User talk:75.108.94.227
multi-cites with variable quotation-portions
|
this would be kinda-nice, if it actually worked...
|
|---|
|
This looks like it should work, but does not actually work:
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources/Further_considerations#Using_the_shortened_footnote_template Here is the closest thing I could come up with, to what was desired:
References
- ^ Smith 2005, "Trump declined". sfn error: multiple targets (2×): CITEREFSmith2005 (help)
- ^ Smith 2005, "Gilmore unannounced". sfn error: multiple targets (2×): CITEREFSmith2005 (help)
- ^ Smith 2005, "Huck absent". sfn error: multiple targets (2×): CITEREFSmith2005 (help)
- ^ a b Smith 2005. sfn error: multiple targets (2×): CITEREFSmith2005 (help)
More References
- Smith (2005). "FakeRefTitle".
{{cite web}}: Invalid|ref=harv(help)
Unfortunately, it requires adding the new subsection, and a new referencing-syntax, and is thus likely to be received with horror by anybody interested in Manual-Of-Style compliance and wiki-referencing-syntax consistency. Even worse, I'm taking advantage of a kludge, and putting 'quotation-materials' into the |loc= field of the Template:sfn portion, which stands for 'location' not for 'quotation' and is thus a template-kludge and maybe even template-abuse. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 18:17, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
- Also, I'm not sure that the closest-thing-to-what-might-actually-be-considered-to-work, actually is providing hover-popups... maybe since the
<ref>...</ref>is no longer being utilized? Too bad. Additionally, there is the downside that one *actual* ref (used five places) gets puffed up to look like 4 refs (used 5 places), when it is all the same ref. If that is the case, almost might as well go with repeating the URL in multiple places, since that means you can stick with the more-normal<ref>...</ref>styling of the info. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 18:44, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
list of debate-invite-qualifying polls & pollsters
Ron, debate-invites have gone out to 16 candidates for CNN+Tapper and SalemRadio+Hewitt in mid-September. This is a WP:CHOICE-guided request as usual, but do you have specific info on which polls CNN considers to be "qualifying" aka live interview and 7/15 thru 9/10 and otherwise satisfying their datespan and pollster and methodological restrictions?
- (unlikely(?)) Monmouth U,[1] July 9-12, 2015 (( *polled* before July 16th but released 13th before CNN start-date ))
- (unlikely(?)) SuffolkU/UsaToday,[2] July 9-12, 2015 (( *polled* before July 16th and released 14th, before the CNN start-date ))
- (maybe(?)) Fox News,[3] July 13-15, 2015 (( *polled* before July 16th but released *on* which meets the CNN requirements iff strictly taken literally ))
- #1, ABC/WaPo,[4] July 16–19, 2015
- #2, CNN/ORC,[5] July 22-25 2015
- #3, Quinnipiac,[6] July 23-28 2015 (( also #1 used by FOX for Aug 6th top-ten ))
- #4, WSJ/NBC,[7] July 26-30, 2015
- #5, CBS News,[8] July 29-August 2, 2015 (( also #2 used by FOX for Aug 6th top-ten ... so presumably live-interview, but not clear from PDF))
- #6, Monmouth U,[9] July 30-August 2, 2015 (( also #3 used by FOX for Aug 6th top-ten ))
- #7, Bloomberg,[10] July 30-August 2, 2015 (( also #4 used by FOX for Aug 6th top-ten ))
- #8, Fox News,[11] July 30-August 2, 2015 (( also #5 used by FOX for Aug 6th top-ten ))
- (not(?)) NBC/Survey Monkey,[12] August 7-8, 2015 (( excluded by CNN, presumably, because not a live-interview telephone-based poll ))
Full list here, national polls that wikipedia knows about -- Nationwide_opinion_polling_for_the_Republican_Party_2016_presidential_primaries#Latest_polls. FOX released their five selected polls by name, at the end, but C-SPAN is covering a multi-month range of a couple dozen polls, so may not give out their exact list... but perhaps they give out their list-of-qualifying-polls to campaigns? p.s. Here are the CNN rules, from May; no changes since then, methinks.[13] There was some ambiguity in whether or not e.g. Graham and Pataki would qualify, since if you include zero-percent-poll-nums in their calculation, they average less than 1%, but since CNN has sent out those invite already it seems that simply averging 1% in *any* three qualifying polls is good enough. Gilmore has 1% in one poll, and if he gets 1% twice (or 2% once) before September 10th he will likely be added to the undercard-group, from what I understand. FOX originally had very few firm rules, but as time went by, modified their original stances on invite-criteria pretty significantly; cf the NH forum August 3rd, which was sort of a competition between CSPAN/HearstABC&NBC/grassroots and FOX/DCestab groups for how the primary-debate-season would be run. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 19:23, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
- CNN criteria-tweak bumps Fiorina up to the main stage, as the eleventh candidate (cf FOX rules-rewrite to let Pataki/Graham/Gilmore onto the undercard stage).[14] Also, the rule about maybe-just-top-8 was officially-but-silently removed; it specified that if 15+ qualified it would not apply and 16+ have already qualified-and-been-invited. Another rule was added, about 'must accept format && debate-rules' so apparently there is some internal strife between CNN moderator-questioners and candidates over the arrangements. Finally, newRule7A, aka the BothFiorinaAndChristieRule: "In the event that there is a candidate (or candidates) polling in the top ten in qualifying polls between August 7 and September 10, but not polling in the top ten in polls between July 16 and September 10, that candidate (or candidates) will be added to the debate stage and will appear in 'Segment B' [aka 8pm main event] of the debate." So Christie will NOT be bumped out... but any post-CSPAN-post-FOX polling increases, will put Fiorina onstage at 8pm main event, rather than at 6pm undercard. As of September 1st, CNN claims there will be 'only two' more scheduled polls between ~~9/1 and their cutoff of 9/10, but don't specify which firms are doing the live-major-polls; they *did* mention that between 8/7 and 9/10 they only expect 'five' specific polls (including the two in September) to count under their criteria. Monmouth, which is explicitly included, released a live-major-poll on 9/3, so that only leaves one unknown poll. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 17:21, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
- jul 15 fox 7/13-7/15 , 389 tooSoon * #0F,[15] (released on 16th... may count?)
- jul 19 wapo abc 7/16-7/19 , 341 * #1, [16]
- jul 25 cnn 7/22-7/25 , 419 * #2, [17]
- jul 28 qui 7/23-7/28 , 710 alsoFox * #3, [18]
- jul 30 nbc wsj 7/25-7/30 , 252 onlyCnn * #4, [19]
- aug 2 cbs 7/29-8/2 , 408 jusFox? * #4F,[20] (huffpo does NOT list as live-interview, and methodology not clear from PDF)
- aug 2 monmouth 7/30-8/2 , 423 alsoFox * #5, [21]
- aug 2 bloomberg 7/30-8/2, 500 jusFox? * #5F,[22]
- aug 13 fox 8/11-8/13 , 381 alsoFox * #6, [23]
- aug 16 cnn 8/13-8/16 , 506 * #7, [24]
- aug 25 quin 8/20-8/25 , 666 * #8, [25]
- sep 2 monmouth 8/31-9/2 , 366 * #9, [26]
- sep N lastOfTheFive 9/X-9/Y, ZZZ * #10,LinkTBD
Which means, depending on which polls 'count' and which do not:
nm T_13 T_10 L_4 R_13 R_10 R_4 R_now diff FOX ~CNN diff trum 23.31% 24.00% 26.75% 1 1 1 1 +2 A= 1 A= 1 same bush 11.69% 11.50% 9.25% 2 2 3 2 -2 A= 2 A= 2 same cars 8.08% 8.80% 12.50% 4 4 2 3 +4 A= 5 A= 4 sameOrPlus1 cruz 6.23% 6.70% 7.50% 5 5 4 4 +1 A= 6 A= 5 sameOrPlus1 walk 9.69% 9.30% 5.50% 3 3 6 5 -4 A= 3 A="3" sameOrNeg3 rubi 5.77% 5.60% 5.75% 6 6 5 6 same A= 7 A= 6 +1 huck 5.62% 5.40% 4.25% 7 7 8 7 -1 A= 4 A= 7 -3 paul 4.85% 4.60% 3.25% 8 8 10 8 -1 A= 8 A= 8 same fior 2.08% 2.50% 4.75% 11 11 7 9 +2 u= 14 C="11" +3orMore kasi 3.31% 3.60% 4.00% 9 9 9 10 same A= 10 A= 9 +1 chri 3.31% 3.30% 3.25% 10 10 11 11 same A= 9 B="10" -1 perr 1.92% 2.00% 1.25% 12 12 12 12 -1 u= 11 u= 12 -1 sant 1.23% 1.10% 0.75% 13~~ 14~~ 13 13 same u= 12 y=13 -1 jind 1.10% 1.14% 0.42% 14~~ 13~~ 14 14 -1 u= 13 y=14 -1 pata 0.48% 0.53% 0.42% 15 15 15 15 same z=_16 z=15 +1 grah 0.33% 0.33% 0.00% 16 16 16 16 same z=_15 z=16 -1 gilm 0.10% 0.00% 0.00% 17 17 17 out same z=_17 out out
Only way Fiorina to be booted from the "11th" spot (closer to tied-for-9th-really) is if she gets *zero* percent in the final poll, and Christie *doubles* his recent percentages. Both seem vastly unlikely, so the CNN stage is set. (Also, neither Gilmore nor Everson can get into the undercard now, unless Gilmore happens to score 2% in the final poll, or Everson scores 3% , both of which once again are vastly unlikely now.) 75.108.94.227 (talk) 17:21, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
other TBD efforts
- get fundraising 2016 article out of under-construction status , for q2 info at least
- rescue c.j.pearson from mistaken A7
- finish david coleman rework , check up on purple strategies
- finish discussion with metro90 about christie-backgrounder vs other-backgrounders, debates table-width, and redlinks
- clean up endorsements-page per 'temporary' two-way consensus with bearian , retrieve deleted materials and footnote-ize them
- endorsement list-of-names from ron (sources optional... once I have the names I can easily google for the sources)
- Ron Schnell draft && sources discussion
- If you get around to this draft, consider adding me to WJPZ-FM#Alumni Ron Schnell 20:24, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- (First, an aside... no wonder the queue is stuffed up. What a mess. I'm gonna call for help on the IRC channel, not for your request, but just a general set of eyeballs-needed-on-the-coi-queue-request. Actually, this is some noticeboard for that, COIN is the name I think. Crikey.) Second, what do your wiki-eyeballs tell you about that article, and that subsection? What would User:czar think, were that article to appear under the project-video-games banner? WP:NOTEWORTHY and WP:N are the bailiwicks of wiki-honor. Can I add your name to that list? Maybe, if some newspaper printed that you were a staffer, in the same way that some newspaper printed a story about you being a staffer at NYU, for instance. (After you're done with the wiki-eyeball-training exercise, and have counted the number of WP:SOURCES in which the WJPZ radio-station and its operations are specifically and in depth covered, and counted the number of names for which WP:NOTEWORTHY mention doth exist in the wiki-reliable sources... hark back to WP:IAR. This is the more subtle koan of indeterminacy: if literally nobody on that alum-list is backed up by WP:NOTEWORTHY mention in the wiki-reliable sources, and literally ZERO WP:SOURCES are given to prove that the topic passes WP:N ... which is it the case, that I can say with 100% certainty deep in my wiki-heart, that should WJPZ-FM foolishly be taken to AfD, it would survive with flying colors, Speedy Keep and Snowball Close. ? ?? ??? ...... the answer has little to do with the FCC, is your hint. What about the article WJPZ-FS is good for wikipedia, so much so that WP:IAR is used to bang-keep the topic, even when WP:N is so blatantly obviously violated? Here endeth the lesson. Thou shalt not count to four. Five -- is right out. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 20:44, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- Ping (I thought you were *my* anon!). You are in high demand now, so I have to keep your attention. Ron Schnell 22:15, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
- (First, an aside... no wonder the queue is stuffed up. What a mess. I'm gonna call for help on the IRC channel, not for your request, but just a general set of eyeballs-needed-on-the-coi-queue-request. Actually, this is some noticeboard for that, COIN is the name I think. Crikey.) Second, what do your wiki-eyeballs tell you about that article, and that subsection? What would User:czar think, were that article to appear under the project-video-games banner? WP:NOTEWORTHY and WP:N are the bailiwicks of wiki-honor. Can I add your name to that list? Maybe, if some newspaper printed that you were a staffer, in the same way that some newspaper printed a story about you being a staffer at NYU, for instance. (After you're done with the wiki-eyeball-training exercise, and have counted the number of WP:SOURCES in which the WJPZ radio-station and its operations are specifically and in depth covered, and counted the number of names for which WP:NOTEWORTHY mention doth exist in the wiki-reliable sources... hark back to WP:IAR. This is the more subtle koan of indeterminacy: if literally nobody on that alum-list is backed up by WP:NOTEWORTHY mention in the wiki-reliable sources, and literally ZERO WP:SOURCES are given to prove that the topic passes WP:N ... which is it the case, that I can say with 100% certainty deep in my wiki-heart, that should WJPZ-FM foolishly be taken to AfD, it would survive with flying colors, Speedy Keep and Snowball Close. ? ?? ??? ...... the answer has little to do with the FCC, is your hint. What about the article WJPZ-FS is good for wikipedia, so much so that WP:IAR is used to bang-keep the topic, even when WP:N is so blatantly obviously violated? Here endeth the lesson. Thou shalt not count to four. Five -- is right out. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 20:44, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- If you get around to this draft, consider adding me to WJPZ-FM#Alumni Ron Schnell 20:24, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- book-review-related sources
- additional "forum"-dates that might be scheduled , similar to the C-SPAN/ABC/NBC/CBS one August 3rd, only quasi-sanctioned by the RNC, albeit on a technicality
- loose ends about video-embed chitchat about bugs & legality
- which polls are 'qualifying' in terms of debate-invites?
- artspeak & logo in Computer Art(sp?)
- see if maclisp'83 backup-tape of MIT-EECS or MIT-OZ can be located
- have Sophia request cleanup of User account Theparadoxuk
- pass along this[27] to phil&sophia, but note "BandX is da best folkmusic in Denver" is only slightly worse than "BandX is well-regarded important contributor to Denver folkscene" , and until & unless you have wiki-reliable indep src that says EXACTLY such things, simple boring just-the-facts prose is mandatory: "BandX is a folk group in Denver" is unlikely to be challenged, whereas best/regarded/important/etc is WP:PUFFERY unless backed by WP:SOURCES
- check michael elliott and ONE for spamvert insertions
- fun: revive SETL codebase, possibly port to Arc/Clojure/similar, automap or breadcrumb for python port , convert python port into browser game, upgrade python port to handle text-to-speech && voice commands as an APK
- old stuff, July ~1st thru August 12th == https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:75.108.94.227&oldid=675861181
- useful link , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation/Redirects , hat tip to Howicus
- welcome to wikipedia: afc, afd, ref, jpg, oh if only 'twere so
taking a stab at dunnet (video game)
sentence#1
|
|---|
Back to Dunnet...are you going to take a stab at the article rewrite? I added to the Dunnet section of my ronnie.html to mention DUNGEON.STL, btw. Ron Schnell 04:37, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Or words of your own to that effect. After you save your dunnet-talkpage-message, stick in the appropriate template-thing above it, helpdocs at Template:Request_edit, to send out a ping to the reviewer-queue. We will see how fast this sentence gets reviewed and inserted into mainspace; not only does it correct some grammar bugz, it also has some factual corrections, and of course, adds sources to back up the info. If the reviewer forgets to put in the {{notelist}} stuff, that is fine, don't bug them about it; you can do it or I can do it later (such a change would count as a "grammar fix" type of correction where WP:COI matters little). I also think it makes sense to leave the reviewer some usertalk links, so they understand that you didn't just zoom to wiki-ref-wizard out of the blue, but are learning the ropes with some help from 75108. Per my advice to User:heatherer linked above, it is best to keep your wp-coi-edit-requests as short and sweet as possible, and give the reviewer something they can eyeball, then cut-n-paste directly into mainspace, with as little pain on their part as possible. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 14:58, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
|
- Per the tension between WP:NORUSH and WP:TIAD, here is some additional homework, for tonight or tomorrow or in a month. Or, feel free to ignore it. ;-) Methinks we should also go pentium on the reviewers, and start making additional sentence-correction-talkpage-suggestions, whilst we wait for a reviewer-response to our first sentence-rewrite. Just leave the wp-coi-edit-request thing on one of the suggestions at a time, however. Some reviewers will look over all of them at once, but we don't want to scare away the ones that just are looking for a five-minute-project. These were the other low-hanging-fruit ones that jumped out at me, last time I looked:
- * The game has been recommended to writers considering writing interactive fiction.(ref)http://www.getmewriting.com/interactive-fiction/intro-to-interactive-fiction/(/ref)
- * There are many subtle jokes in this game, and there are multiple ways of ending the game.
- * The game is easily "hackable", since the savefile is stored in plain text.
- * Alternatively, there are plenty of sentences that could be *added* to mainspace. See my rough suggestions.
- Several of these upgrades are straightforward (to my wiki-eyes anyways), one or two of them require a bit more finesse. And of course, if you have ideas about what you want changed, feel free to suggest orthogonally, either to me, or if you'd rather, to a wp-coi-edit-reviewer person. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 15:53, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
- Oh, and if you like, ping RMS to let him know about the grammar fail in the 17th edition, namely "
M-x dunnetruns an[sic] text-based adventure game."[28] (isbn #978-0-9831592-5-4). My understanding is he doesn't use a browser, although that may have changed. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 16:00, 13 August 2015 (UTC)- Didn't need to ping rms for that. I fixed it myself. Ron Schnell 16:55, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
- Handy to have commit-access to the emacs repo, eh? I have some *other* not-so-uncontroversial requests for emacs upgrades ... scrap max buffer size limitation ... scrap regex based syntax hilite ... cua-mode unless told otherwise ... default at launch should have tetris.el open in the 2nd buffer-tab and dunnet.el open in the 3rd buffer-tab ... find and replace all helpdoc use of "buffer" with instead "tab" ... hmmmm. Well, you prolly won't keep your commit bits very long, if you listen to the likes of me, so I suggest you just ignore that last bit. Thanks for fixing the typo though, appreciated. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 17:16, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
- Didn't need to ping rms for that. I fixed it myself. Ron Schnell 16:55, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
- Oh, and if you like, ping RMS to let him know about the grammar fail in the 17th edition, namely "
rationale n motivation
|
|---|
|
- I did the first one. Ron Schnell 02:37, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi again Ron, so okay, there is now a new section on the dunnet talkpage, requesting an edit, and it looks decent. You could stick some asterisks in front of the 'old' and the 'new' sentence-portions, like there is an asterisk in front of the 'diff' sentence-portion. But the key part is, unless you want to wait until somebody happens to visit the dunnet talkpage by sheer luck, you have to paste in {{request edit}} into the edit-textarea, then click save. This will make a little popup-box-appear, saying "user aviators99 has requested an edit" and will send out the magic-sonar-ping-thing to the reviewer-queue. I cannot stick the thing in for you very easily, because then they would think I was the one with dunnet-COI, which I am not (although I am WP:INVOLVED). Here is the helpdocs, which explain the different types of curlycurly syntax that can be used with this mechanism -- Template:request_edit. Follow the helpdocs, paste in the sixteen ascii chars, and your request will be in the queue. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 03:48, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
- I've fixed up the external links to be more formal, and removed this one per WP:ELNO#11 -- https://www.iit.bme.hu/~salvi/archive/texts/dunnet-walkthrough.txt , backup at https://archive.is/BYHZe -- the site is still live, however, and if you think the walkthru is valid, I suggest linking to it from driver-aces (if memory serves you already have another walkthru linked from your dunnet.html subpage so this one could be added there). 75.108.94.227 (talk) 04:08, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
- That "other walkthru" is still available externally, as well. https://web.archive.org/web/20051202042716/http://www.student.cs.uwaterloo.ca/~y7xu/dunnet.txt There was also www.yarou.org/dunnet.txt (same content?) at one point. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 15:07, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not a fan of walkthrus. If you think it's important to have one in there, I'll bow to your non-WP:COI judgment. Ron Schnell 15:38, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
- Clarify, I'm listing the URL here because I removed it from mainspace, because wikipedia doesn't[citation needed] link to walkthru fansites. Well, in theory. In practice many video-game articles do exactly that, in violation of this particular one of our gazillion wiki-policies. Since we're trying to make dunnet clean and bulletproof, plus wiki-train you about some of the key wiki-policies, I documented that #1) I was removing the URL and #2) the wiki-basis was WP:ELNO#11. Having removed the URL from mainspace, I went ahead and copied said URL here onto usertalk, since I remembered you had the sunKong99's(sp?) tips-n-tricks file up on driverAces already, so that (if you wanted to) you could also put the URL to the www.iit.bme.hu stuff, on your own driverAces website (since it's getting "deleted" from wikipedia aka filed away in the page-edit-history and usertalk pages and thus no longer visible in mainspace). Up to you though, that's your website, even asking for the id= tag is beyond the pale except for WP:IAR. ;-) All make sense now?
- And, p.s. you have competition from Stephen Colbert.[30] Best, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 16:06, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
- Clarify, I'm listing the URL here because I removed it from mainspace, because wikipedia doesn't[citation needed] link to walkthru fansites. Well, in theory. In practice many video-game articles do exactly that, in violation of this particular one of our gazillion wiki-policies. Since we're trying to make dunnet clean and bulletproof, plus wiki-train you about some of the key wiki-policies, I documented that #1) I was removing the URL and #2) the wiki-basis was WP:ELNO#11. Having removed the URL from mainspace, I went ahead and copied said URL here onto usertalk, since I remembered you had the sunKong99's(sp?) tips-n-tricks file up on driverAces already, so that (if you wanted to) you could also put the URL to the www.iit.bme.hu stuff, on your own driverAces website (since it's getting "deleted" from wikipedia aka filed away in the page-edit-history and usertalk pages and thus no longer visible in mainspace). Up to you though, that's your website, even asking for the id= tag is beyond the pale except for WP:IAR. ;-) All make sense now?
- I'm not a fan of walkthrus. If you think it's important to have one in there, I'll bow to your non-WP:COI judgment. Ron Schnell 15:38, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
- That "other walkthru" is still available externally, as well. https://web.archive.org/web/20051202042716/http://www.student.cs.uwaterloo.ca/~y7xu/dunnet.txt There was also www.yarou.org/dunnet.txt (same content?) at one point. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 15:07, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
- Added here as well,[31] now that the article getting cleaned up. Have we talked about how to WP:WATCHLIST pages, so you get notified via email if something is changed? If so, prolly you should add text adventure to your list. Not sure if there is a way to add just a particular article-subsection, however. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 04:33, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
- Okay, done. (Hopefully it was correct to put the request on the talk page and not the article. If it's wrong, let me know and I'll fix. Ron Schnell 04:41, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah, always on the talkpage-section; and you got it close enough. For future use, the Template-curlycurly thing has to be on a line by itself (sometimes but not always... sigh) or it messes with the section-header. I fixed that bit, so it should be fine now. Here is the place we're requesting an edit, specifically -- Talk:Dunnet_(video_game)#Request_for_editing -- which will probably be answered in something between 1 hour, and 1 week. Depends on how many reviewers have their nose to the grindstone. Usually, once a reviewer shows up the first time, you can just ping their usertalk for subsequent changes, and say "hey can you eyeball my latest suggestion" and as long as you are making it easy on them, they will be happy to help. Oh, and now that you've placed the template-thing, it offers us the *friendly* helpdocs, which I could not find before -- Template:Request_edit/Instructions. Worth a skim.
- That same page also shows that there are 65 requests in the queue... some stuck there since April(!). One of them is for David Coleman, which was a huge edit-request with a dozen sentences all being rewritten at once; I'm working on that, slowly. What matters is the list of ones in August, since those are likely to get attention (i.e. have not been declined or passed by). There is one from the 14th, yours, four from the 13th, two from the 12th, two from the 11th, one 10th, two 9th, and five from the 8th. After that there is a good-sized gap, until one on the 4th and one on the 3rd, and no more in August. Basically, the 'real' queue is just the ones from the 8th thru the 14th, aka the past week or thereabouts, and 16 requests not the nominal 65 claimed by the software. Older than August, and either the request is too much work, or the request is otherwise getting bypassed by potential reviewers. I'll paste the current last-week-o-the-queue here, so we can see how it changes over time.
- Okay, done. (Hopefully it was correct to put the request on the talk page and not the article. If it's wrong, let me know and I'll fix. Ron Schnell 04:41, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
- Added here as well,[31] now that the article getting cleaned up. Have we talked about how to WP:WATCHLIST pages, so you get notified via email if something is changed? If so, prolly you should add text adventure to your list. Not sure if there is a way to add just a particular article-subsection, however. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 04:33, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
coi queue as of 2015-08-14 @ 0400 UTC
|
|---|
|
- In some cases, no reviewer ever shows up; technical problems, or just personnel problems, not sure which. After waiting an appropriate period (three days or a week), if nobody helps, go ahead and ask for help at WP:Q, specifically either at the WP:TEAHOUSE browser-chat-thing, or at the live-help-chat-fka-IRC channel (which is also listed at WP:Q with a click-here-to-connect-via-your-browser option). Once you are at the teahouse, or on IRC, you can explain you have COI, and ask if somebody has time to take a peek at the article URL, which is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dunnet_%28video_game%29#Request_for_editing , in this case. Usually, though, the reviewers will be reasonably prompt and helpful, as long as you make a clear request that is an obvious improvement. There is also some kind of noticeboard, an alternative to the Template:edit_request thing, which is at WP:COIN; I have not seen that used, so I don't know how helpful it is, compared to the normal template-sonar-beacon-thing. Best, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 05:12, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
- I hope I don't look stupid for requesting an edit of one sentence when so many are ripe for fixing... Ron Schnell —Preceding undated comment added 06:02, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
- Nah. You'll just look wiki-proper. And we'll get to the other sentences. Some of which are above, if you feel like messing with some parallelism and speculative execution, while we wait for the reviewer to get to us. WP:NORUSH applies as always though. Better to let the wiki wheels go round their usual way. And if you'd rather do some other wiki-work, see my TBD list, or click the Special:Random button and make a few non-COI-encumbered edits. It can be fun, not just a big pain-in-the-butt, to be a wikipedian. ;-) How goes other parts of life? Did you get some downtime when your family visited, or are you still nose-to-the-grindstone in the post-debate jousting for media-attention? 75.108.94.227 (talk) 06:16, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
- I hope I don't look stupid for requesting an edit of one sentence when so many are ripe for fixing... Ron Schnell —Preceding undated comment added 06:02, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
- In some cases, no reviewer ever shows up; technical problems, or just personnel problems, not sure which. After waiting an appropriate period (three days or a week), if nobody helps, go ahead and ask for help at WP:Q, specifically either at the WP:TEAHOUSE browser-chat-thing, or at the live-help-chat-fka-IRC channel (which is also listed at WP:Q with a click-here-to-connect-via-your-browser option). Once you are at the teahouse, or on IRC, you can explain you have COI, and ask if somebody has time to take a peek at the article URL, which is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dunnet_%28video_game%29#Request_for_editing , in this case. Usually, though, the reviewers will be reasonably prompt and helpful, as long as you make a clear request that is an obvious improvement. There is also some kind of noticeboard, an alternative to the Template:edit_request thing, which is at WP:COIN; I have not seen that used, so I don't know how helpful it is, compared to the normal template-sonar-beacon-thing. Best, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 05:12, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
After cleanup is complete, you should learn to speak Polish. [32] Deletion-discussion, as having insufficient sources. Actually, the one bangvote in favor of keeping Dunnet in the Polish wikipedia also speaks English (and even has an english-username there), so once we finish fixing up Dunnet, suggest you leave them a note.[33] There was also a japanese article at one point, which apparently was translated from enWiki using a cellphone-based editor, which caused copyvio and/or translation-mangling; from what I can understand, the deletion there was because of needs-a-rewrite (*not* a valid deletion-reason on enWiki but might be on jaWiki).[34] 75.108.94.227 (talk) 16:18, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
- Ping Ron, you submitted your edit-request at roughly 2015-08-14 @ 0400 UTC, and it is now 2015-08-15 @ 2100 UTC, which is about 42 hours later. Looking at the coi-edit-request queue, I see that one new request has been added after us in the queue... and zero of the August-requests has been removed from the queue. Conclusion to be drawn? Nobody is working the queue. Action to take?
- Option#1. Well, we could always go with WP:NORUSH. I'm constantly quoting that one, because I really have trouble following it. ;-)
- Option#2. So, alternatively, we can escalate our wp-coi-edit-request, aka engage in some relatively-harmless WP:FORUMSHOPPING since we know in this case that Goodness and Truth are firmly on our side (see WP:IAR and WP:THETRUTH). The most likely place we can recruit some eyeballs, if we seek instant gratification, is here.[35] This is where most of the sekrit wiki-politics stuff happens, in a large series of IRC channels; this particular channel is not wiki-politics, it is a help-editing-channel, 90% populated by people who submit an article about their company/band/videogame(!)/themselves/theirboss/etc, who are seeking experienced advice. It is, on the answering-questions-end, populated at most times (though more during USA-evening-hours than during USA-4am-hours) by roughly twenty admins who enjoy helping folks with tricksy wiki-policy questions and wiki-syntax questions. If you want to try this option, click the link, enter a nickname (it *is* directly tied to your visible-to-channel-squatters IP addr but I don't think you care about that), answer the captcha question, and load the browser-based-IRC-client. You will see a stock helpdocs, and at the bottom of the browser-tab will be a small white textbox; click in the textbox, and type something like:
- Hello, I'm trying to get some help with an edit to add some sources to an article about a videogame I wrote, can somebody please look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dunnet_%28video_game%29#Request_for_editing
- (Option#2 cont'd.) You have to paste the full URL, or at least, it's considered polite, since IRC does not understand wiki-syntax. Also, wait-time before you receive a reply might be several minutes -- 60 seconds to 300 seconds is usual, so don't worry if you get no insta-reply. Also, it is a shared channel, party line telephony-style, so you will see other conversations going on around you, and may in fact drop right into the middle of some ongoing conversations -- don't be alarmed, just shove your question in there, and precede replies to specific people by their nicks. Since I suspect you've prolly used MUDs and IRC before, this is all probably useless advice, but I'll type it in anyways just in case, and later re-use it for somebody that hasn't done such things. :-)
- Option#3. Probably the best option, besides just waiting around, is that we could start servicing the wp-coi-edit-queue ourselves. Anybody can be a reviewer, that is neutral, and knows something about wiki-policies (you are now over-qualified for the position... and I'm probably way-WAY-too-over-qualified... I'll scare more coi-editors away than I'll approve coi-edit-requests. Hey wait... that means I'm perfect for the job! ;-) I recommend we try this option, if you are willing. I predict that nothing will make the real wp-coi-edit-reviewers show up faster, than if we start stepping on their turf, and closing out some of the low-hanging-fruit in the queue.
- If you want to try the service-the-coi-queue-ourselves option, or the WP:Q-based post-your-request-on-IRC option, let me know, so's I can participate (or at least watch the proceedings). I'm also 100% comfy with WP:NORUSH, totally up to you. Best, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 21:38, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
- I just did the Harry & David article on the queue from 7/30. Ron Schnell 00:34, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- Looks good to me. One critique, is make sure to keep the history-of-the-topic around, when possible. The article-prose already had previous CEO Johnson listed as starting in 2011, but did not mention new CEO Lightman yet; you replaced Johnson with Lightman in the infobox up top, which is correct, but it's always good to update the prose with the new changes: "Johnson has been CEO since 2011" gets changes to "Johnson was CEO 2011-2015. Lightman became CEO in 2015" or something along those lines. When you added the "A" arg to the request, that should get it taken out of the queue. You can also leave a "done" message on the article-talkpage, as you did, which is a nice bonus.
- Optional, WP:CHOICE, it is above and beyond the call of wiki-duty, but when the requesting-person is an anon, I also usually leave a note at their usertalk (I did that for Harry&David) so that they have an orange-bar-notification next time they visit the pedia. I also went on a puffery-hunt through the prose, which is sometimes pretty bad for corporate-product-articles. There was not much to prune; the upgraded article was written by 16912_Rhiannon, who I've seen before, and they are decently careful from what I've seen. I took a stab at fixing up Talk:Greylock_Partners, which has about five open WP:COI requests, but did not close any of them yet (though I fixed 3 of 5 in mainspace), as the person was already working with a coi-reviewer. I started on CityData, which has less sources than Dunnet. ;-) At the moment at least. Be aware, Supreme Court of India from Aug 8th does NOT look like low-hanging-fruit... despite being a one-byte change... the 'Registrar' of that entity *is* at the zipcode we have in mainspace (but our street looks wrong?), so the request to change to another zipcode *may* be incorrect (or correct?), but anyways, that one is not a simple 2-minute fix. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 12:03, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
- I just did the Harry & David article on the queue from 7/30. Ron Schnell 00:34, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
not-so-arbitrary section break
Okay, time to re-evaluate our options. Ping Ron. You posted your wp-coi-edit-request on Talk:Dunnet_(video_game) back on the 14th. We waited patiently per WP:NORUSH until the 17th, and then went with option#3 aka cleaning out the stalled wp-coi-edit-queue ourselves. That was a fail: here it is the 24th, and what does the queue look like? There were 20 articles with outstanding wp-coi-edit-requests as of the 14th, making Dunnet roughly #21 in the 'real' queue of recently-active requests. So over the course of ten days, you and myself helped close Harry & David, Secret Cinema (company), and Michigan State University School of Hospitality Business. Also some progress was made on Greylock Partners, City-Data, and African Library Project, in concert with existing wp-coi-reviewers mostly. Analysis, but not yet action, happened on User:JazmineBrenna, Supreme Court of India, Sedona Sky Academy, and Herzliya Medical Center. And perhaps you worked on others as well, that I am not aware of. But in that same ten-day-timeframe, a dozen new wp-coi-edit-requests have been created. I closed one of them that was easy-peasy, but obviously the main point is that the queue is growing faster than it is closing. So, I suggest we escalate, aka option#2_A or maybe option#2_B. Not only is opt#3 of clearing the queue ourselves failing (we stepped on the turf of the real wp-coi-reviewers and yet none appeared!), moreover, the steadily-growing-queue-size suggests that opt#1 aka WP:NORUSH will *also* fail us.
So we'd better ask for help methinks, and while we do that, ask for some additional eyeballs on the wp-coi-request-queue, before it gets even more outlandishly backlogged that it already is. I've already suggested option#2_A before, which is to click this link,[36] open an IRC client in a new tab, and then post a request for help getting your wp-coi-edit-request looked at. " Hello, I'm trying to get some help with an edit to add some sources to an article about a videogame I wrote, can somebody please look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dunnet_%28video_game%29#Request_for_editing " We also additionally now have option#2_B available, which is that we can ask one of the people we met on our travels whilst servicing the wp-coi-edit-queue, if they can look at Dunnet. Usually, for obvious reasons, it is better to ask one of the reviewers we helped out, rather than one of the request-making-folks we helped out. There are a couple names of reviewers I ran across, that might be receptive to usertalk requests that they take a 2-minute peek at Dunnet for us. But since IRC is practically an entire hidden wiki-continent, I suggest we go that route instead, so you have some practice at the mechanics ... and more importantly the wiki-culture ... of making requests on IRC.
