User talk:Jmccormac

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


Hello, Jmccormac, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! 

Djegan 23:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Satellite television[edit]

Just a headsup, that I changed the external link to a reference here. --GraemeL (talk) 22:52, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

That's a better way of doing it. The site is listed in the reference URLs (the Lyngemark one) at the end of the article but everyone tends to call it Lyngsat. Jmccormac (talk) 23:21, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Your edit to the article Galaxy 19[edit]

Why in the world would you remove the {{Reflist}} template?? Debresser (talk) 13:53, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Slight overkill. I was removing link spam at the time and I must have removed it by accident. A spammer had hit a lot of the satellite related pages around 1241 today. Jmccormac (talk) 15:03, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

County Waterford[edit]

Hi there, I notice you undid my removal of links. I had removed two of three links to sites maintained by Waterford County Council and one of two links to Waterford County Museum. The other one was to the Catholic Diocese of Waterford and Lismore. While it could be argued that the Invest in Waterford link might be worth keeping, I can't see a justification for the others? What do you think? Nelson50T 11:26, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The photo exhibition is quite unique as it covers the history of Waterford city and county. I consider the links to be important. The link to the Diocese website is also relevant to the article. Jmccormac (talk) 01:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

May 2010[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on List of domain name registrars. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Me-123567-Me (talk) 14:50, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Be that as it may, that's what the article talk page is for. Perhaps others would like to change the over-all structure of the list. So you need to try to reach a consensus. --Me-123567-Me (talk) 16:20, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
I submitted your request for page semi-protection to the proper place. --Me-123567-Me (talk) 16:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. The page has had problems in the past but this was a different attempt to dump 500 registrars into a top 30 list. This went far beyond fair use of's data. If others want to change the format then this is fine and it can be worked out on the talk page. Jmccormac (talk) 16:31, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Domain Hacks / .am / ccTLD[edit]

Hey, first of all, why are you on purposely destroying my productive work and “flag” as “spam” which is nothing more than an insult on another person in your case. Second, what makes you an expert on these topics?

If the majority of all other ccTLD domain hacks given on a particular page show good examples, why don’t you allow Armenia to give some precise samples as well (it used to before). Do you have a problem with that country or are you just trying to annoy other people for self-satisfied fun? AND if you you do not like 1 out of 3 corrected procedures on one particular page, don't mark all of the work as spam (at the same time) if you disagree with just one sample (out of 3 edits) but mis-judge the other 2. Your corr-work is extremely biased and inconsistent. Peace! Racingfanq 22:50, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Because your work largely involves placing a reference to the domain which you appear to own into the ccTLD page and also on the .am ccTLD page. The domain is a domain hack and not exactly notable enough to be included on the .am ccTLD page or the Country Code Top Level Domain page. You have also done something similar with - another domain that you appear to own. Repeatedly placing links to your own domains in Wikipedia is considered spamming. Wikipedia is not a links directory. Jmccormac (talk) 12:07, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
you "appear" to be wrong. If I'd own any of these domains, do you think I'd be farten around wiki, instead of making money off of them? But how many ccTLDs throughout the globe do you know that allow single letter domain registrations? And if I'd own them, why would I go through the hazzle of interlinking them with another wiki-page, instead of ext.??? HELLOO! Many people just do not know that single letter registrations are even possible e.g. gTLD .pro doesn't allow 3-letter domains underneath first level (.at has a 3 letter minimum criteria). I just find them pretty cool and meaningful domains and you apparently are the only person on wiki who "appears" to not like these examples. Instead of correcting the other mistakes on that particular page (and there are many), you are on a personal vendetta (envious) over nothing and just target what you believe is obvious (even if I'd own these domains, or if I knew the people owning them - which would be nice, too). Again, you are mistaken. But your actions are some of the reasons, why wiki becomes less popular with people. Too many wanna-be admins and their holier-than-thou correctional manouvers. Oh, and btw. how about looking up the textbook definition of "Spamming" and not what some 15 years olds wrote on wiki. Cheers, Racingfanq 18:15, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Putting domain hacks on the ccTLD page entry for a ccTLD is a bit much. There is a whole page on domain hacks were people seem to add as many domain hacks as they like. The .pro is not a ccTLD. It originally started out as a TLD for professionals but it got overtaken by .com and the rise of the ccTLDs to such an extent that it had to diversify. The whole issue of one letter and two letter domains in ccTLDs is problematic. Because the ccTLD registries are effectively self-governing, they can set their own policies on these domains. With the gTLDs, there is an ICANN consultation process that has to be undertaken before any such change can be made. Some of the smaller ccTLDs use one letter and two letter domains to build registration volume. Sometimes these short domains are used for url shortners, or being the more notable for their widespread use. That's the real test for inclusion - notability. While might be cool and interesting to you, is it notable to others for some reason? The page is just a holding page for the domain with no content. Now you may think that is notable but there are millions of holding page websites on the web. If you really want to do something worthwhile for the ccTLD page then make a list of all ccTLDs where one letter domain name registrations are permitted. Jmccormac (talk) 00:05, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
It's not like I started with it. The "Commercial and vanity use" section of the same ccTLD info page is full of domain hacks! And although is not even a working domain name with a functional website behind it, you leave it on wiki while you just don't seem to like me personally putting as an example on there ;-) (which at least shows something). Though, I see your point and acknowledge your very professional answer! Good Luck! Racingfanq 07:51, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
I believe is both notable and useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Certifiedpublic (talkcontribs) 11:41, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
But it is not really a domain hack and has been removed a few times before now. A domain hack would be more of the form as it has a more obvious word order. Jmccormac (talk) 12:35, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

