may be looking for more information about it. have fun being a jerk on wikipedia, have a nice "life". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RevSavitar (talk • contribs).
Well, you can say that, but DavidWBrooks also reverted your link, and he's been an administrator here on WIkipedia longer than I've been editing so perhaps I'm not the only one who disagrees with you when you say that you have a right to put up any external link that you wish. Perhaps you should reconsider your opinion?
I just wanted to let you know that the Montreal Massacre website, which you apparently removed from the Ecole Polytechnique article, is not my 'personal' website. The link has been placed back on there, and if you have a query about it, please ask and we can discuss it on the discussion page (go to bottom.) I believe the decision to remove it was probably made hastily and oughtn't to have been. Slp's post, currently at the bottom of the discussion page, has given this information about your action on the website I started on the Montreal Massacre a year or so ago. Suemcp15:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't that web site have your name at the bottom of it? Or are you, Suemcpnot Sue McPherson the webmaster of that site?
Sorry, I was really just looking at each talk page of the user without looking at the date. Still, giving a final warning really should be final, right? Diez216:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You'd think so, but we admins have been clearly instructed that at least for IPs, a "final" warning expires after about 24 hours. This makes some sense on shared IPs, where any number of users might be editing, and yesterday's vandal isn't today's vandal. On the other hand, {{blatanvandal}} doesn't seem to have a "use-by" date ;-), but is only applied if they're really, really blatant.
Hey-- Thanks for catching this one, the site was linkspammed about a week ago by a different user. This time they are hitting more articles tho... Possibly a sockpuppet? Don't know... Rob11017817:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it was an anonymous spammer last time; maybe they created an account?
Hi. I also work at Teradyne, and your statement that all DIBs have DUTs on them is inaccurate. I can't give more details as some of it may be trade secrets but definitely there are DIBs without DUTs.ZaydHammoudeh17:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not in the office today; let's talk tomorrow. What timezone are you in? (I'm US Eastern.)
Right now I am actually Eastern time zone although I work in the San Jose office. My wikipedia name is my real name so it should appear in the Lotus Notes database if you email me. ZaydHammoudeh17:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll drop you an E-mail with my extension (although it's trivially easy to find me as well).
Dear Atlant: Your edits have shown traces of a sense of humor, which is disruptive of the serious, somber, and relentlessly grim mood that so many other good people in all walks of life have exhibited just before burning out entirely. Be advised that if you continue on this present course, you face the risk of enjoying yourself while at work on this project, and you may even have a similar effect on other editors. Please consider very carefully whether you want to be responsible for such consequences. Thank you.
(Shamelessly -- Ben22:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Global Warming Discussion
In response to your comments on the Global Warming page, I thought I would make a few points. First, while removing a POV tag is not "simple vandalism," it may nevertheless be vandalism. While simple vandalism presents an exception to 3RR, other forms of vandalism do not, and it is perfectly acceptable to revert non-simple vandalism 2 times a day forever. Additionally, suggesting that it is a "personal attack" to claim someone is violating a Wikipedia policy (owning) when they actually are violating that policy is absurd.
I appreciate your cordial comments, but strongly disagree with them. I will also note that I'm perfectly capable of reading text without the important words bolded, and I bet other people are too. :-) CleanHarry2920104:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I won't bold anything in this reply. But I will call your attention to WP:VAND, and especially What vandalism is not where it clearly states that stubborness is not vandalism, no matter how much you wish it were. So if you approach the guidelines in the three-revert rule, even over a content dispute that you mischaracterise as vandalsim, I will have absolutely no qualms about blocking you (or any other 3RR violator).
I will also call your attention to the Wikipedia guideline assume good faith. Accusing someone of owning a page is an assumption of bad faith and a breaking of that guideline. Admittedly, it's a guideline, not a rule, but I would urge you to keep it in mind as you edit.
I'm afraid you have a very poor understanding of the dispute ongoing on the Global Warming page. Stubbornness is not vandalism, but I have not accused the opposing side of vandalism because of their stubbornness. I have accused them of vandalism because they have removed a POV tag during a POV dispute. That is clearly improper, and it's just as clearly vandalism.
