Talk:United Press International

Archiving redux

I restored the archiving time to 100 days after it was changed to 180 days, but Hrafn has reverted me, with the edit summary Rvt: no consensus for this (and editor seems to have no other involvement in this article. Now, oddly enough, he wasn't concerned that the "editor seems to have no other involvement in this article" when User:Kslotte lengthened the archiving time a few days before. In any event, I've manually archived a couple of long-dead threads (including one that the bot would never archive because of its formatting), and opened this thread to discuss archiving timing, which normally doesn't require this much discussion. Can Hrafn explain why he wants archiving to happen only after a thread has been completely dead for six months? Can he explain what advantage there is to having dead threads stick around on an article Talk: page, encouraging editors to waste their time responding to discussions that are long over, and whose participants have moved on (and often even left Wikipedia)? Jayjg ^(talk) 17:13, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry Hrafn, I don't see any rationale for leaving dead thread around. Discussion are discussions, not votes. And please don't modify my comments again. Thanks! Jayjg ^(talk) 00:51, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Removing a section title I've created and collapsing my comment so that it's invisible is modifying my comment. So far there's only one argument (mine) on the Talk: page regarding archiving times; votes, non-responsive comments, and disruptive comments (like yours below) don't really have any value in a discussion. You can fool around all you like, but that means that there's only one actual relevant view on the archiving timing. Jayjg ^(talk) 12:24, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Removing a REDUNDANT section title you POINTLESSLY created, and archiving ('NOT "MODIFYING") your WP:DEADHORSE comment is perfectly reasonable. If you want an explicit reason leaving it at 6-months (a point there is already a WP:CONSENSUS on), here's one: this talkpage has low traffic and frequently experiences lulls of the order of 3-6 months, so there's little point in setting an archive duration shorter than this. Oh, and you still haven't answered my question:
Why edit-war to change the archiving duration of a talkpage that you have no other involvement in? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:32, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't a redundant section because the previous discussion was old, and the original participants had left. This was a new discussion on the topic, with editors who were currently active on it. See, that's what happens on Wikipedia; discussions die, editors move on, etc. That's why one doesn't want to set the "age" parameter to more than 4 months. As to why I restored the 100 day archiving time? I was wiki-gnoming, the 100 day limit was no problem for at least a couple of months, and no actual rationale was presented for reverting that change. The real question is why would you edit war over it? Where's the evidence of discussions here experiencing "lulls" of 4-6 months? Keeping in mind that the 100 day limit set would easily deal with "lulls" of over 3 months. And finally, please stop including your disruptive sections below in this section, which is for actual, serious discussion. If I were you I'd simply delete the section you created below as utterly inappropriate (and, frankly, casting a very poor light on your actions here), but that's up to you. Jayjg ^(talk) 12:26, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

(i) WP:Complete bollocks! The last comment on the previous discussion was less than a week old when you started the new thread, the oldest only a couple of months old. (ii) It is unreasonable to expect a de novo reappraisal every couple of months. (iii) That "discussions die, editors move on, etc" is no good reason to be too quick about hiding the results of past consensuses. Talkpages are a balance between documenting past discussions/consensuses and having too much for new editors to wade through --where there isn't too much volume there's little point in pushing the balance too far towards brevity. (iv) Given your "disruptive" insistence on having this in a REDUNDANT new thread, your demand is ludicrously WP:POT. So no, I will not agree to their removal (nor their being moved to a new top-level thread) until you agree to the removal of the ludicrous #Archiving redux title that they were a response to. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:33, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

You haven't actually addressed the issue of threads dying though, which they do all the time. If someone responds to a dead thread, then their time is wasted, regardless of how short the Talk: page is. And don't change the level of this section I've created again. Thanks! Jayjg ^(talk) 02:56, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Already covered in (newly bolded) passage above. And where a new thread is clearly a subtopic of an immediately=preceding one, darn straight I'll nest it within that topic. Your pathetic demand that I should refrain from such perfectly unexceptionable house-keeping is rendered all the more ludicrously WP:POT by your insistence on creating an utterly-redundant and "disruptive" 'Hrafn's Comment' heading for my poking fun at your Redundant 'Reduxing'. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:32, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Not sure which "newly bolded" passage you mean, but if you mess around with the levels of the sections I create again, I'll simply revert your activity as an obviously disruptive violation of WP:TALK - as is, indeed, the rest of your activity here so far. You can put whatever title you like on your absurdly disruptive section, with its six subsections, but don't go sticking it in sections for serious discussion that I've created, and don't go messing with the headings I've created either. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:10, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Unipressers?