And of course, we can always just keep on doing a combination of opt#3 and opt#1, I'm not biased towards a specific course of action here, whatever you like best is what we can iteratively try. And if you're really sick of waiting, we can just ask Czar, they'll help us out, but I'm curious just how dern long your Dunnet-request is gonna stay open, when following the 'normal' wiki-channels rather than short-circuiting the system by making a direct request to somebody you already knew from previous non-wp-coi-edit-request wiki-discussions. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 15:25, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
- My concern is that if it takes this long for this one change (of many), maybe we should request more changes before we seek help? Ron Schnell 19:10, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, we should be requesting more changes, in bite-size-chunks. See my earlier suggestions about exploiting parallelism, and super-scalar CPU architectures; wp-coi-edit-request is like that, it is best thought of as a batch-style programming model, except that you can slip a new card into the deck at the last second... or even after the batch has already started processing. The people at the Talk:African Library Project talkpage seem to understand how that is done. So, absolutely, go ahead and start doing some additional sentence-suggestions, either on usertalk, or directly on Talk:Dunnet (new subsection for each suggested change but group related changes together using subsubsections). But in my experience, once you get a coi-reviewer to accept your first request, and prove to them you aren't wasting time or hurting the 'pedia, they are happy to get a ping on their personal talkpage from time to time, and become the co-stewards of the article. You do all the work, they get all the edit-count glory. ;-) Trouble is finding that person in the first place, and getting the working wiki-relationship started. There is a noticeboard, but it works even less well than I remember! You can also recruit a helper via IRC wikipedia-en-help, or via WP:TEAHOUSE, or via people that have edited the article in the past, or similar. Anyways, I don't think it matters much whether we escalate to IRC now, with a 5-minute-request-for-neutral-eyeballs, or if we start adding more sentence-suggestions now. Up to you, whatever you think will help more. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 13:32, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
- And for an example of what NOT to do, see Talk:Greylock_Partners, where the same coi-editor repeated the exact same request five times in a row, ignoring coi-reviewer comments. ;-) Since you once were under an angel investor in California yourself, mayhap you know something about the history of Greylock, which at one time was an MIT-centric firm in the previous millenium, and is now a Stanford-centric firm in the current millenium? There is an open question about history-of-Greylock-and-their-investment-strategy, if you have a hankering. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 13:45, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, we should be requesting more changes, in bite-size-chunks. See my earlier suggestions about exploiting parallelism, and super-scalar CPU architectures; wp-coi-edit-request is like that, it is best thought of as a batch-style programming model, except that you can slip a new card into the deck at the last second... or even after the batch has already started processing. The people at the Talk:African Library Project talkpage seem to understand how that is done. So, absolutely, go ahead and start doing some additional sentence-suggestions, either on usertalk, or directly on Talk:Dunnet (new subsection for each suggested change but group related changes together using subsubsections). But in my experience, once you get a coi-reviewer to accept your first request, and prove to them you aren't wasting time or hurting the 'pedia, they are happy to get a ping on their personal talkpage from time to time, and become the co-stewards of the article. You do all the work, they get all the edit-count glory. ;-) Trouble is finding that person in the first place, and getting the working wiki-relationship started. There is a noticeboard, but it works even less well than I remember! You can also recruit a helper via IRC wikipedia-en-help, or via WP:TEAHOUSE, or via people that have edited the article in the past, or similar. Anyways, I don't think it matters much whether we escalate to IRC now, with a 5-minute-request-for-neutral-eyeballs, or if we start adding more sentence-suggestions now. Up to you, whatever you think will help more. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 13:32, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
- Also, just noticed (via Twitter) that Jessie Frazelle, who seems to be somewhat notable in the Linux world, did a demo of "Dunnet in a container" at LinuxCon last week. I'm not sure how notable she actually is, but I thought I'd mention it. She has a website with instructions on how to do this at https://hub.docker.com/r/jess/dunnet/~/dockerfile/ Ron Schnell 01:04, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
- Jessie Frazelle has not yet been judged wiki-notable by the wiki-denizens, which as you know is distinct from real-world-notable (or even Linux-real-world-notable). So the question is, did her LinuxCon presentation get published in some kind of WP:SOURCE that we can utilize in mainspace? If yes, and if Dunnet was mentioned therein, that is WP:NOTEWORTHY and we can add a sentence-fragment to mainspace, in the article Dunnet (video game), about the event in question. If Ron Schnell was mentioned, at said event, we can also add the event in question there, although if she only mentions you in passing it is less valuable, though it does show continued interest in your programming work o'course. As for the subtle wp-not-promotional issues: what sort of mention makes sense? Well, that depends on what the WP:SOURCES have to say, kinda sorta. And on which wikipedia article is being discussed! Here is a legit WP:RS about the event:
- Sean Michael Kerner (August 18, 2015). "Docker the Desktop #linuxcon #containercon".
...Jessie Frazelle... works for Docker Inc helping to maintain the open-source Docker project and she uses Docker - everywhere she can. In a session at Linuxcon/ContainerCon here, Frazelle said simply she [is] a person that likes to containerize fun things. Those fun things include a container purpose built to run EMACS, but not for programming, but rather to run the text based game - dunnet. She also uses containers to...
- Sean Michael Kerner (August 18, 2015). "Docker the Desktop #linuxcon #containercon".
- So, there is a lot of stuff about Frazelle, in that source. A lot of stuff about Docker_(software) No mention of Schnell, except indirect, which usually doesn't count per wiki-policies. Brief mention of dunnet, but with the WP:NOTEWORTHY factoids that 1) it is fun according to the journalist speaking in their journalistic voice, as well as according to Jessie Frazelle which is less crucial unless she happens to be a bluelink, and 2) that dunnet is a text-based game which can be run inside EMACS. So this is a source that can be summarized in different ways, depending on what article we are attempting to improve. If we are attempting to improve the Docker_(software) article, the source is valid... but it is pretty promotional, not very neutral. If we are trying to improve the container (virtualization) article, the most relevant bit is that "as of 2015 some companies are trying to promote the use of containers for desktop systems as well as for servers" (but mentioning Frazelle specifically ... or perhaps even Docker specifically ... would be overly-promotional aka spam, in the context of that generic-topic article).
- Jessie Frazelle has not yet been judged wiki-notable by the wiki-denizens, which as you know is distinct from real-world-notable (or even Linux-real-world-notable). So the question is, did her LinuxCon presentation get published in some kind of WP:SOURCE that we can utilize in mainspace? If yes, and if Dunnet was mentioned therein, that is WP:NOTEWORTHY and we can add a sentence-fragment to mainspace, in the article Dunnet (video game), about the event in question. If Ron Schnell was mentioned, at said event, we can also add the event in question there, although if she only mentions you in passing it is less valuable, though it does show continued interest in your programming work o'course. As for the subtle wp-not-promotional issues: what sort of mention makes sense? Well, that depends on what the WP:SOURCES have to say, kinda sorta. And on which wikipedia article is being discussed! Here is a legit WP:RS about the event:
so where (aka which wikipedia articles) do we use this newfound source? and who does the legwork?
|
|---|
|
- Anyways, if you'd like to tackle these ancillary greenbox tasks, go ahead. I stress once again that WP:CHOICE is one of the only mandatory wiki-policies. As for using the source in the Dunnet article, once we have cleaned up the article a bit, and actually *have* a 'reception' subsection, then the InternetNews.com ref saying that Dunnet is "fun" will be able to get inserted. Which brings us back to the question of, do you want to write up some more sentence-suggestions for the dunnet talkpage, or ask for help on IRC, or what? I don't think the ordering much matters, though if we don't go to IRC for our own dunnet-related-request today, I'm still gonna ask for additional eyeballs to help clear the wp-coi-edit-queue, which is starting to be seriously backlogged. WP:NORUSH must be balanced with WP:TIAD. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 13:32, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
- I think you may have missed a question I posted for you on my talk page. In terms of the BLP cites, where should I put the ones (Fortune and greater)? In the section on my talk page or in the draft? Ron Schnell 02:25, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, sorry, no watchlist. ;-) Since you were wanting to keep your usertalk from getting messy with all the editing-traffic, I went ahead and created Draft:Ron_Schnell, so we could work together there. Per the COI rules, you should avoid editing mainspace like Dunnet (video game), but you are 100% free to edit Talk:Dunnet (video game). In the case of draftspace, the rules are relaxed even further, and you can directly edit both Draft:Ron Schnell, as well as Draft_talk:Ron Schnell. Thus, you are free to stick your refs (and the neutral-tone-sentences they back up) directly into the article-prose, as long as it is in draftspace. If you prefer, for instance to get in the habit of making talk-requests in bitesized chunks, you can also just 'make suggestions' on the draft-talk, which I will then stuff into the draft-article proper. I'm also happy to let you stuff it in yourself, and then come along behind you and be WP:MERCILESS about changes. Make sense? 75.108.94.227 (talk) 02:38, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- I think you may have missed a question I posted for you on my talk page. In terms of the BLP cites, where should I put the ones (Fortune and greater)? In the section on my talk page or in the draft? Ron Schnell 02:25, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- Anyways, if you'd like to tackle these ancillary greenbox tasks, go ahead. I stress once again that WP:CHOICE is one of the only mandatory wiki-policies. As for using the source in the Dunnet article, once we have cleaned up the article a bit, and actually *have* a 'reception' subsection, then the InternetNews.com ref saying that Dunnet is "fun" will be able to get inserted. Which brings us back to the question of, do you want to write up some more sentence-suggestions for the dunnet talkpage, or ask for help on IRC, or what? I don't think the ordering much matters, though if we don't go to IRC for our own dunnet-related-request today, I'm still gonna ask for additional eyeballs to help clear the wp-coi-edit-queue, which is starting to be seriously backlogged. WP:NORUSH must be balanced with WP:TIAD. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 13:32, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Curiosity
Are you a fast learner or did you edit under a username or a different IP address prior to June 28? Writegeist (talk) 00:50, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
- Hi Writegeist, see my earlier long-form answer.[53] Long-haul editor, but prefer to remain an anon, as a means of helping keep this "the encyclopedia anyone can edit", is the short answer. But I also -- preen preen -- consider myself a fast learner. ;-) 75.108.94.227 (talk) 01:23, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks IP. I like your prose style. Writegeist (talk) 15:31, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
- Sweet... I'm definitely framing that last quote for my wiki-epithet. :-) All the folks that say I type too much, can put *that* in their pipes, as the old saying goes. (I think my prose style is partly Freudian countertransference... which I just learned about today, from the good[citation needed] old 'pedia, so may well be mis-using the terminology... it is pretty hard to stay scrupulously neutral and formal in mainspace, so I tend to let my hair down in talkspace, I think a bit more than I otherwise would.) That said, now, dern it all Writegeist, you've been around long enough to know, that calling an IP, well, "IP", is not very kosher with pillar four. I prefer 75108 aka 75.108, if'n you don't mind, thankee kindly. I also answer to the singular they, or the southern singular they which is more flexible in terms of tenses and such. Best, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 15:49, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
- My apologies 75108. I must confess I’m not very good with pillars. (Samson was a distant relative. Or do I mean Homer Simpson?. I forget.) I’ve always rather liked “IP”, with its whiff of personal initials—like JR, or JC. Nevertheless content to address you numerically, so I’m grateful you clarified your preference. Y’all have a nice day. Writegeist (talk) 20:29, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
- No apologies required; I realized no offense was intended, and o'course none was taken whatsoever. From seeing usertalk threads in the past, where objectification rather than initialism was the intent -- "Adminnn! That IP is looking at me again!!!" -- it just became a fairly strong pet peeve of mine. ;-) Anyhoo, drop in any time, nice chatting with you. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 20:47, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
- My apologies 75108. I must confess I’m not very good with pillars. (Samson was a distant relative. Or do I mean Homer Simpson?. I forget.) I’ve always rather liked “IP”, with its whiff of personal initials—like JR, or JC. Nevertheless content to address you numerically, so I’m grateful you clarified your preference. Y’all have a nice day. Writegeist (talk) 20:29, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
- Sweet... I'm definitely framing that last quote for my wiki-epithet. :-) All the folks that say I type too much, can put *that* in their pipes, as the old saying goes. (I think my prose style is partly Freudian countertransference... which I just learned about today, from the good[citation needed] old 'pedia, so may well be mis-using the terminology... it is pretty hard to stay scrupulously neutral and formal in mainspace, so I tend to let my hair down in talkspace, I think a bit more than I otherwise would.) That said, now, dern it all Writegeist, you've been around long enough to know, that calling an IP, well, "IP", is not very kosher with pillar four. I prefer 75108 aka 75.108, if'n you don't mind, thankee kindly. I also answer to the singular they, or the southern singular they which is more flexible in terms of tenses and such. Best, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 15:49, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks IP. I like your prose style. Writegeist (talk) 15:31, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
I like the circles
Sorry about the problemsYoursT (talk) 22:07, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
- No problems. I'm just curious about which particular circles you like. Do you like the circles in option#A better, or in option#C better, or in some other layout? I left a note on your talkpage, you can reply there or here. If you are busy, that is also no problem, I'll list you as voting for the circles. :-) Thanks, talk to you later, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 02:50, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
A brownie for you!
|
Thank you for your help at the Teahouse: this is appreciated. Rubbish computer 23:09, 18 August 2015 (UTC) |
- Sadly, I am on a strict diet... and I ... I cannot... oh nohz... NOM NOM NOM. ;-) Delicious, but the bytes will go straight to my hyps, I fear. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 23:36, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Your request at Files for upload
Hello, and thank you for your request at Files for upload! Unfortunately, your request has been declined. The reason is shown on the main FFU page. The request will be archived shortly; if you cannot find it on that page, it will probably be at this month's archive. Regards, Nick—Contact/Contribs 05:39, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Harry Braun article
Dear 75, Thank you so much for your comments. In getting ready for my Wikipedia article, I organized and scanned a complete published history of myself, which can be seen in this link.
I am a hard science person, and the significance of my published paper in the Chemical Engineering and Industry journal in 2008 was that I am the first investigator who has documented how to replace all of the fossil and nuclear fuels now being used in the U.S. with 5 million 2 MW wind-powered hydrogen production systems, that were first developed in the 1800's. This and the other citations I provided were all deleted for some reason, yet they document that the highly-toxic Oil and Nuclear Age, that is making the planet inhabitable, was never necessary. But more importantly, the global scientific community is desperate to mitigate the fossil fuel-induced climate change chaos that is part of the Sixth Mass Extinction event now taking place, and my proposal is the only one that documents that my Phoenix Project plan, that is covered in many of the linked newspaper articles about my two Congressional Campaigns against John McCain and Jay Rhodes in the 1980's. The articles are just a few of the many written, all discuss my proposals to mass-produce solar hydrogen systems and simply modify all of the existing engines and vehicles to use the only pollution-free and carbon-free "universal" fuel known, that is much safer than gasoline in the event of leaks or accidents.
I cannot understand why this information is not considered neutral and why it is not worth publishing by the Wikipedia editors, in spite of the fact that such actions will make it impossible for me to have my campaign listed on the Facebook and other social media sites. Please spend a few minutes scanning over my published citations, which are just a small sample of the total news reports of those campaigns, and let me know what I must do, if anything, to get a Wikipedia page approved. Thank you again for your detailed investigation of this issue.Harry W Braun III (talk) 20:42, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
- Hi again Harry. Since there is more than one 75.* on the 'pedia, please call me 75.108 as a compromise between ease-of-typing, and ease-of-unique-identification. Yes, through my own googling I ran across your PDF. That is where I swiped most of the 1980s references. The internet is a wonderful thing, but anything that happened prior to 1995, is effectively invisible to a lot of wikipedians! Luckily now you too are a wikipedian, so we can get the proper citations about your congressional races direct from the horse's mouth, as the saying goes. :-)
- And yes, part of the reason I commented at the deletion-page, was that I've investigated thermal-oriented-solar-power. To be frank, I never had heard of you, but I knew that the stuff you were talking about was legit experimental work. Now personally, I'm not convinced that a few million sea-mount electrolysis engines is the silver bullet. I personally see cheap mass-produced hydrogen as more of spacecraft-infrastructure, rather than as something to run my washing machine with. I'm also not a big fan of massive governmental programs, even when the experimental science exists to back up such efforts; I've known way too many politicians! :-) No offense to present company intended, of course. In any case, here on my usertalk page, you and I are free to chitchat about solar power satellites, long shot presidential candidacies, seasteading, the hypothetical hydrogen economy, and a bunch of other topics. But wikipedia is not a website like any other, even though it might seem similar to the untrained eye.
why wikipedia is different... yet also eerily the same... as the outside world
|
|---|
|
- Okay. You've had your lecture, about the three main things you have to know. Namely, that wikipedians see a lot of POTUS candidates, and treat them with suspicion by default. Wikipedians also see a lot of people proposing newfangled energy sources, and treat them with suspicion by default. You happen to be both, hence your especially-chilly reception. :-) Last but not least, most wikipedians use the wiki-rules as a decision-making crutch, so if you satisfy the wiki-rules, you will have smooth sailing (it is 'hard' but not by any means impossible), but if you violate the wiki-rules you must apologize profusely and then never dare such awful wiki-transgressions again!11!!! Or something. It's not really that bad, but sometimes it may seem like it; just keep your cool, and you'll be fine. Let us apply these three big rules to your questions, sentence by sentence:
exceedingly long responses, to your seemingly-simple questions.... click the button over here to see it all -- -->>
|
|---|
|
- and let me know what I must do, if anything, to get a Wikipedia page approved.
- Well, read what I wrote inside the green box just above, and take it to heart. But for your reading pleasure, here's your official twelve-step program(TM):
- #1. continue to keep your cool.
- #2. do whatever MelanieN and Peridon suggest, they seem to know what they're doing.
- #3. dig up some more WP:SOURCES and post metadata (author/publisher/date/title/etc) onto Talk:Harry_Braun.
- #4. don't try and directly edit Harry Braun yourself, just make suggestions on Talk:Harry_Braun, and when other wikipedians explain why they disagree, listen to what they say and read the wiki-policy pages they point you to.
- #5. if you don't understand some particular wiki-policy, ask the nearest handy wikipedian to explain it to you, or use WP:Q venues like the WP:TEAHOUSE for a higher likelihood of instant gratification.
- #6. don't try your hand at editing any political articles nor energy policy articles nor chemistry and physics articles, until you have a firmer grasp on wiki-culture and wiki-policies.
- #7. do feel free to be WP:BOLD, and try your hand at areas where you are an 'amateur' with no vested interests and no special competence, just click Special:Random a few times until you see something that needs work (grammar fixes or added sources or overly-promotional or whatever), and get some experience being a wikipedian in the sense of working on the encyclopedia, rather than as a topic of the encyclopedia, which is more stressful in many ways.
- #8. ask somebody like MelanieN or Peridon or the WP:TEAHOUSE folks to review your editing-attempts from step seven, and to critique your work, to see whether you really understand wiki-laws.
- #9. read over the WP:5 pillars.
- #10. read them a few more times, they are subtle, but they are the core of wikipedia.
- #11.
put three million dollars of funding for every active wikipedian including anons into your 2016 platform planks...whoa... where did *that* come from? nevermind this step eleven, move right along to step twelve, the final step. ;-) - #12. now that you are a wikipedian, you are given the WP:CHOICE of what you want to do with yourself. Maybe you will choose wisely, maybe you will choose unwisely. I'll be interested to see what you end up doing, either way.
- Thank you again for your detailed investigation of this issue.
- My pleasure. Sorry the wiki-jungle is such a jungle, but I expect you'll be fine now that you've gotten the crash-course. Best of luck with your campaign, and feel free to leave a note on my talkpage here, if you need anything, or just want to chitchat about the wiki-culture. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 03:52, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Dear 75.108, I just noticed my Harry Braun page has been posted, including on the list of announced presidential candidates, and I think it looks great!
I very much appreciate your detailed response to my confusion, and I now do have a much greater understanding of how the highly-sophisticated Wikipedia analysis process works. I would love to know what you did prior to your involvement with Wikipedia.
I do not recall any published reports on my work during the 1990’s, but I am checking to be sure. I was working on my book at the time, and given you mentioned you had an interest in solar thermal technologies, I was working at the McDonnell Douglas facility in Huntington Beach, California with a group of senior engineers led by Dr. James Blackmon, one of the original design engineers who had developed the world’s most efficient and cost-effective Dish Stirling solar concentrator system for converting solar insolation to grid-quality electricity, with an efficiency of just over 30 percent. Two of the systems that were in daily operation at the McDonnell Douglas facility for over 18 years continued to maintain their high optical performance and energy conversion efficiency. But given we were also under contract with Kockums in Sweden, who modified the flour cylinder Stirling engine they had developed for non-nuclear attack submarines in the Swedish Navy, as well as Sandia National Laboratories, much of our work was proprietary, thus I was not holding any press conferences.
I apologize for misspelling “uninhabitable,” but I want you to know that your detailed comments were exceptionally helpful, and I am now very much aware that I have much to learn about “The World According to Wikipedia.” However, I will do my best to be helpful to you and your many dedicated editorial colleagues at Wikipedia. I have spent my entire professional career being an objective and technical and research analyst, but when it comes to the political world, it is always a question of advocating one policy over another, and it is hard for me to be “neutral” about a mass-extinction event that is almost over.
As a clarification, my presidential campaign is indeed organized as an Article V Constitutional Convention because “Constitutional Convention” is the specific language that used in Article V that allows citizens to bypass the Congress in order to pass and ratify amendments. And given the Article V Citizen Ballot on the Democracy Amendment USA website can be downloaded as a verifiable paper ballot, once a voter completes the ballot and mails it to their respective Secretary of State, the ballot can then be verified, counted and archived. And when the majority of citizens in two-thirds of the states (i.e., 34 states) send in their signed ballots, the amendment will be passed, and when the majority of voters in three-fourths of the states (i.e., 38 states) send in their signed ballots, the amendment will be ratified.
This is in contrast to the existing computer-based elections by private corporations (primarily ES&S) that are absolutely unverifiable. I wanted to use the famous quote by Joseph Stalin “It’s not the voters who count, but who counts the votes,” but I was unable to locate a “proper” citation.
In any case, it is possible that the Democracy Amendment could be ratified before the next presidential election in November of 2016, assuming enough registered voters are made aware of the amendment, which is a primary objective of my presidential campaign. Thus my presidential campaign is indeed serving as a Constitutional Convention that is focused on passing and ratifying the Democracy Amendment, because none of the fundamental changes I am calling for, such as ending the Oil Wars and shifting from an “Oil Economy” to a “Hydrogen Economy” could take place, even if I was president, in the lobbyist-based American Republic that now exists.
Please note that I am in the process of finalizing and initiating my national Press Release email campaign to virtually every newspaper, television news show and radio talk show in the United States, the UK, Germany and Austria, with the push of a button on my computer. Thus I hope I will soon have some significant and current Wikipedia-NPOV-approved press coverage to provide. Let me know if you want to be on my email list. I can also be reached at 770-905-7000 if you want to chat. Thank you again for your many insights, and I very much look forward to working with you in the future. Harry W Braun III (talk) 01:51, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- Hi Harry, glad that you are taking the wiki-culture in stride. It can be a bit of a jolt, to say the least. :-) And although it is true that wikipedia sometimes has a sophisticated analysis process, it is equally true that more often than not we drop the ball, and just barely manage to muddle through. As for what I do outside wikipedia, as you probably noticed I'm one of those people that edits wikipedia without logging in, for anonymity. Needless to say, I'm a bit of a private person, and can afford to be since I'm not running for president. In the past, I used to ride around on my pet dinosaur, fighting evil and defending all that is good and true. After founding the first inhabited colony on the Jovian moons, I left the aerospace industry to invent the internet, which in those days was constructed mostly out of pigeons and duct tape. Recently I've become fabulously wealthy and even better looking, yet remain humble to the core, so I keep quiet about all this stuff, unless somebody asks, and spend some of my spare time improving wikipedia articles and helping out my fellow wikipedians like yourself.
- So, as for the business at hand, we have a couple of published papers from the 1990s where you were co-author, and cites to those. But we don't have many sources that are talking about the details of your work with the Stirling-plus-dish systems at McDonnell Douglas in Huntington Beach, and wikipedia does not have an article on Dr. James Blackmon as yet. Maybe you can help us fix that, if enough sources can be discovered on him. Now of course, this type of stuff isn't what can be put into mainspace, without cites: "we were also under contract with Kockums in Sweden, who modified the flour cylinder Stirling engine they had developed for non-nuclear attack submarines in the Swedish Navy" ... but it *is* very interesting stuff, and if we can find a WP:SOURCE that mentions you were working on such a project (even if the details are not publicized), then we can mention it as WP:NOTEWORTHY. Along the same lines, if we can find WP:SOURCES that talk about the relationship between the Stirling Engine Systems project, and the Swedish military folks, we can improve *that* article, if not necessarily add the stuff yet to the Harry Braun article. But yeah, when you are doing work that is considered quasi-classified, it is rare for the press to pick up on it at the time, and often enough, pick up on it later. We did have one cite from 2008, which was talking about the various people in the SES group, and what they were working on, but it is a bit skimpy on details.[54] I'm not sure that UsaToday source has been integrated into the article yet, either... if not, please open up a Talk:Harry_Braun section, and suggest what wording we should use to describe your role in that stuff, please.
- You didn't misspell uninhabitable, you just accidentally said inhabitable, when from the context you clearly meant "un". :-) About the organization of your 2016 campaign, and the way you are dovetailing it to sumultaneously be an art-5-constitutional-convention, there are a couple of things that we need. First, can you point me to a place on your website, where you explain that the campaign-organization is intended to double as an implementation of the clauses in the constitution? Then we can remove the citation-needed tag from the sentence in Harry Braun. This is one of those rare special cases, where we *can* just directly reference your own website, because the way you are organizaing your campaign-effort, falls directly under WP:ABOUTSELF, and need not be noticed by a newspaper journalist or whatever, since it is a cold hard dry boring neutral fact, specifically about the subject-matter of Harry Braun, that is appropriate for wikipedia to mention. Usually, of course, the wiki-rule is plain, that if some third-party independent journalist did not find a factoid WP:NOTEWORTHY, then wikipedia should not mention that factoid, until and unless a source can be found. But for basic details, such as birthdates and such, WP:ABOUTSELF is allowed.
- So then, the next question that comes to mind is, are you planning on seeking to win the caucus and primary votes, held as part of the Democratic Party nomination process? Or are you specifically aiming to convince citizens to use the art-5-ballots, and not worry about the party caucus-and-primary ballots? Along the same lines, are you planning on running a 50-state-campaign, fundraising permitting, or are you planning to focus on the 38 states where you think your art-5-approach has the best shot of success? (And yes, we cannot use the Stalin quote in your article, because it's not germane to *your* article aka the article about you, the topic of Harry Braun -- Stalin was talking about his own vote-counters in the USSR, not about the vote-counters in the Democratic nomination race of 2016, so although the quote is related -- in the same way that material about the generic production of hydrogen is related -- both of those topics are already addressed in other articles, namely Joseph Stalin and production of hydrogen respectively, which means covering them in the Harry Braun article would be seen as incorrect-duplication-of-existing-topics.) And of course, as new press-coverage comes to light, please bring it up on Talk:Harry_Braun, and somebody will get the stuff mainspaced in neutral just-the-facts fashion. Talk to you later, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 16:31, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Question
75.108, thanks for your attempt to clean up the Harry Braun article. I have a question for you on the talk page Talk:Harry Braun. I pinged you, but I'm also notifying you here because I don't know if pings work for IPs. In fact, please let me know if you got the ping and I will learn something! --MelanieN (talk) 14:40, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
- No, they don't work. :-) Like inability to create a page without asking for assistance, it is one of the minor petty restrictions placed upon us po' anons. There is a wiki-formal Template:talkback that some folks utilize, but I myself prefer the personal-note-approach, more friendly thataway. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 14:56, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Your response to op-ed
Nice spoof! RockMagnetist(talk) 01:13, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- Well, like yourself in your own mind, I responded somewhat badly (in my own mind with respect to WP:NICE) unto the inherently-insulting prose that was being presented as academic research, but with cites stripped out and insinuations left in. As you pointed out, it was primarily intended as a smear, at least unconsciously, and 99% was a misguided smear, at that. For my own part, I'm particularly unhappy, because I actually agree with Bryce that the wiki-policies are unfriendly to beginners. Where my own view, and Bryce's ideas on the topic, part ways such that never the twain shall meet again, is that Bryce believes wiki-culture and wiki-policies are some kind of white male conspiracy, best fought with academic deconstructivist gobbledygook heavily informed by what works to scare off non-liberal-arts-profs in the faculty lounge. In wiki-reality, though, there is no cabal, as the saying goes; I don't believe there is any sort of conspiracy. I do believe we've painted ourselves into a corner, and built ourselves a nice WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY double-speak... plus I don't have much hope of wikipedians overcoming the wiki-policies we have painted ourselves into that corner with. But it gives wiki-reformers like me a bad name, when critics like Bryce are blaming everything on the hegemonic discourse of blah blah blah... especially when the distinction between votes and bangvotes is conflated, and other relatively 'basic' mistakes (if we go with the assumption that anybody with less than 10k edits is a 'beginner' ... sigh). Anyways, I'll go ahead and ping User:Thebrycepeake, since I've brought their name up here, and wiki-honor demands they be allowed to respond, if they wish. Bryce and I agree on the problems, largely, and even on the symptoms of the problems, for the most part; we just disagree on the existence of the hypothetical underlying collective-motive, that led to the problems... and therefore of course, we disagree on the correct solution(s). p.s. Your username is pretty cool; I had a friend with a t-shirt that said, simply, STOP PLATE TECTONICS. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 02:27, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- Certainly, if Wikipedia policies put any group at a disadvantage, it's beginners. Yet, when I was a beginner, Wikipedia seemed quite welcoming. I made some mistakes, but people were nice about it. If you're editing noncontroversial material and write good, well-sourced prose, it's a pretty stress-free experience. If the content is controversial, policy is probably needed to resolve disputes. I'm not sure there is any way around that. RockMagnetist(talk) 16:31, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- Well, see when I was a beginner, I read the five pillars, laughed, and then went about improving the encyclopedia. But that's the born-a-wikipedian phenomena. There are many other beginners that are good faith contributors, but not necessarily born-wikipedians, who get driven away by the bureaucracy. And having worked in the controversial articles (mostly politics stuff ... but you would be surprised how heated a borderline-notability debate at AfD can get over corporations or video games or whatever), I can say without qualification that the wiki-policies are abused to drive away beginners and wiki-win the content battles. So while I agree wiki-policies are needed, I disagree we have the correct wiki-policies; at the moment, we have competing pressure-groups trying to get their preferred version into mainspace by attrition, in a large number of controversial topic areas ... and many of them seemingly-peaceful to the unwitting beginner, who steps into a content-minefield without realizing what they are doing. Anyways, I think that your story of becoming a wikipedian ('I made some mistakes but people were nice about it') is relatively rare nowadays. I'm not sure what to do about the problem, of making that story repeat itself more reliably and more often, but that's my long-term goal. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 16:38, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- Evidently you have experience far beyond the contribution record of this IP. Do you find using an IP changes the attitude of other editors? When I am looking at my watchlist, I tend to look carefully at contributions from IP addresses. RockMagnetist(talk) 16:46, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- Well, funny you should ask, that is one of the big reasons *why* I edit as anon, because I'm interested in keeping this "the encyclopedia anyone can edit". As you prolly know, statistically speaking us anons are not very filled with clue. ;-) So not only do I find that being an anon changes the attitudes of other editors, I'm editing as an anon *to* change those selfsame attitudes. I recommend it, if you don't mind the loss of edit-count-itis. If you do decide to moonlight as an anon, however, be sure not to accidentally interact with "yourself" aka post as an anon and then later post as User:RockMagnetist in the same conversation-thread, that is WP:MEATPUPPET. But if you want to get a feel for how the wiki-culture is, really and truly, log out, click Special:Random a few times, and then try pulling a few WP:IAR maneuvers. Personally, I've always hated needing to remember passwords and such, so have always edited as an anon (I once created an account called tmepThisIsDumb30952 or something like that... about five minutes before I figured out there was an AfC wizard... so I ended up not having any non-anon edits), but it's allowed for username-holding editors to also edit as anons, though frowned upon unless there is a "good" reason for it. If you do decide to regularly anon-edit in parallel, you should probably link your username to your IP address usertalk(s), so you don't get accidentally into hot water with the checkuser folks. As for doing any full-time-anon-editing like I prefer, the main constraint is that you have to edit from a single physical location, since obviously, your IP at the office and the library will be different, so I tend to pick a single PC to use for wikipedia and only edit from that one place. Anyways, the short answer to your question is that yes, there is a 'tude problem, though I find the WP:ABUSEFILTER far more attitude-deprived than other human editors for the most part. ;-) 75.108.94.227 (talk) 17:04, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- My computer remembers my password, so there is no way in which using my IP would be more convenient. And you are greatly outnumbered by IPs who are vandals or clueless, so changing the perceptions sounds like an uphill battle. Still, I admire your stand on this - good luck! RockMagnetist(talk) 17:54, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- Oh no, I don't recommend it as more convenient. (It is more difficult and annoying, nowadays, than ever. Back in the dayTM it was ever so slightly "more convenient" for me personally, but that was years ago. I've kept editing as an anon for philosophical reasons, and out of mule-headed stubborn-ness, not for any imagined convenience!) That said, I do recommend briefly logging out every few months, as a more realistic way to assess the state of wiki-culture that the beginner will actually see, not as a way to make wikipedia easier for yourself. :-) Pleasure talking with you, see you around. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 19:16, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- My computer remembers my password, so there is no way in which using my IP would be more convenient. And you are greatly outnumbered by IPs who are vandals or clueless, so changing the perceptions sounds like an uphill battle. Still, I admire your stand on this - good luck! RockMagnetist(talk) 17:54, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- Well, funny you should ask, that is one of the big reasons *why* I edit as anon, because I'm interested in keeping this "the encyclopedia anyone can edit". As you prolly know, statistically speaking us anons are not very filled with clue. ;-) So not only do I find that being an anon changes the attitudes of other editors, I'm editing as an anon *to* change those selfsame attitudes. I recommend it, if you don't mind the loss of edit-count-itis. If you do decide to moonlight as an anon, however, be sure not to accidentally interact with "yourself" aka post as an anon and then later post as User:RockMagnetist in the same conversation-thread, that is WP:MEATPUPPET. But if you want to get a feel for how the wiki-culture is, really and truly, log out, click Special:Random a few times, and then try pulling a few WP:IAR maneuvers. Personally, I've always hated needing to remember passwords and such, so have always edited as an anon (I once created an account called tmepThisIsDumb30952 or something like that... about five minutes before I figured out there was an AfC wizard... so I ended up not having any non-anon edits), but it's allowed for username-holding editors to also edit as anons, though frowned upon unless there is a "good" reason for it. If you do decide to regularly anon-edit in parallel, you should probably link your username to your IP address usertalk(s), so you don't get accidentally into hot water with the checkuser folks. As for doing any full-time-anon-editing like I prefer, the main constraint is that you have to edit from a single physical location, since obviously, your IP at the office and the library will be different, so I tend to pick a single PC to use for wikipedia and only edit from that one place. Anyways, the short answer to your question is that yes, there is a 'tude problem, though I find the WP:ABUSEFILTER far more attitude-deprived than other human editors for the most part. ;-) 75.108.94.227 (talk) 17:04, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- Evidently you have experience far beyond the contribution record of this IP. Do you find using an IP changes the attitude of other editors? When I am looking at my watchlist, I tend to look carefully at contributions from IP addresses. RockMagnetist(talk) 16:46, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- Well, see when I was a beginner, I read the five pillars, laughed, and then went about improving the encyclopedia. But that's the born-a-wikipedian phenomena. There are many other beginners that are good faith contributors, but not necessarily born-wikipedians, who get driven away by the bureaucracy. And having worked in the controversial articles (mostly politics stuff ... but you would be surprised how heated a borderline-notability debate at AfD can get over corporations or video games or whatever), I can say without qualification that the wiki-policies are abused to drive away beginners and wiki-win the content battles. So while I agree wiki-policies are needed, I disagree we have the correct wiki-policies; at the moment, we have competing pressure-groups trying to get their preferred version into mainspace by attrition, in a large number of controversial topic areas ... and many of them seemingly-peaceful to the unwitting beginner, who steps into a content-minefield without realizing what they are doing. Anyways, I think that your story of becoming a wikipedian ('I made some mistakes but people were nice about it') is relatively rare nowadays. I'm not sure what to do about the problem, of making that story repeat itself more reliably and more often, but that's my long-term goal. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 16:38, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- Certainly, if Wikipedia policies put any group at a disadvantage, it's beginners. Yet, when I was a beginner, Wikipedia seemed quite welcoming. I made some mistakes, but people were nice about it. If you're editing noncontroversial material and write good, well-sourced prose, it's a pretty stress-free experience. If the content is controversial, policy is probably needed to resolve disputes. I'm not sure there is any way around that. RockMagnetist(talk) 16:31, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Your comment about my computer
I asked about upgrading my Internet access and decided it wasn't worth the cost. For most of what I do at home, once I access each site for the first time, it's fast enough, and I do everything else at libraries.