I will continue to replace the POV tag as long as it is vandalized and removed. I appreciate your threats, they appear to be the only way things are done around the Wikipedia. If people don't do what you want, threaten them.
With respect to good faith, I have not "assumed" bad faith. I have evidence of bad faith. Removal of a POV tag during a POV dispute is evidence of bad faith.
In the end, it's sad to see people like you and this William Connolley fellow ruining the Wikipedia with these absurd, results-oriented interpretations of rules and policies. It doesn't surprise me though. If you want to block me for reverting vandalism outside of 3RR, better get started. CleanHarry2920103:18, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I have a very good understanding of the debate and an important clue is that one side of the debate claims that an alleged "both sides" of the issue must be presented, as if there were only two sides to this rather-complex issue. It's also useful (and occasionally, entertaining) to see what other contributions the "both sides" people are making to the encylopedia as compared to those of us who "threaten" people.
Ahh well, you've had all the rules of the Encyclopedia explained to you; how you choose to behave now is entirely up to you.
Do you deny that it's common practice around here to threaten people with blocking over disagreements? You and William Connelley and several others have all threatened me over this. Do you think that improves the Wikipedia? CleanHarry2920121:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care what you think is "common practice". I care about my own actions and I know that I do not block people for disagreements; I block them for breaking the rules. By the way, I thought it was pretty cool when you encouraged someone else (User:Magiwand) to break the rules (to the point that I ended up blocking them for a blatant infraction of WP:3RR); that tells me all I need to know about what sort of person you are.
And I'll remind you again: anytime you feel like any administrator has treated you unfairly, by all means please bring it to the attention of WP:AN/I.
You say: "I thought it was pretty cool when you encouraged someone else (User:Magiwand) to break the rules. . . ."
What I wrote was this: "Please continue to make useful edits to the Global Warming page. Be careful not to violate 3RR, but feel free to remove as much POV language as you can and make the article non-POV. CleanHarry29201 03:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)"
Why do you feel the need to lie? I didn't encourage anyone to break the rules. I told Magiwand I appreciated his useful edits but not to break 3RR. Exactly how does that constitute "encouragement" to break the rules? And do you typically lie and blatantly mischaracterize the actions of others, or is this an isolated incident? And don't go quoting to me stuff about "assuming good faith." I assumed your good faith, until now. CleanHarry2920101:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now go read WP:CANVAS so that you can understand better what I was talking about. You also sling an awful lot of WP:NPA and show a decided lack of WP:CIV, all of which I have mentioned to you in the past few days. You may not have noticed it, but you already have the attention of at least four administrators of the encyclopedia, do you really want more? Seriously, you told Mr. Connelly that you were going to officially complain about his edits but you didn't do it. If you're so sure you're on the side of truth, justice, and the American way, why don't you just escalate all of this to WP:AN/I right now and get it over with?
The reason I haven't reported Mr. Connelley is that I don't know how. I have never found a situation so blatantly improper that there was a need to report anyone. And I don't care how much administrative attention I garner; again, the threats and intimidation may work with a lot of the newbies around here but they don't work with me. I await an apology from you, and an edit to remove, your accusation that I encouraged someone to break a rule. You know, as demonstrated above, that I have done no such thing. CleanHarry2920103:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and so far as the accusation that I've "canvassed" anyone, I haven't. Magiwand was threatened by a member of the Global Warming clique, and I responded that he need not feel threatened and should continue to edit the page within the rules. He had already attempted to edit the page, so in no sense did I "canvass" him. Further, it seems clear to me that all of these threats of blocking, etc., are the exact opposite of canvassing and just as improper, if not moreso. Several folks have commented on the Global Warming talk page that the clique owning the page has run off a variety of editors in the past, and the suggestion is that this was accomplished through threats and intimidation similar to those that have been levelled at me recently. I simply advised Magiwand that he need not succumb to these sorts of threats, as others apparently do. That's not canvassing, and you know it. But again, the actual facts seem rather unimportant to you. CleanHarry2920103:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. recently you blocked user: ChaseProcknow's ip. In the process you blocked every cpmputer at my school. I ask you to unblock the IP and delete the account intsead. the school is filled ith very many teachers adn students that want to contribute to wikipedia. Thank you for considering
Thanks for helping us! Your my favorite admin! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by StudyBoi (talk • contribs).
