Talk:Personal web page

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Sourcing and weasel words[edit]

The "criticisms" section (presumably mostly based on material merged from Vanity site) needs some serious attention. It is full of weasel words, speculation and original research. It is also entirely lacking in sources. What evidence is there, for example, to support the notion that "vanity site" is "often" used to mean "pathologically narcissistic"? That's a very strong statement to make without any evidence. Gwernol 12:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Would it be aprorpiate to add a picture of youre own website?[edit]

I think it would be cool to show what a personal website looks like I dont have one but if someone else does please post it so we can show what a personal website looks like THANKS. --ColaDude 16:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it is wise to add an image of a personal website. It would be a magnet for spam, and would gve undue attention to 1 site out of the billions that are out there. Besides, if there is anyone using WP who does not know waht a personal website looks like, I would be shocked. UnitedStatesian 17:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Whell I havent seen one in a long time so who knows! --ColaDude 18:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Maybe some basic "personal" page of virtual or famous non-living person could be created to have an example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.228.62.83 (talk) 16:23, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Tilde Convention[edit]

Where did the convention of starting users' home page directories with a tilde come from? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt24 (talkcontribs) 21:29, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

I believe it originated from the Unix method of representing a user's home directory with a tilde, e.g. cd ~/pictures would redirect to /home/[username]/pictures.

And cd ~fred is shorthand for cd /users/fred. —Tamfang (talk) 20:06, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

MYSPACE[edit]

A NEW MYSPACE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.18.80.203 (talk) 22:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

FCC capped top dial-up modem speed to 56k[edit]

I had written in History:

After the American FCC capped top dial-up modem speed to 56k,[1]

Somebody removed/changed a few key words; the FCC capped top dial-up modem speed, —and changed it to: somehow "After dial-up modem speed reached its limit of 56k,[2][3] most local ISPs ceased to exist," That editor explained: "there never was a faster standard dialup speed (And his V.92, 56K ref is so one-sided that regulation is not even mentioned. Not one word. This under valuation of the "regulation's" importance is typical, as we predict. )

True, "there never was a faster standard dialup speed," we agree. What's the argument? The FCC regulation capped the dialup modem's max speed to 56k (53K). Yet at the time most if not all internal modems and associated software already had the assumed built in faster-yet speed limit settings that were par for the course at that time. For example even now on my WinXP machine, via Control Panel | Phone and Modem Options; my PCI SoftV92 modem has a ...2400, 4800, 9600, 19200, 38400, 57600 (56K) and a 115200bps setting for Maximum Port Speed, choose one. I have it set to 115200, but since no ISP would dare risk a violation, yes that higher speed is impossible, as the Internet circularly argues over and over. All that is needed to change speed limits is to change the software setup settings or via (live) AT commands, and a willing partner to connect with. But the corporate line today is; "our phone lines can't handle that speed," but whoops, if you pay the phone company rather than a local ISP, those phone lines are just dandy, —such a happy coincidence. The official defense is, the phone giants' lobbying firms? well,...don't bother your pretty little heads with dusty old economic theory, —what are you a conspiracy nut?...a Commie?

quotes: ...1971 article, “The Theory of Economic Regulation,” ... “capture theory.” Stigler argued that governments ...regulate at the behest of producers who “capture” the regulatory agency and use regulation to prevent competition. ...(for his) work on the effects and causes of regulation, Stigler was awarded the 1982 Nobel Prize for economics.

Before the FCC regulation, every year or so, like clockwork modem speeds had been increasing by a factor of 1.5 or 2. Once my new computer's modem speed increased by 5X over my old. Everyone I knew was shocked by the reg. (I'm making the same and other arguments at wiki Talk:56_kbit/s_modem, Is 56 kbit/s really the fastest?.)

Given all this, I believe the editor needs more to go on than his listed truism and the telco supported conventional wisdom for his edit. Put another way, I have yet to see a concise and logical argument anywhere that supports the claim that the current 56K limit is not largely derived from, or a function of the FCC regulation. Therefore I intend to revert the article back, (as supported by those refs,) unless stronger evidence or a convincing argument is made. I'm thinking of Winston Smith's memory hole. Prudence and extra effort is needed here because most of the authorities and experts are from the very industry with interests in devaluing the importance of regulation and in overvaluing physical speed limits.
--68.127.94.194 (talk) 12:18, 28 June 2012 (UTC)Doug Bashford

