User talk:Glrx

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


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

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! RayTalk 19:29, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

TDR Traces on Time-domain reflectometer[edit]

Great pictures. It appears that there is 18 inches of some type of cable. Perhaps you could add a description of the cable. (talk) 13:37, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Bombe Simulators[edit]

RE: my revert at Bombe

You mention that there have been many Bombe simulators, but none are mentioned in the article. Doubtless worthy of a discussion there. kencf0618 (talk) 22:22, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

At least four bombe simulators are mentioned in the article; see Bombe#External links. The mechanical copy is a much more significant project. Glrx (talk) 00:15, 8 October 2015 (UTC)


re GermanJoe's removal of ELs at Tektronix

Hello Glrx, I deleted the link, as it was added by a long-time EL spammer violating WP:LINKSPAM and WP:EL, most likely to promote their video productions (WP:PROMO). Sorry, if my initial edit summary has been a bit short and confusing - I'll keep them more detailed now. Best regards. GermanJoe (talk) 05:04, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Your edit removed three links. One was an apparent Tektronix corporate link to a Chinese website, one an apparent Tektronix link to information about its 60th anniversary, and a third to a documentary published by Oregon Public Broadcasting. The edit comment was just "rmv WP:EL".
The PBS link looked good but the 60th anniversary was a dead link. I reverted because there was no explanation for the removals. I deleted the CN EL as pointless and tagged the 60th as dead.[1] I then went to to recover the dead link, but that didn't work; it just redirected to CN and went nowhere, so I deleted the 60th link.[2] That left the PBS link.
Now you've re-deleted the PBS link with the comment "rmv - WP:LINKSPAM by SPA account".[3] which seemed to be opaque as well. The article is about the company, the PBS video is entirely about the company, I've restored the video as relevant, and now you've labeled it linkspam and implied somebody is an SPA.
I crawled back in the history section and uncovered the EL's insertion in October 2012 by Guanaco55.
That led me to User talk:Guanaco55 which has a few comments about inserting PBS videos. One November 2012 comment about removing a video for passing mention states, "However, if the entire documentary was solely about the one individual, I would say that falls under a link to be considered under WP:ELMAYBE criteria 2."
The talk page also pointed to the recent Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#Video spamming (PBS) where you comment that the video additions are "to vaguely related articles". A documentary about Tektronix is not vaguely related to Tektronix, which was a major tech employer in Oregon. You also state that non SPAs had added links to these videos and that "I am trying to avoid deleting legit usages as far as possible, but if it happens feel free to revert me". Others, such as Montanabw has also reverted you. Apparently several editors have found some of these videos relevant.
I am at a loss to understand your rationale for deleting the Tektronix link. You don't seem to complain about the bandwidth because you admit some links are acceptable. You say many links are "'documentaries' and 'video stories' of questionable encyclopedic value", but I don't get your meaning there. Are such "documentaries" questionable because they are shams? I've deleted infomercial links, but PBS is not in the infomercial business. PBS exercises editorial judgment. The criteria for an EL is that has material that would be good to include in the article. I'd expect a PBS video about Tektronix to have such information. Yes, it has interviews with retirees who may not matter, but it has stories about the principals, why the product was selected, and why the company happened at the right time. I delete a lot of content whose purpose is primarily advertising (such as authors plugging their new book), but I also leave in or add commercial material that has significant content. For the Tektronix link, I do not see "strong evidence for a conflict of interest".
Glrx (talk) 16:21, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
I have re-added the link, when you think that it contains valuable information - that point wasn't entirely clear for me in your last revert. However, I am baffled by your comment, that you don't see a conflict of interest in the user's linking pattern. Do you really believe, these links are added to improve Wikipedia just for the sake of it? I don't have to "imply", that Guanaco55 is an SPA - their edit history shows clearly that the account has no other purpose than publicizing the content of video sites. That's WP:LINKSPAM, just like adding book links from a specific publisher to hundreds of articles would be spam - even if some of the books may be related to the article's topics. GermanJoe (talk) 16:55, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you![edit]

Meissen-teacup pinkrose01.jpg With this ever dramatic world including WikiDrama, here's a cup of tea to alleviate your day! Face-smile.svgThis e-tea's remains have been e-composted SwisterTwister talk 03:43, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Undersea cable test TDR[edit]