Thanks for your comments.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 14:56, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah, no problem. I also just get the cheap internet package, and when I need high bandwidth, walk across the street. It does seem odd that your connection is slow on the first load, though, and then after that faster... it *could* be just browser caching speeding up the images and such, but it could also be some kind of spyware, theoretically at least. Anyways, figured I would suggest a virus-scan, just in case your slow-internet issues were not inherent, I've seen cases where malware caused internet-slowdowns in the past. In any case, thanks for stopping by, talk to you later, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 15:06, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- I scan every week. Nothing ever comes up.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:32, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
RSS BLP
Hey there. I added some stuff to the draft... Ron Schnell 05:04, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
- And for my part, I have been completely lazy. ;-) I still have two dozen schnell tabs open in the browser, but have been otherwise occupied. And, I'm still backlogged on David Coliman. Sigh. So many wiki-tasks, little wiki-time. p.s. I only just now realized that you were using your own initials in the section-title, and were not giving me an ad-hoc type of Real Simple Syndication feed here on usertalk. ;-) Best, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 11:48, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
- I'm wondering if there's any way (or reason) to include something about my first startup, which was with Sylvester Stallone. There was never any press about it. I do have written agreements, etc. In any case, I know you're busy, but I hope we can get started again (but WP:NORUSH). Ron Schnell 13:24, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
- He's a bluelink, so if he posts something about you and his SOS investment, on his "official voice-of-Sly" publications (offline or on), then it is something that can conceivably be mentioned, using mutually-supporting-WP:ABOUTSELF (he says it is true and you also say it is true). Because it is a claim about somebody-besides-the-BLP, and is not a boring cold hard encyclopedic factoid in the general sense (e.g. DOB and school attended is a typical WP:ABOUTSELF boring historical factoid ... whereas angel investor is non-boring and non-aboutself), we cannot use pure-singular-WP:ABOUTSELF. It is promotional, in a vague way since the company in question is now defunct, but also a historically interesting factoid, if we can WP:V it with our wiki-honor intact. Since there was no press, that we know of, it fails WP:NOTEWORTHY and is thus subject to local Talk:Ron_Schnell consensus. p.s. I hate WP:NORUSH, personally, but sometimes life is unfair. ;-) p.p.s. Technically your 'zeroth' startup was those years as a kernel consultant, and we also have no press-coverage of that stuff, which is arguably more formative to the biography methinks, than your 'formal' first startup which as I understand it was an extension of your consulting-business, aka SOS was mostly about kernel-hacking-projects. DriverAces was peripheral-hardware interfacing with kernel-mode OS drivers, so that was a bit further afield than SOS, but again, still in the same vein. MailCall was a distinct effort with seemingly little relationship, beyond that computer programming was involved, and that it was a startup, but since it had the most success (and since you had some practice at startups by then), it is the effort that got the press-coverage. As mentioned before, life is often not fair. Anyways, I expect we'll get it all figured out. Just mash away at the draft when you have spare time, and I'll do the same. I think Braun is saved, and my Coleman-contact has gone on to greener pa$tures. Still need to get C.J. Pearson fixed, though. Actually, Pearson endorsed Rand Paul at one point, so if you feel like helping me with that via your CTO connections, usually the BLP has the best chance of digging up press-coverage about themselves, as we've seen. Best, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 13:42, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for the excellent work today. I fixed most of the stuff that you left for me to fix. We should discuss the rest. The attorneys (attorneys general, actually) were not co-workers, and not supervisors. We were a truly independent non-profit corporation. Ron Schnell 04:25, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
- Well, I'm glad you liked it, but I really was in a rush, and did not have time to review whether I was hewing firmly to NPOV and the sources, mostly I just jammed stuff in from memory, so you would see where I was aiming. On the TC question, yes, you were truly independent in the sense that you were not financially linked, and they could not order you to do anything in legally binding fashion, but you were acting as a kind of court-appointed quasi-special master, and were enforcing the legal decrees handed down by the judge in favor of the plaintiffs, who were in turn represented by lawyers (most of who happened to be AG of their state). I understand you weren't co-workers in any traditional sense, but you'll note that you didn't get the kind of praise from the Microsoft lawyers as you got from the state-of-NY-group lawyers. :-) Knowing something about both politics and computers, I'm reasonably certain that was not an oversight, Microsoft pays their lawyers very well to avoid such beginner-mistakes. In any case, we don't need the dotGov links, because we can back the relevant factoid up ("Schnell was in charge of the TC") using the infoweek cite, or whatever that ref was, I forget but it was a 2011 article about the MSFT decision compliance-monitoring getting ended, and you were given a couple paragraphs.
- Anyways, I'm happy to let some other wiki-reviewer-eyeballs peek over the dotGov material, and see whether they think it's worth mentioning that you were praised by name from the mouths of some reasonably-likely-to-be-bluelinked bigshots, for your role in the courtcase-stuff; if it does get mentioned, it will prolly be WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV unless I'm just being extra special conservative in my wiki-spidey-senses, since I know you in the on-wiki-dialogue-sense. But I don't think I'm off the mark here, they were technically separate, but definitely not on the same side. By way of explanation, your segway team-mate and the insinuations about the motivations and proclivities of the barbados team, whilst hilarious to read, are pretty much entirely explained by the fact that the barbados folks whipped up on the polo bears, that year at least. Wikipedia can certainly *link* to the motherJones article, and even quote it in the footnote, but it would be way outside NPOV to put in the mainspace article about the Barbados Flying Flippers that the reason they are so good is because Barbados is a little island with not much to do, so they practice segway polo out of boredom, right? :-) It is true that the statement is sourced, but it is also true that the source was quoting your team-mate, not speaking in the journalist's voice, and moreover, I do seem to recall some *other* member of the Polo Bears seeking to avoid a defamation lawsuit, and/or maybe a vicious cross-check, by repeatedly noting that the unwise comments were not on the record. ;-)
- Anyways, point being, your friend's quotation about the Barbados team is the opposite of NPOV, because they were competitors, and by the same kind of analogy, the lawyer's quotations about the work done by the TC personnel is also not on the correct side of NPOV, because your role was to be the compliance-monitor for MSFT, and their role was to get MSFT to comply, which makes you quasi-team-mates. Plus, the usual wiki-rule-of-thumb, is to avoid primary sources like court docs, as a thing generally to be avoided, partly because they tend to be long POV-laden monologues by lawyers, and partly because they are legally required to be COMPLETE records of the proceedings in question. Thus, wikipedians prefer to stick with the secondary sources, that report selectively *about* the court cases, rather than delving into the court case stuff itself. I agree there is some wiggle room here, but I don't think there's very much.
- Is there other stuff on the needs-discussion list? I notice I put down that SETL was once again on the CDC 6600, but I have the excuse, dern it all, that in all those UPI telephotos, they show you with your feet propped up on the sysop console of the Cray supercomputer, and *not* on the VAX. Also, wikipedia has to be formal, don't say VAXen in mainspace, tut tut. :-) I don't think we can mention Artspeak and the CDC 6600, because the sources just talk about SETL, right? I know that WP:THETRUTH is that you were there working on ArtSpeak, not just SETL, but for bullet-proofing purposes, best to leave ArtSpeak out unless we have a source. And, be very careful about adding stuff into a sentence that *is* sourced, which is not reflected in the source specifically: "He worked with the programming language SETL on VAXen minicomputers as well as the Artspeak language on CDC 6600 supercomputers at NYU during the summer of 1981.[2][3]" You cannot just insert a factoid midsentence, and leave the sources at the end of the period. Either the new factoids must be in the [2] && [3] sources already, just not summarized well enough by a previous editor (me in this case who was summarizing from memory), or an additional source [4] which backs up the added sentence-fragment needs to be stuck onto the period as well. There is a third way, which I use pretty often actually, which is to alter the prose so that the sourcing is mid-sentence, rather than after the period. In this case, assuming that 'artspeak' is NOT in the [2]&&[3] (which I'm not sure of one way or the other), the alteration would look like this: "He worked with the programming language SETL on VAX minicomputers at NYU during the summer of 1981,[2][3] as well as the Artspeak language on CDC 6600 supercomputers.[citation needed]" Thataway, there is no potential appearance of improprietry, because the fragment was added in a separate clause, then self-tagged. I edited this as a standalone one, so if the nyp81 and/or upi81 cites did mention artspeak and I forgot, go ahead and fold it back in.
- p.s. I remember saying that we would need the dunnet-bit to be relatively short, and then I went ahead and expanded it anyways, since in fact that's mostly stuff that you've personally done, and although we have little in the way of WP:RS, it seemed like the thing to do at the time. But I'm pretty sure that will get cut as WP:UNDUE for the topic of Ron Schnell, but WP:PRESERVE'd as properly a part of the development-n-background section for the topic of Dunnet (video game). Same thing with SOS.com and UNIX-consulting work, whether it belongs in mainspace, depends on how closely we stick to WP:NOTEWORTHY and how much leeway we give to WP:ABOUTSELF. I think we can mention that you were involved in a startup called SOS.com for 19xx-19yy, and that from 1988-1995 you were a UNIX kernel consultant (or whatever phrase best describes you). 75.108.94.227 (talk) 05:28, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
- In terms of when to have someone look at it, I'm up for whatever and bow to your experience and expertise. I say let's go for it when you're satisfied with the current version. Ron Schnell 04:26, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
- Okay, we're getting close, but I'll give our source-listing that we've transferred to draftspace one more look-see before I call in additional eyeballs. I think we have the major ones in now, although the Mitnick EpisodeTM has yet to be added, but that one is closer to wp:noteworthy than to wp:n, if memory serves. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 05:28, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
- I fixed up the references for Equifax and The TC. Wasn't sure what to do with the "notes". Ron Schnell 13:26, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
- When I'm doing a draft-article, and indeed whenever I'm doing an article where I don't have to worry about compliance with some existing ephemeral local consensus, I always put the WP:ABOUTSELF material, the USENET 'sources' such as ours for the 1992 release of dunnet, WP:PRIMARY court documents such as your DOJ hearing, and other such things into the 'notes' section, to keep them separate from the wiki-reliable WP:SOURCES found in the 'refs' section. Ideally, I'd actually have four sections, one for wp:aboutself, one for primary docs and wp:blogs and such, one for wp:noteworthy mentions in wp:rs, and the most important section for in-depth coverage in the wp:rs that demonstrates wiki-notability. Anyways, usually I settle for two sections, the wp:rs 'refs' and the non-wp:rs 'notes'. Because the refTags are weak and annoying to work with, the usual syntax-trick is to use efn for notes, and refTags for refs. The content inside the two, is otherwise identical, just the "wrapper" portions are distinct. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 20:12, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
- Added Politico article as ref to my announcement as CTO, which gives added benefit of WP:RS of my having worked on kernels at Bell Labs, IBM, and SUN, which I also added, as suggested by you. Ron Schnell 14:33, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
- It is true that politico repeated the blurb you wrote for your CTO position, or perhaps that the campaign wrote for you, but we cannot use the politico cite as wp:rs for your history as a unix consultant, because (the strictest interpretation of) wp:noteworthy requires that the journalist themselves mention the factoid, in the journalist's voice aka in the newspaper's voice. Here is politico saying something in their voice:
- Mike Allen. politico.com http://www.politico.com/tipsheets/playbook/2015/05/jeb-no-more-powerful-influence-on-this-earth-than-the-christian-conscience-in-action-brady-may-miss-6-8-games-bday-dana-p-212543.
Rand Paul... names chief technology officer: 'Ron Schnell...'
{{cite web}}: Missing or empty|title=(help)
- Mike Allen. politico.com http://www.politico.com/tipsheets/playbook/2015/05/jeb-no-more-powerful-influence-on-this-earth-than-the-christian-conscience-in-action-brady-may-miss-6-8-games-bday-dana-p-212543.
- Here is politico saying in their voice, that *Rand* said something in *his* voice, or more exactingly, that the Rand Paul presidential campaign, 2016 put out a press-release saying quoth xyz unquoth:
- Rand Paul (ultimately responsible) and Ron Schnell (actual source of most of the prose). Mike Allen (ed.). politico.com. Rand Paul presidential campaign, 2016 http://www.politico.com/tipsheets/playbook/2015/05/jeb-no-more-powerful-influence-on-this-earth-than-the-christian-conscience-in-action-brady-may-miss-6-8-games-bday-dana-p-212543.
Ron Schnell ... incredible computer science story ... child prodigy ... [personally responsible for 100% of] the kernel [of] UNIX ... at Bell Labs ... A/IX ... at IBM ... Solaris ... at [Oracle dba] Sun Microsystems.
{{cite web}}: Missing or empty|title=(help)
- Rand Paul (ultimately responsible) and Ron Schnell (actual source of most of the prose). Mike Allen (ed.). politico.com. Rand Paul presidential campaign, 2016 http://www.politico.com/tipsheets/playbook/2015/05/jeb-no-more-powerful-influence-on-this-earth-than-the-christian-conscience-in-action-brady-may-miss-6-8-games-bday-dana-p-212543.
- Now, it just so happens you were a child prodigy. ;-) That's WP:THETRUTH. But wikipedia cannot call you that, because no wiki-reliable source has called you that. We have a quote from politico, saying that your employer Rand Paul called you a child prodigy, via a press-release his campaign organization put out. But that's not journalist Mike Allen calling you a quote child prodigy unquote in Politico's voice, that's Mike Allen saying that Rand Paul said that. Just like pointers in C++ many objects are really just RAM addresses, not apparently-bitwise copies. Mike Allen said only that you were named CTO, and then gave a juicy sound-bite. We can use the journalistic factoid as WP:NOTEWORTHY, but we get the same exact Schnell-the-CTO factoid from our Recode-cite (plus a lot more depth about the hackathon and so on -- which helps WP:N and is thus more useful than the politico-cite). Anyways, at the moment we have only WP:ABOUTSELF material about your unix-consulting-career, not any 100% Independent WP:SOURCE with no promotional motive nor competitive motive, that speaks about your work at att/ibm/sun.
- We cannot, with wiki-honor intact, say in wikipedia's voice that quote Schnell was an "incredible"(ref) kernel consultant and worked(ref) at att/ibm/sun unquote. The 'incredible' bit is not from a truly-independent wp:rs, in the strictest sense of independent (cf the NY AttyG) who said Schnell did "great"(ref) work. We can, per the WP:ABOUTSELF strictest-sense-possible, probably say something about-you-yourself, aka "from 1988 through 199x, Schnell worked as a software consultant, first on the east coast, then on the west coast" ... because there we use no superlative adjectives (which require WP:RS cites) and there we use no *named* employers nor products (unix/att/aix/ibm/solaris/sun), but stick purely to aboutself aka what you said you were doing in that time. One would think that the politico source backs up the 'incredible' and the unix/att/aix/ibm/solaris/sun bits, but it really doesn't in the strictest sense. There are some wikipedians who will be fairly reasonable about such things, and say, well clearly even though *politico* might not be legally standing behind the claims, it is clear that *paul'16* is standing behind those claims, right? But the trouble is, in the strictest sense, paul'16 is not independent of schnell, because one is the employer and the other is the employee, and presidential campaigns are inherently promotional.
- A slight improvement on mere wp:aboutself, would be if we had some mutually-supporting-WP:ABOUTSELF material, from your website and also from IBM's website, e.g. some kind of 1996 codebase where 'ron schnell' is mentioned in the bowels of A/IX, then we can ... given local talkpage consensus of non-COI-encumbered wikipedians ... insert that stuff into mainspace, with a bit more in the way of WP:V than merely a quote from your website. It helps that IBM is a bluelink. It also helps that IBM, although a corporation and thus inherently self-promotional, is not *quite* as promotional as a presidential campaign. Same store for Sly: he's a bluelink, and he's not running for president, and he's not running a venture capital firm, so even though as a celebrity he's somewhat promotional as an inherent aspect of his being, mutually-supporting-aboutself from him and you is decently strong.
- The next step up is WP:NOTEWORTHY, where we have a journalist saying in a journalist's voice, "Schnell... child prodigy" or equivalent. We don't have that, but we have the 'equivalent'. nyp81, whiz. upi81, genius at fourteen. And a bunch of other refs like that. They don't say 'child prodigy' per se, but they do hype your youth and your brainpower. Not only that, but often the *title* of the piece is thataway. Now, clearly these are somewhat POV newspaper-pieces. It is a fact that you were smart. It is a fact that you were young. Is it a fact that you were a genius? Well, it's WP:V that you were a genius, according to UPI. But wikipedia strives to maintain NPOV, which means, if we were to actually *call* you a genius, we'd want a direct peer-reviewed quote from somebody that is an expert in geniuses, like Patrick Winston for instance. :-) Some newspaper calling you a genius, even in the title, is less valuable than someone with expertise in the realm of identifying geniuses calling you that... as long as they call you that in some form of published work. Per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV it is perfectly permissible for us to say something neutral like 'newspapers at the time ran headlines saying Schnell was a "whiz"(ref) "genius"(ref) "teen"(ref)' or somesuch.
- And of course, there is the next step up, which is something along the lines of, some famous researcher in the field of cognitive science writes a dozen papers on intelligent children, and as their magnum opus, publishes a 1500-page non-fiction book entitled "Ronnie Schnell: Genius, Child Prodigy, And All Around Nice Fellow, The Most Interesting Instance I've Encountered In All My Years Of Research" which goes on to become a bestseller. Plus, you solve an unsolved mathematical problem, unify gravity with electromagnetism, implement strong AI, and found an orbital colony using your anti-gravity-based launch-vehicle controlled by your hyperintelligent robotic sidekick. ;-)
- But in general, it is *always* better not to even quote the POV, if we can simply give the facts, and let the readers draw their own conclusions. You were programming punchcards for mainframes at age nine, check, got the wp:noteworthy covered for that. You were doing programming language research at a major university at age fourteen, check, got some reasonably-in-depth coverage of that (a few sentences with specific details). You were writing apps for dialcom and an early precursor to the internet at age 15, and getting free hardware to hack from major personal computer pioneers in foreign countries, check, got some in-depth-wp:n for that. You were giving out arpanet accounts -- sometimes to the Wrong People -- at MIT as part of your "ITS tourist slash LCS sysop" job between circa-1982 and circa-1985, once again still as a teenager. You later went on to found a dotcom startup, and do some other cool things (teevee wall and segway mayhem and dunnet port and so on ... plus equifax and the TC and paul'16 and so on). Do we really need to say that you were a child prodigy? the whiz? genius at fourteen? Not in my book. Sometimes, the best way to tell the tale, is to accurately summarize the cold hard dry boring facts, and let the reader figure it out.
- In the case of your UNIX consulting work, the hard etc etc facts that are backed up by wp:rs , are nada, that I have noticed. I haven't read all the mailcall refs, and maybe one of them mentions it? But with what I've seen/noticed, we cannot say that you worked on the sys5r4 and aix and solaris2x kernels, because no journalist mentions them. One of your employers mentioned it. Your own website mentions it. Maybe we can use the xflick codebase to partially document a bit of mutually-supporting-aboutself, related to it. But sticking to the wp:rs, you were a computer genius as a teenager, you disappeared off the face of the earth from 1990 through 1997, and then out of nowhere you founded mailcall. :-) Nobody said wikipedia got it *right* when NPOV was picked as the non-negotiable pillar (I'd rather have objective truth be the standard personally). We also don't get to mention 7-card-stud, except under the personal-section. By contrast, motherJones journalist, bless their little hearts, mentioned your cheese addiction via french onion soup, so we can mention that. All this stuff make sense? And in particular, are you catching the drift that this is maximal-hard-core-wiki-strict interpretation of the wiki-laws, and that in practice nobody except me... and people that you might meet in AfD and other controversial places... actually tend to follow such hard-core standard for 99% of the articles? 75.108.94.227 (talk) 20:12, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
- It is true that politico repeated the blurb you wrote for your CTO position, or perhaps that the campaign wrote for you, but we cannot use the politico cite as wp:rs for your history as a unix consultant, because (the strictest interpretation of) wp:noteworthy requires that the journalist themselves mention the factoid, in the journalist's voice aka in the newspaper's voice. Here is politico saying something in their voice:
- I fixed up the references for Equifax and The TC. Wasn't sure what to do with the "notes". Ron Schnell 13:26, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
- Okay, we're getting close, but I'll give our source-listing that we've transferred to draftspace one more look-see before I call in additional eyeballs. I think we have the major ones in now, although the Mitnick EpisodeTM has yet to be added, but that one is closer to wp:noteworthy than to wp:n, if memory serves. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 05:28, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for the excellent work today. I fixed most of the stuff that you left for me to fix. We should discuss the rest. The attorneys (attorneys general, actually) were not co-workers, and not supervisors. We were a truly independent non-profit corporation. Ron Schnell 04:25, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
- He's a bluelink, so if he posts something about you and his SOS investment, on his "official voice-of-Sly" publications (offline or on), then it is something that can conceivably be mentioned, using mutually-supporting-WP:ABOUTSELF (he says it is true and you also say it is true). Because it is a claim about somebody-besides-the-BLP, and is not a boring cold hard encyclopedic factoid in the general sense (e.g. DOB and school attended is a typical WP:ABOUTSELF boring historical factoid ... whereas angel investor is non-boring and non-aboutself), we cannot use pure-singular-WP:ABOUTSELF. It is promotional, in a vague way since the company in question is now defunct, but also a historically interesting factoid, if we can WP:V it with our wiki-honor intact. Since there was no press, that we know of, it fails WP:NOTEWORTHY and is thus subject to local Talk:Ron_Schnell consensus. p.s. I hate WP:NORUSH, personally, but sometimes life is unfair. ;-) p.p.s. Technically your 'zeroth' startup was those years as a kernel consultant, and we also have no press-coverage of that stuff, which is arguably more formative to the biography methinks, than your 'formal' first startup which as I understand it was an extension of your consulting-business, aka SOS was mostly about kernel-hacking-projects. DriverAces was peripheral-hardware interfacing with kernel-mode OS drivers, so that was a bit further afield than SOS, but again, still in the same vein. MailCall was a distinct effort with seemingly little relationship, beyond that computer programming was involved, and that it was a startup, but since it had the most success (and since you had some practice at startups by then), it is the effort that got the press-coverage. As mentioned before, life is often not fair. Anyways, I expect we'll get it all figured out. Just mash away at the draft when you have spare time, and I'll do the same. I think Braun is saved, and my Coleman-contact has gone on to greener pa$tures. Still need to get C.J. Pearson fixed, though. Actually, Pearson endorsed Rand Paul at one point, so if you feel like helping me with that via your CTO connections, usually the BLP has the best chance of digging up press-coverage about themselves, as we've seen. Best, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 13:42, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
- I'm wondering if there's any way (or reason) to include something about my first startup, which was with Sylvester Stallone. There was never any press about it. I do have written agreements, etc. In any case, I know you're busy, but I hope we can get started again (but WP:NORUSH). Ron Schnell 13:24, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
my wikiname is 75.108 and I approve of this section-break
- Yes. Makes perfect sense, and most of that I already knew. Of course I have no interest in it saying I am a genius in there, in case that wasn't obvious. It's probably not useful, but I do have requirements specs and design documents from my work on UNIX. Confidentiality has expired on them. I'll try to think of some other sources. I wrote a book at Sun called "Guide to porting SVR4 Device Drivers to Solaris 2.1"... Ron Schnell 20:23, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Depends on if the docs were 'published' at any point, online/offline/whatever, or if they were always 'internal' docs; you cannot self-pub them, because of WP:COPYVIO rather than NDA clauses, but did ibm/att/sun do so? And yeah, that bit was obvious to me, at least; you're an over-sharer, but not a glory-hound, except perhaps in the sense of someday yearning for victory in the Orbital Weightless Segway Polo World Championships of 2026. Which I sincerely hope becomes a bluelink, by the way. Unfortunately for you, the WP:RS call you a genius, right in the title even, so wikipedia pretty much has to call you that. I like to take a more tasteful approach, per NPOV and WP:IAR, and just let the reader figure it out, so we'll be trying thataway. But if somebody edits 'genius' into the article per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, it will be tough, albeit not impossible, to keep it out. Poor you. ;-) 75.108.94.227 (talk) 21:05, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah, well I have a dilemma... I've always thought it was 1975, but I also thought I was 9 years old (as proven by WP:RS ;-) ). But it was in the summer, and I was born in November. So either it was 1975 and I was 8 years old (and many WP:RS are wrong), or it was 1976 and I was indeed 9 and just wrong about the year since 1981. Ron Schnell 21:23, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
- When WP:THETRUTH conflicts with WP:RS, always go with the former, unless local talkpage consensus forces the latter, per WP:IAR. Since we *have* sources that specify you were quote nine years old unquote, as well as conflicting sources which specify you were quote at 14 unquote, the usual way to make it all make sense is to have some hidden-HTML-comments, like so:
- Here is my own personal WP:CALC, just for reference.
- 0 in nov'66 (aka born)
- 1 in nov'67
- 2 in nov'68
- 3 in nov'69
- 4 in nov'70
- 5 in nov'71
- 6 in nov'72
- 7 in nov'73
- 8 in nov'74 (thus still age 8 in summer-of-1975)
- 9 in nov'75
- 10 in nov'76
- 11 in nov'77
- 12 in nov'78
- 13 in nov'79
- 14 in nov'80 (thus still age 14 in summer-of-1981 during UPI/NYP/etc coverage-burst)
- 15 in nov'81
- Anyways, for basic biographical details like this, that aren't making claims about other people (claiming you worked on an IBM 360 obviously isn't the same as claiming you worked on A/IX for IBM), and aren't contentious (the difference between age 8 in summer'74 and age 9 in summer'75 will not make the difference in scientific priority for discovery of an idea or anything like that), wikipedia should just go with the bare facts. In your case, the *fact* is that you have two memories, which conflict: you think it was in summer 1975 that you first became a punchcard programmer. You think you were age nine, and told the newspapers as much, which they reprinted without fact-checking your claim, tut tut. Both cannot be true, if you were born in November 1966, either you became a punchcard programmer at age 8 in summer 1975, or you became a punchcard programmer at age 9 sometime after November 1975. Now, although you were present for both events (your birth and your first punchcard programming experience), you seemingly do not have crystal-clear memories of either event. ;-)
- So: get it worked out, what date you were actually-the-truth first a punchcard programmer. That factoid-qua-factoid, is definitely WP:NOTEWORTHY, because half a dozen sources mention that you started programming 'when young' and wikipedia should also so mention, but unlike the newspapers that have to get their story in by the deadline, on wikipedia there is no WP:DEADLINE, and thus we have time to get the exact chronology correct and truthful. Generally speaking, in cases where the truth is 8, and the sources say 9, wikipedia says 8 per WP:IAR, but parenthetically mentions the incorrect sources per the usual implementation of WP:NPOV in practice (and to avoid future editwars where other editors happen upon the article and good-faith 'correct' the 8 to be a 9 per the flawed sources). Not many articles *permit* the use of WP:IAR, and instead form a flawed local consensus to instead go with what the flawed sources say; that is unfortunate, albeit within wiki-policies. Since we're the only two active wikipedians on Draft:Ron_Schnell, we can follow the pillar, and ignore the wiki-policies, until and unless somebody objects; in this specific case, I doubt they ever will. Best, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 12:20, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
- I have a feeling we'll never know.Ron Schnell 14:15, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
- Spoke with my mom. She said that it was during the school year and not the summer, so conflict resolved. Ron Schnell 16:24, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
- I had a feeling somebody who *was* an adult at the time of said events might be available, for an interview with some wikipedians if not necessarily all wikipedians. :-) There is not yet a wiki-policy called WP:WHENINDOUBTCALLMOM but there definitely should be. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 16:39, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah, well I have a dilemma... I've always thought it was 1975, but I also thought I was 9 years old (as proven by WP:RS ;-) ). But it was in the summer, and I was born in November. So either it was 1975 and I was 8 years old (and many WP:RS are wrong), or it was 1976 and I was indeed 9 and just wrong about the year since 1981. Ron Schnell 21:23, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Are you in this composite work as a chapter-author or section-author? MA Goodman, M Goyal, RA Massoudi (1993). "Solaris porting guide". SunSoft ISV Engineering (copyright Oracle nee Sun Microsystems).{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) ?? See chapters 8,9,14 perhaps. Or maybe you were working on a predecessor/successor document. There is a table-of-contents, with relatively detailed info, but no actual book-contents, at this link anyways. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 16:55, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
- Mine was earlier, and specific to SVR4 porting to Solaris x86 (2.1). It came with the DDK. I just had an idea of someone to ask for a copy. Ron Schnell 17:10, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
- No answer yet. Not even sure he's still alive...anyway, where do we stand, this part notwithstanding? Am I waiting for you, or you me? (WP:NORUSH) Ron Schnell 03:29, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
where does the BLP stand
Demonstrating WP:42 , three WP:N sources with 25+ sentences , three more pretty-WP:N sources with 5+ sentences, three more better-than-WP:NOTEWORTHY with 2+ sentences.
- wp:n ~30 sentences setl'81,
- wp:n ~15 sentences coll'82,
- ntwrthy ~5 sentences mitnick'85/'91
- abtslf ~0 sentences att/ibm/sly/sun '86-'94
- abtslf ~2 sentences family'94
- ntwrthy ~~3 sentences dunnet'94/'96/'13
- wp:n ~50 sentences mailcall'97
- wp:n ~25 sentences eHouse'98
- ntwrthy ~~2 sentences equifax'04
- ntwrthy ~3 sentences tc'08/'11
- wp:n ~~6 sentences segway'13
- ntwrthy ~2 sentences prof'13/'15
- wp:n ~~6 sentences paul'15
Assigned tasks, feel free to punt your tasks over to the other, feel free to steal tasks from the other, but update the tasklist if you do so, to keep us from doubleworking:
add birthdate to first sentence, see Marilyn Monroe for example-style to use, also see notes about WP:CALC aboveRon Schnell 12:04, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
tighten up 1975 sentence, exact date, omit needless words</strke> - Partially complete. Not sure I omitted anything.Ron Schnell 12:06, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
tighten up 1981 sentence, is artspeak wp:source'd aka wp:noteworthy for this BLP-article? if not, cut. 'worked with' is vague, and WP:RS give details, expand that to four or five words giving specifics.- add refs for 1981 sentence
Miller, Robert (1981). "Evening news". Independent Network News (US). Season 2. Tribune. WPIX....Rockland Community College...
{{cite episode}}: Unknown parameter|city=ignored (|location=suggested) (help)inside a hidden-HTML-comment, since not actually verified: Computers and People, 1981 (Volume 30), Berkeley Enterprises. Page #25 == Pat Wallace, Navigational Support for Oceanographic Research. George Jones, Western Electric.[55]Ron Schnell 12:21, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Miller, Robert (Summer/Autumn 1981). "Evening News". Independent Network News (US). Season 2. Episode TBD. Tribune. WPIX.
1982 sentence has details, but is a bit awkward in prose-style, maybe can be rephrased to flow-more-betterer?Ron Schnell 12:29, 1 September 2015 (UTC)- has mid-1980s usenet release of net-talk-as-ported-to-C been located for wp:aboutself factoid?
"Schnell wrote[7] the text adventure game DUNNET in 1983,[a] then ported it from MacLisp to eLisp in 1992,[b] and shortly afterwards relicensed the game under GPL2 so it could be included in GNU Emacs.[8]" cut down from 34 words to roughly eleven words, most of these details belong in Dunnet_(video_game)#Development not in Ron Schnell#Life_and_work, per the amount of emphasis that the wp:sources give to the author-specifically. Retain "Schnell wrote the text adventure DUNNET in 1983, then ported it in 1992." I realize that I wrote the expanded version of this sentence myself, after telling you not to, but I was correct the first time, wrong in the middle, and am correct again now. :-)Ron Schnell 02:21, 2 September 2015 (UTC)- insert brief sentence about Mitnick and MIT, with corresponding wp:source
- Is 1986 really when you started at ATT? I thought it was 1987. Internship doesn't count, this is the encyclopedia. ;-) But seriously, when did you start working as a full time programmer, and were no longer at Syracuse, for good?
- Also in the late-1980s sentence, cut mention of bell labs, ibm, sun, and their products, simply say instead 'computer consultant'. If we found wp:source making WP:NOTEWORTHY mention of sos.com , can namedrop first startup, too, else cut this down to a simple aboutself sentence. Can also mention poker in this bit, if it was a significant source (aka statistically significant meaning 20+% of your annual income) during at least a couple of years, otherwise cut it.
- mailcall sentence gives 1997 + ivr + tts , but we have sources with more details. add second sentence, about the reception of mailcall product in the wp:rs , and about the acquisition by vwlr-fka-kensington in 2001 or 2000 or whatever. Also, revise both sentences to specify what you-the-BLP did, aka your role is mentioned as 'co-founder' but wikipedia should specify what you mainly did, and what you mainly let the other co-founders and employees do. Go ahead and write up a series of sentence-pairs about mailcall, one sentence-pair per year 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002andBeyond, that say in sentence#1997A what *you* did and in sentence1997#B what mostly was done by others, etc. Then I'll try to help extract the essence of those dozen sentences into a good neutral couple of sentences about the mailcall startup, and your specific role therein.
- mailcall refs to be added
- iff needed , as Template:efn , http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/854608/000110465901500205/j0223_10-ksb.htm
- maybe the highbeam one , although we don't need it to satisfy WP:N
- Patricia Fusco (March 1, 1999). "Concentric Introduces On Call E-mail". internetnews.com , as of 2015 was previously merged into ItBusinessEdge.com.
Dial-up customers of Concentric Network Corp ... Through an agreement with Mail Call Inc ... will be able to hear their e-mail messages through text-to-speech technology ... [via] a toll-free phone number... computerized voice... how many e-mail messages are in their mailbox and begin reading the headers for each message. ...choose whether or not to listen to the full text... can reply directly to the sender, forward the message to someone in their address book, or send the message to a fax machine. ...users can set options... [via Concentric's] Web page, allowing them to filter messages so that mailing lists or messages from certain senders will not be read while on the road. Similarly, particular senders or subjects can be prioritized so that they are always read first. ... Ron Schnell, president of Mail Call ... Alan Warshaw, vice president of marketing for Concentric's network services division ... users pay 20 cents a minute ... $5 annual membership fee....
- Gareth Branwyn (April 19, 1999). "Phone takes messages, tells you when e-mail messages await you".
...The IT-380 E-Mail Link also works with Mail Call, a text-to-voice remote e-mail service. If you can't wait to log on to download your messages, for a fee Mail Call will read them to you. The Mail Call service starts at $7.50 a month for 30 minutes of usage. This phone has other nice features...
- Craig Crossman, The Miami Herald (July 13, 1998). "Devices Save Time By Monitoring E-mail So You Won't Have To: New Products Keep The Immediacy Of Messages". Chicago Tribune.
...access your e-mail from any telephone. With Mail Call (mailcall.net), you call a toll-free number... service connects to your ISP, retrieves your e-mail and reads the subject line of each item... decide which ones you want to hear in their entirety. ...Based upon rules of grammar, the computerized reader is pretty accurate at vocalizing such abbreviations as "Dr." which can mean either doctor or drive, and finesses words like "content," which has two meanings depending on how it's pronounced. Punctuation is vocalized as well; a comma causes a small pause, and an exclamation point causes the voice to sound excited. Another nice touch is Mail Call's ability to pronounce the emoticons....
:)....When Mail Call sees this one, it laughs out loud. Mail Call can also read e-mail written in Spanish. Other languages such as Japanese are planned... you can elect to have [an email] faxed to any location, such as your hotel's fax machine....
- equifax looks okay in prose && weight, has excess whitespace between the two refs however. should add approx-four-word-summary of your work there, "on outbound email marketing" might be close? please revise per wp:thetruth
- TC sentence is bloated in terms of weight... 23 words ... but at minimum, we need 8 words just to say orgname & jobtitle, so question is, can we cut down the 15 words saying what the thing *was* without going vague? already pretty vague. See if you can dig up some wikilinks that will help us summarize TC, and the role it played in the lawsuit, and in the msft-product-dev-process.
- Nova is okay; go ahead and add the 2015 news.fiu.edu ref to backup the mutually-supporting-aboutself (non-independent-employer), but don't bother mentioning the contest-judge-bit in body-prose, readership interested in your 2010+ professorship stuff will have to clickthru on the two refs and/or do their own googling-fu at bing.com or whatever. still no syr.edu refs? should never have gone to university in the 1980s, no www back then! ;-)
- we have 21 words on Paul'16 campaign, which is probably sufficient for the moment, since we'll need to add more verbiage as more campaign-cto-related-press arises. We can actually even cut a bit: nix the "in 2015" at the front since we say your first cto-event was in "July 2015" at the end of the sentence.
- add refs for paul'16
- MSNBC , http://www.msnbc.com/jose-diaz-balart/watch/rand-paul-ramps-up-tech-savvy-campaign-473573443696
- ABC/Yahoo , http://fusion.net/story/158519/rand-pauls-24-hour-hack-a-thon/
- http://thebaffler.com/blog/unbearable-emptiness-politics-code
- http://freebeacon.com/politics/rand-paul-building-campaign-database-off-nsa-fight/
- personal life section is pretty tight, good. maybe try to expand a bit on the key takeaways from your ElectronicHouse article, and your SegWayPolo article, which is dense enough prose it might be worth direct-quoting.
- can add an early life sentence-or-maybe-sentence-fragment, prior to the at-age-nine bit.
- add Template:efn bits about your bibliography:
- Popular Home Automation (or maybe Popular Home Electronics?) , September 1997, www.pophome.com
- Mooney Pilot Magazine, September 2003
- plane & pilot , circa 2001(?)
- http://www.uscg.mil/proceedings/archive/2014/Vol71_No4_Wint2014.pdf
- Solaris DDK chapter
- things that are probably to be left out, but which you may want to put into the draft briefly, then self-revert, so that they're visible in the edit-history for someday-in-the-future editors to revive iff needed:
- cheese business (don't cite the wp:primary about that corp in edit-history since once mainspaced the edit-history will be trawled by search-engines potentially),
- french onion soup (wp:noteworthy says motherJones)
- att/sun/ibm stuff (already added this one actually)
- make and model of first computer you owned (prolly in some of those 1981 cites?)