You have removed few samples of domain hacks from .gs. Many ccTLD pages have "hack" sections. For many of them, for instance, .ly or .me that is a bragging point. Domain hacks are part of the game, why would you remove them? Disclaimer:,, - are all popular sites, not owned by me. Wikipidyst (talk) 4:30, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Because ccTLD pages should be for the ccTLD data. It is ok to say that the ccTLD is used for domain hacks but Domain hacks have their own page and it enough just to cite that link rather than adding examples. Otherwise everyone with a domain hack in a particular ccTLD will want it listed on that ccTLD's page and Wikipedia is not a links directory. Jmccormac (talk) 03:54, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Not vandalism[edit]

Please do not call my edits "persistent vandalism" unless you are ready to report me and ask for page protection. You must provide a source for text added to an article and my removal of your unsourced opinion is NOT vandalism. —danhash (talk) 15:50, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

You are not an expert in analogue TV encryption systems. Your persistent removal of the comment that the scrambling system used in the image was possibly VideoCipher II or ORION was unhelpful and lessened the usefulness of the article. Both these systems have a very precise appearance in their scrambled format and this would have been obvious to people familiar with the subject and the systems. The references cited do tend to settle the issue. Jmccormac (talk) 16:17, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
WP:V. —danhash (talk) 16:27, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Removing the mentions of VideoCipher II and ORION was one thing but when you removed the small technical explanation, that was quite another. It crossed the boundary, in my opinion, between a good faith edit and petty vandalism. Jmccormac (talk) 16:41, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
What lessens the usefulness of the article is an ambiguous, unsourced statement that appears unprofessional and unencyclopedic. It is true that I am not an expert an analog TV encryption systems, but that is irrelevant. Your statement was not verifiable; it wasn't even a specific statement. If you are such an expert then you should be able to find a source. Besides, it does not matter how much of an expert you are if you do not follow policy, especially verifiability. This should not be news to you. I removed the statement with an edit summary of rm "(possibly VideoCipher II or Oak ORION)" as speculative and unsourced. You reverted my edit with the comment "Not speculative when an expert said so!" BUT there was no source, so no expert was cited as saying it, which I pointed out. You evensaid in an edit summary "I think that the image is that of a VideoCipher II signal", but an edit summary is NOT a citation. You typed an ISBN number as an edit summary when you again added the information back, but again, an edit summary is NOT a citation. After my second (very justified!) revert youcalled me a vandal. There is no point in trying to justify your accusation; don't do it again. —danhash (talk) 16:45, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
You reverted the technical explanation as well as the VideoCipher II/ORION mention. That's why it was petty vandalism. As I stated earlier, you are not an expert on analogue TV encryption systems. While Wikipedia encourages people to edit boldy, there is a line between ignorance and knowledge. Your edit removed that knowledge and that was unacceptable. Now kindly go back to finding Oxford commas to bother. Jmccormac (talk) 16:59, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Your "explanation" was (possibly VideoCipher II or Oak ORION and the horizontal and vertical synch signal has been replaced by digital data with the effect that the picture is not properly displayed on the TV screen.) which is simply more unsourced information. Take a look at WP:V; it does NOT matter if the information you add is "true". There is a lot of true information not on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is verifiable. Perhaps you should read WP:Expert editors, particularly No editor is exempt from fundamental Wikipedia policies concerning acceptability of contributions; in particular, the policies of no original research and verifiability along with guidelines such as reliable sources still apply. Unsourced "expert opinion" and unpublished conjecture have no place in an encyclopedia. (emphasis added) You can argue all day long that your edits should stay just because they are "true" or "valuable", but you will hit a brick wall here at Wikipedia. Good luck. —danhash (talk) 17:31, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
They were accurate and verifiable. They even had citations to back them up. There are even patents that can be cited too but that would be overkill. What you don't seem to understand is that Wikipedia depends on the contributions of people. It is not there for you to get some sense of "power" in editing grammar or punctuation, or citing rules like some jobsworth bureaucrat. As the work is voluntary, the timelines are not those of ordinary publishing and people aperiodically edit articles. This means that content will appear before citations. The proper Wikipedia approach, from what I remember, would have been to flag the image for discussion on the article's talk page instead of wading in to delete information. Had you demonstrated this elementary Wikipedian politeness, then this problem would not have arisen. Jmccormac (talk) 10:03, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Minor edits[edit]