Ming Dynasty
PLEASE HELP
someone changed the picture of and emperor to a T.V. Character on the Ming Dynasty page. Thought I would draw your attention to this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Onearmedbanker (talk • contribs).
I've fixed it and blocked the vandal -- thanks for calling it to my attention!
Hello, this is a student at Thayer Academy. This school has a network that encompasses all of our computers. I am writing to discuss the many messages this IP address has received about a user or users who has tried to vandalize wikipedia articles. I would appreciate it if there was some method to determine if the user was intending to contribute negatively or not. As this is most improbable, I would suggest that this IP address be prevented from making edits. Maybe there will be a better solution, but as of now I cannot see one. Thank you.
Thanks for writing! As you realize, there's no way the encyclopedia software automatically characterizes edits into "likely good" edits and "obviously bad" edits, although there are some 'bots (pieces of robotic software) that run on the enclopedia and have been trained to recognize and fix some of the obvious cases of vandalism. With regard to blocking the school as a whole, there's a whole series of steps we administrators are (generally) required to take in response to vandalism, but it certainly looks like your school is moving through those steps :-(. I'd encourage you (and any other folks at the school who want to help rather than hurt the encyclopedia) to create a Wikipedia username now, before the school's IP address ends up getting blocked and creation of usernames from the school becomes impossible. Once you have a username, you can avoid the blocking of anonymous editors. Meanwhile, I'd also encourage you to approach the administration of your school, explain to them what's going on and what the consequences will be; perhaps they can figure out who's vandalizing the encyclopedia from your school.
Sorry to bother you yet again with this. Ive been getting quite a bit of aggressive posting on the Valve audio amplifier and related talk pages. I have asked Tubnut dave to be civil a number of times, but he continues to berate me on these pages. I have have tried my utmost to be polite and to offer to work with him, but it seems he just wants to argue with me and post voluminous amounts regardinf his beliefs that cannot easily be responded to.
Ive been trying to ignore his ramarks or answer curtly but politely as i dont want to get into a heated argument about why tubes sound far better than transistors. i just want to add facts to the articles not opinions.
Hi, just wonder if you would reconsider at least some of my reverted amendments on NC headphones - after you've seen my comments on the talk page, of course! Ossipewsk04:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm looking for a usable citation for the "bass overload" disadvantage...
Hey there, Atlant. Any luck on this? Because the market for these items is starting to mature, and the information and descriptions we were talking about is getting out of date. Regards, Ossipewsk01:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for answering my question! er... I would have thanked you in the question itself, but apparently they get archived very quickly. :(
Which is a shame too since while you were useful in answering about near IR and UV, I'm still not sure whether or not there's ambient UV at night too (though I imagine not much), or how much far IR there is (though I have slightly biased suspicions that far IR mostly comes off of life forms and stuff!)
But anyway, thank you!~ (the question was about ambient infared/ultraviolet if you haven't guessed already, by the way!) 67.83.72.3815:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Always welcome!
And with regard to your new questions: both good questions, but neither of which I know the answer to! I'd guess that light from the sky at night has about the same spectral distribution as daylight (assuming that the moon is uniformly reflective at all frequencies (dubious assumption #1) and that starlight, on average, is roughly the same as sunlight (dubious assumption #2), but that would just be a guess.
Why not post your new, improved questions? (Do state that these are follow-on questions though, or some joker will say "Didn't we just answer those last week?")
Ahh humour (with a 'u'). I thought it had finally been expunged from all WP pages by a small cabal of humourless editors and admins. I pleased to find a sanctaury here!--Light current01:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm actually responsible for more, but I'm not telling you where it is lest the humo[u]r police take action...
You've removed a external links section at Sun Corune. I don't agree that a link to how stop the sun corune from biting is owner is a link spamming. Can you explain why you considered such thing a link spam? Txs.
Just look at the number of advertisements that surround the two paragraphs of actual information; it's entirely typical linkspam and per WP:EL, doesn't belong here.