- list of programming languages you have learned , chonological , with depth-of-skill-attained rating ... which is prolly not mainspace worthy , most WP:RS just care about the cumulative total , sigh. But I'd be curious to see this on usertalk, or one-way dir, if you are interested in this specific over-sharing
- imagefiles
- pic at age 14 for early life subsection , photographer needs to be somebody who can release copyright, on both the image and the derivative-work imagefile, as ccbysa/gfdl dual-license , e.g. WP:WHENINDOUBTCALLMOM again probably
- pic from 1990s , for personal life subsection , need to be able to relicense ccbysa&gfdl
- pic at age now , digicam encyclopedic-quality portrait , for top of article , need to be able to relicense ccbysa&gfdl
- color-coded derivative of this file , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Arpnet-map-march-1977.png , showing your login-credentials (green for legit + optionally orange for not) ... but like the language-list , this is presumably more artspeak dir info than mainspace , probably.
- maybe possibly add some see also links? ones we haven't worked into the article-prose , which is prolly not many.
- no need to mess with adding wiki-categories , people with edit-count-itis show up to do that for all new articles
- add some cite-templates into the draft, which I have sitting in an open tab, sigh
- Sun Sentinel
- Fast Company
- PC World
- look over the refs, and make sure we've got our WP:42 ducks in a row.
Done - add hidden-html-comments which point out the WP:N bursts, and the borderline-WP:N bits.
- ping some informal reviewers, to come see how much rose-colored-COI being your wiki-buddy has given my wiki-eyes
Doing... - maybe mainspace then, if they don't see major problems
At the moment, I'm planning on doing the four five at the bottom, and leaving the tightening-and-cleanup work for you, but as time allows I'll help. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 07:59, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
a.s.b. 7
- I'm frustrated by the search for the net-talk distribution. I'm almost certain I saw it last week, but now I can't find it. I even have the .shar file... I'm taking a break ufn today, so feel free to work on any of mine. Ron Schnell 14:30, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah, I was glad when the WP:GOOG bought out dejanews, but they've really let it go downhill. Think it might be gmail-and-googleGroups-and-googlePlus-fka-Orkut-advocacy-related, unfortunately. p.s. Joining Union des Forces Nouvelles will almost certainly get you press-coverage, but that's really not necessary methinks, I'm pretty sure we crossed WP:42 quite a while ago. :-) In any case, I forgot to make clear that I'll start from the bottom of the list and work upwards, if you'd like to start from the top of the list and work downwards. I'll skip things that are too tricksy for anons like imagefiles, but will mark {{done}} each bit I mess with. In the meanwhile, since I think the sourcing bit is pretty solid, I'll go ahead and do some informal hey-remember-last-time-you-helped-me-here-I-am-begging-for-favors-again type effort, though I know at least two of the people I'll be pinging are on real-life-vacations presently. Best, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 14:53, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
- It's okay to say I was a UNIX programmer but not UNIX kernel programmer? All of my time as an IC was as a kernel programmer. Ron Schnell 03:42, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
- It's okay to say you were a Unix programmer, or even a kernel programmer; however, I thought that SOS.com was not kernels, right? It's not okay, without a cite, to say you were a UNIXTM programmer, aka an AT&T employee at Bell Labs, sans a better cite than politico-scare-quoting-your-current-employer. It is WP:THETRUTH that you were, but no press-coverage, means no way to WP:PROVEIT exists. Saying 'from 1988 to 1994 schnell was a Unix kernel consultant' without citing the sentence, or citing it to WP:ABOUTSELF which is what's we will end up doing in, *is* perfectly reasonable. It explains what you were doing, in the years between NYU/Dialcom/MIT/Mitnick in the early 1980s, and your 'big win' startup MailCall in 1997. What we cannot do, is go outside the bounds of WP:ABOUTSELF, and say that you were a kernel programmer on a specific product (sys5r4 UNIX, Solaris 2.x, AI/X versionWhatever) nor for a specific company (BellLabs/SunOracle/IBM), since such prose contains non-aboutself claims, until and unless we dig up some kind of mutually-supporting-WP:ABOUTSELF like the Sun DDK thing, or preferably, until we find a journalist in a journalist's voice saying that "before he founded MailCall he worked for X on A, Y on B, and Z on C" quote unquote which satisfies WP:NOTEWORTHY. The politico quote, which is a WP:RS publisher, is only quasi-WP:NOTEWORTHY and only quasi-WP:RS-independent... because although politico is a wiki-reliable publisher, and mike-whatever is a wiki-reliable author, they specifically declined to publish the factoid about your work in their journalistic voice, instead quoting your present employer, who in turn was basically just quoting straight from your resume. So even though we *have* the WP:RS in hand, seemingly, it is only quasi-WP;NOTEWORTHY because of the independent-ultimate-authorship-issue. (Somewhat-similar kind of problems with e-tactics.com , was she independent and wiki-reliable, or was she only WP:BLOGS, who would republish any press-release that anybody bothered to send to her.) Anyways, per WP:NOTCV the main goal isn't to write an article about every job you've worked, the goal is to write an article that summarizes what the WP:SOURCES said about you-qua-you. There's tons of press-coverage about UNIX and tons of press coverage about Solaris and even a modicum of press-coverage about AI/X (great keyboards but not the best proprietary UNIX-flavor). There's no press-coverage about role-of-Ron-Schnell in those events, because you were a kernel-hacker working deep inside the company tech-team, not a CEO waltzing around promoting the products and the company and yourself to the press. Once you became the President of your MailCall startup, suddenly you got press-coverage... not because you were suddenly so much smarter, or so much better of a kernel-hacker, but simply because you were now in the business of promoting your startup in the press. Wikipedia is stupid about some things; to you, and to myself, your career-formative years spent on kernel-hacking and your early failed startups, are *far* more crucial than your later success -- they EXPLAIN your later success, in fact. So wikipedia, as a duty to our readers, needs a brief sentence that says Schnell worked hard to become a Unix wizard from the mid-1980s though the mid-1990s, and founded a failed startup. But we cannot, staying within the strict confines of WP:NPOV as currently implemented, give much in the way of details (though we can link to driver-aces after the unix-and-sosDotCom-related-sentence in a footnote). The sources are silent on this aspect of your life, thus, per WP:UNDUE, also must wikipedia be (largely) silent. Moreover, staying within the strict confines of WP:SYNTH, we cannot actually say, in mainspance, Schnell's early work-experience and early startup-attempts are what permitted MailCall to succeed. We must draw no conclusions. We must employ no logic. We can use WP:CALC, but only in obviously-improving-the-encyclopedia-ways. We can use WP:ABOUTSELF, ditto. Anyways, sometimes the rules are not very helpful, but knowing the wiki-culture, and how it works nowadays, I can say with 99.4% certainty, that the perfectly true sentence "Schnell worked as a kernel hacker at Bell Labs on UNIX version N, then at IBM on AI/X version M, then at Sun Microsystems (now Oracle) on Solaris 2.x, plus founded a startup SOS.com largely funded by an angel investor (Sylvester Stallone)" ... put into mainspace without citing it to an impeccable non-interview-quotation-non-Rand-Paul-press-release-quotation-WP:RS ... somebody will most definitely delete it, and probably AfD the article too, just for spite. :-) So we must conservatively and strictly stick to the wiki-laws engravethed in wiki-stone: Schnell worked as a kernel hacker on Unix from 198x to 199x, and founded his first (soon defunct) startup. No companies, no product-names, pure WP:ABOUTSELF. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 15:39, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
- It's okay to say I was a UNIX programmer but not UNIX kernel programmer? All of my time as an IC was as a kernel programmer. Ron Schnell 03:42, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah, I was glad when the WP:GOOG bought out dejanews, but they've really let it go downhill. Think it might be gmail-and-googleGroups-and-googlePlus-fka-Orkut-advocacy-related, unfortunately. p.s. Joining Union des Forces Nouvelles will almost certainly get you press-coverage, but that's really not necessary methinks, I'm pretty sure we crossed WP:42 quite a while ago. :-) In any case, I forgot to make clear that I'll start from the bottom of the list and work upwards, if you'd like to start from the top of the list and work downwards. I'll skip things that are too tricksy for anons like imagefiles, but will mark {{done}} each bit I mess with. In the meanwhile, since I think the sourcing bit is pretty solid, I'll go ahead and do some informal hey-remember-last-time-you-helped-me-here-I-am-begging-for-favors-again type effort, though I know at least two of the people I'll be pinging are on real-life-vacations presently. Best, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 14:53, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
- I'm frustrated by the search for the net-talk distribution. I'm almost certain I saw it last week, but now I can't find it. I even have the .shar file... I'm taking a break ufn today, so feel free to work on any of mine. Ron Schnell 14:30, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
- I'm still looking for that blasted net-talk thing. I'm pulling my hair out. Did find this interesting link: https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/federal_register_notices/definitions-and-implementation-under-can-spam-act-16-cfr-part-316/080521canspamact.pdf - never knew about it. I am cited quite a few times. Ron Schnell 06:05, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry about the hair; wigs are expensive, you should channel your frustration into something more constructive. ;-) We don't need a net-talk footnote to pass WP:42, it's just for completeness, and for interested readership to have a 'Notes' footnote to click on. As for the other thing, will check the latest FTC doc out. WP:PRIMARY applies, prolly, but we can likely add it to the 'Notes' section with the others of that nature. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 15:39, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
- Well, having read the FTC link, or at least, skimmed some of it and ctrl+F hopped through the rest of it, I'm probably more confused than before. :-) This is a 2008 final ruling, and you are listed as a commenter in the appendix, and then cited (usually just as 'Schnell' with nothing further but in a few cases with snippets from your presumed-to-exist-somewheres-commentary) a dozen times in the footnotes. It's obviously a governmental document... it's also obviously been brewing since 2003, when the CAN-SPAM act first was put forward. So, is the 'Schnell' commentary, your 2004 speech as an Equifax employee, on the topic of spam and SMTP and the DKIM-precursors and such? Or was your specific commentary on the final ruling proper, aka made in 2008, but not visible in that particular PDF? 75.108.94.227 (talk) 02:38, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
- The latter. Usually the commentary is *somewhere* online, but I couldn't find it when I searched the other day. I remember composing my comments as an agent of Equifax, so it would have had to be 1/2005 or earlier. Ron Schnell 02:42, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
- Well, having read the FTC link, or at least, skimmed some of it and ctrl+F hopped through the rest of it, I'm probably more confused than before. :-) This is a 2008 final ruling, and you are listed as a commenter in the appendix, and then cited (usually just as 'Schnell' with nothing further but in a few cases with snippets from your presumed-to-exist-somewheres-commentary) a dozen times in the footnotes. It's obviously a governmental document... it's also obviously been brewing since 2003, when the CAN-SPAM act first was put forward. So, is the 'Schnell' commentary, your 2004 speech as an Equifax employee, on the topic of spam and SMTP and the DKIM-precursors and such? Or was your specific commentary on the final ruling proper, aka made in 2008, but not visible in that particular PDF? 75.108.94.227 (talk) 02:38, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry about the hair; wigs are expensive, you should channel your frustration into something more constructive. ;-) We don't need a net-talk footnote to pass WP:42, it's just for completeness, and for interested readership to have a 'Notes' footnote to click on. As for the other thing, will check the latest FTC doc out. WP:PRIMARY applies, prolly, but we can likely add it to the 'Notes' section with the others of that nature. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 15:39, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
- I'm still looking for that blasted net-talk thing. I'm pulling my hair out. Did find this interesting link: https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/federal_register_notices/definitions-and-implementation-under-can-spam-act-16-cfr-part-316/080521canspamact.pdf - never knew about it. I am cited quite a few times. Ron Schnell 06:05, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
- Here's another WP:RS brief mention, if you haven't seen yet: http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/09/02/rand-paul-campaign-makes-pixelated-pitch-through-an-app/ Ron Schnell 12:06, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
- Okay, that's actually borderline-WP:N, because as the architect of the app, the features thereof count as SomethingRonSchnellDid. Well, potentially, anyways, depending on how much of the app is yours, and how much of the app is 'yours' in the corporate-chain-of-ultimate-responsibility-sense, but not yours in the nose-to-the-grindstone-sense. Are you also the programmer? How many people worked on the code, how many people worked on the architecture-slash-infrastructure-design, how many people worked on the graphics-slash-visual-design? Don't need names, just headcounts, and your specific role; as CTO you were spending what percent of your time the past N weeks on this app, say?
- Nick Corasaniti (September 2, 2015). "Rand Paul Campaign Makes Pixelated Pitch, Through an App". New York Times.
...The Paul campaign is releasing a smartphone app... Apple and Android stores, one of the few official campaign apps of 2016... [except] Ted Cruz.... It tries to offer a blend of digital mischief and communication that has come to be a hallmark of Mr. Paul's online campaign. ...calendar events, campaign news and a featured video, the app lets users post their own Rand Paul memes or create an artificial selfie with the senator... an 'Easter egg' hidden game, a version of the 1978 arcade classic Space Invaders that features Mr. Paul's torch logo shooting rockets at other campaigns' logos, blasting [them]... into pixelated embers. ...send[s] push alerts when the senator is hosting an event in the area, and notify users when he is about to vote on a bill in the Senate, asking his followers how they think he should vote. 'You have a reason to download it because you can influence what happens,' said Ron Schnell, the chief technology officer of the Paul campaign and architect of the app. 'It's not just to find out about the candidate you support, it's about letting the candidate know what you think.' The first piece of content a user sees when beginning to scroll in the app, however, is not a game or news, but rather an option to donate. And should a Trump or Bush logo blow up the user-controlled Paul liberty torch in the app's hidden game, the user is chided: 'You have not defeated your inferiors! Assuage your guilt by making a donation to the campaign!'
- Nick Corasaniti (September 2, 2015). "Rand Paul Campaign Makes Pixelated Pitch, Through an App". New York Times.
- Here's the nice template-ized ref, which somebody with WP:REFILL could make, but which I prefer to hand-create so I can |quote= the key bits. Now, assuming for the sake of wiki-training, that you personally are 100% behind the app, architect and designer and programmer and graphic artist and all that, put on your cloak of wiki-neutrality, and write me a nice neutral boring just-the-facts sentence with ~~15 words that summarizes the cite.
- Problem-set-question-number-two, assume that your actual role was relatively minimal, and 90% of the work was done by other people, which makes the NYT cite WP:NOTEWORTHY since you were namedropped (and they were not ... cf related discussion about why you have press-coverage for prez-of-mailcall but not press-coverage for kernel-hacker-of-att/ibm/sun), once again put on your cloak of wiki-neutrality, and write me a nice neutral boring just-the-facts sentence with ~~5 words that summarizes the cite. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 15:39, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
- Okay, that's actually borderline-WP:N, because as the architect of the app, the features thereof count as SomethingRonSchnellDid. Well, potentially, anyways, depending on how much of the app is yours, and how much of the app is 'yours' in the corporate-chain-of-ultimate-responsibility-sense, but not yours in the nose-to-the-grindstone-sense. Are you also the programmer? How many people worked on the code, how many people worked on the architecture-slash-infrastructure-design, how many people worked on the graphics-slash-visual-design? Don't need names, just headcounts, and your specific role; as CTO you were spending what percent of your time the past N weeks on this app, say?
- Here's another WP:RS brief mention, if you haven't seen yet: http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/09/02/rand-paul-campaign-makes-pixelated-pitch-through-an-app/ Ron Schnell 12:06, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
- We've been working hard on the app for weeks. I was indeed the architect and managed our team who wrote the code. I like your proposed kernel wording. It was a long way to go to say "yes, we can add the word kernel", which is what I was asking! Ron Schnell 16:23, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
- Do. Or do not. There is no 'ask'. If you want a fast answer, I'm not the anon to seek out, in other words. ;-) But it actually is a bit subtle: kernel hackers have special street-cred, in the programming world. Adding 'kernel' could be seen as promotional, if you weren't actually a kernel hacker. So per WP:THETRUTH, we can say Unix kernel consultant. But it's a mild risk, slightly higher than just saying 'Unix programmer', that somebody will pull out WP:PROVEIT, and if they are clear on the wiki-policies, strictly applied, they won't accept the politico-ref, they'll want a ref of the mutually-supporting-WP:ABOUTSELF type from Sun/IBM/ATT, or better, WP:NOTEWORTHY fully-not-quasi-independent mention by a journalist. So adding that additional word, 'Unix kernel consultant', is actually a bit of a risk, more than just saying 'Unix consultant'. But I think only a bit. :-)
- Mentioning the first startup, now defunct, is also a bit subtle, for the same reasons. We do at least have some WP:BLOGS that prove that SOS.com was a thing, but of course, that's not noticeably better than WP:ABOUTSELF in most ways. What was the elevator-pitch description of the goal of SOS.com? What were the customers you actually got? Basically, was SOS.com just a kernel-hacker-startup, a variation on your kernel-hacker-consulting-gigs? I was under the impression it was NOT kernel-hacking-specific, but was some kind of infosec startup, but I'm fuzzy on the details.
- Re: NYT cite, I do want to know the actuality of your involvement, o'course, but I also want you to practice wearing the cloak of neutrality, and write (or at least dash off a rough draft of) the two sentences. What is the 15-word-summary-sentence, if you alone are 100% responsible for all arch/design/code/graphics/sqa/marketing of the app? By contrast, what is the 5-word-summary-sentence, if you were only vaguely-involved, aka ceremonial-role-but-with-some-ultimate-public-facing-responsibility? Sounds like your actual role was in-between those two, so probably the actual sentence we mainspace will be closer to 15 words than to 5 words, but it's good practice to over-write, and then under-write, before trying to hit the happy medium. Then we have to look at the overall length of the article, and see if the ~~10-word-summary-sentence, really belongs or not. Is this Paul'16 app worth the same number of words as the Net-Talk and BBC sentence? Or is is worth as few words as the hackathon currently gets? That's the question of WP:UNDUE. It's clearly WP:NOTEWORTHY and thus deserves a mention, but how much detail, and how much we let the reader click through to the NYT to discover, is the key to the core of wiki-neutrality. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 20:23, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
- We've been working hard on the app for weeks. I was indeed the architect and managed our team who wrote the code. I like your proposed kernel wording. It was a long way to go to say "yes, we can add the word kernel", which is what I was asking! Ron Schnell 16:23, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
- http://www.theverge.com/2015/9/2/9248495/rand-paul-presidential-app Ron Schnell 20:16, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
- Better than the NYT? Worse than the NYT? In terms of specific depth-of-details about Schnell-qua-Schnell, your role and what you did and such. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 20:27, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
- I think it's better in all of the aspects. Ron Schnell 20:34, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
- Better than the NYT? Worse than the NYT? In terms of specific depth-of-details about Schnell-qua-Schnell, your role and what you did and such. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 20:27, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
- http://www.theverge.com/2015/9/2/9248495/rand-paul-presidential-app Ron Schnell 20:16, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
asb8
Well, let's build the cite-web-template, and then compare and contrast.
- Chris Plante (September 2, 2015). "Rand Paul's presidential app is no joke".
Imagine an app with which you can vote on the bills in the Senate... Paul (R-KY) released an app promoting his bid for the [presidency]... all of the filler you'd expect. A calendar lists Paul's public events, a meme generator helps supporters socialize their adoration of the gold standard and contempt for the surveillance state, and a Space Invaders clone pits Paul's campaign logo against the logos and slogans of his fellow presidential hopefuls. The app also sends push notifications, updating users on when Paul is preparing to vote on a bill... asks for feedback on how the senator should vote. ...chief technology officer of Paul's campaign, Ron Schnell, had this to say about the feature: 'You have a reason to download [the app] because you can influence what happens. It's not just to find out about the candidate you support, it's about letting the candidate know what you think.' The second sentence, 'letting the candidate know what you think,' undercuts the ambition and potential of the first sentence, 'you can influence what happens.' One wonders how much Schnell, who served as the chief architect of the app, sincerely believes in the platform as a mode of political engagement, and how little influence the countless political missives to come — consider the minimal friction of dispatching a passionate sentence or two — will have on Paul. The notion of constituents sharing opinions with their politicians isn't novel. ...What's different in the case of Paul's app is the potential impact from the electorate. It's not hard to imagine political activism reduced to the complexity of a Facebook Like....
By my count, there are 276 words from TheVerge cite, which are specifically about what you did or said, or directly related thereto. This is slightly more than the 264 from the NYT cite. But what about factoid-count, which is often distinct from word-count? Again, they are about the same, in my estimation. We get *different* factoids in some cases; NYT says it is compatible with both android-and-apple smartfons, Verve says you were 'chief' architect. NYT gave a deeper analysis of the space invaders aspect, Verve gave a deeper analysis of the help-Paul-vote aspect.
- both: Ron_Schnell (CTO) quoted (Verve: quote analyzed: more polls !== direct democracy)
- both: Schnell was architect of app (Verge says 'chief' , NYT elides adjective)
- NYT: smartphone app, on iTunes and Google Play appstores
- both: app promotes Paul'16 (NYT: donate-now-link is first thing you see, campaign news, featured video, 2nd POTUS campaign w/ 'official' app, "tries to offer a blend of digital mischief and communication that has come to be a hallmark of Mr. Paul's online campaign")
- both: Space Invaders (Verve: clone / NYT: hidden easter egg version), logo of Paul'16 vs OtherLogos (NYT: Trump or Bush [or etc])
- NYT: shoot rockets to blast into pixelated embers... game over msg: 'You have not defeated your inferiors! Assuage your guilt by making a donation to the campaign!')
- both: sends push notifications prior to Senate votes, users 'vote' on Senate bills (NYT: "asking users how they think Paul should vote")
- Verve: political engagement !== actual influence on Senators; app-based-'votes' not a novel idea, but potential for good (decisions made on behalf of electorate), potential for bad (over-simplified issues-activism)
- both: Paul'16 event_calendar (NYT: send[s] [[push alerts when the senator is hosting an event)
- both: meme mini-app for social media (Verve: meme generator, e.g. pro-gold_standard && anti-surveillance_state) (NYT: post their own Rand Paul memes, e.g. create an artificial selfie with the senator)
So to return to the wiki-challenge, currently on the table: can you boil all that down into at 15-word summary? Jamming it into a template is easy. I find writing the sentences to be frigging hard! :-) 75.108.94.227 (talk) 21:38, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
- Well, I like to think I'm good at writing prose. I just want to make sure of what you are asking. Would this be a 15-word summary of the mobile app launch? Ron Schnell 22:11, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
- You *can* write that sentence, sure, but Ron Schnell needs a sentence specifically about Ron-Schnell's-role-in-the-Rand-Paul-2016-app (all phases not just launch), as reflected in the WP:RS. The sentence you're describing is *also* needing to be added to wikipedia (tho WP:NORUSH applies), but over in the Paul'16 article, not Ron Schnell. The bulk of the sources don't mention the infamous CTO, but just react to the app and/or campaign, so the sentence-contents are actually quite distinct, because they draw from different source-groups, and from different *parts* of the sources. The sentence for the Paul'16 article, covers all of what all of the sources say, and probably 15 words would be too few; the sentence for the Ron Schnell article covers all of what all the sources say about Ron Schnell specifically, and to a limited degree, about the app itself, since you were one of the co-creators thereof.
- Similar to the sources on Dunnet being generally vague on who wrote Dunnet (of the dozen dunnet sources we have you get passing mention as the author in a couple), your role in the app is only covered by some sources, and then only as a part of their overall coverage, so the outcome of neutrally-summarizing is very different, because the wikipedia-article-focus is different. Consider the firm in Covington, from what I can tell, none of the sources even mention them, even though they are co-creators of the app, at minimum. Distributor and namesake gets all the credit, in this case: Rand Paul is the namesake, and you as campaign CTO are the distributor, with CanDo getting shortest shrift in the press. With the sources for Dunnet, the situation was rather similar: EMACS was the namesake ("type
emacs -batch -l dunnet"), OSX was the distributor, and Schnell got the shortest shrift in the press. As mentioned with the Unix kernel hacker thing, sometimes wikipedia's rules are badly skewed, with what the objective reality of the situation is: OSX had basically zip to do with Dunnet, but gets lots of press-credit. Rand Paul is the *reason* there is a Rand_Paul_2016 app, of course, but I kinda doubt he was hacking on the codebase along with the others. - Anyways, I'm looking for a 15-word summary of the Schnell-specific-portions of the WP:SOURCES that mention you with respect to the app launch. WP:NOTNEWS applies (a subset of WP:NORUSH), so we cannot *really* add a story that just broke to wikipedia mainspace, since the coverage-burst is ongoing... but draftspace is another matter, o'course. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 00:54, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
- Well, I like to think I'm good at writing prose. I just want to make sure of what you are asking. Would this be a 15-word summary of the mobile app launch? Ron Schnell 22:11, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
sentence-drafting convenience-sub-sub-sub-sub-section
- (after describing my position), and architected the Rand Paul 2016 mobile app, and described it as being "about letting the candidate know what you think."
- I don't really like it, but I was trying to make it short. Ron Schnell 01:55, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
- Okay, so that is neutral, but it is not balanced, or at least, not balanced by my interpretation of "you and your role". It is true that both places quoted you, and the Verge actually gave some journalistic-voice-analysis of your quote. But the wikipedia article is supposed to stick to describing what the WP:RS said, and giving the various bits the *weight* that the WP:RS gave them. In this case, the articles in question gave most of their weight to the quote, in terms of how *specifically* they described your role. So your picking the quote, as the key bit beyond the project-specific-job-title, is not actually wrong, per se. However, they also list you as the chief architect, or as the architect at least, and then go on to describe the features of the app, which (per WP:SYNTH ... but in this case an allowed type of it methinks), means I think we need to mention the features of the app, which you architected during the last few months, to get some mention.
- Now, in the case of Dunnet, by contrast, there is an extant dedicated article serving that purpose, but in the case of the Paul'16 app, there is not such as article. (And Rand Paul 2016 (app) doesn't pass a strict reading of the WP:NSOFT guideline, because there is only a single coverage-burst about the app so far.) So, since there is no article about the app we can wikilink to, and because you were the architect of the app and thus largely responsible for the features thereof, it makes sense to me that our sentence for Ron Schnell BLP-article should pick out some of those features: the hidden easter egg logo-invaders game, the donation-prompts, the feedback-on-Senate-votes (which we can cover more succinctly without quotations), and the virtual-selfie are the main ones methinks. It's hard to cover all that ground in fifteen words, but methinks it can be done, with judicious use of wikilinks. Something like this:
- ^ Works on most iOS v8+ and also Android v2.3.3+ smartphones.
- Which works out to 17 or 16 words, depending on whether you count "Paul'16" as a single word or as two words. So *pretty* close to what we're aiming for. Cutting it down to 10 words, might not be possible, but I think we can give plenty of details whilst keeping it under 20 words. You started at 21 words, but used no wikilinks:
- Schnell architected the Paul'16 mobile app which "let[s] the candidate know what you think."
- So with wikilinks, deverbosification of "and described it as being about" to simply "which", that goes down from 21 words to 14 words. Also, depending on whether we make a standalone sentence, or integrate it into the hackathon-sentence, we might be able to de-duplicate things (like "Paul'16") and save a word here or there. But clarity first, we don't want our sentences to be super-long, just so we can cram a bunch of extraneous details into them. And balance always, we want to balance out what the sources say when we summarize them into a sentence, and we want to balance out the *overall* coverage of the topic of Ron Schnell in terms of the total article. The Paul'16 app is an important component of your overall coverage (prolly the first time you were in the NYT for instance), but we don't want to give more coverage to recent events than we do to past ones, but rather, try and look at the bulk of the coverage of yourself and your activities, and then boil them down into a nice balanced-in-proprotion-to-the-sources article. Toughest part about wikipedia is NPOV, but also the most crucial part. Best, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 17:10, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
- Which works out to 17 or 16 words, depending on whether you count "Paul'16" as a single word or as two words. So *pretty* close to what we're aiming for. Cutting it down to 10 words, might not be possible, but I think we can give plenty of details whilst keeping it under 20 words. You started at 21 words, but used no wikilinks:
asb9
These are the other app-related-refs that have appeared, that I noticed.
- Kerry Flynn (September 2, 2015). "Rand Paul's Mobile App Truly Will Let Anyone 'Stand With Rand'".
- Chad Merda (09/02/2015). "Rand Paul releases app, gets trolled with booty-full selfie".
{{cite web}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) - Eliza Collins; also, Daniel Strauss contributed (September 2, 2015). "Rand Paul's #SelfieFail".
{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - Joe Veix (September 2, 2015). "Rand Paul released a new selfie app, and it's going as bad as you'd expect". deathandtaxes.com. spinmedia.com.
- Kaitlyn Tiffany (September 2, 2015). "Me and Rand Paul, a love story".
- Neal Ungerleider (September 2, 2015). "The Rand Paul Campaign Introduces Its Official App: You can now fire missiles at the logos of the Trump and Bush campaigns in a mini-game inside the app".
- Yasmin Aslam (09/02/15). "Twitter users put their own spin on Rand Paul app's 'selfie' option".
{{cite web}}: Check date values in:|date=(help)
- Russ Choma (September 2, 2015). "Rand Paul: Troll Me, and I'll Track Your Phone: His campaign released an app that lets you take "selfies" with him. Guess what happened next".
...CanDo...
- Amber Phillips (September 2, 2015). "Rand Paul has an app where you can create a selfie with him. What could go wrong?".
- Gideon Resnick (09.02.15). "Rand's Cure For A Summertime Of Sadness: Selfies".
...Harris... CanDo...
{{cite web}}: Check date values in:|date=(help)
- Carrie Dann and Andrew Rafferty. "The Lid: Joe Biden's Tough Reality if He Enters 2016 Fray".
Apparently not realizing the Internet is horrible, the Rand Paul campaign released a new app allowing supporters to take a fake selfie with the candidate. The results included Paul pictured next to terrorists, a toilet, and Nicki Minaj's butt. (Really.) ... PAUL: His campaign unveiled a new smartphone app featuring artificial selfies and game that allows users to destroy other campaigns' logos, the New York Times writes.
- Katie McDonough (September 02, 2015). "Rand Theft Auto: I can't get past level two on Rand Paul's video game. Let's pretend it's a metaphor for his campaign".
{{cite web}}: Check date values in:|date=(help)
Outside the WP:RS, which contain very little programming-related-info except the phrase "app", it is possible to find some technical data. There are also some bugs and complaints in WP:NOTFORUM, such as the relatively-high iOS reqs (v8+)[56] whereas droid support extends all the way back to 2.3.3,[57] aka 99.9% of linux-based tablets out there nowadays. One person in the google store claimed there was a bug with LG Flex smartfons, which a later update to the app fixed (but they still left you only 2 stars for daring to release without testing on all variants of the LG Flex! ;-) Also said that virtual-selfie-sharing ought not to be hyperlink-based (presumably wanted JPEG-based). Somebody claimed that there was no share-this-app-to-another-nearby-user-via-NFC-or-wifi-or-bluetooth feature.[58] Another person complained that you couldn't download the APK from the campaign website, aka for side-loading, but had to run it from the appstore-app (and share it via those as well). However, since all these tech-related-complaints are not yet mentioned in WP:RS, they wouldn't be factors as far as wikipedia is concerned; software is assumed to be buggy, nowadays, by the vast bulk of the media. :-) Most of the complaints in the WP:RS are related to the v-selfie feature being free-form, which permits various sorts of silly pranks, although the look-at-the-funny-pranks article in politico also mentioned the gaffe that the app requires precision-location-tracking-data (the NYT was the only one that concentrated on the fundraising-related aspects that I saw). For your role in the development of the app, most of this coverage is excessive, because it's about the app (which coverage-summarization belongs in the paul'16 article). 75.108.94.227 (talk) 02:56, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
- Here's another for you: http://www.vocativ.com/news/227868/we-found-the-easter-egg-in-rand-pauls-app/ Ron Schnell 03:05, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not sure '"server-side" text-to-speech' is a meaningful description in the contact of a phone service bureau. There was no real "client" in this context (think landlines, as that was what was predominantly used at the beginning). Ron Schnell 19:59, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
- Am open to clarification, but my distinction was between the 'customer premises telephony device' that the mailcall enduser was holding in their hands, which would in turn be the 'client' that connected them to the telephony network... and somewhere on the other end of the toll-free-number, an IVR server was reading them their email. Siri is also server-side text-to-speech, albeit theoretically (because an ARM-based smartphone is Turing-complete whereas a DTMF-handset is not) it would also be conceivable for the text-to-speech to be implemented client-side. And actually, that proves what I know... quite possibly the protocol under the hood is that the enduser creates an audio-streamed query, which is sent to the server for speech-to-text processing, and then the server sends ASCII back to the smartphone, which generates the Siri-voice with the answer? But I was assuming the Siri stuff was bidirectional audio streams, since old-school-telephony typically was bidirectional audio streams. Anyways, in the context of mailcall, there was no computationally-capable client, but there was a client-side electromechanical device. If you have some image-skills, maybe you can put together a nice block diagram, which shows the architecture? human, phone handset, ESS6 switch, telephony network, 800-number-mux-thing, and whatever you did server-side. Since the article is about Ron Schnell rather than Mail Call (company) probably the diagram is WP:UNDUE, but it kinda depends on the other two co-founders; were either of them techie-types, or did they work on sales/marketing/finance/etc? 75.108.94.227 (talk) 20:20, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah, I understand that from a literal perspective it's server-side. What I was saying is that I don't think it really has a "relevant" meaning in this context. No big deal, in any case. The other two co-founders were not technical by any stretch of the imagination. Ron Schnell 20:53, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
- I agree the prose needs work. For one thing, the average wikipedia readership isn't going to understand what 'server-side' even means, it is nerd-jargon slash hacker-speak, and needs a rewrite just on those grounds. I already think we need to have 2 sentences about mailcall; I suggest that one of the sentences focus on the business-aspect: founded 1997, product was check-your-email-over-the-telephone, job title & role you played, acquired 2000(?), product defunct 2xxx. The next sentence can give specifics about what the technology-details were, aka the specific features you implemented. As with the Paul'16 app, where the *actual* features of the app are in the dozen-or-so range, the *key* features (aka the ones the WP:RS gave the most ink unto) were the vote-on-senate-bills (Verge), the donate-now-btn (NYT), the v-selfie (most *every* other WP:RS put the focus on that), and the logo-invaders-easter-egg (also a very 'key' feature per press-coverage). Mail Call had a lot of features, but the press coverage at the time emphasized relatively few of them; so, we should give the 'key' features that got the most notice, plus try to explain to our 2015 readership *why* the product was considered Way CoolTM back in the late 1990s by non-techie-audiences like Working Woman targetted, for example. In as few and maximally-succinct words as possible, per usual. ;-) 75.108.94.227 (talk) 21:19, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
- Funny, seems there isn't the handy </tm> closing-tag that I imagined. Thanks for the temp-fix, I've unwedged my comment a little better now. ;-) As I believe I've mentioned, you're free to mess directly with my comments to edit them for clarity/grammar/whatever (or to unwedge my poor attempt at SGML), but generally speaking it is best to do what you just did, and make an edit *outside* other people's comments, since plenty of them are touchy about their comment-turf and don't like anyone messing directly with what they said. So the wikiquette is to do exactly what you did, adjust the flow of HTML outside the other person's comment, nice fix. Though for me-only-specifically, feel free just to fix-in-place (or feel free to keep practicing wikiquette as a way to develop an ingrained habit -- either way is fine by moi). 75.108.94.227 (talk) 10:34, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
- Responding to the mad blocker's talkback...I am not comfortable doing an AfC request on my own. Whether or not COI is allowed, I do not feel comfortable creating my own article, and would rather someone (at least originally) unbiased did it because they think it's WP:N. I was perfectly happy with your idea to confirm WP:NPOV by asking around, but if the answer is for ME to spearhead an AfC, I'm not very enthused. Ron Schnell 23:44, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
- Now, now, WP:NICE. They aren't angry, WP:AGF, they are just trying in good faith to wiki-police the 'pedia to keep people away, whom are out to screw said 'pedia up. There's definitely a need for anti-spam patrollers, and although the impersonation-thing was over the top, it *has* happened before, that some e.g. campaign staffer from one of the Democratic Party candidates (say), would pretend to be the Republican Party opponent-candidate (say), and then engage in a false flag political attack designed to get that opposing-candidate bad press. WP:CHECKUSER can detect such schemes, but there are only a few dozen people on wikipedia that have access to the raw server logs. That said, certainly I think they're wrong on the wiki-policies, since we're obviously doing everything with full wiki-properness and our wiki-honor intact, and DOUBLY-CERTAINLY that block was a little, um, heavy-handed. I'll probably be giving some of my own wiki-goosing to the folks involved in that, to make sure everybody is on the same page about WP:COI and WP:NICE and WP:DRAFTS and the subtle interactions thereof.
- But yes, the plan at the moment is still the same as before, to informally advertise the draft to TheBanner whom I met via working the wp-coi-queue, and (when he is back from vacation) to FiddleFaddle who approved one of my AfC submissions past, and to one other person who approved some AfC draft of mine, their username slips my mind at the moment but it might be primefac? If most of those long-haul wikipedians thinks we've passed WP:42, and that I'm not rose-colored-wiki-glasses-encumbered, then I'll ask them to mainspace Ron Schnell for us -- anons cannot mainspace, and User:Aviators99 shouldn't be mainspacing *this* article since you are wp-coi-encumbered.