Alas, certain points are sometimes confused. Some editors may fail to understand the distinction between Telephone line in the sense of Twisted pair and DS0. The former has no general limit but varies in particular cases depending on various factors including Wire gauge, Local loop length, and most dramatically the presence or absence of Load coils. DS0 is much less elastic. The distinctions among various Bit rates, particularly between the line rate and the serial port rate, is also sometimes lost. A few hours of studying Wikipedia articles and their external links ought to clear up those points. As for the question of whether I'm a Commie or a Conspiracy theorist, I figure my own User:Jim.henderson page discloses whatever information may be relevant to the editorial process. Editors and acquaintances are free to feel as shocked as they like. Jim.henderson (talk) 03:33, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry; I must apologize for using so many words on a question irrelevant here. Absent objections, I intend to remove from the article all mention of dial-up or modem or connection speed or FCC. Jim.henderson (talk) 22:37, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry Mr. Henderson defensively thought my joke about "conspiracy nuts" and Commies was directed as an accusation at him or other phone company employees. To the contrary, I was attempting to mimic or illustrate your boss' propaganda directed towards anybody crazy enough to not mindlessly tow the unchallenged monopoly line. Along those lines, I find it irritating that Mr. Henderson finds it so easy to resort to the fallacy of Appeal to Authority, particularly since he thinks he is one. Should I enter his pissing contest by noting that as one of my job responsibilities; I used to work on "dedicated, conditioned data lines" back when that's what was needed to achieve 2400 baud? I hope we can avoid that, and rather use Wiki approved criteria. However, one must wonder if Mr Henderson should not in fairness, recuse himself from this, for reasons I've noted, rather than following his historical attachment and (I presume) his related loyal bias.
I had predicted that due to vested/emotional interests that "the phoneCo" would desire to "remove from the article all mention of dial-up or modem or connection speed or FCC" ... unflattering historical facts. (But I had also expected some reasoning or argument.) I intend to put it and my deleted references back. And unlike Mr. Henderson, it won't be unsupported; "because I said so! Hrumph..." I hope we can avoid the bullying techniques Mr. Henderson finds so amusing on his User Page, and the browbeating seen here —I do hope we can avoid similar unproductive wheelspinning.
--69.110.88.186 (talk) 21:52, 7 July 2012 (UTC)Doug Bashford

Yes, the anonymous Appeal to motive is long and amusing, but off topic. Eagerly awaiting news as to how the proposed restorations would be relevant to the topic of the article, and how these remarks will advance Wikipedia:Talk_page#How_to_use_article_talk_pages. Jim.henderson (talk) 10:01, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Accurate prediction of future behavior is sometimes seen as a sign of full understanding. Explain again how are the proposed restorations are relevant to Personal Web Pages? Why certainly! In good faith and to remain positive I'll answer your question and hope in return that this time you'll answer mine rather than leave me guessing again. As already implied or argued in the article, the historical development of Personal Web Pages depended/depends on the environment, —including disk size allotment, user/author cost and availability, (dial-up) modem speed, (thus the FCC Modem speed (as power & V90) regulations), and the (motivations of the ) root owner/host of the personal Web page —can all affect the contents and feel of that web page, as well as who the author of that site is likely to be. Again, the many local dial-up Mom and Pop ISPs provided a particular environment to their Web page authors. Again, they were killed off by speed limitations caused in part by FCC regulations. As their environment changes, Personal Web Pages (our main topic!) are influenced. These factors are 1) intertwined, interconnected 2) interesting, 3) germane, 4) historical facts. As you know, Wikipedia desires all of those, (and "controversies" too). That's how. My question to you is, out of my long additions/edit, how is it you happened to zero in on those particular double-referenced keystone facts for deletion? To be frank, that you find "all mention of dial-up or modem or connection speed or FCC" to be "irrelevant," I find stunning and unfathomable, (if not suspect). If you continue to refuse to enunciate the reasoning behind your objections and edits in a logical, meaningful way, how will I know how to respond to them? By wild guesses? Put another way; 1) my referenced facts trump your unsupported claims and original research, and 2) I believe deletions generally carry the burden of proof.
--69.110.88.186 (talk) 09:29, 9 July 2012 (UTC)Doug Bashford
Did I misunderstand you? If you actually want me to further enunciate how dial-up or modem or connection speed or FCC were relevant to the creation and forming of personal Home pages, I would be happy to. Can you be more specific?
--69.110.88.186 (talk) 09:58, 9 July 2012 (UTC)Doug Bashford
Sorry to be so late getting back; saw an unexpected opportunity to trim my overgrown WP:WATCHLIST and the hours given to that project will save minutes every day. Also I apologize for using the word "irrelevant" alone, without expanding it to "irrelevant here" or better yet going into detail about comparative relevance among articles. I shan't address the historical argument but rather reserve it for a more appropriate venue, for example Talk:Federal Communications Commission or Talk:Modem. Perhaps even Talk:History of telecommunication or Talk:Voiceband (currently unused) would serve at least in part, or better ones may be found by the industrious.
The question of relevance is of course relevant here. Yes, everything in the world is interconnected, intertwined, and that's why we have Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking. Historical facts are many, but the question of which facts, theories or assertions belong where remains. The arguments above, valid or not, present a long chain of alleged causation through the purviews of Dial-up Internet access, Look and feel, Internet service provider, Local loop and others, none of which, far as I see, mentions this matter. Clearly some of these would be the wrong place for the contention, but surely some would be a better choice than the current one. Why, for example, is the present article more suited to the purpose than the ISP one?
Oh, and a burden of proof approximating, if in doubt leave it in? Complaints already abound that Wikipedia articles are stuffed with frivolous, tendentious arguments; imagine how such a policy would improve it. Jim.henderson (talk) 18:54, 10 July 2012 (UTC)