This article uses the slang/jargon term "Unipressers" (e.g. "Former Unipressers such as ..."). Is this appropriate for an encyclopedia article? Jayjg ^(talk) 12:27, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

It's simply a contraction of "UNIted PRESS" + "ers"=members-of/belonging-to. In fact it has official usage: http://100years.upi.com/unipressers.html so is hardly inappropriate. Surely you can find something more substantive to raise as an issue on talk? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:41, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure that's what it is, but should the article be using this jargon? I don't think the WP:JARGON supports it. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:58, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Jayjg: a simple and obvious contraction IS NOT "technical language", so WP:MOS#Technical language does not really apply. If you really think that this might be confusing, you could simply WP:Explain jargon and have the article inform the reader the blindingly obvious point that "UNIted PRESS staff membERS" are often referred to as "unipressers", when the contraction is first used. For myself, I think this is a ludicrous storm-in-a-tea-cup. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:38, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

You seriously think that "Unipressers" is a "simple contraction", not jargon? I think that's a highly unlikely claim. In any event, contractions are unencyclopedic writing, and should be avoided. As for a "ludicrous storm-in-a-tea-cup", the only think ludicrous is your over-the-top hostility towards me, because I set the archiving time on this talk page to a more reasonable value, and protested your subsequent disruptive closing of threads, adding 7 levels of sub-threads, changing the heading levels of threads I create, etc. Now, behave appropriately, or move on to a different article. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:11, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Key UP / UPI product and technical innovation dates - use of teleprinter

These are the issues with the article text and reference regarding the use of the teleprinter by UP.

The sentence originally read, "...In 1914 UP is the first to use the teletype, a new invention that year...."

This is incorrect for the following reasons:

1. In 1914, only Morkum and Kleinschmidt were producing printing telegraph equipment. The device could not have been a teletype. 2. The reference, which has it's own issues which I will describe below, notes that the device was delivered from Kleinschmidt. 3. The "teletype" (printing telegraph) was not a new invention in 1914. Krum had a printing telegraph in trials in 1908 and in commercial use by Postal Telegraph between Boston and New York City in 1910.

The sentence currently reads, "...In 1915 UP begins to use the teleprinter, more commonly known as the Teletype, originally a trademark of one of its manufacturers..."

This is also incorrect for these reasons:

1. The word "teletype" was derived from "telegraptype" but not in 1914-1915. 2. The sentence uses 1915 but one of the references states 1914 as the use date and the second reference does not produce readable text. 3. While factual, the comment about the trademark status of the word "teletype' is not relevant in this sentence or in this article about United Press International. 4. the phrase "...more commonly known as the Teletype..." begs the question by whom and at what date. If now, perhaps within North America but not in other parts of the world where Creed, Siemens & Halske, Lorentz, and Olivetti were commonly used. And, this would not have been true in 1914. The device was not even called a Teletype in 1914. And, it would not be capitalized since the Registered Trademark was not applied for until the 1920s. 4. If, in fact, UP did not begin use of the Kleinschmidt device until 1915, the entire sentence should be removed from the United Press International article since AP is documented to be using the Morkrum Green Code Version on Western Union Lines in New York City 1914 and there is no product or technical innovation here at all.

And, the reference issues:

1. The UPI History: Milestones (1911-1920) at http://100years.upi.com/history_ms_1911.html states:

A. Edward Kleinschmidt invents the teletype, which replaces Morse code clickers in delivering news to newspapers. Press critic Oswald GarrisonVillard credits United Press with first use of the teletype.

This has the following factual error:

Kleinschmidt was not the sole inventor of the teletype, if he were the inventor at all. In 1903, Charles Krum filed a ‘typebar page printer’ that was issued in 1908. In 1904, Charles Krum filed a patent for a ‘type wheel printing telegraph machine’ which was issued in August, 1907. I cannot find earlier patents filed by Kleinschmidt.

In addition, while the statement is made that Press critic Oswald Garrison Villard credits United Press with first use of the teletype, there is contrary evidence dating back to 1908 - 1910 that Charles and Howard Morkum had working systems in place.

2. The UPI History: Milestones (1911-1920) at http://100years.upi.com/history_ms_1911.html also has a photograph that is titled, "...1914: UPI Teletype..." Unfortunately, the equipment in the picture is a Teletype Corporation Model 15 that was not in production until 1930.

Two proposals:

1. Change the current sentence to read: In 1914 UP uses the teleprinter, now commonly known as the teletype.

This restores the 1914 date of the reference, removes the link to the word "Teletype" which only redirects to Teleprinter anyway, changes the case of teletype, and removes the Registered Trademark information about teletype since it is not relevant.

2. Strike the sentence completely since the reference is flawed as to first use of a teletype which changes this to an event and not a technical innovation.

More research is needed here, especially to determine a solid reference as to which Kleinschmidt device was in use at UP, what communications common carrier was involved, where and how many teleprinters were deployed.Wa3frp (talk) 11:04, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

CHANGES MADE In agreement with above, that sentence was changed to reflect them and clarify word usage. User:tfnews —Preceding undated comment added 13:28, 23 August 2011 (UTC).

CHANGES MADE

sentence changed to "...In 1915 UP begins to use teleprinters, more recently known as Teletype machines..." to refelect info provided above and remove non-relevant trademark info. Note: The 1915 date is not confiremed and more research is still needed here.Wa3frp (talk) 13:56, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

COI tag

Someone has place a COI tag at the top of the article. Can they explain which editor has the Conflict of Interest? Jayjg ^(talk) 23:47, 9 January 2012 (UTC)