- We'll only be going through AfC if the answer comes back as maybe-this-BLP-article-passes-but-seems-borderline, in which case what will happen is that 1) I'll submit the article for AfC review, since I have no question that it passes WP:42 now, since we've found the mail call offline refs, and even before then I knew it was borderline-but-probably-over-the-line, then 2) you Ron will continue improving it ... with me helping as time permits ... and unforunately at least half the AfC reviewers are utter Manual Of Style sticklers which is *not* what AfC is supposed to be for but that is another gripe for another day ... see tips from Brianhe on their usertalk page about slimming the humongo-quotes and templatizing the bare-URL-refs and paying attention to MOS:APPENDEX and such which we can defer until and unless we get stuck into the AfC approach. Finally, 3) when an AfC reviewer happens along, to {{afc_comment}} or even to AfC-decline-with-specific-things-to-fix-attached, you and me both (as well as the AfC reviewer although in most cases they don't help directly but merely give tips) will fix up whatever complaints they had.
- Anyways, the AfC process is not painful, it is just inherently-always-backlogged so it takes a very long time. And in fact, if you didn't have me handy, one of the *primary* purposes of AfC is to let employee-of-company-XYZ write up a draft-wikipedia-article about Company XYZ (ditto for human-named-Ron writing up their autobiograph Ron Schnell in the AfC queue), and then get neutral AfC-reviewer-eyeballs to help them whittle out the promotionalism, and wiki-experienced AfC-reviewers to give them tips on inline referencing, manual of style, whether press-releases count as wiki-reliable, and so on. Quite frankly, the long monologues you're getting from me, are more painful and more exacting than what you'd get in the AfC queue. You're free to escape to their gentler wiki-standards any time you get tired of suffering under my wiki-lash. ;-) 75.108.94.227 (talk) 10:34, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
- I think you misunderstood a couple of things. I'm fine with the use of AfC if that's necessary. I just don't feel comfortable being the requester. Just like I didn't want to go through the process of creating my own WP:BLP before I met you. Before I thought it was disallowed, now I still find it uncouth. I was perfectly happy to have it not happen if nobody thought I was WP:N enough to have it. Ron Schnell 14:01, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah, we're on the same page about AfC and all that. Mostly I'm explaining what is going on, to the ears in the wiki-walls, as it were. Creating your own autobio, contrary to popular belief, is 100% allowed. It is frowned upon, because statistically it cannot be done wiki-neutrally, due to the inherent internal bias. Such as, for instance, in your summarization of your own role as the app-architect, where rather than quoting what some journalist said about the app, or about your role in the app, you quoted yourself. ;-) More on that later, I'm trying to write my own 15-word-summary, 5-word-summary, and 10-words-about-right-summary. While I'm trying to write a sentence for Draft:Ron Schnell, put on your cloak of wiki-neutrality, and try to write a couple sentences (roughly 25 words or thereabouts) that describe the *overall* app-launch, and would go into the Rand Paul presidential campaign, 2016 article. Right now it doesn't mention the hackathon, which got five or ten hits in the press, nor the app-launch, which got ten or twenty hits in the press (so far at least).
- Anyways, whether writing your own BLP-article for wikipedia is "couth" or not, generally speaking it is almost always absolutely necessary, since wikipedians are generally speaking lazy, and since the Ron Schnell BLP-article simply could not pass WP:42 without the offline refs from the 1980s and 1990s, which often only the subject-of-the-BLP-article-aka-Ron-Schnell-the-human will have ready access to, and ready knowledge about. Which proved to be the case in at least three of the four BLP articles I'm currently messing with (the exception being Jeff Berwick who has plenty of online-refs since he's a relatively recently-born human. Even for him, though, zero online refs about stockhouse.com which was apparently a Big Deal in the mid-1990s Canadian internet-startup scene. Or maybe I just answered my own question?
- As for the other thing, angry and mad and other synonyms for emotion-driven-editing are all going to boil down to the same thing, in my book: not very WP:NICE. But by the same token, it is not WP:NICE for you to be complaining about the editor that blocked you. Incorrect to impute motives of anger, when very likely none actually exist, and the block by User:SmartSE was heavy-handed but dispassionate and an honest attempt to Improve The Encyclopedia. Theoretically, after all, you could be a sekrit spy from the Hillary'16 campaign, out to tarnish the Paul'16 campaign. Or theoretically, you could be a disgruntled Dunnet player, or a disgruntled Mail Call employee, out for revenge on that dastartdly Schnell, by tarnishing their wikiname. Now, in practice, such hypotheticals are obviously rubbish. And the block was heavy-handed... although I've seen MUCH MUCH worse ones, at least this one said 'temporary' and mostly conveyed the correct wiki-policies, and clear instructions for correcting the problem.
- Similarly, per WP:AGF and per my direct usertalk discussion with User:Brianhe, it seems pretty clear that what happened is simply a template-bug that led to a misunderstanding, which didn't balloon out of control, because it turns out Ron Schnell and Aviators99 and the CTO of Paul'16 and the author of Dunnet really are one single humanoid, and said one single humanoid remained cool-calm-and-collected despite the inconvenience of getting accosted by the wiki-cops in the typical guilty-until-proven-innocent fashion that the wiki-culture has become in the last few years. In the mystery-of-the-missing-COI, a little background is needed. There are three ways to declare aka disclose one's COI: on one's userpage (once), on the relevant article-talkpage (once), and iteratively in every edit-summary (continuous). Your userpage discloses that you are named Ron Schnell, of course, and has for some time, but it doesn't explicitly disclose that you are *that* Ron Schnell the author of Dunnet and the CTO of the Paul'16 campaign.
- Also, Draft_talk:Ron_Schnell discloses your username has COI with respect to Draft:Ron_Schnell, which I added long ago when we moved from usertalk to draftspace, but this draftspace-talkpage-disclosure is only possible to see, if one actually visits the drafttalk page. Unfortunately, the {{COI}} template that Brianhe used (which is the standard one for undisclosed COI) is buggy, since draftspace is new, and instead points to Talk:Ron_Schnell... and obviously *that* one is a redlink, and thus cannot have article-talkpage-disclosure, hence Brianhe's misinterpreting the situation, and demanding you cough-up-your-identity-or-else-bub. So yes, Brianhe jumped the gun with their please-disclose-or-else-noticeboards-for-the-both-of-yas message, not very WP:NICE, they should have just asked politely, but it was an honest mistake: they looked for COI disclosure in the usual places, and didn't find it, because the COI template pointed them to the wrong place, and because your userpage is still somewhat 'under construction' and neglected. I don't think they were angry, I think they just jumped to the wrong conclusion, whilst trying to protect the 'pedia from spam... and with the Orangemoody-related-fiasco, which involved draftspace and AfC, they have reason to be jumpy, though of course, that's no excuse for starting off on the wrong foot at usertalk.
- As for the impersonation-block, I don't think that was done angrily either, it was just a procedural dispassionate temporary block... although obviously, strict reading of WP:COI shows that SmartSE's "order" to quit writing Ron Schnell is not what the wiki-policy actually says, and strict reading of WP:NOTBUREACRACY strongly suggests that procedural blocks when no damage to the 'pedia is actually ongoing are heavy-handed, and cause more disruption than they prevent, as turned out to be the case here. But Ron, don't be under the misimpression that the COI-disclosure-request and the OTRS-impersonation-verification were done in anger; they were mistakes, but all the same they were honest dispassionate mistakes made with Improving The 'Pedia as the goal, methinks. Compare with the AfD of the dunnet article, which was *not* a mistake... at the time it was sent (honestly and dispassionately) to AfD, the article on dunnet simply didn't pass WP:42, but as luck would have it, I happened to talkstalk you, and together enough sources were dug up to get a legit bangkeep. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 14:46, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
- I think you misunderstood a couple of things. I'm fine with the use of AfC if that's necessary. I just don't feel comfortable being the requester. Just like I didn't want to go through the process of creating my own WP:BLP before I met you. Before I thought it was disallowed, now I still find it uncouth. I was perfectly happy to have it not happen if nobody thought I was WP:N enough to have it. Ron Schnell 14:01, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
- I agree the prose needs work. For one thing, the average wikipedia readership isn't going to understand what 'server-side' even means, it is nerd-jargon slash hacker-speak, and needs a rewrite just on those grounds. I already think we need to have 2 sentences about mailcall; I suggest that one of the sentences focus on the business-aspect: founded 1997, product was check-your-email-over-the-telephone, job title & role you played, acquired 2000(?), product defunct 2xxx. The next sentence can give specifics about what the technology-details were, aka the specific features you implemented. As with the Paul'16 app, where the *actual* features of the app are in the dozen-or-so range, the *key* features (aka the ones the WP:RS gave the most ink unto) were the vote-on-senate-bills (Verge), the donate-now-btn (NYT), the v-selfie (most *every* other WP:RS put the focus on that), and the logo-invaders-easter-egg (also a very 'key' feature per press-coverage). Mail Call had a lot of features, but the press coverage at the time emphasized relatively few of them; so, we should give the 'key' features that got the most notice, plus try to explain to our 2015 readership *why* the product was considered Way CoolTM back in the late 1990s by non-techie-audiences like Working Woman targetted, for example. In as few and maximally-succinct words as possible, per usual. ;-) 75.108.94.227 (talk) 21:19, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah, I understand that from a literal perspective it's server-side. What I was saying is that I don't think it really has a "relevant" meaning in this context. No big deal, in any case. The other two co-founders were not technical by any stretch of the imagination. Ron Schnell 20:53, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
- Am open to clarification, but my distinction was between the 'customer premises telephony device' that the mailcall enduser was holding in their hands, which would in turn be the 'client' that connected them to the telephony network... and somewhere on the other end of the toll-free-number, an IVR server was reading them their email. Siri is also server-side text-to-speech, albeit theoretically (because an ARM-based smartphone is Turing-complete whereas a DTMF-handset is not) it would also be conceivable for the text-to-speech to be implemented client-side. And actually, that proves what I know... quite possibly the protocol under the hood is that the enduser creates an audio-streamed query, which is sent to the server for speech-to-text processing, and then the server sends ASCII back to the smartphone, which generates the Siri-voice with the answer? But I was assuming the Siri stuff was bidirectional audio streams, since old-school-telephony typically was bidirectional audio streams. Anyways, in the context of mailcall, there was no computationally-capable client, but there was a client-side electromechanical device. If you have some image-skills, maybe you can put together a nice block diagram, which shows the architecture? human, phone handset, ESS6 switch, telephony network, 800-number-mux-thing, and whatever you did server-side. Since the article is about Ron Schnell rather than Mail Call (company) probably the diagram is WP:UNDUE, but it kinda depends on the other two co-founders; were either of them techie-types, or did they work on sales/marketing/finance/etc? 75.108.94.227 (talk) 20:20, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not sure '"server-side" text-to-speech' is a meaningful description in the contact of a phone service bureau. There was no real "client" in this context (think landlines, as that was what was predominantly used at the beginning). Ron Schnell 19:59, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
asb_0xA
- Here's some more:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DoxlRQJmma4&feature=share
http://jpupdates.com/2015/09/04/rand-pauls-mobile-app-lets-supporters-stand-with-rand/
http://www.theatlantic.com/notes/2015/09/i-cant-stop-looking-at-these-weird-rand-paul-photoshops/403756/ Ron Schnell 18:57, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
- Whoa, did you get namedropped in The Atlantic? Or are these just app-launch coverage generally? If they are general-campaign-coverage, put them in asb9 (preferably directly into the bulleted list), but if they are Schnell-BLP-article related, then put future ones into asb8, por favor. Best, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 19:35, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
- Only the first one talks about me (the web newsmagazine)... Ron Schnell 19:39, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
- (edit conflict...) Ah, no mention of you there. Pretty hilarious though. You should ask your boss if "Make America Great Again Or At Least Make It Weird Again With Virtual-Rand Selfies"TM is a suitable slogan for the Rand Paul 2016 (app). There are live updates going out, right? :-) With any luck, Trump will sue you personally, for violating his newly-trademarked phrase in your android APK, and then your wikipedia article will be... Bangkeep. For. Ever. ;-) 75.108.94.227 (talk) 19:41, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
- However, make sure you release the *slogan* as dual-licensed under CC-BY-SA3 and GFDL, or the wikilawyers will *also* sue the pants off you, for copyright infringement rather than for trademark violation. :-) 75.108.94.227 (talk) 19:45, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
- You should watch the first video. Good name drop there. Ron Schnell 19:43, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
- Will do. But youtube not WP:RS. Better link? 75.108.94.227 (talk) 19:45, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
- The Young Turks is the video, but they are actually quoting Vocativ quoting you, midway through. http://youtube.com/watch?v=DoxlRQJmma4#t=70s is where the put the ref onscreen. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 19:49, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
- And from the looks of their wikipedia pages, both TYT and Vocativ are plausibly WP:RS. Here is the vocative URL.[59] Will add it to the Schnell-list. Besides getting sued by Trump, you also should issue a flat denial that the campaign is responsible for the easter egg, and say that logos attacking other logos is one of the violent videogames that is leading Rand Paul to introduce a new bill on the floor of the Senate, jointly with Justin Amash, HR.5432/S.666 An Amendment To Ban Presidential Candidates From Releasing Apps, Which Could Potentially Be Found Amusing, aka Communications Decency Act of 2015. :-) 75.108.94.227 (talk) 19:57, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
- Hannah Cranston, host of Think_tank_(disambiguation)#Other_uses, was the one doing the bulk of the TYT piece. But there was also response-commentary by Cenk Uygur, and by the other guy on the set, who might have been the ThinkTank co-host John Iadarola... do you know if the third human, on the far right, is Iadarola? 75.108.94.227 (talk) 20:07, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
- No idea. Apropos of nothing, I now know for sure that Independent Network News piece was on a Sunday. My savant friend assured me, an then upon re-watching the clip, it is apparently (and undeniably) true. But it was not the anchor you mentioned who did Sundays (based on my Google of his images compared to the clip). Ron Schnell 01:41, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
- Possibly the convenience-link you have, was a highlight-reel, aka it was reported on day X, but then repeated on Sunday as a re-run? Also, note well that the sunday-anchor-thing was an uncited wikipedia factoid, nothing more. Not the best kind of factoid to rest our case upon, in other words. :-) Have the WPIX folks done any digging, that you know? 75.108.94.227 (talk) 02:23, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
- No. I remember recording it on its first and only airing (my clip is off of my own Betamax tape). And my savant friend is never wrong. The first 20+ second of the clip is the end of the weather forecast: "Today, Sunny and blah blah, tomorrow, blah, blah, and Tuesday, blah blah."Ron Schnell 02:31, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
- Heh, WP:CALC to the rescue. Yeah, I've known a few people like your friend. Please tell said friend, that it irks me to no end, to know that some people have the luxury of REALLY being never wrong. I used to think of myself as infallible, but am no longer able to do so... you see, back in 2008, I once thought I was wrong about something, and that hurt my self-confidence. Later, when it turned out I was mistaken, and had been correct all along... my self-esteem was utterly shattered! ;-) 75.108.94.227 (talk) 02:43, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
- Hillarious Ron Schnell 03:51, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
- Heh, WP:CALC to the rescue. Yeah, I've known a few people like your friend. Please tell said friend, that it irks me to no end, to know that some people have the luxury of REALLY being never wrong. I used to think of myself as infallible, but am no longer able to do so... you see, back in 2008, I once thought I was wrong about something, and that hurt my self-confidence. Later, when it turned out I was mistaken, and had been correct all along... my self-esteem was utterly shattered! ;-) 75.108.94.227 (talk) 02:43, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
- No. I remember recording it on its first and only airing (my clip is off of my own Betamax tape). And my savant friend is never wrong. The first 20+ second of the clip is the end of the weather forecast: "Today, Sunny and blah blah, tomorrow, blah, blah, and Tuesday, blah blah."Ron Schnell 02:31, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
- Possibly the convenience-link you have, was a highlight-reel, aka it was reported on day X, but then repeated on Sunday as a re-run? Also, note well that the sunday-anchor-thing was an uncited wikipedia factoid, nothing more. Not the best kind of factoid to rest our case upon, in other words. :-) Have the WPIX folks done any digging, that you know? 75.108.94.227 (talk) 02:23, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
- No idea. Apropos of nothing, I now know for sure that Independent Network News piece was on a Sunday. My savant friend assured me, an then upon re-watching the clip, it is apparently (and undeniably) true. But it was not the anchor you mentioned who did Sundays (based on my Google of his images compared to the clip). Ron Schnell 01:41, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
- Hannah Cranston, host of Think_tank_(disambiguation)#Other_uses, was the one doing the bulk of the TYT piece. But there was also response-commentary by Cenk Uygur, and by the other guy on the set, who might have been the ThinkTank co-host John Iadarola... do you know if the third human, on the far right, is Iadarola? 75.108.94.227 (talk) 20:07, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
- And from the looks of their wikipedia pages, both TYT and Vocativ are plausibly WP:RS. Here is the vocative URL.[59] Will add it to the Schnell-list. Besides getting sued by Trump, you also should issue a flat denial that the campaign is responsible for the easter egg, and say that logos attacking other logos is one of the violent videogames that is leading Rand Paul to introduce a new bill on the floor of the Senate, jointly with Justin Amash, HR.5432/S.666 An Amendment To Ban Presidential Candidates From Releasing Apps, Which Could Potentially Be Found Amusing, aka Communications Decency Act of 2015. :-) 75.108.94.227 (talk) 19:57, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
- The Young Turks is the video, but they are actually quoting Vocativ quoting you, midway through. http://youtube.com/watch?v=DoxlRQJmma4#t=70s is where the put the ref onscreen. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 19:49, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
- Will do. But youtube not WP:RS. Better link? 75.108.94.227 (talk) 19:45, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
- Whoa, did you get namedropped in The Atlantic? Or are these just app-launch coverage generally? If they are general-campaign-coverage, put them in asb9 (preferably directly into the bulleted list), but if they are Schnell-BLP-article related, then put future ones into asb8, por favor. Best, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 19:35, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Here's a piece, not for BLP, maybe for RP. I know how much you like German stuff ;-) http://www.n-tv.de/mediathek/videos/politik/US-Senator-Rand-Paul-hat-ein-Selfie-Problem-article15871296.html Ron Schnell 13:59, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah, I prefer learning SETL to learning sie Deutsch. Gotta love those agglutinative things though: "Selfiefunktion" is just awesome, eh? Counts as WP:RS, also bluelink, n-tv, but is basically just the German-lang-affiliate of CNN methinks. I was unable to find *English* CNN coverage of the selfie-app (or of any other aspects of the app such as the logo-invaders ... which *somebody* in the WP:RS finally noticed is more akin to galaga than to space invaders... sigh). So a bit weird, that the German CNN gives coverage, but the English CNN does not. Does 'fliegt ... um' really translate properly as 'flies ... around' in their sentence? Or is there some metaphor being used here, like 'floating ... behind' perhaps? 75.108.94.227 (talk) 14:41, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
- So, I wonder if you're up for a little experiment? I put the source code for net-talk in the directory. I worked on it this weekend, but largely left it intact. I had to change a bunch of stuff to make it compile on Linux. The last time it compiled was under 4.2 BSD. It's also pretty gross (as I was just trying to rewrite from FORTRAN as quickly as possible). You should untar it and compile just the client ("make nnett") and then run the client. I might be waiting on the server. NOTE that by default it will "log you in" with your username on your system, so you should do one of 2 things to preserve your anonymity: 1) login as an anonymous user before running, 2) Change the code so that it sends something anonymous. You've been pretty inactive over the weekend, so I'm not sure if you're even going to see this tonight... Ron Schnell 02:20, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
- and yes, I know about the misspelling in the help text...I said I left it intact! Ron Schnell 02:21, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
- Did I lose you? Ron Schnell 19:09, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
- Nope, I'm still here, but you're not persistent enough in bothering me, and my talkpage is getting too long to keep track of the sections. :-) I need to delete a bunch of this into the edit-history, but have not yet done so. If I don't respond promptly, and you can see I'm active elsewheres, it usually just means I didn't see your note, and that you should whack me again. I won't mind. :-) With other talkpages, sometimes getting ignored is a "polite" way of telling somebody that you WP:DGAF about their question/problem/whatever, since not everybody here is actually WP:NICE, but with me it's just getting otherwise occupied. So, now that I've noticed what you are talking about, I will see if I can fathom what you are saying, and take a peek at the NET-TALK source code or whatever. (But yes, been otherwise occupied off-wiki the past several days; no uncommon and WP:CHOICE plus WP:NORUSH as always.) Best, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 21:42, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
- Did I lose you? Ron Schnell 19:09, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 16:58, 27 August 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Fiddle Faddle 16:58, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Robert Bloom BLP
I answered your !vote there. I did consider simply accepting it instead of suggesting deletion. On balance the major edits could happen in the Draft: space, too. I'm away for a couple of weeks after tomorrow, and I look forward to it with wry amusement. Fiddle Faddle 17:41, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
- Enjoy vacation, and yes, I think that accepting-and-tagging-and-stubification might be the fastest way to a teachable moment. But I'm happy for the stuff to be left in draftspace if the COI editor can be made to listen to reason more easily thataway. I'm a big fan of letting the BLP participate in their own article-composition, as long as they can be reasonable about it. If they remain unreasonable, unable to separate their desires for what wiki-policy ought to be rewritten to be like, and the current state of said wiki-policies, I'd prefer mainspacing the content, so that they would be enforcibly in violation of COI when editing (hard to get WP:NICE blocks for making fun of usernames). Anyways, I suspect it will all work out for the best in the end, one way or another. Talk to you later, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 21:44, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
more Braun'16
Hello 75.108.94.227. I am following the discussions, and regarding Article V, it is important to note that with my citizen-sponsored amendment, there is no need to hold a Constitutional Convention to draft the amendment because it has already been written and proposed. As such, it only needs to be ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures OR State Constitutional Conventions. Note the specific language below in Article Five that is bolded:
"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification..."
The key point of the language in Article V is that no matter how an amendment is proposed and passed, it can only be ratified by either the legislatures or "conventions" in three fourths of the states, which is why my campaign is organized as a Constitutional Convention. Moreover, unlike the existing elections that are unverifiable, our Article V Citizen Ballot uses a verifiable paper ballot that will be mailed by registered voters to their Secretary of State for verification, counting and archiving. The whole point of the Democracy Amendment is to allow the majority of citizens to be in charge of interpreting the language in the Constitution, and if the majority of citizens in three-fourths of the states mail in their Article V ballots, the amendment will be ratified.
The primary problem I have is making the American public aware of this amendment, which is one of the primary objectives of my presidential campaign, especially given the lobbyists-based federal government and state legislatures would never vote for such an amendment. I very much hope this ratification occurs long before November of 2016, and if it does, there will still be an election, but this time it will be completely verifiable with paper ballots that will be counted in public.
I am in the process of updating my BraunforPresident.US website, which should be up later today.Harry W Braun III (talk) 18:25, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
- Howdy again Harry, please call me 75.108 if you like, a bit easier to type. :-) And yes, although MelanieN is correct that your article-five-plan is outside the letter of what the Constitution allows for, I do think that if you manage to get the majority of voters in that many states to affirmatively submit paperwork to their state officials, the end result will inevitably be the enactment of your proposed amendment, because those motivated voters will demand it. Although I'm quite sure your specific campaign organization will not, as such, be recognized as an 'Officially Valid Constitutional Convention' under the Constitutional provisions related thereto, I'm also quite sure (engaging in a bit of WP:CRYSTAL here which is permissible on usertalk but verboten in mainspace) that if you do manage to get a strict majority of registered voters backing your amendment, in the required number of states, the state legislatures and the federal legislatures thereof will not dare to refuse to take action.
- In a way, your plan has the very specific advantage, not often seen with art-5-plans I'm familiar with, that your approach mostly avoids the risk of a runaway-art-five-convention; it does not offer the voters the ability to *call* for an open-ended convention, it merely asks them to submit a piece of paper affirming that they believe the very-specific DemocracyAmendmentUSA language is a good idea... and thus leaves the door open for the legislature(s), if they so wish, to recognize that and only that language as being affirmed, and shut the door on other amendments of unspecified type (for instance a common nightmare-scenario is that well-meaning but economically-untrained art-five-convention-delegates pass a new amendment that the minimum wage is henceforth $543.21 per hour... see tyranny of the majority).
- So, yes, fundamentally the problem for the Braun'16 campaign to solve, is that you have to get your message out, and get people to understand it, and act upon it, by submitting a paper affirmation-ballot to their secState. Along the way, convince those same voters to register as democrats, and vote for you in the caucuses and primaries. As you now are aware, wikipedia is pretty much incompatible with that goal; User:MelanieN is going out on a bit of a limb, with the dedicated section to a constitutional amendment, since there have been relatively few press-coverage mentions of your amendment-related work. As a long-haul editor here, with respected judgement, and no personal stake in getting your message out to the masses, she is given leeway to do this, whereas you yourself are not. As it happens, I agree with her, that your push for a constitutional amendment is an encylopedically-interesting factoid about your campaign, and not something new in 2016 for you, either. (There are also several other candidates that have pushed for various forms of constitutional amendments, that are running this year: Kasich and balanced-budget, Paul/DeMint and term-limits, Huckabee/Santorum and marriage-definitions, Sanders and CitizenUnitedJustForUnions, et cetera.) So the topic is germane, for a subsection of Harry Braun, but although you can make talkpage suggestions, and supply talkpage-sourcing, you should avoid editing the article directly yourself, generally speaking, to avoid the appearance of violating WP:COI. Same story for the article we have about List of proposed amendments to the United States Constitution, don't add yours, but if you wish, you can propose it on Talk:List of proposed amendments to the United States Constitution, when and only when you have the sources in hand, to WP:PROVEIT was considered wiki-noteworthy by independent journalists/editors/publishers/etc. Make sense?
- And on that note, to return to the usual topic of our conversations... grin... do you have any local press-coverage, newspaper/teevee/radio, of your earlier push using P3 for statewide ballot initiatives in the various southwestern states? That would help flesh out the constitutional-amendment section. They can be online or offline, English or Spanish or Klingon, uploaded clippings or no uploaded clippings, so long as they are respected publications with editorial oversight and some kind of fact-checking department, and the authors/editors/publishers are unrelated to you and your various corporate and political entities. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 21:44, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
I apparently left this message in the wrong location.
Hello 75.108.94.227. My last comments about my "perennial" candidate status and my being from "Arizona" instead of Georgia was not on Facebook, but Wikipedia under the title "Democratic Party Presidential Candidates 2016."
I initially left this message just below your comments on my talk page, but I noticed the message I left was signed (Redacted). I have never been sure as to where to respond to your comments, so I am leaving the comment here. Is that correct? Sorry for my lack of knowledge. Harry W Braun III (talk) 12:34, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
- Well, as you know, wikipedia is a bit confusing. :-) One of the confusing things is where to leave messages, since there aren't clear rules, just wiki-traditions. Here is the usual procedure.
- Step#0. Don't hold conversations in the form of making edits to mainspace, and in edit-summaries alone; if you have a content-question or a content-dispute, take it to the nearest talkpage (matters little which one)
- Step#1. Reply to a message, where the conversation is actually taking place. If there is already a conversation, about something, then reply on the page where that conversation is taking place.
- Step#2. That said, sometimes people forget. If you reply, and it looks like you are getting ignored, probably you aren't getting ignored, but the conversation itself was forgotten. :-)
- Step#3. If you've waited a bit for a reply (how long depends on the venue... and on the urgency-level of the request... see WP:NORUSH and contrast with WP:COPYVIO for instance), you can always nudge a person on their own user_talk
- Step#4. Generally speaking, if you are in conversation with somebody, and they stop replying, and you nudge them on user_talk, and they *still* don't reply, maybe they're on vacation (or running for president or whatever) and haven't responded because they haven't managed to find the time, but it is also possible that they are just on wiki-break (either from wikipedia entirely or from particular topic-areas), or have lost gumption, or whatever. This is perfectly okay, they don't have to talk to you, or work on a page with you, or do anything or NOT do anything, as long as they are within WP:5 then it is their WP:CHOICE how they spend their time here on wikipedia. Same goes for yourself, of course. Anyways, you might not get a reply, even after a polite nudge, and that's okay.
- Step#5. If you decide that you really do need some input from SOMEBODY about the conversation, then it is usually okay to ask another wikipedian for their thoughts. This can be done in an acceptable fashion, such as, you've been working with three people on a particular page (75.108 + Harry + Melanie), and after you and 75.108 have a two-way conversation about something, you want to also here what Melanie has to say about the subject, so you ask her to participate. Other acceptable ways to broaden the conversation, when nobody is replying and you're not sure how to proceed further, are to ask for some input from WP:TEAHOUSE folks, or using the live-help-chat click-here-to-chat-in-the-browser-right-now button over at WP:Q. Something that is NOT considered okay, is using your real-life powers, to try and improperly influence (as opposed to properly improve) wikipedia conversations. For instance, if you notice that the article International Hydrogen Energy Association needs to be written, then it is okay to contact somebody in real life, and ask them for assistance. However, it is very much NOT okay to email every member of the IAHE, and instruct them all to please come bangvote a certain way in some on-wiki discussion related to the IAHE article. Do you see the difference? The first real-life request is improving wikipedia, but the second real-life request is trying to win a debate by sending in a mob. Generally speaking, just like wikipedians are supposed to try and stay neutral when the write prose in mainspace, wikipedians are ALSO supposed to try and stay neutral when using talkpages, and when using their real-life connections. You were fine to contact me about fixing up something that looked non-neutral to you in mainspace. You were also mostly fine to contact your friend at the IAHE, to suggest they gather up some press-coverage, and help improve wikipedia's articles (IAHE/WHEC/IJHE) about that organization. But there's a subtle line, albeit one which is very clear if you look for it, that marks the distinction between asking neutrally for honest opinions-slash-help, versus actively campaigning to sway the outcome of some kind of on-wiki discussion. The first is encouraged. The latter is verboten. Basically, when doing on-wiki work, try to think like a hard scientist; if you run into a conundrum, you are free to ask the nearest savvy helpful fellow wiki-scientist for their input, in an open and honest fashion, sincerely trying to get their true thoughts on the matter. By contrast, try very hard NOT to think like a political candidate, drumming up support, pushing out a message, swaying the hearts and minds of the bangvoters, and that sort of thing.
- Anyways, in a nutshell you are free to contact anybody at any time, but make sure you are doing so only to improve the encyclopedia, and never in a promotional fashion (of yourself or your platform planks or your side in some on-wiki bangvote or whatever). As for me, you can always nudge my talkpage, I don't mind. Helps me stay on top of things actually. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 18:44, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
- Also, don't feel bad about your lack of knowledge of the bazillion byzantine wiki-rules. Just like the labyrinthine federal tax code, nobody has *truly* plumbed the depths of wiki-policies. And you don't NEED to know all that garbage, either. Just concentrate on being WP:NICE, writing your own sentences from scratch to avoid WP:COPYVIO, sticking firmly to what the WP:SOURCES say and summarizing them in a neutral WP:TONE all per WP:NPOV, and improving-qua-improving the encyclopedia-qua-encyclopedia. If you make a mistake, somebody will fix it, or at least, politely point it out so you can fix it. That is what it *means* to be the encyclopedia-anyone-can-edit, after all. So no more apologies. Just keep on keeping your cool, and keep on trying to do the right thing by wikipedia, and you'll be fine. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 18:49, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 12:17, 31 August 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
given comment regarding good faith involvement in discussed articles. samtar (talk) 12:17, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Profound Philosophical Statement
Continuing here as that thread is long enough without me being nosy about your (lack of) username choice! I must admit, I am guilty of having a lower initial opinion of IP editors but you've definitely raised the bar for my future expectations. Thanks for being an absolute pleasure to speak with and happy editing :) samtar (talk) 14:42, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
- It's mostly stubbornness, in addition to having some philosophical stance behind it. I expect everyone will edit as anons in the future, since it's so much more comfortable thataway. At which point I will no doubt register a username, just to prove *another* profound philosophical statement, that pseudonymous editing and anonymous editing are both compatible with the 'pedia. Sigh, a retail philosopher's work is never done. ;-) 75.108.94.227 (talk) 15:14, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Civility Barnstar |
| Thank you :) samtar (talk) 14:44, 31 August 2015 (UTC) |
Thanks samtar, much appreciated. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 15:12, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
Further consideration ref. discussion on Peridon's page
Just thought I'd bring your attention to Long-term abuse/Orangemoody - seems to fit in with what you were discussing on Peridon's page? samtar (talk) 23:26, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
- Wow, good find, thanks. Yeah, the similarities are pretty close, albeit not exact. Seems likely that User:Gorkemcetin74 got that exact kind of shakedown, after getting an AfC decline. There is no mention of the OrangeMoody socks using mainspace-to-draftspace redirects like the Countly-->>Draft:Count.ly, but there *is* mention of a lot of redirect-shenanigans. Anyways, close enough that I will see if one of the people mentioned in that AN/I thread will take a peek at the Countly/Count.ly stuff, and see if that turns out to be the same bunch, or just another bunch of bad apples imitating the technique. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 00:13, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
- Turned out to be exactly that. User:Jinlizzy was blocked, as part of the block-bot, mentioned in the AN/I thread you linked unto. I actually asked on IRC about whether somebody who knew about the OrangeMoody socks, could please take a peek at the User:Jinlizzy account, as a possible imitator, and was told that User:Jinlizzy had already been blocked as an OrangeMoody sock. So I felt a bit foolish, for not checking the Jinlizzy page again before I asked for help on IRC, but since it only just was blocked today I guess I don't feel *too* very foolish. :-) Anyways, looks like a happy ending. NTA is getting a cleanup, and with luck Countly will get moved to mainspace. Thanks for pinging me, and good eye, they were the same bunch of bad apples. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 00:47, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Harry Braun Talkback
Hello 75.108. Sorry for the delay in getting back to you. Let be begin by saying your summary of avoiding the chaos of a typical open-ended Constitution Convention was as good as it gets. Can 75.108 be quoted? Speaking of "mob rule," there is one country with four official languages that has been operating as a Constitutional Democracy since the year 1291, with no Mob Rule or Wars, and that country is Switzerland (where the world's first hydrogen-fueled automobile was built in 1807). Since few Americans are aware of this fact, could it be included in section on the Democracy Amendment?
By the way, I tried to leave this message on the User talk page but when I previewed the text I noticed a different editors number (Redacted)(talk) signed my response. As such, I removed it and reinserted the message here. Hope that was OK. However, when I previewed this response, I noticed that (Redacted) (talk) is still the signer. But it is really me.
I agree that the references to H2Pac and P3 should be deleted because neither organization received any published citations and neither of these Pacs funded any campaigns, or were registered with FEC. However, the Democracy Amendment USA Pac has been registered with the FEC for the 2016 election. The BraunforPresident.US website is now been published, and I hope to be able to launch our daily email Press Release campaign this week. In this regard, do you happen to know when the "Harry Braun" article (which I am very pleased with) will have its potential deletion flag removed?