I see, don't totally agree with that, is the information that counts, no the advertising. I'll respect your edit of course, and will try to find another one with similiar information (i think that information need to be here) that doesn't have advertisings. Txs.
Thanks! Our external links policy is one of the hardest policies to live with, and it's precisely these sorts of links (with good content but which are obviously commercial) that make it tough.
I wasn't endorsing those claims. I was just stating that the ACLU is commonly alleged by Christians and conservatives as being biased against them. If you take a look at any major conservative website (e.g. Focus on the Family), I'm sure you'll find some long diatribe about how the ACLU's sole purpose is to "destroy" Christianity or something along those lines.--68.91.194.22101:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. But to qualify for inclusion on Wikipedia, the facts should be balanced; see WP:NPOV. In fact, the ACLU does a fair amount of litigating on behalf of the rights of Christians, and omitting that makes the presentation biased. Wikipedia doesn't just take Focus on the Family propaganda and include it in the article.
Thanks for keeping up with that. I was getting sidetracked with other linkspammers I stumbled across on some of those pages. Spam email has never really annoyed me too much, but spam here makes me burn with hatred.--Drat (Talk) 12:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. When administrators look at a user's contributions, we get a "Rollback" button next to each edit that is currently at the top, so it's pretty easy to massively revert a user that has been bad in many places.
Thank you for experimenting with the page Carbon dating on Wikipedia as you did with this edit. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rebroad (talk • contribs).
The problem, of course, is that Wiki was first created by a bunch of (nominally) computer people and, somewhat more broadly, science people. This has caused quite a lot of BIAS|systematic bias in what gets covered. (As evidence of that, on a more mundance level, it seems like every video game, fantasy role-playing game, and comic book in the world has extensive coverage ;-).)
There's still ton(ne)s of unexplored/undeveloped territory; the trick is finding it!
FYI, I have unblocked Rebroad (talk·contribs) after he/she requested a review of the block. Please see [16] for my comments on it. Since this user was unaware of that aspect of the policy and has promised not to breach the policy in the future, I feel that an unblock is in order. Blocks are a preventative measure, not a punitive one. As with any administrative action I take, I consider it to be open to review and reversal if I am incorrect, but honestly, the more I thought about it, I could not see a non-punitive reason to leave the user blocked. --BigDT02:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since this user was unaware of that aspect of the policy...
Sadly, User:Rebroad had been explicitly warned at least twice about WP:3RR (once right here and once on their talk page which they immediately archived) and then went ahead to violate it anyway. They also went off and solicited another user to help with reversions. I won't contest your unblock, but the next time you encounter this user, you might want to keep this in mind.
Thanks for the corrections. Appears reading through this list we have many things incommon. Very scary, are you me? ;) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by EM1SS&CSE (talk • contribs).
I don't think so, but maybe there's some kind of wormhole distorting the spacetime reality...
I made a couple of additions to VT-220, but my memory may be playing tricks. As an old DEC hand, you may remember better. A heads up would be appreciated.
And, I seem to have gotten to loudspeaker after you moved on, but I think it's a better article now. You might want to take a look.
The revert you did was of an attempt to get a growing wikitext out of the article. You appear to have misunderstood the purpose there. Rather than hassling this further, I'm goind to move the whole thing to talk. Including my comment which was inter alia intended to deal with the digital speaker section problem. ww04:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
Sorry for the blatant spam, but you have yourself down as interested at WikiProject user warnings WP:UW. There is a discussion on going here that might be of interest to you about the future of this project. There are two strawpolls on the talk pages and the second one is about the future of the WP:UW project. Now we have the end in sight we are looking at wrapping up the project and merging it with Template messages/User talk namespace WP:UTM and creating a one stop shop for all userspace template issue. As you have yourself down as interested in this project we thought you may have some input on this issue, and would like you to visit the discussion and give any thoughts you may have on the matter. Cheers Khukri10:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Assistance needed
I noticed you are a regular editor of the semiconductor article. I recently created the extrinsic semiconductor article for a technical communication class and was wondering if you could read it and leave some comments for me. I need to do another revision for my final grade for this project, and I believe some input from an experienced Wikipedia editor would be a great asset. If you do not have time, I fully understand.