You have marked almost every one of your last 500 edits as minor, including every single edit to Television encryption. Please see Help:Minor edit for correct use of the minor edit check box. Thanks. —danhash (talk) 17:39, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

It is my natural sense of humility. Jmccormac (talk) 17:55, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Nobody can physically force you to follow policy; I just wanted to inform you since you do not seem familiar with our policies here. —danhash (talk) 18:00, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Invitation to wikiFeed[edit]

Hi Jmccormac,

I'm part of a team that is researching ways to help Wikipedia editors find interesting content to contribute to Wikipedia. More specifically, we are investigating whether content from news sources can be used to enhance Wikipedia editing. We have created a tool, called wikiFeed, that allows you to specify Twitter and/or RSS feeds from news sources that are interesting to you. wikiFeed then helps you make connections between those feeds and Wikipedia articles. We believe that using this tool may be a lot of fun, and may help you come up with some ideas on how to contribute to Wikipedia in ways that interest you. Please participate! To do so, complete this survey and follow this link to our website. Once you're there, click the "create an account" link to get started.

For more information about wikiFeed, visit our project page. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask via my talk page, or by email at We appreciate your time and hope you enjoy playing with wikiFeed!

Thanks! RachulAdmas (talk) 21:37, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

URL Shortening wiki[edit]

Hey Jmccormac, why did you undo my edit? It was a minor edit that did not and will not affect the page in any way shape or form. I'm going to undo what you did and I hope you don't ruin it for me, please. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shrtin (talkcontribs) 09:00, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a links directory and only notable examples are used in that article. The examples are marked as no-follow for search engines anyway. The rules on adding links are listed here: WP:NOTDIR , WP:EL and WP:LINKFARM. Somebody else has already reverted your change to the page. Jmccormac (talk) 12:47, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Domain Tasting[edit]

You've already reverted that article twice. Please don't do it a third time or I will report you. I've added substantial references and I invite you to discuss on the Domain Tasting Talk page. Corwin8 (talk) 04:11, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I did reply on the Domain Tasting talk page - you obviously didn't read the reply. You are simply wrong that Domain Tasting's primary use has been for spam. ICANN, Google and all the references disagree with your opinion. The main use of Domain Tasting was for monetisation of tasted domains with PPC adverts. is just a blog and is not considered, in Wikipedia terms, a reliable source WP:RS. The reality is that ICANN had to stop Domain Tasting by making it financially non-viable for domain tasters who were registering and dropping millions of domains each month within the Add Grace Period and thus not having to pay for the registrations. Jmccormac (talk) 06:19, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

TLDs and ccTLDs[edit]

As a matter of interest, how long have you been involved with internet technology? Were you around for the browser wars? when html was invented? when the ccTLDs were introduced? the OSI stack v TSP/IP war? Packet switching v circuit switching? Smart v dumb terminals? --Red King (talk) 22:49, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Too damned long. :) In real life, I work with domain names and domain name statistics almost every day and that would include working with sets of approximately 20 million ccTLD domains (eu/uk/ie/de/fr and some other EU tlds along with co and us) and most of the main TLDs and gTLDs. Jmccormac (talk) 23:01, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Pirate decryption/card sharing[edit]

I reverted your edit the Pirate decryption article and added an explanation. There is a limit to the number of possible receivers due to the latency of the network (the time taken for the data from the server to travel to the receiver) and the period between the updated keys. If the latency is greater than the period between the updated keys, the receiver/decoder will miss a key and the signal may become encoded again. With large cable ISP networks, it may work well but on high-latency connections, it will not be as effective. Still though, it is not bad for a hack that's over twenty years old. Jmccormac (talk) 12:02, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Keys are broadcast on the internet, just like a radio station broadcasts over the airwaves there is no limit to how many radios can be tuned in to the station, there is no limit as to how many card sharing devices can be subscribed to the feed. Latency, period between updates are all irrelevant to as to how many can receive the key. It is not a "request/response" type system like getting a webpage, it is a broadcast subscription, they key is "always steaming" to an authorized receiver. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Notwillywanka (talkcontribs) 23:26, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