I plan to contact Nejat Veziroglu, the editor-in-chief of the IAHE Journal regarding the citations he would recommend for his personal Wikipedia article, which I would like to forward to you for your analysis. I would also like to send you (and any of your fellow interested Wikipedians) the text and citations I would like to add to the Wikipedia "Photobiology" Article for your review. (The Harry Braun Article is linked to this article). Many thanks for the corrections on the presidential page. It is an honor to work with you and such a distinguished team of editors. Harry W Braun III (talk) 18:01, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
- Okay, so now that we have the logging-in-thing figured out. you had a long series of other questions. I will reply to them in order, with individual bullet-points, so you can reply-to-my-reply under each of the bullet-points, should the need arise. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 18:08, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Q#1 , can usertalk info be quoted elsewhere? four answers
|
|---|
|
Question#1A, can information on a usertalk page, be quoted in wikipedia articles? In this case, my usertalk-analysis of the problems with open-ended article-five-conventions. The answer is, it depends. First of all, my usertalk-analysis CANNOT be quoted in wikipedia mainspace. Everything I said is 100% true and correct, but wikipedia-usertalk-pages are not "publications" in the WP:SOURCES sense of that term. You cannot cite something in a wikipedia-article, to something somebody said on a wikipedia talkpage. If sometime later, I call up the National Journal or the Daily Kos, and ask them if they will publish my original piece on article-five-conventions, THEN that info becomes published in a wiki-reliable sense. Until then, no, 75.108 cannot be quoted, because 75.108's wise saying on usertalk is not WP:RS, see the very useful WP:OR which explains why usertalk-conversations are not wiki-reliable, whereas almost the exact same information, once published by National Journal or the Daily Kos, suddenly becomes wiki-reliable. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 18:08, 2 September 2015 (UTC) Question#1B, can information on a usertalk page, be quoted by off-wiki websites? So, as explained above, my analysis of art-5-pitfalls CANNOT be posted into mainspace (like the Harry Braun article or the Constitutional Convention article), until and unless I were to publish my analysis in some wiki-reliable WP:SOURCE. However, wikipedia content, including usertalk-page-content, *can* be copied and re-published elsewhere, as long as the CC-BY-SA license terms are followed. So for example, while it is ALLOWED for you, Harry, to cut-and-paste some of the usertalk discussion here on wikipedia, into one of your own websites, it has to be done properly. In particular, you are free to make brief quotations (of a dozen words or so), which is allowed for any copyrighted work, see fair use. Wikipedia articles often rely on fair use, for instance, we quote an MEP about some political issue in the EU, and give the name of that MEP, plus the WP:SOURCE where that MEP was quoted originally. So, if you want to quote some brief bit from wikipedia, you can just quote it, and say it was "from a userpage on wikipedia" as the source. You cannot say that "75.108.94.227" wrote the information being quoted, however, because as I explained with great detail in the logging section, my real name is not 75.108.94.227 -- that's just my computer's name. Also as explained, it is possible to connect a physical location to such dotted-quad-numerals, so I would very strongly prefer that, if you want to quote some of the juicy bits of our usertalk conversation, out on your other websites, that you simply say that you got the information from wikipedia talkpages. Fair use law doesn't require detailed cites to an exact URL, when you are just snarfing up a dozen words here and a dozen words there. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 18:08, 2 September 2015 (UTC) Question#1C, can BIG chunks of information on a usertalk page, be quoted VERBATIM by off-wiki websites? Despite the answer to question#1B which is talking about BRIEFLY quoting a dozen-word-snippet from time to time, if you are thinking about copying *LARGE* chunks of text, verbatim, then the question becomes trickier. Wikipedia does allow it. But you have to retain the same copyright license. If you want to copy a bunch of wikipedia-content onto your website, and then write at the bottom, "this content is copyright h.w.braun 2015 all rights reserved" then you CANNOT do so. You also cannot just copy the wikipedia-content onto your website, and leave the legalese-stuff at the bottom of the webpage BLANK, because in the United States, there is a thing called an implicit copyright claim, and by putting wikipedia-content on your own website with a blank footer, you are implicitly saying "this is mine all mine" in a legal sense. Thus, the only way that you can put a BIG CHUNK of wikipedia material onto your own website, is if you explicitly put at the bottom of your website page, the correct copyright notice, which is the wikipedia-copyright aka the dual-licensed CC-BY-SA-plus-GFDL. If you are trying to do this, verbatim copy of a big chunk, let me know and I'll give you more details about the exact license-notice-legalese that is legally required, and such. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 18:08, 2 September 2015 (UTC) Question#1D, maybe you are asking something else, that I didn't cover above. In a nutshell, 75.108 cannot be quoted, that is my computer. Anything on usertalk, just like anything on facebook and other personal webpages, cannot be cited as a reference, because usertalk/facebook/etc are not considered wiki-reliable WP:SOURCES. If you are wanting to copy a dozen words from wikipedia onto your own external websites, that's fine, but please don't credit my computer, just credit "wikipedia talkpages". If you want to copy LARGE CHUNKS VERBATIM, that is actually quite allowed, but requires some special handling to get all the legalese done properly, ask if you need. But maybe I misunderstood your question, and if so, please clarify specifically what you are trying to do, and preferably why, so I can give you a good answer. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 18:08, 2 September 2015 (UTC) |
Q#2, here are some interesting factoids about Switzerland, which article on wikipedia should mention these facts?
|
|---|
|
Question#2A through Question#2M.
Answers: we have an article on Switzerland, and that is where #2B, #2C, #2D should be covered. And probably already are. It would... if there is an impeccably-solid WP:SOURCE backing up the claims ... also be the correct place for #2A and #2E. However, claiming that Switzerland has four official languages, is a pretty boring claim. Claiming that Switzerland has never in any fashion been involved in a war since 1291, is a VERY STRONG and very likely to be contentious claim, that would need to be backed up by respected-history-textbooks, peer-referred respected-journal citations, or similarly strong sources, see WP:PROVEIT and see also WP:UNDUE (just because one source says something doesn't mean they all agree). Same thing for the claim about never experiencing mob rule, or never experiencing some kind of impact from the tyranny of the majority, any claim spanning 700 years is a VERY strong claim that needs to be very strongly backed up. Can we put a bunch of factoids about Switzerland into the Harry Braun biographical-article, or specifically into the Harry_Braun#Proposed_Constitutional_amendment subsection, since after all, those factoids about Switzerland are tangentially related? The answer is, almost certainly not, because there are no WP:SOURCES which have been written, specifically comparing your proposed amendment to the USA constitution, with the existing operations of the government of Switzerland. Until and unless some history professor (or even some history-magazine-contributor) writes up a piece titled something like "Comparing Braun's Proposed Amendment To the History Of The Swiss People" and publishes that piece in a wiki-reliable source, then wikipedia cannot say anything about the relationship between YOUR proposal at Harry_Braun#Proposed_Constitutional_amendment and the existing system of government covered at Government of Switzerland. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 18:08, 2 September 2015 (UTC) More profound answer. Sure, they are related topics, the Constitution of Switzerland and your Harry_Braun#Proposed_Constitutional_amendment, but they ARE NOT the same topic. The connection betwixt the topics, if any, HAS to be documented in the WP:SOURCES, before mentioning that connection in mainspace is appropriate. See WP:OR and especially WP:SYNTH, even though logically *I* know that your amendment-proposal is tangentially related to the constitution of Switzerland, that does not mean that I can go into mainspace and write up a bunch of sentences about the connection, because sources are required (published wiki-reliable sources not just usertalk conversations). The same reason that 85% of your original article was deleted, is why we cannot mention Switzerland in the article today: the article is supposed to reflect what the sources actually say, and there aren't any sources saying anything about your constitutional proposal, as compared to the government of Switzerland. Make sense? When the press-coverage exists, or the peer-reviewed scientific scrutiny, then wikipedia's article Harry Braun can mention such connections, but until then, wikipedia mainspace cannot, because mentioning it (even when it is true!) would be WP:UNDUE mention and WP:SYNTHesized statements and in some cases WP:OR aka copying-and-pasting-from-usertalk-to-mainspace. This is one of the more subtle aspects of the wiki-policies, but it is fundamental to WP:5 and especially pillar two: wikipedia has to be neutral and impartial, and that means, has to reflect what the sources actually say, no more but also no less. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 18:08, 2 September 2015 (UTC) On the question of the use of hydrogen as a fuel, and that an automobile of that nature was built, and that it was in 1807, and that it was in Switzerland. None of that stuff can be mentioned in Harry Braun, because you didn't build the automobile, you weren't alive in 1807. :-) Wikipedia should cover the history of the automobile, and we have an article on that. But should that article mention the 1807 experiment? Maybe, but probably not, because 99.9999% of automobiles nowadays, and in times past, run on petrochemicals, not on hydrogen. (There is more of a case to be made for CNG and LNG powered automobiles, as an example of an in-between-scenario.) Wikipedia also has an article on hydrogen fuel, which is almost certainly where the 1807-in-Switzerland factoid belongs. But only if there is a WP:SOURCE that explicitly says, 1) that the invention was actually built, 2) that it was an automobile, 3) that it was hydrogen-gas-fueled, 4) that it was built in 1807, and 5) that it was built in Switzerland. Make sense? If there is a source which says that a 'transportation device' was built in 1807, powered by hydrogen, in Switzerland, wikipedia CANNOT call it an 'automobile' since we have to stick with the sources. Similarly, if the source explicitly says 'automobile' but goes on to say it was 'partially' powered by hydrogen, and partially pulled by a team of oxen, wikipedia CANNOT say it was 'the first hydrogen-powered automobile' because again that is not what the source says. By contrast, if the source says that the first hydrogen-powered automobile was built in 1807 in Geneva, but the source does not specifically say that it was Geneva in Switzerland, it is pretty much okay for wikipedia to say 'in Switzerland'. But hey, if the source says Geneva, then wikipedia should say Geneva, right? Right. So in that scenario, we would say that it was in Geneva, and if the reader didn't know that was in Switzerland, they are just one click away from finding out, thanks to the bluelink. Make sense? Do you have a WP:SOURCE that specifically says something about this 1807 invention? If so, please post the URL here, and I will take a peek at it. Sounds like a juicy factoid for the hydrogen fuel article. Actually, looking at the article there, we have a subsidiary article called hydrogen vehicle, and in the Hydrogen_vehicle#Internal_combustion_vehicle subsection there is this sentence: References
So not only does wikipedia have the factoid, we actually have a full-fledged article about the De Rivaz engine. There are some additional articles hydrogen internal combustion engine vehicle, and also the list of hydrogen internal combustion engine vehicles. Because you are a presidential candidate, running your campaign around the idea of a constitutional convention, you should not be editing the article about the United States Constitution, until you have learned more about wikipedia at least. By the same token, because all of your research is on renewable energy and the generation of hydrogen, and because one of your key political platform-planks has been the use of hydrogen as a replacement for fossil fuels, you also should not be editing hydrogen-vehicle-related articles directly. Better to stick to Talk:Hydrogen_vehicle, than to directly edit Hydrogen_vehicle yourself, just like you are learning to do over at Talk:Harry_Braun. And actually, I have an unanswered question over there for you, when you get a moment. But on the hydrogen-vehicle-in-1807-in-Switzerland question, it looks like wikipedia has a gap. Even in the specific article on the subject, we don't say WHERE the 1807 vehicle was actually built and tested. We say that the 1813 prototype was tested in the Swiss town of Vevey, and we say that the 1807 vehicle had a patent filed in France and another patent filed in the Canton of Valais, plus we also say that Isaac de Rivaz was of Franco-Swiss ancestry. But we don't say, one way or the other, specifically where the 1807 vehicle was built and tested. Do you have a WP:SOURCE that specifically gives the city where the 1807 vehicle was constructed and/or tested? If so, let me know, and we'll get the fact into the appropriate article. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 18:08, 2 September 2015 (UTC) But as I hope this tour of wikipedia's coverage of hydrogen-fuel-technology and the history thereof has begun to make clear, we shouldn't be putting a bunch of stuff about the 1807 vehicle into the Harry Braun article, because although both are related to hydrogen, they are not the same topic, and wikipedia needs to stay *on* topic within every wikipedia article, otherwise we'll balloon them into page after page of information, which is only tangentially relevant to the article-title. Wikipedia is written as a *bunch* of articles, each about a specific topic, and with wikilinks from one to the other, when WP:SOURCES justify making the wikilinks. Make sense? 75.108.94.227 (talk) 18:08, 2 September 2015 (UTC) |
Q#3, on the subject of super-PACs and quasi-PACs
|
|---|
|
Other questions, with quicker answers:
So, although H2PAC and P3 are not currently in mainspace at Harry Braun, they will be put back in at some point, removal was just temporary. There actually are some media-references to the earlier PACs, in particular, I know that NPR mentioned the H2PAC, and that IAHE mentioned P3. We've removed mention of the earlier PACs from mainspace, because we want to get the details straight (to avoid confusing the readership with misinformation), and in particular get it worked out which source specifically mentioned H2PAC, and when. Plus, wikipedia should cover the transitions between the various fundraising organizations, and so on. But WP:NORUSH is the rule there, at the moment we have the FEC wiki-reliable source about the DemocracyAmendmentUSA.net , showing that it is an affiliated PAC, and the aboutself information that the PAC's goal is going to be a focus of the POTUS campaign Braun'16, which is being organized not merely as a quest to win the nomination of the Democratic Party in their caucus-and-primary ballots, but also as a specially-structured Article Five Constitutional Convention, in spirit if not in letter. But my question about the 2004 campaign, is whether the H2PAC or the P3 were involved with the effort, even though they weren't officially-FEC-registered. Were they registered in the state of Arizona, or something? Did they actually accept cheques made out to H2PAC, or made out to P3, specifically, or when people called to donate to H2PAC, did they actually write pay-to-the-order-of-Phoenix-Project-Foundation, or what exactly? Part of the reason we pulled the mentions from the article, is that I'm having trouble figuring out what is going on. :-) Please give me the step-by-step explanation of when each of the fundraising vehicles was founded, what is was used for (year by year), when it went defunct, and what the cheques actually said, aka which fundraising organization was a 'brand name' and which fundraising organization was actually a 'legal entity'. Quite frankly, I expect your long history of fundraising will be easier to understand than some of the other 2016 candidates; there are some REALLY nutty super-PACs-structures this election! 75.108.94.227 (talk) 18:08, 2 September 2015 (UTC) |
- Q#4 , BraunforPresident.US website is now live
Okay, so I had already noticed that http://BraunforPresident.US , was live on the internet. Is it your official Braun'16 campaign website, going forward? You plan to keep it up and running, between now and November 2016, as the main website of your presidential campaign, in other words? If so, I will change the link on the Democratic Party presidential candidates, 2016 page, which right at this moment points incorrectly to the PAC website. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 18:08, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
- do you happen to know when
the "Harry Braun" articleHarry Braun (which I am very pleased with) will have its potential deletion flag removed?
Q#5 , how fast do the wiki-wheels of wiki-justice turn?
|
|---|
|
Glad you are satisfied with the state of the article. It was a bit of work to get it into shape, but I also think it is a pretty decent facsimile of an encyclopedic article, though it still needs MORE work. :-) As for the being-considered-for-deletion-tag, there is no specific deadline. The Harry Braun article (under the original title Harry Braun, Democratic Party presidential Candidate, 2016 however) was originally listed on August 18th, and the usual week of discussion ended on August 26th. At that point, the discussion was "re-listed" aka started over again, by the wikipedia administrator Juliancolton, who said that they wanted to get more opinions from additional wikipedians during the next "few days" (but did not say how many days would be enough). Since then, five other people have commented, MelanieN saying she would still argue that, based on a strict reading of WP:NPOL, the 1980s coverage ought not be counted towards demonstrating wiki-notability, and four others saying that the biographical-article is worth keeping, now that most of the WP:NOTPROMOTION stuff has been pruned. The most recent comment was on the 29th, and now it is the 2nd, so I would guess that some administrator will close the discussion any day now, and leave a final decision. Administrators are given a lot of leeway, and I mean they are given ABSOLUTE leeway, when 'closing' the bangvote discussion. The wiki-rules specifically say that the person counting the votes should *only* pay attention to the ones backed by wiki-policy and the spirit of the wiki-pillars, and should NOT just count noses. Stalin would have been jealous, eh? On wikipedia, not only do we give all the power to the person counting the bangvotes, but we explicitly say that bangvotes are NOT actually votes! But in practice, the vast amount of leeway, works really well, because only serious careful long-haul dedicated wikipedians can become admins, people like DGG and MelanieN and Peridon, who rarely make mistakes, and don't have an abusive lust for power and world domination, which Stalin suffered from. There are about 1200 wikipedia admins, and they are all pretty awesome, wikipedia is lucky. Anyways, if the closing-administrator-person, finds the policy-backed interpretation given by MelanieN more convincing than the alternative-reading-of-policy interpretation given by myself, then absolutely they might decide to delete the article. We're not out of the woods just yet. If that turns out to be the case, then we would have to temporarily move the contents of Harry Braun over into Draft:Harry Braun, and submit it for re-creation, which usually takes about ten days, though in this case I'd probably try and jump the queue per WP:IAR, so it might only take two or three days. It would then be nominated for deletion a second time, which would take another seven days, assuming no re-listing was necessary. That being said, it seems vastly more likely that the Harry Braun article will be retained, and the tag removed. Nobody knows when, it could be today, or it could take another week, maybe longer, but if I had to guess I would say it will be closed sometime before the 10th of September, which would be two full weeks worth of "a few days". More likely is it will be closed on or before the 5th, which is ten days worth, or maybe even today, since we're at the one-extra-week point-in-time. But as I said before, it is indeterminate; could be today (actually not that unlikely), could take all month (very very unlikely), theoretically might even end with an admin-supervote to delete (though that seems very unlikely). Anyways, see WP:NORUSH, wikipedia is meant to be a history of ideas, and is designed to last for the ages. It's not a good campaign-vehicle, in other words. Partly that's because WP:NOTPROMOTION is the wiki-law, and partly that's because encyclopedias like wikipedia inherently move at a slower pace than a presidential campaign would like. As a contributor to wikipedia, you have to think long term, and think like a hard scientist, and avoid thinking of wikipedia as Yet Another Way To Promote Braun'16 And The Wonders Of Hydrogen. 'Tis hard, at first, but easy once you get in the habit, plus absolutely necessary. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 18:08, 2 September 2015 (UTC) |
Question#6A thru #6 about creating new articles:
- I plan to contact Nejat Veziroglu, the editor-in-chief of the IAHE Journal regarding the citations he would recommend (see Draft:International Association of Hydrogen Energy)
- for his personal Wikipedia article, which I would like to forward to you for your analysis. (see Draft:Nejat Veziroglu)
- I would also like to send you (and any of your fellow interested Wikipedians) the text and citations I would like to add to the Wikipedia "Photobiology" Article for your review. (see Talk:Photobiology)
- Many thanks for the corrections on the presidential page. (see Talk:Democratic Party presidential candidates, 2016)
- It is an honor to work with you and such a distinguished team of editors. (see User:Harry_W_Braun_III who is also a distinguished editor of wikipedia nowadays)
Likewise, it's been a pleasure working with you, as well. However, you need to remember that you too are a wikipedian now. User:Harry_W_Braun_III: wikipedian in good standing. :-) You can put that on your campaign-literature if you like, unsurprisingly, there are a lot of politicians who have been blocked from wikipedia over the years, for editing the wikipedia-articles about themselves, and refusing to listen. You are one of the few, proud survivors, that made it though AfD (almost anyways since it's not officially closed yet), and managed not to be blocked for disruption. Good work. ;-) But as I was saying up above, you *are* a wikipedian now. You can be WP:BOLD and make changes, that will improve wikipedia. That's not to say that I recommend you start editing Harry Braun again! You are a wee bit too closely-connected to the topic of that particular wikipedia article, to be neutral in your edits, methinks.
But you can edit Talk:Harry_Braun, and make suggestions there. Please do. You can also edit Talk:Democratic Party presidential candidates, 2016 and the other pages where you might be mentioned, or could conceivably be mentioned, if someone agrees. Usually faster than asking me, will be going straight to the talkpage of the article with the problem, and making a suggestion there. (Feel free to also ask me, by pointing me to your suggestions, with a wikilink to the new talkpage section you created.) Same answer for photobiology, since you ARE actually publishing papers in the photobiology field, you should probably stick to making suggestions on Talk:photobiology, rather than directly editing photobiology, yourself. But you don't have to go through me, or through any special gatekeeper. Just go straight to the talkpage that needs fixing, and make some suggestions; if you have some sentences, backed up by specified sources, to go into the photobiology article, then just click Talk:photobiology, click 'new section' at the top, make a specific suggestion like "I suggest we change X to Y" or maybe "I suggest we insert Z into the 'history' section of the article" , and then wait to see what other folks say.
If you get stuck somehow, or have questions, or need something explained about the wiki-laws, feel free to ask -- you can leave me a note here, or you can use WP:Q and follow one of those links, or you can just ask the other wikipedians you meet on the appropriate talkpages, if you don't understand what they meant. Just keep your cool, and listen to what the other people say, and follow the five pillars, and stick to neutrally reflecting what the WP:SOURCES actually say, and you'll be fine.
Besides making suggestions on existing articles, you can also create brand new articles. Since you are an IAHE member, and since Nejat is the IAHE chief editor, you both should stick to making suggestions on Talk:International Association of Hydrogen Energy, to avoid the appearance of unduly-promotional editing, right? But what if there *is* no article by that name yet, and thus there *is* not such a talkpage? Well, no problem, you can simply create the article, and edit it in draftspace, then later submit it for approval by an experienced wikipedian. Click here, and create the article, if you like: Draft:International Association of Hydrogen Energy. If you are too busy running your presidential campaign, Nejat can click there, and start working on the article. It's okay to make suggestions on talkpages, and to work on preliminary-articles in draftspace, even though he's tightly connected to the IAHE. Make sense? 75.108.94.227 (talk) 18:08, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
explanation that User:Harry_W_Braun_III is Mr. Braun logged in, and (Redacted) is Mr. Braun logged out
Harry.
Howdy. :-)
You are not logging into wikipedia. That is why, when you click 'preview', you see (Redacted). You have to *first* get logged into your wikipedia-specific-username-with-your-wikipedia-specific-password. Details follow.
BEFORE you click 'edit' you have to first click 'Log in' and then type in your wikipedia username, which is Harry_W_Braun_III, followed by your wikipedia password, which is WhateverPasswordYouPickedForWikipedia.
AFTER you have successfully logged in, you will no longer see the little blue 'Log in' button anymore, because by then you will ALREADY be logged in.
IF you see the little blue 'Log in' button, then you Are Not Logged In, and if you are not logged in, and you click 'edit', and you type a note, and you click 'save', then (Redacted) will "surprisingly" appear.
WHO is this dastardly (Redacted) , you ask? :-)
Good question, (Redacted) is your COMPUTER'S INTERNET ADDRESS, aka the numeric 'internet-zipcode' or maybe the numeric 'internet-phonenumber' or most properly the 'internet-protocol-dotted-quad' assigned by the company that you pay every month for keeping your computer connected to the internet. Computers communicate electronically with each other, using those numbers, that is how *your* computer can talk to wikipedia *server* computers, over the internet. *Every* computer, that is connected to the internet, gets a number like (Redacted) , and because wikipedia is the encyclopedia WP:ANYONE can edit , even people that don't have letterAndSymbolsStyle wikipedia username yet, wikipedia DOES NOT FORCE YOU to first login as User:Harry_W_Braun_III before you click edit. Make sense? The website at http://en.wikipedia.org , unlike 99.4% of other websites, does NOT force you to log in, you have to remember to do it.
Example#1, if you are in your house, and you wake up, and you go to your computer, you can CLICK EDIT IMMEDIATELY without logging into your wikipedia username. What happens if you *do* click edit, before logging into wikipedia as User:Harry_W_Braun_III, and you then *do* click save, is that wikipedia assigned your computer's Internet Protocol address as the quasi-anonymous 'username' which in your case is (Redacted) because you are in (Redacted).
Example#2, if *I* am wanting to edit wikipedia, I go to *my* computer, and since I never bothered to create a LettersAndSymbols wikipedia username, I just click 'edit' and type something and click 'save', and then my edits show up under my computer's internet protocol address which is User_talk:75.108.94.227 , which is the only thing I use for wikipedia.
Okay? Okay.
You *do* have a wikipedia username, User:Harry_W_Braun_III, but you are not logging in and actually *using* it most of the time, recently. Here is what you need to do, *every* time, before you save something on wikipedia.
- wake up , no using wikipedia whilst you are sleepy
- go to the nearest computer
- open your favorite web browser to begin using the internet
- use your web browser to visit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Harry_W_Braun_III
- BEFORE you read anything, and certainly before you write and then 'save' anything, look in the top-right-corner
- IF you see the little blue 'Log in' button then YOU ARE NOT YET LOGGED IN, and you should click 'Log in'
- HOWEVER if you do NOT see that little blue 'Log in' button then you are already logged in
- ONCE you are properly logged in as User:Harry_W_Braun_III your wikipedia-username , by having entered your wikipedia-specific-password ,
- THEN you can begin reading messages people have left you
- ALSO you may reply to message should you wish
- BEST of all , when you click 'edit' then type a note then click 'preview' you will clearly see that your message will be saved in the name of User:Harry_W_Braun_III
- WHEN you click the 'preview' button (before you click the 'save') button, if you instead see User_talk:67.141.168.191 "somehow" signing the message you just wrote, there is no mystery what happened
- BECAUSE UNLESS you see User:Harry_W_Braun_III after clicking 'preview' , you simply must have messed up one of the steps above, and are NOT actually logged into your wikipedia username (which is User:Harry_W_Braun_III)
- THUS go back to the beginning of these steps (use caffeine to wake up should that be needed), and then START OVER and TRY AGAIN to get properly logged in, since you need to login properly before you click 'save'
Clear as mud? Your username User:Harry_W_Braun_III is not like magic. You have to *tell* wikipedia who you are, by logging in. If you do *not* log in first, to tell wikipedia who you are, your changes are saved under your computer's internet protocol address which is (Redacted) , and that is NOT what you want.
Hope this is all beginning to make sense. If so, please log into your proper username right now -- which is User:Harry_W_Braun_III -- and then reply to me here, so that I'm sure you've got this logging-into-wikipedia-thing 100% figured out. Then, I'll have somebody come along and fix up the wikipedia-history for you, so that the edits you made will appear properly as if they were made by your actual wikipedia username User:Harry_W_Braun_III. Once we get that straightened out, then we'll discuss the larger issues that you brought up, but I'd like to get this straightened out first. So one thing at a time, can you follow the steps above please, and follow them *every time* you use wikipedia, most especially if you use wikipedia from a *new* computer such as in a hotel or something, the computer is not going to figure out who you are, you have to *tell* wikipedia who you are by logging in. Thanks, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 20:27, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
- Hello 75.108, and thank you for a crystal clear explanation for my confusion. I had not even noticed that I was not logged in, and I did not realize how important it is for communicating properly. I was also using two different computers, which I will no longer do. Many Thanks.Harry W Braun III (talk) 01:33, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
- No problems. :-) And yeah, I figured you maybe were switching between system#1 with the password saved into the browser, and system#2 with no such thing. But as I said, Wikipedia is a bit weird; most websites either *require* that you login, or do *not* let you login, but wikipedia can go either way... and is horridly confusing when you see "somebody else" somehow swiping your comments, practically as you save them.... but it all makes sense, once it gets explained. For myself, I do just edit from a single system. Since you might be doing a lot of travelling during the coming year, I recommend that you get in the habit of checking that top-right-hand-corner, and making sure you are logged in, before you click edit. Once you get used to that double-check, it will become a habit, and you'll be able to edit from any system you like. For password-security reasons, it is better usually not to stick your password into a random system, so if you have a portable system like a laptop, my advice is to stick to editing from that laptop most of the time. Will answer your other questions, up above. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 01:54, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Brianhe talkback
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Invitation to participate in community discussion at User talk:Doc James subpages or elsewhere
Hi there, 75.108.94.227 made a very good explanation of the chain of events that led to my unfriendly and unfortunate introduction. For which I apologize with the caveats that impersonation is becoming increasingly common here, as is nefarious collusion esp. between COI registered editors and anon editors, so I hope you understand. Also, I didn't just slap this case up at WP:COIN so maybe I deserve a little bit of credit for restraint in that respect. That being said, this would probably be a fruitful discussion at one of the active discussions on reactions to the Orangemoody and other scandals, which you can perhaps most easily find via my recent edit history. Wikipedia's established community (includung the "COI cops" and others) is going through some deep introspection right now so a new voice would be welcome. Cheers — Brianhe (talk) 15:17, 4 September 2015 (UTC)Brianhe (talk) 15:14, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, no problem, please speak softly and carry a big stick, in the future. It turns out that Aviators99 and myself are involved in Farious Collusion with the goal of Improving the Encyclopedia. :-) In related news, I personally caught the orangemoody sockmaster myself, it was User:samtar! Or so I feared... it turned out User:samtar is a perfectly fine and upstanding wikipedian, and a good sport about the whole thing too. They were just responding to off-wiki OTRS requests, and off-wiki IRC requests, and luckily they did not take offense when I called them to the Peridon talkpage, asking about why they left a mainspace-to-draftspace redirect, and how they knew to interleave their own editing with another editor over on the NTA page. So, not only do I understand perfectly why you're on-edge, I'm also on edge, that orangemoody stuff is bleepity bleep scary. Will peek at the DocJames talkpage, but I'd rather that DocJames work with me on the section-layout of abortion than piddle around trying to ban all paid editing, which I see as tilting at windmills, and arguably counterproductive (needlessly heightens tensions). In any case, I will troll your edit-history a bit, and see if I can make useful comments at the orangemoody-fallout-discussion. p.s. Brianhe, orangemoody is the sockfarm... OrangeMike is a good-apple longstanding admin, who helps clean up political articles and other such things, and is not in any way related to orangemoody-the-recent-sockfarm. I've edited your comment to correct the record, hope you don't mind. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 15:26, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
- And yes, I did notice you didn't just noticeboard it immediately, which is probably the key (plus Ron's staying cool and polite iff definitely miffed) that it didn't balloon out of control. Usertalk is always better than noticeboards, but WP:NORUSH to leap to conclusions. Sometimes anons are not the droids you are looking for, after all. ;-) 75.108.94.227 (talk) 15:28, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
- Mwahahaha! Indeed I am the Master of Socks! samtar (msg) 15:58, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Dern you, samtar! You shall not escape my wiki-wrath!Oh nevermind... :-) Sorry, carry on improving the 'pedia, nothing to see here. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 16:07, 4 September 2015 (UTC)- For those talkstalks who might dislike youtube, a fair use summarization... the video samtar linked was a parody of the Metallica song Master of Puppets, in this case covered by an animatronic-sock-puppet-band, with yarn for hair, and lip-syncing slash air-guitaring to the slightly-revised lyrics:
- end of laundry day
- folding me away
- lost in the depths within this dresser
- no other stripe in sight
- begin this lonely fight
- mismatched sock with just one purpose
- unfold me you will see
- find a use for me
- dedicated to
- being worn by you....
- (insert long guitar solo, with much yarn-hair-based headbanging by the sockband)
- Kinda catchy. They've got their own twitterfeed. But if they ever get famous enough to get a wikipedia article, we're gonna see a lot of usernames banned: User:MetallicaSock, User:SocksAreTheBest, and so on. Sigh. WP:EVERYTHINGISVERYSERIOUSHERE will not remain a redlink much longer, methinks. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 16:16, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Cool, feel free to jump in wherever, User:Doc James/Paid editing is where the regulars are very active right now discussing remedies; it looks like two of these are developed enough to go through an RfC for formal adoption. If you're interested in machine learning I'll make a plug for my idea, Score articles on "sockiness" which maybe could use feedback from people with experience in the field (foot stomp), especially if you have ideas on negative correlators, given this discussion. There's also WT:Conflict of interest for general discussion of COI on Wikipedia, and WT:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard which might be appropriate for discussion of the COI investigation process itself. — Brianhe (talk) 16:26, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
- Well, editing as anon has made me personally very
redactedfamiliar with theviolationof theelided redactedoperations of the WP:ABUSEFILTER, which is a bunch of half-assed regex scripts that block people from editing. I've got some off-wiki experience with machine learning, and I can tell you straight out, if you build what you are trying to build, it will be abused, and will hurt wikipedia. Even if you, personally, don't think that the machine-learning-detect-a-sock system should be used to perform automated insta-blocks, I can pretty much guarantee that it WILL be used in that fashion, within a year or two of being put into operation. This is the law of unintended consequences. I've also seen User:Doc_James and User:Judas_Fax having their discussion of trying to ban all paid editing at WP:COIN, using orangemoody as an excuse to kick out User:CorporateM and the other long-haul good-apple people, who are getting paid to Improve The Encyclopedia. Which is, once again, a counterproductive idea in the long run: forcing disclosure of the middleman-corporation, will simply lead to the creating of holding-corporations and shell-companies, just like in political donations via super-PACs. Making paid editing "wiki-illegal" will just mean that 100% of paid editing is undisclosed and undetectable. Deleting material at the least hint, that anybody might have been paid, sometime somewhere, or otherwise benefitted from the material, is fucking nuts, and will mean that wikipedia gets a successful hostile takeover from WP:GOOG. They already tried once, with Google Knol, and good-faith but foolish infobox-on-every-article wiki-cops are making it easy for google to do so once again. Crackdown on ALL paid editing, even that which IMPROVES wikipedia, might just be the notch in wikipedia's armour, through which google will happily insert a nice little dagger to bleed the 'pedia dry. I don't think I'm exaggerating here. Anyways, part of the reason I don't contribute to policy-talkpage-discussions, is because I've read the Book Of Mastcell, and am a pessimist -- they invariably turn out to be people with an axe to grind, trying to "fix" the wikipolicy so that it corresponds with their particular bias. Anyways, I'll try to respond politely to the suggestions I'm sure I'll find at the DocJames page, that we should ban all editors that ever contribute to their own wikipedia page, force everybody to register and get identity confirmed by mailing a cheek-swap to OTRS_DNA, and delete any pages that pass WP:GNG but don't pass WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Or maybe I'll be pleasantly surprised at the reasoned, rationale, well-considered discourse there, with an eye to the long view, and to blowback and other unexpected side effects, and a firm respect for the five pillars that have brought us this far in good stead. Cf pessimist comment earlier. ;-) 75.108.94.227 (talk) 19:42, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
- Well, editing as anon has made me personally very
- (edit conflict) Cool, feel free to jump in wherever, User:Doc James/Paid editing is where the regulars are very active right now discussing remedies; it looks like two of these are developed enough to go through an RfC for formal adoption. If you're interested in machine learning I'll make a plug for my idea, Score articles on "sockiness" which maybe could use feedback from people with experience in the field (foot stomp), especially if you have ideas on negative correlators, given this discussion. There's also WT:Conflict of interest for general discussion of COI on Wikipedia, and WT:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard which might be appropriate for discussion of the COI investigation process itself. — Brianhe (talk) 16:26, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Thank you 75.108.94.227
Hello 75.108.
Sorry for the delay in getting back to you. I am still carefully reading your insightful comments, which are in several places in the Wikipedia Universe. I am extremely pleased with the Harry Braun Wikipedia page with its flag removed, and while I am just beginning to understand “the world according to Wikipedia,” it is a fascinating society of scholarly individuals, somewhat like the Essene Jewish community of scientists and scholars that Jesus had spent considerable time with, according to the Dead Sea Scroll: The Essene Gospel of Peace, which has several related Wikipedia articles. I mention this because the Essene Jesus, who was a naturopathic physician, is very different from the New Testament Jesus whose “miracles” violate Newton’s laws of physics. But many of the remarkable insights are about preparing and consuming principally vegetarian foods, and never eating until one was full, and the Essene bread was not baked in an oven (which destroys all of the proteins) but rather the wheat dough was flattened out and sprouted with the relatively low temperatures of the sun. According to the Essene Jesus, the “angles” of healing are specifically defined as pure air, water, and proper sunlight exposure (i.e., photobiology), which rarely existed in the urban areas then – or now.
In any case, my BraunforPresident.US website is now up, and it will be up for the duration of the 2016 campaign. I have also updated the Democracy Amendment USA website as well. I have not yet incorporated citations, other than for Thomas Jefferson, on these two websites, which would be a first for a political campaign website, but I do plan to use all of the technical citations I provided in my initial Wikipedia articles that were deleted in a separate paper I will publish on the Foundation website. While these website updates delayed my daily press release campaign, it is now scheduled to launch tomorrow (Sept. 7) if no further issues come up.
I was fascinated by your Wikipedia response regarding my quoting the remarks of 75.108. When I come across such insightful comments, I like to give proper credit, if possible. I will study your comments further, but at this point, I will follow your advice and give credit one of the Wikipedia editors. After all, you were the only editor with such insights.
Given your comments on wars in Switzerland, I investigated the matter by consulting Wikipedia, and I was clearly in error stating they had not been in a war since 1291. Indeed, I now realize that Switzerland has been in some 20 wars, the last one being the Sonderbund war in 1847, which established the Federal State of Switzerland. So it is correct to say that the Federal State of Switzerland has not been in a war for 168 years, which is still pretty impressive, given the USA has been in non-stop multi-trillion Oil Wars for private multinational corporations since World War II. Even the attack on Pearl Harbor was a result of a U.S. Navy-imposed oil blockade against Japan, which was clearly an act of war. Since I am the author of the Democracy Amendment that is at the heart of my presidential campaign to shift from oil to hydrogen, it seemed only natural to mention the one country in the world that has been operating as a Constitutional Democracy for over 700 years.
Thank you for setting up the User Talk: International Association for Hydrogen Energy. I wanted to get some feedback from Nejat Veziroglu, at which point I will provide you with an update. Thanks again for your many thoughtful, and detailed comments.Harry W Braun (talk) 19:57, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
- Hello Harry, good to hear from you as always. Yes, congratulations, Harry Braun has made it through the gauntlet. I do believe you will come to enjoy the wiki-verse, as time goes on, and you learn the wiki-culture in more details. I have never heard of the Essene Jews, and will have to do a bit of reading before I have any comments to make, insightful or otherwise. ;-) Wikipedians like yourself and myself *are* an interesting niche culture, very much "in the world" of modern politics and modern scientific controversies and other up-to-the-minute history-in-the-making, but also simultaneously going about the slow and steady business of codifying and summarizing all human knowledge in a boring neutral just-the-facts set of core articles.
chitchat on the often-maddeningly-frustrating wiki-culture, why it counterintuitively produces long-term high-quality, plus tips on conserving your wiki-gumption
|
|---|
|
- On some of your specific points, some quick answers, let me know if more verbosity is needed:
- about the IAHE, two points: first, you are fine to ask Nejat if they wish to become a wikipedian, and create a username something like User:Nejat_IAHE (fine!) for instance. However, for copyright-clickwrap-reasons, they should definitely NOT create a username for the association itself, such as User:InternationalAssociationOfHydrogenEnergy (avoid!), because wikipedia content-licensing requires one human *per* wikipedia username. Make sense?