No. There are limitations. The card client has to receive the decryption key with in a specific timeframe or the decoder stops decrypting the signal. If the latency is an issue because if it is high, then the card client might miss a key. Therefore it works better on networks where the card server and the card client are on the same ISP or are, in network terms, close. This can localise the card sharing networks. Naturally it works well on larger ISPs but even then, the number of clients on a card sharing network will be limited by another factor - the probability of detection. If the number of clients on a card sharing network grows too large, then the probability of that network being detected increases. Thus it is far more effective for anyone operating a card sharing network to maintain limited numbers per card server as it reduces the risk of detection and, should it be detected, the time it would take to recover from the detection. I am familiar with this hack and the issues surrounding its effectiveness. Jmccormac (talk) 00:54, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

July 2014[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm Qxukhgiels. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Satellite television without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. read the sources and you will see that the text in the article has been significantly modified from that of the sources Qxukhgiels (talk) 22:38, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I removed and reverted it because you have scraped content from other websites, some of which have themselves taken content from other sources. Scraping content from websites and pasting it in an article is not what Wikipedia is about. Some of the references are just blogs and low quality content farms with no expertise in the field and some are just even using the same text in order to drop their links on Wikipedia. They are not considered reliable sources (WP:RS). Some of the newspaper refs are ok but they are out of place. Merely scraping content and changing a few words while leaving the much of the content the same is still plagiarism. Jmccormac (talk) 07:27, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for adding better sources at Satellite television- in case you haven't already figured out, when it comes to STV in the US, I do not have access to some of the better sources. But I noticed in some edits such as [1] [2] [3] you removed some content and references in the article without explaining why in the edit summary. If you remove a reference, please replace it with a better one. Having not explained your changes, your edits look rather pointy. Also, please use proper citation templates for references.Qxukhgiels (talk) 18:52, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually it looks like you only have access to web based sources. Satellite TV developed in the US, Europe, the USSR, Asia and Africa at different rates. In the early days it was a far more global business and a lot of the key players knew each other. Having web only access is a serious disadvantage when writing about such a topic as Satellite TV as there is the technological angle and the human angle. When one writes about the history, it is the human angle that becomes important. Some of the terms used (noise abatement) were clearly wrong as it was a technologically specific term (noise reduction) being misunderstood. In a system, the device will add its own noise to a signal so the less noise added by the device processing the signal the better. Some of the references I removed were bland, non-expert blog posts or barely disguised advertising. Some of the other references are solid enough. The madehow reference was wrong and the content seems to have been copied from a print book from the early 1990s. Some of the references that you are using are not reliable and are from content farms or similar. The stuff from that UKessays site as regards broadcast and programming is wrong and seems to have been written by someone with no knowledge or understanding of the process. It needs to be rewritten with proper references. Jmccormac (talk) 20:25, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
You are claiming that some material is wrong without verifying it with a source. For instance, UK Essays is a professional encyclopedic site- it is recommended as a resource by educational institutions in the UK and is written by professionals. It is also commonly used as a source in Wikipedia articles. I doubt that the material in the essays is actually wrong. You claim that the material is wrong, but haven't yet made an effort to verify this. Like I've already said, if you have any better sources, please add them to the article, but if you think (or know) that an encyclopedic source does not meet WP:V, do not remove it unless you can prove your claim with another verifiable source. Also, it appears that you may be owning this article, as many of your past actions and statements about this topic resemble ownership behaviour.Qxukhgiels (talk) 21:14, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
The bibliography of one of the UKEssays articles lists WP articles, but the bulk of that essay obviously did not come from WP, as content that extensive about the subject has never existed here.Qxukhgiels (talk) 21:18, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 :: Obviously you missed the part where the UKessays reference you used cited the Wikipedia pages that it scraped for its content. You seem to think that it is ok to throw in "references" that have basically scraped Wikipedia. It is not. Intelsat is a better reference on the satellite broadcast chain than some content farmer who wouldn't know one end of a feedhorn from the other. I've used Intelsat as one of the references. I'll also add a few other bluechip references in the next hour or two as some of the non-expert content needs rewriting and referencing. I don't own the article and a few people got it to the stage that it is in at the moment. However it helps when people who are writing about the subject actually know something about it and are not just cut and pasting content without understanding it. Jmccormac (talk) 21:30, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
No, it's obvious that most of that material in the essays did not come from WP, as even a paraphrased version of the bulk of the material in that article does not exist on WP; it was not "scraped" from WP as you say. You can deny me all you want, but the content I added was not cut and pasted; the content in an article should be similar to that of its reference for it to be verifiable, but not exactly alike. Any changes you make, esp. to referenced content, you must reference. Qxukhgiels (talk) 21:40, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
The UKessays article scraped Wikipedia for its content and even references the specific Wikipedia pages that it scraped for the essay. That is not a reliable source as it is basically feeding Wikipedia back to Wikipedia. You may think that is acceptable but it is not. Now please stop disruptively editing that page when I am trying to add reliable references. Jmccormac (talk) 21:50, 21 July 2014 (UTC)