- second, the best place to work on the article about the IAHE (as opposed to the usernames that want to contribute to that article), is by creating the page Draft:International Association for Hydrogen Energy (click to create). Anybody can do that page-creation, and then (because it is in 'draftspace') anybody can directly edit that article, or can edit the article talkpage which will exist at Draft_talk:International Association for Hydrogen Energy. Let me know if the mechanical details are unclear. I realize wikipedia has a confusing procedure, here (even the 'draftspace' thing is new as of last year... and it is still getting the kinks worked out). 75.108.94.227 (talk) 12:31, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
- http://BraunforPresident.US , now that it is 'live' and ready for use,
will behas now been added to the Democratic Party presidential candidates, 2016 article (whichcurrentlyno longer uses your PAC-website as your "preliminary"-campaigning site) - question, what is the website that we should be using at Harry Braun#External_links, however? http://PhoenixProjectFoundation.com , seems to be your longest-running website, correct? 75.108.94.227 (talk) 12:31, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
- I appreciate your desire to give credit where credit is due, that's the scientist ethic showing through the political campaign, but this is a case of the not-presently-possible. As you say: "I like to give proper credit, if possible." In this case, all you know about me is that 1) I'm a wikipedian and 2) I edit wikipedia anonymously. You also know the IP numeral that is my computer. :-) So you cannot give 'proper' credit to 75.108, that is a computer not a person. And you cannot give proper credit to myself-the-human, since I'm anonymous and unknown to you at present. Thus, the credit can only go vaguely to wikipedia, which brought us together and was the host of our conversation on article five difficulties, or more properly speaking, to wikipedians in general, since I'm included in there somewheres. I don't mind missing out on the credit, so no worries on that score. And as mentioned, the computer numeral *does* lead to a physical location, roughly speaking at least, so I would strongly prefer you not publish my computer-IP-address "75.108.94.227" out on the campaign website(s). By contrast, I don't much care about it being used here on wikipedia, in the 'hidden' talkpages and edit-histories and such, but that is because the situations are distinct. Although millions of people use wikipedia *articles* there are only a few thousand that regularly use the under-the-hood-pages, and the vast majority of them are reasonable interesting individuals. No offense to your campaign intended of course, but in my experience, the vast majority of voters (of which there *are* hundreds of millions... and if your campaign is a success... long shot but by no means impossible... and you actually manage to become the party nominee, or galvanize action by majorities in 38+ states, there is a possibility somebody would visit my physical location. Make sense? Anyways, I'm happy for you to swipe my art-5-commentary, and use it on your website; reformulate it into your own words, if you like, I consider that a good use of the political process, and also a good use of the scientific method. Communities of scholars and researchers and enthusiasts are often built in strange ways, as your mention of the Essenes shows; see also the Diderot encyclopedia of the infamous 1700s, which served as a political-slash-scientific vehicle, as much as an educational work -- wikipedia consciously attempts to NOT serve as a political-slash-scientific vehicle, per WP:NOTPROMOTION and WP:OR, we tried to learn from the mistakes of the Diderot folks! :-) Anyways, up to you: credit wikipedia.org as the facilitating connector, credit wikipedians broadly speaking, or credit 'a wikipedian who wishes to remain anonymous'. But don't let giving credit slow down the conceptual progress, please, because WP:TIAD. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 12:31, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
- Lastly, the most difficult one. Another greenbox for this question, which is about wiki-neutrality-in-practice.
- "...the Democracy Amendment that is at the heart of my presidential campaign to shift from oil to hydrogen..."
- "...it seemed only natural to mention..."
- "...the one country in the world that has been operating as a Constitutional Democracy for over 700 years."
- Yes, it very much would be very natural to mention Switzerland, and your theories on the real motivations for historical events, and so on. Of course! Those background-concepts paint the fuller picture, of the reasons behind the reasons, as it were, that Braun'16 is happening, and that motivate Harry Braun, the subject of the biography-article. However, that's not what wikipedia is for. Details on this strange wiki-law, within.
why does wikipedia have wiki-laws which end up deleting obviously-related material?
|
|---|
|
- The practical impact, of the current sourcing-required-wiki-laws, is that you need to start doing more work to get on television, into newspapers, and otherwise generate "earned media" as all the cool political candidates call it nowadays. ;-) Once independent-published-coverage of Braun'16 exists, wikipedia can summarize that coverage. Until then, WP:PROVEIT cannot be met, for mentioning Switzerland (or for mentioning ANY other specific factoids or related material), since nobody in the press has connected the dots between your Braun'16 campaign, and the extant federation of cantons. Once the media connects the dots, and publishes, the connection becomes WP:NOTEWORTHY enough to get a sentence in wikipedia. Let me know if this stuff is clear as mud, or starting to make a strange kind of sense. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 12:31, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Berwick
Hi, I left a note for you here, in case you don't see it. Sarah (talk) 04:16, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: Jack Flanagan (New Hampshire politician) (September 7)
- If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Jack Flanagan (New Hampshire politician) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
- If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
- You can also get Wikipedia's Live Help real-time chat help from experienced editors.
|
Hello! 75.108.94.227,
I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about why your article submission was declined please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! ♔ MONARCH Ask me 10:46, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
|
A message
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Your submission at Articles for creation: Jack Flanagan (politician) has been accepted
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. You may wish to consider registering an account so you can create articles yourself.
- If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
- If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .
Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!
MONARCH♔ 17:25, 7 September 2015 (UTC)- I commented on RM Talk page - this is all pretty workaday stuff. 75.108.94.227 have you considered registering for an account so you can do simple jobs like this WP:MOVE yourself? In ictu oculi (talk) 09:27, 9 September 2015 (UTC) In ictu oculi (talk) 09:28, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
- OK, no worries, done - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Jack_Flanagan but do you want to help fix these please. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:29, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Creative Mobile Games (Estonia)
Thanks for your advice, I've added in a Distinguish and afc comment to Draft:Creative_Mobile as you recommended and i've included more english and foreign language reference citations.
I think it's ready for resubmission, can you have a quick look before I resubmit?
Thanks! RadRacer20xx(talk)
Left you a note
Response
Left you a response on NTA. I forgot to ask there, however, why the prn article did not work?? 74.84.114.34 (talk) 19:42, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
note on nta
Left you a note74.84.114.34 (talk) 19:59, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
- Is there a way to "tag" you in my comments on the other talk page, or do I continue to leave messages here, when I respond there? Wscribner (talk) 15:52, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- See longer explanation of talkpage-mechanics here, User_talk:75.108.94.227#response_2, where the answer to that question is alluded unto. But the nutshell version is, nope, you have to come back here to User_talk:75.108.94.227, click 'new section', type 'replied Wscribner', then click save. You can speed up the process by having the conversation here on my talkpage, of course, which we sometimes do, but I wanted to leave that list of instructions about how to request edits, over on your own talkpage, since you may need to refer back to it a year from now or whatever. There is a shortcut I just learned today, that cuts down on how many clicks you need to leave, which is this little bit of magic:
- After clicking, you can use the
shift+alt+Shotkey, if your browser supports it, to quickly 'save' your ping, or if your browser doesn't support it, you can just manually click save. Normally, when you are working with another wikipedian that has an explicitly-registered username, you can notify them by saying User:Wscribner or similarly @Wscribner: but those are technologically-broken for anons like myself, aka implemented in a way that prevents that from working, for silly wiki-cultural reasons which can be elided here. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 16:25, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- See longer explanation of talkpage-mechanics here, User_talk:75.108.94.227#response_2, where the answer to that question is alluded unto. But the nutshell version is, nope, you have to come back here to User_talk:75.108.94.227, click 'new section', type 'replied Wscribner', then click save. You can speed up the process by having the conversation here on my talkpage, of course, which we sometimes do, but I wanted to leave that list of instructions about how to request edits, over on your own talkpage, since you may need to refer back to it a year from now or whatever. There is a shortcut I just learned today, that cuts down on how many clicks you need to leave, which is this little bit of magic:
Reaching out to Cubgirl4444
The system doesn't allow an editor to 'Thank' an edit by an IP. So this is to publicly acknowledge your offers of help. GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:46, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
A belated welcome!
Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, 75.108.94.227. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you VERY MUCH for your thoughtful and hilarious contributions. So on target (esp COI/Paid editing page), I can't tell you and thank you enough.
I will cut all the irrelevant links of the standard message except:
I hope to cross paths with you otherwise feel free to leave me a message on my talk page.
Again, welcome! Wuerzele (talk) 20:12, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks much Wuerzele, appreciate the cookies and the sentiment. :-) 75.108.94.227 (talk) 18:32, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Reference errors on 11 September
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
- On the NTA (company) page, your edit caused an unsupported parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:22, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
End
The RfC 30-day period ended for the POTUS 2016 election, and it looks like Option C received the plurality of votes, with the square photo version came in second. Thoughts? I hope some administrator comes along and formally closes it, but it seems like circular photos might come. Nonetheless, consensus is obvious that a table should be used. Spartan7W § 17:57, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
- That's a complete mischaracterization of the poll. The poll was not supposed to be about the circle images. It was about the organization of the candidates. No consensus was reached and so the status quo will remain.--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:01, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
- Oh hello there Mr. Stalker. And no, the status quo does not stay. Why? Because 8 votes for C, 6 votes for F mean there are 14 votes for a table. Overwhelming majority wants a table. Spartan7W § 18:06, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not a democracy. No need for a table has been demonstrated. Rather, things have been quite fine without one.--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:08, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
- You are a real ass you know that? If a formal RfC is brought forward, and an overwhelming majority of editors believe there should be a table, then maybe there should be. You have an incessant clinging to keeping wikipedia looking like 2007. The present format is inferior, it just is. Its redundant, scattered, and looks like a list. Tables organize information in an efficient way, and the RfC demonstrates that. 3 votes favored keeping it, so yes some might feel that. But you are acting with a dictatorial ownership of these pages like you know better than everyone else. You don't. The only 'need for a table' that could ever be demonstrated for you is if you changed your own mind. Spartan7W § 18:11, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
- Here's how the votes really turned out - 8 supported C (one of which was a sockpuppet master), 5 supported F, 2 preferred F over C, 3 supported the status quo, 1 supported anything with squares and 75.108.94.227 supported something sortable. If this supported the use of a table (which I still reject since the status quo has worked fine for a month, e.g. no disputes), F would win with 8 votes (5 support + 2 preferred + 1 supporting squares) as C only received 7 legitimate votes (8 support (minus) the sockpuppet vote).--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:25, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
- User:William S. Saturn, if you have commented on my sortable-is-the-silver-bullet obsession, I have not noticed. Do you think sortability is worth having? Option#F is non-sortable, and status-quo-bullet-list-opt#B is also not, so I'm guessing that you also don't see the need for a sortable list, but I'd like to hear the rationale if you don't mind. There were a couple of bangnotes I'm not sure got into your nosecounting, Prcc27 below, as well as YoursT, who both voted for "something with circle-pics" and thus implicitly not opt#F. But as you know, bangvotes aren't about pluralities, they are about the best policy-backed arguments, and closers are given wide latitude, to ascertain the correct pillar-five-close. We do agree though, that the most likely outcome is 'no consensus' aka please try another RfC which has a cleaner clearer outcome. Maybe we can jumpstart-generate such a cleaner clearer outcome, before the closer arrives? There is always a backlog, so even though we are beyond the 30-day-mark, possibly we have some time yet. Any ideas for how to disentangle the wheat from the chaff? 75.108.94.227 (talk) 19:15, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
- Stop bickering you, two, or I'm turning this 'pedia around and taking us right back to the 1990s! :-) The poll is inconclusive, per the technical rules of wiki-procedure. However, there *was* strong sentiment for a change. We just have failed to properly characterize what exact change, and to what extent such change was supported. Partly this is my fault, because I've gotten caught up with other things. I have a posting open about trying to jumpstart the RfC again, and have yet to act on that. Anyways, rather than argue about what the consensus is, let us instead try and figure out how we *can* get a clear consensus. Maybe some miniature-RfC-sections within the RfC, as User:Stabila711 once attempted, will be helpful? 75.108.94.227 (talk) 18:29, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
- Here's how the votes really turned out - 8 supported C (one of which was a sockpuppet master), 5 supported F, 2 preferred F over C, 3 supported the status quo, 1 supported anything with squares and 75.108.94.227 supported something sortable. If this supported the use of a table (which I still reject since the status quo has worked fine for a month, e.g. no disputes), F would win with 8 votes (5 support + 2 preferred + 1 supporting squares) as C only received 7 legitimate votes (8 support (minus) the sockpuppet vote).--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:25, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
- You are a real ass you know that? If a formal RfC is brought forward, and an overwhelming majority of editors believe there should be a table, then maybe there should be. You have an incessant clinging to keeping wikipedia looking like 2007. The present format is inferior, it just is. Its redundant, scattered, and looks like a list. Tables organize information in an efficient way, and the RfC demonstrates that. 3 votes favored keeping it, so yes some might feel that. But you are acting with a dictatorial ownership of these pages like you know better than everyone else. You don't. The only 'need for a table' that could ever be demonstrated for you is if you changed your own mind. Spartan7W § 18:11, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not a democracy. No need for a table has been demonstrated. Rather, things have been quite fine without one.--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:08, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
- Oh hello there Mr. Stalker. And no, the status quo does not stay. Why? Because 8 votes for C, 6 votes for F mean there are 14 votes for a table. Overwhelming majority wants a table. Spartan7W § 18:06, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
What sockpuppet vote? I see no sockpuppets in that vote. And the status quo has remained because there was an ongoing RfC. What do you expect? The world isn't going to explode if it doesn't 'work fine'. What does that mean? Just because 'it works' doesn't mean it isn't inferior. Its ugly, redundant, and poorly organized, and doesn't give as much information as it could, nor as efficiently. And 1 supporting squares would also agree with Option C square version, FYI. Spartan7W § 18:31, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
- There was one sock, I forget their name. They are noted in the vote-list, though (I added a link to the incident). 75.108.94.227 (talk) 18:35, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
- It was this human. Vote: Option C User:CloudKade11 (talk) 04:22, 13 August 2015. [60] Now, just because they were socking earlier/elsewhere, does not mean the closer will necessarily disregard their opinion about circles-pics and table-layout and such, since the socking in question was related to television-articles not political articles. But it depends on the admin, plenty of them take a very dim view of socking (I'm with them), and in this case it didn't seem to be a one-off nor a mistake, if my memory of my scan of the edit-history serves me. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 18:45, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
- There was one sock, I forget their name. They are noted in the vote-list, though (I added a link to the incident). 75.108.94.227 (talk) 18:35, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
- Now that this RfC has ended its 30 day run, we should have an RfC to see what in a table people would like to see. And a seperate poll for rectangular vs. circular portraits. Also, the bickering is all this guy who has a personal vendetta against me. Spartan7W § 18:32, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
- No, it takes two to tango, you are both being prickly here. Needlessly I might add. Not sure if an additional RfC is ready/kosher yet, since the current one may not get 'closed' by somebody official. And if they do, my wiki-eyes would bet 70-30 they close as 'no consensus' and ask us to restart with a simpler premise. So I suggest that we cut to the chase, and do some mini-RfC stuff ourselves, to help the closer get a sense of the true consensus. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 18:35, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
- I have decided that maybe IRV will be easier for people to understand than multi-voting, yet still more helpful for ascertaining consensus than plurality-voting, and thus have elected to pull some WP:OTHERPARENT on Stabila711's usertalk, to see if they agree. Ping Spartan7W and ping User:William S. Saturn, is my posting to User_talk:Stabila711#ranked_choice_voting sufficiently neutral, that it would not sway the discussion one way or the other? 75.108.94.227 (talk) 12:43, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
- No, it takes two to tango, you are both being prickly here. Needlessly I might add. Not sure if an additional RfC is ready/kosher yet, since the current one may not get 'closed' by somebody official. And if they do, my wiki-eyes would bet 70-30 they close as 'no consensus' and ask us to restart with a simpler premise. So I suggest that we cut to the chase, and do some mini-RfC stuff ourselves, to help the closer get a sense of the true consensus. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 18:35, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
ok, this was just harsh :-)
I like Option C & Option H because the circular photos of the candidates makes it look like campaign buttons which is appropriate for an article with presidential candidates. Option G is the worst option proposed because it kind of looks like the butterfly ballot! User:Prcc27 (talk) 22:54, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
- I slaved on option G, and get the Ralph Nader award? Oh the humanity!! Okay, I admit, that was pretty funny. And yes, now that you mention it, the similarity is painfully accurate. Painful to my pride as a table-designer, anyways. :-) But yes, aside from myself, Option#G got no traction. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 18:50, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
- Lol, sorry if I offended you, but that's literally what came to mind when I saw that option! Prcc27 (talk) 18:56, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
- No offense taken, I'm a bad designer. But I didn't realize at the time quite that bad. Now that you have noticed the resemblance, though, of course I see it fits perfectly. Sigh. I'll never live down the shame. :-) 75.108.94.227 (talk) 19:06, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
But so, while I have you here, Prcc27, can you give us some advice? The RfC is officially "over" aka has run the requisite amount of time, but William S. Saturn and myself suspect that it will probably close as 'no consensus' even though there was pretty clearly strong sentiment that SOME sort of change was likely to be viewed as Improving The Encyclopedia, quoth unquoth. What can we do, in the now, that will help the closer ascertain The One True Consensus? I've suggested that we run a series of quasi-informal-mini-RfCs, for instance asking people to give their preferences with regard to how important circle-pic-versus-square-pic is. But I already tried to do that, with the multivote section, and it fell flat, instead people just left normal comments. Are we worried about nothing, and the closer will be peachy-fine? or do you agree with me that the RfC is still too much of a messy-consensus, and we should try to stimulate further progress towards a firmer local consensus, before the closer arrives? 75.108.94.227 (talk) 19:06, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
- It's quite clear that there is consensus to change the status quo. The Option C people probably prefer Option F over the status quo (myself included) and Option F is like a reformed version of the status quo. So I think we should try to get Option F implemented for the time being since it is similar to the status quo and has a lot of support. In the meantime the people who prefer circle pics can continue arguing their opinion on the current RfC or start a new RfC on circle pics vs. square pics. Prcc27 (talk) 19:25, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah, having counted the noses (despite WP:NOTVOTE saying this is a policy-decision), your assessment is prolly correct, at least, per WP:IAR aka common sense. Not so sure about per the letter of the WP:PAG though. Here is the chronology:
nineteen bangvotes, or thereabouts
|
|---|
|
Not pinging anybody here, so as not to unduly annoy.
References
There were six bangvotes for C_circle (perhaps five), when F_square was not yet part of the RfC, plus one for square-pics-aka-neither-C-nor-A. Later, there were seven bangvotes for F_square once *it* became available, albeit two as the second-pick over the status quo, plus another three bangvotes for C-or-circle-pics. About half of the F_square bangvotes were cast before the C_square option became available. As for the status quo, there are at least four people that prefer that to either F *or* C, maybe five. |
- So at the end of the day, it's something like 4.5 to 6.5 to 6.5 by my nose-counting ... and to me, that says "no consensus" because even though there was clear sentiment that the status quo was inadequate, the bangvoting was not very clear-cut about which specific change ought be enacted. If the closer is a stick-to-the-letter admin, no-consensus is prolly what we'll get. If they are a more WP:IAR type, they'll probably suggest we try implementing option#F as the most-likely-to-win-in-the-long-run-by-reading-the-tea-leaves-trends, and keep the RfC *open* so that additional people can come bangvote, after being attracted to the RfC by noticing the changes made to mainspace. But most closers, and most admins, would probably hesitate to pull a stunt like that. :-) 75.108.94.227 (talk) 20:58, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
- I'd like to see Option F put in place for now. Although I would like to see refs segregated later on. One more thing, for Governors (and Sec. of State for Clinton) order of service (with link to list if relevant( should be added. Unlike a Senator, someone is the 69th Governor of Ohio, for instance. But yes, Option F far beats the status quo for organization, cleanliness, and style. I agree with teh above quote that the circles look like buttons, thats what I was getting at. Spartan7W § 05:01, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
- Well, depending on who the closing-admin is, that reviews the RfC, and how *they* count the noses (which is NOT supposed to matter but is 'easier' than supervoting), and on how *they* weight the wiki-policy-backed-arguments, maybe it will come to pass that option#F is put into place, and further discussion of whether to use circle-pics-vs-square-pics, and whether to use inline-refs-versus-own-table-cell-refs, and whether to make the wiki-table-sortable, can be discussed in additional RfC follow-ups. But as I said, this takes a closing-admin with the gumption to make a call that is technically outside the letter of the wiki-laws, and we may not get such; the 'correct' call at the moment is "no consensus" because of deadlock slash unclear consensus -- there is *some* kind of sentiment in favor of change, but what *specific* change is unclear, and conservative-letter-of-the-wiki-law type closer will say 'no consensus but feel free to restart the RfC again N days from now' or something along those lines.
- Anyways, if you are really willing to see option#F, as a temporary compromise-solution that still Improves The Encyclopedia, then I suggest that changing your bangvote to "first choice C second choice F" or something along those lines will probably help demonstrate clearer consensus to the closing-admin. (Personally I'd rather see B than either C or F but only have one nose to be counted!) I'm not sure if we are 'permitted' to ping the bangvoters that liked option#C, and ask them to reconsider, so we better cogitate a little before thinking about trying that. I already pinged Prcc27 but that was because I nearly fell over when I saw that butterfly ballot thing. :-) Midway through the top-pick-only-bangvoting I attempted to get multivoting started, because I think there are a lot of mostly-orthogonal issues up for discussion in this RfC, and plurality-voting is not a very good system for that sort of work. However, more recently, I simplified my own bangvote as part of this usertalk discussion, into DGEHBFCA which is the order I support the proposals, roughly, from most-prefer to least-prefer. User:Spartan7W, what is your ranked-listing, if you don't mind ranking the letters in order? Same question, User:William S. Saturn. I won't be too hurt if option#G is in the dregs. :-) 75.108.94.227 (talk) 07:09, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
- I'd like to see Option F put in place for now. Although I would like to see refs segregated later on. One more thing, for Governors (and Sec. of State for Clinton) order of service (with link to list if relevant( should be added. Unlike a Senator, someone is the 69th Governor of Ohio, for instance. But yes, Option F far beats the status quo for organization, cleanliness, and style. I agree with teh above quote that the circles look like buttons, thats what I was getting at. Spartan7W § 05:01, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
- So at the end of the day, it's something like 4.5 to 6.5 to 6.5 by my nose-counting ... and to me, that says "no consensus" because even though there was clear sentiment that the status quo was inadequate, the bangvoting was not very clear-cut about which specific change ought be enacted. If the closer is a stick-to-the-letter admin, no-consensus is prolly what we'll get. If they are a more WP:IAR type, they'll probably suggest we try implementing option#F as the most-likely-to-win-in-the-long-run-by-reading-the-tea-leaves-trends, and keep the RfC *open* so that additional people can come bangvote, after being attracted to the RfC by noticing the changes made to mainspace. But most closers, and most admins, would probably hesitate to pull a stunt like that. :-) 75.108.94.227 (talk) 20:58, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
specific content of the list-or-vtable-or-htable
Spartan wrote: "One more thing, for Governors (and Sec. of State for Clinton) order of service (with link to list if relevant) should be added. Unlike a Senator, someone is the 69th Governor of Ohio, for instance." Well, agree that there *is* an ordering of governors. And there is also an ordering of senators -- Cruz is the 19th United States Senator (Class 1) from Texas. And we can wikilink to the relevant list-articles methinks, like this: Kasich, Governor (2011+); Cruz, Senator (2013+). But I don't want to mention 19th and 69th in 'visible' prose, because those have more to do with turnover rate of the office (six years for Senate versus 4 years for Governor) and longetivity of the state of the union (1846 Texas versus 1803 Ohio), and very little to do with the candidate's qualification for becoming POTUS-nominee. Years in the position, on the other hand, *do* have a directly-relevant impact on POTUS-nominee suitability: years served indicates experience, and recency of service also matters. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 07:09, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
- Well, there is a difference. Nobody counts legislators like they do executives, save the Speaker & Vice President. You're either a Jr. or Sr. Senator. Including the link to history of Senators from that state is good, but in no way have an order of service #, because that is not a convention in use anywhere. Spartan7W § 23:30, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, no argument. I just think that saying "69th Governor of Ohio (2011+)" and then saying "Junior Senator Class One from Texas (2013+)" clearly has some NPOV-fail. ;-) Plus, not as space-efficient as saying "Governor (2011+)" and "Senator (2013+)". And as mentioned, I don't think Kasich being 69th in line, makes him 'more presidential' than Perry being 47th in line, or Christie being 55th-or-71st-depending-on-who-is-counting. p.s. Do you have any opinion on the sorting-out-the-non-bona-fide-candidates, which I'm gabbing about over on William's page? 75.108.94.227 (talk) 03:25, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
not so arbitrary section break , 0x0000.000b
Ping User:Aviators99, better put the conversation thread down here, until usertalk cleanup is complete. :-) 75.108.94.227 (talk) 21:46, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
- Great. Where were we? Ron Schnell 00:38, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
- I was going to ask somebody I met in the wp-coi-queue to look over the draft, but they got into an unfortunate blocking mishap. I was going to ask somebody I met at AfC to look over the draft, but they are on vacation. I was going to ask somebody I met at AfD to give it a peek, but they are ALSO on vacation. :-) I asked Brianhe to look it over, who we jointly met via the COIN board as you may recall, and they criticized my combo of bare-URLs and humonogo-quoting, but didn't mention any WP:42 violations. Which is a good sign. I have another AfC reviewer I was going to ask to kick the tires. And I still have two dozen imagetabs open in my browser, which I've mostly finished reviewing, but need to save the cite-webs. Mostly, vis-a-vis the Schnell-BLP, I've been trying to get referencing worked out to my satisfaction, partly to satisfy Brianhe's accurate critique (humongo-refs suck) and partly because I've needed the same thing elsewhere. For processing-speed and user-interface-simplicity-reasons, wikipedia doesn't permit nesting of <ref name=outer>foo foo foo <ref name=inner> quux quux quux</ref></ref> , you get a syntax-error. My usual workaround is to use a two-hop combo of template:efn with the normal singly-nested refTags, but there might be a way to do it better, I'm complaining at WP:VPT presently to Trappist. Other than that, there is still the checklist-of-minor-cleanup-things, but that can proceed in draftspace or in mainspace, either way. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 01:12, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
- For the text adventure article, I see that is still moldering in the queue. Are you planning on parallelizing some edit-requests, so that we have a small batch waiting, when somebody does show up? That one is in need of cleanup, but is in mainspace at present, so is less of a concern methinks, to the both of us. But as your recent brush with the wiki-cops shows you, and as my outright astonishment at the horridly-stuffed-up wiki-queue may clue you in, there is apparently a much larger problem than I have seen in the past with WP:ABF when it comes to COI-encumbered editors. Part of that is the orangemoody thing (this is NOT an article written to NPOV standards and the sources linked therein are also not very real-world-reliable unless you read betwixt the lines). Anyways, that has put lots of long-haul wikipedians on edge, and there was a big push the past year to get more explicit COI-terms out in the open, whcih also may have something to do with it. One of the people that does editing-wikipedia-for-pay type consulting, was forced to out themselves, and no longer does any volunteering here as a result; pretty shabby. *You* won't need the *paid* coi hoops for Dunnet, nor for Ron Schnell, methinks -- though we are complying with them anyways -- but you will need them if you have to do any work on political articles, short of grammar fixes and blatant-vandalism-reverts. How is WP:NORUSH treating your peace-of-mind, on this orthogonal pursuit to the BLP-article? I'm starting to be curious how many months your request will be open, quite frankly. We can always use #wikipedia-en-help connect to seek some eyeballs for assistance, or WP:TEAHOUSE or whatever. But at the moment, if you're not in a hurry, my somewhat-motivated-by-wikipedia-inside-baseball-curiosity recommendation is that we just begin drafting additional sentences, when and as convenient, and suggesting them on the article-talkpage in new sections, but without opening additional edit-requests... and see how long we have to wait. Eventually most likely Czar will just take pity on us, but then again, maybe we'll be surprised and somebody will come by tomorrow.
- In other news, Pearson, Frazelle/Docker, endorse-list, debate-details, book-reviews, artspeak & logo-language, and a few other things are on the back burner somewheres. How is the world treating you? Ready to see the CNN war-room, and compare and contrast with the other ones? How goes the app-launch-aftermath, swimmingly or frustrating or insert-sentiment-here? 75.108.94.227 (talk) 01:12, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
- In general, I have trouble with WP:NORUSH. I'm very happy with the app launch and follow-up. We will be adding some really cool stuff as time goes on. I guess we *should* add some more fixes to the dunnet page... Ron Schnell 01:22, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
- Well, you and me both: there is a deadline, if not us who, if not now when, all that jazz. But there's only so many hours in the day. I've tried training my pet monkey to edit wikipedia, but after thousands of hours of effort, all I got was WP:COPYVIO of Shakespeare. Dern monkey said something about public domain blah blah blah, whatever, I *told* them to read the wiki-policies but they just start wiki-lawyering me rather than write original prose, so I sent them back to their old job, and took away their typewriter. ;-) p.s. Suggest you make some easter eggs inside your easter eggs, and not announce them. Rand Paul: The Text Adventure is sadly still a redlink, as yet. :-) 75.108.94.227 (talk) 01:31, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
- If it wasn't the complete works, maybe Koko could claim fair use (though it may take a while to write the Answer to the Complaint). My article in the Proceedings journal showed up on Google Scholar since I last checked. I'm wondering if it might be considered peer reviewed. There were a lot of hoops they made me go through after they requested that I write it. Ron Schnell 16:16, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
- Here is link, hit#1.[61] More wiki-properly, here is the templatized format:
- Ron Schnell, Adjunct Professor of Computer Security, Nova Southeastern University (2014). Barbara Chiarizia and Sarah K. Webster (ed.). "Hacking 101: Using social engineering increases security attack effectiveness" (PDF). Coast Guard Journal of Safety & Security at Sea, Proceedings of the Marine Safety & Security Council. United States Coast Guard. pp. 25 through 27.
{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
- Ron Schnell, Adjunct Professor of Computer Security, Nova Southeastern University (2014). Barbara Chiarizia and Sarah K. Webster (ed.). "Hacking 101: Using social engineering increases security attack effectiveness" (PDF). Coast Guard Journal of Safety & Security at Sea, Proceedings of the Marine Safety & Security Council. United States Coast Guard. pp. 25 through 27.
- Per WP:SCHOLARSHIP, piece might well count as WP:RS (and did before scholar.google.com picked up on it), but the key question is, WP:RS on what topic(s)? The article is in a journal, and is edited, and so on. The publisher is WP:RS being a government agency, military branch, and the editors are independent of you, since none of them are kinfolk / co-workers / similar. The author is obviously not independent. The all-seeing eye of WP:GOOG lists no cites as yet, which doesn't impact WP:RS status (well... depending on how much of a deletionist you are talking to... I recently saw an AfD where anything less than one bleeping thousand cites was 'not wiki-notable' quote unquoth), but lack of cites does impact the *degree* to which the publication counts towards wiki-notability, i.e. helps to overcome the non-independence of the author being named Schnell, just like the BLP-article is named Schnell. There are several bits in the article where you talk about yourself: the about-the-author blurb at the end, the Nova.edu namedrop on the title-page, the story of Mitnick-without-naming-him, the toll-free call to NJ incident (shortly afterwards followed by donation of a synthesizer no doubt ;-) and the cautionary tale of the nurse quasi-accidentally spoofed by the lingoist slash television fan slash infosec prof. Some of that stuff is obviously not phrased neutrally and just-the-facts, but we could conceivably use it, if the publisher and editor in question are counted as wiki-reliable enough with respect to those factoids.
- It's a judgement call, right? They obviously printed the stuff. But you can see on page two, they don't claim that everything they print is gospel: "The articles contained in Proceedings are submitted by diverse public and private interests... views expressed by the authors do not necessarily represent those of the U.S. Coast Guard...." In other words, they trust you to write something that won't embarrass the USCG and cause them to lose face, and they edited your material (and probably fact-checked at least *some* of it ... the militarily-relevant bits most likely), but the 'author' is more or less on their own after that. So although they vetted you, to make sure you were a WP:RS author sufficiently clueful to get your words into their wiki-reliable publication, they don't back any of your specific words. If they had you give them the name of the hospital so they could double-check with the nurse, and the name of your schoolmates and principal so they could double-check the payphone stuff, and requested press-clippings about your 1981 blurb, then maybe I'm wrong here.
- But generally speaking, when the author themselves doesn't happen to be a wikipedian, the publication falls under WP:ABOUTSELF w.r.t. the BLP-article (it gives your views in your words), even when in other articles the same piece might fall under WP:RS w.r.t. the topic(s)-thereof (e.g. social engineering ... but then the question of WP;UNDUE weight comes into play and we have to balance your cites versus other cited works on the topic of social engineering). The first few pages of scholar.goog turn up these:
- * 57 cites, 1995, Information Security Technology? Don't Rely on It. A Case Study in Social Engineering. , IS Winkler, B Dealy USENIX.org
- * 68 cites, 1999, Systems architecture: product designing and social engineering , RE Grinter - SIGSOFT dl.ACM.org
- * 91 cites, 2001, Social engineering fundamentals, part I: hacker tactics , S Granger - Security Focus 123seminarsonly.com
- * 43 cites, 2003, A multi-level defense against social engineering , D Gragg - SANS Reading Room, taupe.free.fr
- * 52 cites, 2003, Penetration testing and social engineering: hacking the weakest link , N Barrett - Information Security Elsevier
- * 57 cites, 2004, Social engineering: the dark art , T Thornburgh - Proceedings of the 1st annual dl.ACM.org
- * 88 cites, 2004, The urgency for effective user privacy-education to counter social engineering attacks on secure computer systems , GL Orgill, GW Romney, MG Bailey… - Proceedings of the 5th dl.ACM.org
- * 47 cites, 2006, Social engineering: concepts and solutions , TR Peltier - Information Systems Security Taylor & Francis
- * 68 cites, 2007, Gaining access with social engineering: An empirical study of the threat , M Workman - Information Systems Security Taylor & Francis
- * 58 cites, 2008, Wisecrackers: A theory‐grounded investigation of phishing and pretext social engineering threats to information security, M Workman - J. of the American Society for Information Wiley Online Library
- * 59 cites, 2009, Towards automating social engineering using social networking sites , M Huber, S Kowalski, M Nohlberg… - … and Engineering, 2009 ieeexplore.IEEE.org
- * 45 cites, 2010, An overview of social engineering malware: Trends, tactics, and implications, S Abraham, IS Chengalur-Smith - Technology in Society Elsevier
- * 84 cites, 2010, [BOOK] Social engineering: The art of human hacking , C Hadnagy books.google.com
- * 58 cites, 2011, [BOOK] No tech hacking: A guide to social engineering, dumpster diving, and shoulder surfing , Johnny Long books.google.com
- * 58 cites, 2011, Reverse social engineering attacks in online social networks , D Irani, M Balduzzi, D Balzarotti, E Kirda… - Detection of intrusions Springer
- And that's before we even *get* to Mitnick's book(s), or for that matter Phil Zimmerman who has 1200 cites for the Official PGP User's Guide of 1995. There is more of a case, in a way, for your piece someday making the reflist at cyberwarfare for instance, since it is a USCG publication, but the disclaimer on page five takes away some of the brunt. p.s. Interestingly, 'social engineering' is a lingoist-reworking of a traditional field of inquiry, which was related to political 'mind-control' techniques, e.g. "The engineering of consent: Democracy and authority in twentieth-century America" by William Graebner in 1987 via University of Wisconsin Press. p.p.s. Besides the nurse-incident, we have alternative sourcing for the other bits, methinks. Was there a specific something that you thought would add a sentence to the article, outside the TBD-bibliography-section? 75.108.94.227 (talk) 06:41, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry to make you go through all that...it's not really what I was asking. I was wondering whether or not it should be considered "peer reviewed" (not just for wiki purposes). Ron Schnell 13:53, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
- Nobody is making me, WP:CHOICE applies, so no apologies needed. (See also the contrapositive: all comments by 75 to rss are per wp:choice ; if 75 comments to rss, then it was wp:choice ; if comments were wp:mandatory, then 75 wouldn't make comments.) Also see-also, that wp:choice is a two-way street: not trying to force my verbose replies onto you, and in particular, sometimes I give the answer to the question I'm more interested in answering, or think will be more wiki-illuminating to your wiki-eyes, than the question that you actually asked. Cf, closed-ended_question and yes–no_question#How_such_questions_are_answered, both of which I often purposely "misinterpret" (albeit NOT with unethical intent) into the more expansive concepts of socratic_questioning and/or the socratic_method#Application, though I tend to be a hardline Aristotelian about most things.
- Anyways, the reason I did the sourcing-work, was because you will find a lot of wikipedians will out of hand reject the USCG paper as WP:SELFPUB, and that is totally wrong-o. You see this a lot at BLP-articles where the person is a professor (aka your own... which like dunnet you will be the primary wiki-steward of your own BLP-article until and unless the wp-coi-queue is unstuffed which is a perennial difficulty... and I doubt per WP:CRYSTAL that USCG will be your final contribution to the literature). So the reason I did the legwork here, was to show you how to do the legwork; plus I find the topic-matter interesting. And of course, sourcing-legwork is never wasted, if stored in the right location -- I can paste my list-o-social-engineering-cites over on the Talk:social engineering (computing) page and it will get used someday per WP:NORUSH. But my main goal, was that I think you need (for your wiki-steward-duties going forward) a good grip on the idea that there is such a wiki-guideline as WP:SCHOLARSHIP, and also the more subtle concept that it applies with *varying* strength aka wiki-weight, depending on which article-title is being talked about.
- So anyways, if you just want my opinion on whether the USCG Proceedings (magazine) is a peer-reviewed well-respected publication, I think the answer is no, unless there were some steps not mentioned on page five. Academia EECS lingo -- to feed your off-wiki passion for jargon variants -- seems pretty clear that to be a "peer-reviewed" paper the work has to be not just edited and published by independent folks (Chiarizia&Webster were the indep eds && USCG Legal Division was the indep pub), but also formally *reviewed* by your peers in academia aka by other computer science profs&researchers. In a typical respected-but-not-peer-reviewed publication, you have a call for papers, a vetting process where they check your credentials (e.g. phoning Nova to confirm you are a prof and then phoning your office *at* Nova to confirm you are you and not an impersonator), then a few rounds of editor-related-back-n-forth (usually non-zero: in newspapers the journalist writes the story and the editor blue-pencils it with no iterations but in academia there is usually a chance for the author to double-check the editor). With the peer-reviewed process, all those steps still occur, but some additional steps are tossed in on top, which is normally, call for papers, credentials vetting, initial submission, peer review by N other profs&researchers (min three max a dozen), author gets a chance to revise paper after peer-review critiques, re-submit for final review, present at conference which serves as 'informal' final peer-review round, final tweaks by author, editors check it over, author gets final approval go-or-no-go, publication of proceedings.
- The real-world question, then, is whether the USCG Legal was paying for the peer-review steps to happen: did you get feedback-critiques on your original paper-submission, which were from other EECS/infosec professionals (named or anonymous)? Then probably 'peer-reviewed' well-respected publication. If you got editorial feedback, and maybe even editorial-back-n-forth, but no peer-review-rounds by other infosec/EECS types, then "merely" a well-respected publication. See also peer-reviewed journal. (Did I get closer to the nail this time? :-) 75.108.94.227 (talk) 19:31, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
- I meant "make you" in terms of me not being specific enough... Anyway, I'm leaning towards you probably being right, and that was my initial thought. However, its appearance in Google Scholar got me thinking more about it. The directions from the editor was specifically NOT to submit it to them, but to submit it to what they call a "champion's" office, where it would be reviewed, and then forwarded on to the editor, if accepted. It's unclear how many people at the "office" of the champion would review. One of the important reasons I care is that I often testify in court as a declared "expert", and in Federal Court it is the rule that all peer-reviewed journal articles MUST be disclosed. It would be a big problem if I failed to declare one. Ron Schnell 20:04, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
- You were specific enough, but as I hinted before, even when I understand your question perfectly, I will often go off on a tangent intended to talk about some wiki-subtle-thing I'm tryna ram down your gullet. Q: "Can we add 'kernel' to the line about UNIXTM consulting?" Hypothetical A: "Yup, but say Unix the generic term." (which is seven words) Actual A: seven thousand bleeping words, about how politico is not speaking in the journalistic voice, and so on ad infinitum. There are other more recent examples, where I pretty much knew exactly what you meant, but answered at length anyways, per my tangential goals, that have also already been discussed. I'm attempting to steep you in the wiki-lingo, more or less. Anyways, you aren't making me, that I can tell, and from my perspective, I'm making you, but since you keep coming back, I figure you don't mind all that much. Lemme know if you *would* like the straight answer from time to time. :-) And the straight answer on this one is, "wikipedia does not provide medical nor legal advice". ;-) In the article, there is a profile of one of the USCG champions, who is a captain of some kind, which means they are a front-line-officer, not a legal rear-vice-admiral-paper-pusher-type. I expect that the champions are officers that are in line for promotion to colonel or major (or whatever rank-equivs the USCG dubs such folks), and thus are probably specialists in warfare-slash-security, and maybe even cyber-warfare slash infosec, but it seems unlikely they are *your* peers aka professors in EECS departments. It might be the case that Proceedings-of-the-USCG counts as a 'refereed' journal publication, which is usually not distinct from a 'peer-reviewed' journal publication, but in this particular case might be. Prolly the easiest answer is just to call the journal up, this *is* the USCG Legal branch, there *have* to be some actual not-just-playing-one-on-teevee-lawyers there. See page five of the PDF.[62] 75.108.94.227 (talk) 21:44, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
- I meant "make you" in terms of me not being specific enough... Anyway, I'm leaning towards you probably being right, and that was my initial thought. However, its appearance in Google Scholar got me thinking more about it. The directions from the editor was specifically NOT to submit it to them, but to submit it to what they call a "champion's" office, where it would be reviewed, and then forwarded on to the editor, if accepted. It's unclear how many people at the "office" of the champion would review. One of the important reasons I care is that I often testify in court as a declared "expert", and in Federal Court it is the rule that all peer-reviewed journal articles MUST be disclosed. It would be a big problem if I failed to declare one. Ron Schnell 20:04, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry to make you go through all that...it's not really what I was asking. I was wondering whether or not it should be considered "peer reviewed" (not just for wiki purposes). Ron Schnell 13:53, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
- Here is link, hit#1.[61] More wiki-properly, here is the templatized format:
- If it wasn't the complete works, maybe Koko could claim fair use (though it may take a while to write the Answer to the Complaint). My article in the Proceedings journal showed up on Google Scholar since I last checked. I'm wondering if it might be considered peer reviewed. There were a lot of hoops they made me go through after they requested that I write it. Ron Schnell 16:16, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
- Well, you and me both: there is a deadline, if not us who, if not now when, all that jazz. But there's only so many hours in the day. I've tried training my pet monkey to edit wikipedia, but after thousands of hours of effort, all I got was WP:COPYVIO of Shakespeare. Dern monkey said something about public domain blah blah blah, whatever, I *told* them to read the wiki-policies but they just start wiki-lawyering me rather than write original prose, so I sent them back to their old job, and took away their typewriter. ;-) p.s. Suggest you make some easter eggs inside your easter eggs, and not announce them. Rand Paul: The Text Adventure is sadly still a redlink, as yet. :-) 75.108.94.227 (talk) 01:31, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
- In general, I have trouble with WP:NORUSH. I'm very happy with the app launch and follow-up. We will be adding some really cool stuff as time goes on. I guess we *should* add some more fixes to the dunnet page... Ron Schnell 01:22, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
asb 0xC
- FYI, http://www.secretcon.com Ron Schnell 19:36, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
- Will peek, when I have a minute. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 06:41, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
- 9am 2015-10-09, MSFT NYC, SecretCon Secret Conference
- infosec == Jon Callas Silent Circle OpenPGP DKIM ZRTP Skein Threefish PGP Blackphone Apple Tesla Kroll-O'Gara Counterpane Entrust
- infosec == Dan Ford (computing) Silent Circle Blackphone
- infosec == Brett Thomas (computing) Vindicia PGP
- infosec == Ron Schnell Paul'16 Bell Labs IBM Sun Mitnick Sly MSFT
- infosec == Andrew Case The Art of Memory Forensics Volatility (memory forensics) (or maybe WP:DBTF?? wikipedia credits Walters&Petroni not A.Case) Black Hat Briefings
- infosec?== Riley Drake Thiel Fellow MIT
- infosec == Rob Graham (programmer) (cf BadBIOS#cite_note-4) BlackICE masscan intrusion prevention system sidejacking session hijacking sniffing cookies
- infosec?== Whitney Merrill Illinois Security Lab DEF CON legality of encryption Internet law digital forensics
- infosec == 'Yan' (computing) Bcrypt (pseudonym) pervasive encryption Electronic Frontier Foundation w3ctag MIT department of physics
- infosec == Melanie Ensign DEFF CON r00tz Asylum Boston University
- infosec?== Jonathan Corbett (activist) TSA
- Michael Shinn Atomicorp Plesk/SW Soft White House
- Karen Sittig Facebook MIT
- Christina Morillo HedgeServ
- Mikko Ohtamaa Secure Medical Marijuana Trees.delivery bitcoin
- Mark Hatfield (investor) Ten Eleven Ventures Fairhaven Capital Motorola Ventures
- Michael Latulippe Bay Area Software Engineers, New York Software Engineers
- Elissa Shevinsky, JeKudo, Mach37
- financial sponsors: oWasp/OWASP ; O/R Books ; Microsoft NYC / Microsoft
- So an interesting guest-list, to say the least. :-) Several of those people are likely to be at least as interested in your CTO work as in your USCG work, methinks. Nice confluence. However, please do look at the wikipedia articles about Callas and his startups (the few bluelinks in the list) for What Not To DoTM on the 'pedia. Cleanup is badly needed, and a drastic cull prolly, unless more sources are integrated. Want to help edit your co-speaker's wikipedia BLP-article and company-articles, before you hit the lectern at the privacy-and-infosec conference? Might be a talking point. I've dug up some WP:SOURCES. Now, though I doubt this needs mentioning, do remember that wikipedia.org is NOT a suitable pentest target, "anyone can edit" applies only to white-hat efforts, by the letter and spirit of the wiki-laws. If you want some examples for your speech, of black-hat activities, there are plenty of pointers I can give you to where those have occurred on wikipedia 'in the wild' as it were. In fact, there is a statistically likely grey-hat-prank-incident already in the edit-history of that very article.[63] WP:SPA editor, anon, one non-deleted edit only, geolocates to Indiana University-Bloomington, change was live and web-visible from 2014-08-01 through 2014-10-22. Or maybe the guy really does have a large collection of hats, but if so, WP:PROVEIT was actually WP:NOTEWORTHY, is the wiki-law nowadays.
- p.s. Google already sucks infoboxen content from wikipedia, so that endusers that just want the first few sentences of the wikipedia article (aka the lede which summarizes the body-prose-summary-of-what-the-sources-say) don't ever actually, you know, have to leave google.com, and don't have a chance to click the edit-button. Microsoft is also experimenting with that nowadays it seems, (see lingo-warning PRIOR to clicking) http://www.bing.com/knows/Jon%20Callas?mkt=zh-cn , but only in their Chinese-language portal (there is not currently a "Bing.com/Knows" option in the english website). If you clicked that link, you'll set a cookie that your default language is mandarin, to 'undo' at least partially click this 2nd link -- http://www.bing.com/?FORM=HPCNEN&setmkt=en-us&setlang=en-us methinks. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 19:31, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
- And the other question was, knowing the infosec landscape way better than myself, how many of these names besides yourself and Jon Callas *ought* to be bluelinks, if you have hunches? Aka would have the sources to pass WP:42, if somebody were to do the necessary digging, as both you and he (despite his relatively-non-compliant extant wikipedia articles) both do? Shevinsky and Merrill and maybe Graham are the ones I would guess at, but it's a shot in the dark for the most part, without doing the search-engine work, and as your own BLP-article demonstrates, often search-engine work is not enough, unless the person was born after 1995 or thereabouts. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 12:22, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- Will peek, when I have a minute. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 06:41, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
- FYI, http://www.secretcon.com Ron Schnell 19:36, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
asb 0x000d
FYI, http://www.fastcompany.com/3050698/elasticity/will-2016-be-the-app-election Ron Schnell 17:45, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
- Top 25 download on iOS for awhile, eh? Pretty cool. Android version has four-digit-downloads, which is the "same" as the Cruz app. (Their app demands droid v4.1+ though, yikes.) WP:GOOG gives you 133 fivestar, 10 fourstar, 2 threestar, 3 twostar, 5 onestar. Cruz has a higher rating-submission-count, but a lower overall-average-score, at the moment. So here's your quiz:
- Q: For the article FOO this source counts as nada/WP:NOTEWORTHY/borderline-WP:N/easily-WP:N in terms of depth?
- mobile_app#political? e , trick question, there is not a "political app" subsection, and these apps have made too little impact (in terms of coverage in the WP:SOURCES relative to other apps ... but iff and when such a subsection does exist, a few election cycles from now, these two early apps will get some sentences
- Paul'16? e , easily WP:N because about what the campaign "did"
- Cruz'16? e , easily WP:N because about what the campaign "did"
- CanDo.com? e , borderline WP:N since he was involved in making the app (not just quoted as a pundit)
- Ron Schnell? b , borderline WP:N since he was involved in making the app (not just quoted as a pundit)
- Rob Ratterman? e , WP:NOTEWORTHY to borderline WP:N since he was involved in making the app (not just quoted as a pundit)
- Rand Paul? e , just WP:NOTEWORTHY because relatively little about Paul specifically
- Ted Cruz? e , just WP:NOTEWORTHY because relatively little about Cruz specifically
- Zac Moffatt? e , WP:NOTEWORTHY since just namedrop as a pundit
- Targeted Victory? e , WP:NOTEWORTHY since just namedrop as a pundit
- App Annie? e , WP:NOTEWORTHY since just namedrop as a pundit
- Andrew Rasiej? b , WP:NOTEWORTHY since just namedrop as a pundit
- Personal Democracy Media? b , WP:NOTEWORTHY since just namedrop as a pundit
- Trump'16? n , actually might qualify as WP:NOTEWORTHY that the media took specific notice that logo-invaders included *this* logo (selective mentioned of the dozen or so total logos)
- Bush'16? n , actually might qualify as WP:NOTEWORTHY that the media took specific notice that logo-invaders included *this* logo (selective mentioned of the dozen or so total logos)
- Donald Trump? n, namedrop, which is telling since he's the black sheep frontrunner , but nada since this piece of journalism isn't especially significant to his BLP-article
- Jeb Bush? n, namedrop, which is telling since he's the other media-frontrunner , but nada since this piece of journalism isn't especially significant to his BLP-article
- Hillary Clinton? n, very brief namedrop, which is telling since she's the media-frontrunner , but nada since this piece of journalism isn't especially significant to her BLP-article
- Clinton'16? n , very brief namedrop, which is telling since she's the media-frontrunner , but nada since this piece of journalism isn't especially significant to her campaign
- Romney'12? n , mentioned in the source, but only as a subset of this-pundit-had-an-old-relevant-job , so nada in the end (Romney'12 is over)
- Vincent Harris? n , nada because not actually mentioned in the source despite WP:THETRUTH
- iOS? n , nada because mentioned in the piece but two big and well-sourced of a topic for one more namedrop to be worth messing with
- Android#2.3.3? n , nada because mentioned in the piece but two big and well-sourced of a topic for one more namedrop to be worth messing with
- HTC EVO 4G? n , nada because no direct connection mentioned in the source (though it is one of the phone-models that has a troublesome compatibility-profile)
- Galaxian? n , nada because no real connection (cf the now-deprecated "in pop culture" subsections that used to litter most wikipedia articles)
- Please go ahead and just jam one-letter answers directly into the comment above, or elide per WP:CHOICE. Though of course, as wikisteward you'll need to be clear on how much pieces that mention you are applicable to the BLP-article, and to keep your wikinose clean, it helps if you will go ahead and edit the articles (or talkpages thereof should COI-encumbrance exist) where the source is applicable besides to the BLP-article. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 19:21, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
- Aren't you supposed to be in the CNN war-room about now? :-) I've reordered the listing to group by response, then added my own response-snippet. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 00:24, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- I was in the HQ debate war-room (see https://twitter.com/RonnieSchnell/status/644260051801272320). I'm hoping you get a chance to compile net-talk. I would like to set up a more interactive session with you so that we can knock some of these things out. Ron Schnell 16:28, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah, I'm against twit and fbook, they aren't wiki-reliable. ;-) Not to mention gPlay and iToon, have you worked out a raw APK download link yet, for sideloading the CanDo'16 app, or running in an emulator on PC? p.s. Great movie though, Stanley Kubrick is the best. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 20:51, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- Just making sure you saw the above, w.r.t. net-talk. If you don't want to go through the hassle, I wouldn't mind using IRC if you'd prefer. Ron Schnell 19:02, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- Well, truth be told, I'm still trying to finish my *assigned* wiki-tasks, from earlier, of finding a reviewer to make sure I'm not off my rocker. FiddleFaddle aka User:Timtrent is off on vacation still I believe, though they seem to be editing from their smartphone of something (shudder! no punctuation keys?) but I just asked Primefac to look at the draft with a jaundiced eye. Plus, also from earlier, I'm supposed to templatize the first half of the newspaper refs. Anyways, I've not looked deeper into the folder for your net-talk-v2-beta yet, because I've still got those other bits on my plate. If the WP:NORUSH is irksome, we can submit to AfC queue now, and get in line for the ten-day wait for a reviewer. I think there are clearly enough refs to mainspace, though that hyphenated jounalist from the FL newspaper is still missing from the draft. Is all the stuff on the checklist, besides the pieces in my own tiny list, cleaned up at present? Which things are holding us up, from making progress, besides independent reviewers, in other words? 75.108.94.227 (talk) 20:51, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- I've lost track. That's why I think an interactive hack session would be useful. We could just get it done. By the way: http://www.ipsnews.be/artikel/apps-nieuw-wapen-amerikaanse-verkiezingsrace Ron Schnell 20:57, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- Ah. :-) Yes, there are a lot of words here, and on your usertalk too. You ought to try to be less chatty, dern it, you're obscuring the channel and messing up the SnR! ;-) At present I am schedule-locked, I have to mess with Jeff Berwick tonight, plus work on my complex multi-orthogonal-axis presidential candidate ranking scheme for the political articles, and I'd still like to get back to Coleman and C.J. articles in the BLP world, which are moldering away. Are you going to work on Callas, if so I will post my URLs gathered so far, if not I'll finish polishing them a bit more off-wiki rather than posting a braindump. p.s. If you run across total-minutes-and-questions-allocated-per-candidate data for the CNN debate (preferably WP:RS but I'll even settle for twitter as long as it has accurate nums), please let me know. Same question for the CSPAN forum, actually, when Cruz/Paul/Rubio but not Graham were present-via-satfeed, has anybody published timings with and without satfeed latency taken into account? Or any timings whatsoever, actually? My other begging for factoids, which I'll go ahead and post now, is if you run across Q3 fundraising totals, I'm still trying to get the Q2 fundraising put into the relevant comparison-article about the candidates. If you see a nice clean complete table, in the next few weeks as the Q3 numbers are released (hard data for potus campaigns and likely accompanied by 'soft' bragging about superpac results), please let me know. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 21:11, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- I've lost track. That's why I think an interactive hack session would be useful. We could just get it done. By the way: http://www.ipsnews.be/artikel/apps-nieuw-wapen-amerikaanse-verkiezingsrace Ron Schnell 20:57, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- Well, truth be told, I'm still trying to finish my *assigned* wiki-tasks, from earlier, of finding a reviewer to make sure I'm not off my rocker. FiddleFaddle aka User:Timtrent is off on vacation still I believe, though they seem to be editing from their smartphone of something (shudder! no punctuation keys?) but I just asked Primefac to look at the draft with a jaundiced eye. Plus, also from earlier, I'm supposed to templatize the first half of the newspaper refs. Anyways, I've not looked deeper into the folder for your net-talk-v2-beta yet, because I've still got those other bits on my plate. If the WP:NORUSH is irksome, we can submit to AfC queue now, and get in line for the ten-day wait for a reviewer. I think there are clearly enough refs to mainspace, though that hyphenated jounalist from the FL newspaper is still missing from the draft. Is all the stuff on the checklist, besides the pieces in my own tiny list, cleaned up at present? Which things are holding us up, from making progress, besides independent reviewers, in other words? 75.108.94.227 (talk) 20:51, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- I was in the HQ debate war-room (see https://twitter.com/RonnieSchnell/status/644260051801272320). I'm hoping you get a chance to compile net-talk. I would like to set up a more interactive session with you so that we can knock some of these things out. Ron Schnell 16:28, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- Aren't you supposed to be in the CNN war-room about now? :-) I've reordered the listing to group by response, then added my own response-snippet. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 00:24, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
NTA additions
Hello :) I started to add references to two articles, then remembered it is better if someone else does. Would the following be appropriate to add to the article, and remove the "warning" on the top of our page, as most items are now referenced properly (I think).
Also in 2009, NTA established green building standards for park model and recreational vehicles.[1][2]
References
- ^ "Green Standards set for RV and Park Model Industries". South Bend Tribune. Retrieved 14 September 2015.
- ^ "Cavco to Intro Solar-Powered Park Model at KOA Convention". Woodalls Campground Management. Retrieved 14 September 2015.
If the above is good to add, I would like to take you up on your offer to add the necessary sentences. Wscribner (talk) 10:37, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
- I added in some curlycurly magic, which keeps the refs you mentioned from 'floating away' like balloons. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 21:48, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
- So here are the edits you were attempting, and then remembered the wiki-guidelines shortly thereafter.
- 10:33, 14 September 2015 (diff | hist) . . (-537) . . NTA (company) (→Company: removed two references) (current)
- 10:32, 14 September 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+200) . . NTA (company) (→Company: added trade magazine (woodallscm.com) reference)
- 10:14, 14 September 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+337) . . NTA (company) (→Company: added south bend tribune article reference)
- Thanks for undoing your stuff, and remembering to ask for help from somebody without financial ties. That's a wiki-crisis averted: you have not finished making the userpage, or adding the connected_contributor thing, and didn't mark your edits as 'paid edits' in the summaries, so it is good that you self-reverted. For the moment, the tags cannot yet be removed, because they are still truthful tags. Look at what the tags are saying:
- The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for companies and organizations. See WP:NCORP aka WP:Notability_(organizations_and_companies). The shorthand is WP:42, longhand WP:N.
- "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject." See WP:PSCOI aka WP:COI. The shorthand is the note I left you here, Talk:NTA_(company)#wiki-rules_about_WP:COI_and_WP:SPIP, and the second nudge here, User_talk:Wscribner#create_userpage.2C_add_connected_contributor_thing.2C_and_so_on, and this is your third nudge. Make the userpages, add the connected-contributor thing, if you aren't sure what exactly to do, just ask and I'll help you get it figured out. Same goes for User:Dtompos, have them log into their wikipedia account, make their own userpage, add their own connected-contributor thing -- since they are the CEO it makes sense for you to get the exact steps figured out yourself, so you can give them exact instructions. Please note, do NOT just get their Dtompos-password, and make the changes yourself, WP:NOSHARING of passwords-and-useranmes (this is related to WP:COPYVIO -- when you click save you are putting forth a copyright-license on the content you just added).
- As for the other problem, wiki-notability... so what does it take to pass WP:42 aka demonstrate that NTA is wiki-notable... very much distinct from real-world-notable? Well, simply what it says: we need to find several WP:SOURCES, that are independent of NTA, which discuss the company in multi-paragraph depth. That means newspapers/magazines/books/teevee/radio/academia/governmentAgencies/etc. I've started to train you about what to look for, and you've come up with the South Bend Tribune source.
- That's multi-paragraph specifically about NTA.
- And, it's got an author/editor/publisher who are 100% independent of NTA.
- It's a newspaper, a type listed at WP:SOURCES, which means it has a reputation for fact-checking, so it counts as wiki-reliable.
- That's multi-paragraph specifically about NTA.
- Therefore, sbTrib counts towards demonstrating WP:42. We need several sources like that. Consider: we also have the HUD portal, right? Government agency means wiki-reliable, and the people publishing the HUD page aren't getting paid by NTA or kinfolk to NTA so that makes it an independent source, right? But the trouble with the HUD source, in terms of helping with WP:42, is depth: there is the name of the company, and the names of a couple of the employees, but that is all. Contrast with the sbTrib piece, which has some *depth* of coverage. HUD source doesn't help demonstrate WP:42, but it does still count as wiki-reliable, and thus a sentence about the HUD page *belongs* in the article, per WP:NOTEWORTHY. But that HUD-sentence only helps, if the *article* belongs in wikipedia, which means, that we have multiple in-depth independent WP:SOURCES to show wiki-notability. Our first is sbTrib, we need more like that. Make sense? See my longer explanation of why some of the URLs that you found are wiki-reliable but brief and thus WP:NOTEWORTHY (like WoodallSCM and HUD), whereas others are wiki-reliable with some depth and thus help WP:42, over here at User_talk:Wscribner#possible_references.
- Anyways, in answer to you question, about whether I can help you put them into the article, sure. But I'd rather teach you how to hop through the proper hoops, so that you know the ropes of adding new material to wikipedia, and can get it done even if I don't happen to be around to help, by using the 'normal' venues for such reqeusts. More on that later, since first things first, you need to get the userpage and the connected_contributor things done, before we go asking other editors to assist us with changes. Please ping my page here again, when you have had a chance to get the stuff straightened out, or if you get stuck and have questions. You can also use WP:Q for questions, especially WP:TEAHOUSE which is pretty friendly and instant-gratification. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 22:20, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
- So here are the edits you were attempting, and then remembered the wiki-guidelines shortly thereafter.
Ok, so... if I am understanding this right, I need to now make a 'userpage' and 'connected-contributor' information straightened out. If you tell me how to do that, I will be happy to get it taken care of :) Sorry I am having a hard time wrapping my mind around all of the shorthands.. 74.84.114.34 (talk) 13:05, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah, there are a bunch of wiki-rules. Don't try to wrap your noggin around all of them, just be open about what you're doing, and listen when somebody reverts you or complains or whatever, use WP:Q if you get stuck generally speaking going forward. Some of the wiki-rules are extra-important, and this particular one is in the WP:TOS , see https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use , because there are legal FTC rules about astroturfing. There are also such wiki-rules partly because of copyright worries: people getting paid to edit , or people with a too-close connection to the company , have a tendency to copy-n-paste straight from the corporate homepage which is usually improper because it is too promotional , but is also actually a violation of international copyright laws that could get *wikipedia* into trouble for hosting such stuff. Anyways, here is what you gotta do:
- Step #1, click on User:Wscribner, tell it you want to create the page, and then leave a brief note like "Hi this is Wscribner, I work for NTA (company)." Click save. That way, you've disclosed your financial incentive.
- Step #2, click on Talk:NTA_(company), click 'edit', and then paste in something like this, at the top of the page:
{{Connected_contributor_(paid) |User1= Wscribner |U1-employer= InsertNameOfEmployingPrFirmHere |U1-client= [[NTA_(company)]] |U1-EH= yes |U1-declared= yes |U1-banned= no |U1-otherlinks= https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:NTA_%28company%29&diff=678760556&oldid=645675362 }}
- One of the fields was InsertNameOfEmployingPrFirmHere, since I didn't know the answer -- are you working directly for NTA on a W2 basis, or are you a contractor that does marketing-work for other companies as well, or are you an employee at some PR firm or marketing firm that has assigned you to NTA as their client? That's a detail that goes into the |U1-employer= InsertNameOfEmployingPrFirmHere, which can be wikilinked to the company-article about the PR firm. If your dayjob is working only at NTA, then you would say |U1-employer= NTA_(company) just like you are saying |U1-client= NTA_(company) , but normally U1-employer is different. Make sense? See also the examples at {{connected_contributor_(paid)}}. If you try and fail to get it perfect, with these steps, please just go ahead and 'save' your partially-working version, and I'll try to correct any goofs or syntax-errors. Then we'll go for step#3, #4, etc. Don't worry, there are not TOO many steps. :-) 75.108.94.227 (talk) 13:41, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
- Okay, steps one and two completed. My training is not until this afternoon today, and I am 'caught up' (at least no fires are burning) for the moment, so I can concentrate on this.Wscribner (talk) 13:57, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
- Cool, thanks. I've added some colons for you, to indent your reply; just keep sticking a new colon in front, each time. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 14:27, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
- Okay, steps one and two completed. My training is not until this afternoon today, and I am 'caught up' (at least no fires are burning) for the moment, so I can concentrate on this.Wscribner (talk) 13:57, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
When you get tired of adding colons, usually after five or six of them, use the curlycurly magic I posted above, which will {{outdent}} back to the left margin. So step#1_B ... which can be anytime, does not have to be today, but should be done at SOME point, is to have Dtompos login as themselves, and create User:Dtompos which says "Hi I'm Dtompos and I own NTA_(company)" or words to that effect. There is also step#2_B, which is to have User:Dtompos login as themselves -- don't do this bit for them per copyright law -- and stick this slightly but significantly different stuff onto the Talk:NTA_(company) page:
{{Connected_contributor |User1= Dtompos |U1-employer= [[NTA_(company)]] |U1-client= [[NTA_(company)]] |U1-EH= yes |U1-declared= yes |U1-banned= no |U1-otherlinks= [[User:Dtompos]] }}
In your case, the otherlinks was to your declaration, in their case, it will be to their userpage-as-the-declaration. Also, they use the 'CC' template not the 'CCP' template, because editing wikipedia isn't part of their job description. Make sense? As far as step#1_A and step#1_B, those look fine to me. The 'CCP' template is confusing, though, because it has both the |U1-employer= and also the |U1-client= fields, and people often don't get which is which. I understand that Dtompos is hiring you to work on the wikipedia page for NTA, and help add sources and such, but the CCP template is supposed to distinguish between full-time employees of NTA, who as part of their job-description edit wikipedia from time to time, as opposed to part-time-employees-slash-contractors for NTA, that spend most of their time working for other companies, or doing self-employed contracting, or that sort of thing. Are you in group#1, full-time employee of NTA that does not take on work for outside entities, or are you in group#2, part-time employee of NTA that also (at least theoretically) works for other entities? 75.108.94.227 (talk) 14:27, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
step 3, digging up WP:SOURCES
Okay, so the COI-tag is mostly covered above. Once steps #1A / 1B / 2A / 2B are completed, we can yank that portion of the multiple-issues-tag. The other portion of the tag is wiki-notability. Is the difference between the South Bend Tribune piece (which helps demonstrate WP:N and counts towards WP:42) and the legit-but-not-as-helpful WoodallSCM source (which counts as WP:NOTEWORTHY and prima facie WP:RS but does not help WP:42/WP:N aka wiki-notability), reasonably clear to you? Along the same lines, is the difference between the sbTrib piece and the prNewswire advertorial, 100% clear? The sbTrib counts as WP:RS but the prNewswire only counts as WP:ABOUTSELF and there is no point in using the press-release for WP:ABOUTSELF since we can just as well use the company-homepage (which is preferred since there's no question who paid for that company homepage). Step#3 is the ongoing quest to dig up more WP:42-compliant sources like the South Bend Tribune piece. That's what wiki-notability is all about: demonstrating that there has been multiple WP:SOURCES which give multi-paragraph coverage specifically about NTA (or the founders or the products or the activities of the company), and that groups 100% independent of the company/founders/products/partners/marketers actually noticed, and published something about it. Make sense? 75.108.94.227 (talk) 14:33, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
step#4, writing wiki-neutral boring just-the-facts prose that summarizes the WP:SOURCES from step#3
Okay, so we have the sbTrib source, and we have the WoodallSCM source. Let's start with the WoodallSCM info. Here is the sentence you were wanting to add to NTA_(company):
- Also in 2009, NTA established green building standards for park model and recreational vehicles.[1]
References
- ^ "Cavco to Intro Solar-Powered Park Model at KOA Convention". Woodalls Campground Management. Retrieved 14 September 2015.
(And yes, I realize that you were also backing that sentence up with sbTrib, but one thing at a time. :-)
So what factoids do we see? Well, we get WP:NOTEWORTHY mention of Alan Reder, so he should be added to the employees-section, with his job title, and the factoid that he worked on the Cavco evaluation-project. There is a basic factoid right at the start, that the company is based in Nappanee, and that the WP:COMMONNAME is "NTA Inc" in the press. There is a useful sentence that NTA specializes in manufacturer certification, and in particular, of environmentally oriented products. And there is the mention that in 2009 NTA certified some Cavco Industries products, to the 'emerald' rating. So here is what I would do, to summarize these factoids:
- (WP:PROVEIT for an existing factoid) ...Nappanee, Indiana[1]...
- In 2011, NTA certified solar-powered cottages made by Cavco Industries, intended for off-grid use at campgrounds.[1]
- (added to the history-section) ...senior project manager Alan Reder...[1]
References
- ^ a b c "Cavco to Intro Solar-Powered Park Model at KOA Convention". November 3, 2011.
... NTA Inc., a Nappanee, Ind.-based company that specializes in certifying 'green' manufacturers, said Cavco's newest off-grid solar-powered park model not only has 'Emerald' status, its [NTA's] highest rating, but is the most environmentally friendly park model the company [NTA] has evaluated to date... Alan Reder, NTA's senior project manager. ...
Note that I included a fair use quotation-snippet from the WoodallSCM source, put into my own reworking of the ref-syntax. Also, I linked *directly* to the piece, not to the tagged-search-page of Woodall. Also, I broke out the WoodallSCM ref into a separate sentence, because it is about a separate event in the company's history: in 2009, NTA established some standards, and in 2011,(ref:sbTrib) one of the clients certified using that standard was Cavco(ref:woodallsCM). Make sense? Notice I just stuck to the boring facts: I say solar power, not 'green'. I don't say they are 'the most environmentally friendly client NTA was ever hired by'. Not encyclopedic tone, such things, even though WoodallsCM reported such quotes. I also don't rehash the stuff that *Reder* said, in the source, because that was WoodallsCM quoting Reder, an NTA employee, not WoodallsCM speaking in their journalistic voice. Clear as mud so far? 75.108.94.227 (talk) 14:58, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
response
I replied to your recent comment 74.84.114.34 (talk) 20:32, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
- Response :) I am not sure if I have to leave a comment here, everytime I comment on the other one. <smh and laughing> Wscribner (talk) 11:50, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- (Added a colon for you, best to indent even when "replying to yourself" as here.) Well, as for the not-sure-bit, when you are working with somebody not logged in, it is helpful as a means of speeding things up, so please keep doing it -- you can be brief and just say
replied ~~~~if you like, when doing so with me, but most other wikipedians appreciate a sentence, as you've been doing. :-) On the other hand, when you are working with somebody logged in, usually they will put a note at the top of their usertalk page explaining their preference, or will have a WP:PAGENOTICE that appears when you edit their usertalk, or similar. Some wikipedians like to be nudged, when something needs their attention. Some of them are annoyed enough by {{talkback}} and by polite nudges, that they leave a note which says "if we are having a conversation elsewhere I will have watchlisted that conversation so please do NOT leave me a reply here on my own talkpage" or words roughly to that effect. - Generally, the usual rule is to be flexible and WP:NORUSH-conscious, most wikipedians don't check their wiki-usertalk-messages every hour 24/7, and just fiddle when they have an urge, which sometimes means every couple days and sometimes means every couple of weeks. You can get an idea how active they are, by clicking on their 'user contributions' link on the left sidebar, which appears when you visit their usertalk page. If you reply to somebody, and some time has gone by (hours when you are talking to very active wikipedians or days when you are talking to more laid back contributors), and they have not responded, but you can see from user-contribs they have been editing elsewhere, it is possible they believe there is nothing further to say, but it is also very possible (especially if you asked a direct oneliner question) that they have just forgotten to come back and reply. It's okay to leave a polite note, saying that you replied, and leaving a wikilink to where you replied for their convenience like this, "Hello, not sure if you noticed my last question, if you have a moment it is here, User_talk:Wscribner#possible_references, thanks much, Wscribner" type of thing.
- For me, as I mentioned, just say 'replied' and I'll figure out in a click or two where you replied, but it might be good to get in the habit of wikilinking so that you remember to do it when you've been off the 'pedia for awhile yourself. Make sense? Wikipedia talkpages are not much like email, and not much like instant messaging, they are something completely different. There's some project to replace them with a more facebook-y thing, which has luckily or unluckily collapsed into a mess under its own weight -- the main advantage of wikipedia talkpages is they are *extremely* flexible and powerful, but as with most such tools that can be described in that fashion, they are not especially user-friendly and there is a learning-curve. See WP:TALKPAGE and WP:ETIQUETTE for official helpdocs, worth a skim. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 12:39, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- (Added a colon for you, best to indent even when "replying to yourself" as here.) Well, as for the not-sure-bit, when you are working with somebody not logged in, it is helpful as a means of speeding things up, so please keep doing it -- you can be brief and just say
ping 75.108.94.227 (talk) 16:24, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
test
ping 75.108.94.227 (talk) 16:26, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
test2
ping Ron Schnell 17:33, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Testing.
- Thanks. No need to mash out 'testing' since if you just save, immediately after making an interesting edit, I'll be able to check your contrib-history easily enough. Best. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 18:11, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Ah.
- Thank you as well. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 18:10, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- )
Reference errors on 19 September
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
- On the Michael Kearney page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:21, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
ping from Ron Schnell 05:07, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Seems that I need to put something in here.
 | This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address. |