RE: file:Time-domain reflectometer 580km test, Teleflex VX, TDR, SebaKMT, Megger Group.jpg screen shot uploaded by Zureks showing 580 km test screen shot.
RE: My 20 October revert of that image.
RE: My 26 October revert of undersea test at Time-domain reflectometer
RE: My 26 October revert of undersea test at Time-domain reflectometry
See also: file:Megger MTDR1 screenshot.jpg screen shot uploaded by Zureks
See also: Discussion at Talk:Time-domain reflectometer#File:Megger MTDR1 screenshot.jpg caption needs more explanation about confusing image
See also: Revert by Constant314 at Time-domain reflectometer
See also: File:Megger Time-Domain Reflectometer MTDR1.jpg Megger screen shot uploaded by Zureks still used at Time-domain reflectometer

Hi, I can see you reverted my additions. The only point of my edit was to show that the "longest" test carried out by TDR was for an undersea cable of 580 km length. I think this is at least worth mentioning somewhere, especially that there are references confirming it, as well as a screenshot proving it? What is your opinion? --Zureks (talk) 09:08, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I have several problems with your additions.
The undersea cable picture is confusing. There's a lot of hash at the front of the trace (going out to about 175 km) that is unexplained. The 580 km reflection is not obvious (and the zoomed in view is 10 km long); what about the additional noise at 800 km? There are no interesting reflections. The underlying cause of the noise seems to be that the power cable is not a controlled impedance line; see Electrical Review article about surrounding dielectic changes. A contributing factor appears to be the lack of AGC in the instrument (1940's tech). Illustrations should be clear and have a purpose. I removed the image on 20 October.
On 26 October, I removed the text you added about the same long test. Using a TDR on a long cable run is important, but the typical "long" length is probably less than 1 km. The undersea application seems very narrow. The online Electrical Review article ( has just a paragraph:
As an indication of what is possible at the present time in the field of subsea cable testing, it is interesting to examine the trials carried out jointly by Megger and Statnett, the operator of the Norwegian energy system, in September 2013. These involved the 580 km long NorNed HVDC cable that runs between Feda in Norway and Eemshavan in the Netherlands. The cable operates at ± 450 kV, giving it a terminal-to-terminal voltage of 900 kV, which means that the system includes HVDC converters with the highest voltage rating of any in the world.
The Electrical Review article indicates the TDR efforts were "trials" that showed "what is possible". Were those trials successful? Electrical Review does not tell us.
I'd looked at the Electrial Review article several days ago, but I didn't bother with the first reference, Electrical Tester because I thought it might be offline (it didn't have a URL). I just went looking for it and found that Electrical Tester appears to be a corporate publication of Megger. I'm not going to take it as an independent, reliable, source. The article link is The article does not say much, but does make the world record claim at p 5. The article only claims that the TDR was able "to see" the end connection. The article only had two paragraphs on the test, the undersea screen shot, and made the vague "As an indication of what is possible at the present time in the field of subsea cable testing" statement.
The other Megger screen shot is confusing as Constant314 brought up on the talk page. I agreed with him, and Constant314 removed the image.
A good portion of your contributions revolves around Megger accomplishments, products, and technology. That raises a question about a possible WP:COI. There is material that you might add, and I don't want to discourage you from editing, but please be aware of WP's audience.
In any event, I'm just a lowly editor around here. If you want any of the above material included in the articles, then follow WP:BRD: you inserted the material, I reverted some of it, so now you can raise the issue on the talk page and garner a consensus for the inclusion.
Glrx (talk) 18:13, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you...[edit]

RE #Tektronix above

Thank you for restoring the external link for Tektronix. Quite frankly, I was devastated to see most of my links being reverted. Sigh... Anyway, thanks for making a positive difference here!Guanaco55 (talk) 15:51, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Neural machine translation[edit]

re: My 20 October revert of COI insertion at Machine translation
re: My 29 October revert
re: My tagging restore at Neural machine translation

Hello! Since you reverted my edits and suggested a discussion on the talk page, I opened a new section: Talk:Machine_translation#Problems_with_neural_machine_translation. I am interested in your opinions on the matter. --Krz.wolk (talk) 00:50, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Responded there. Glrx (talk) 01:50, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Highlight pseudocode[edit]

Hi, re: I agree that syntax highlighting would be a good thing. What language would you suggest for pseudo code like that? It is already hand-formatted for **is** and **for** etc. It's nice to have ≥ and ← characters in the code, I don't think any language will recognize those. Hmm, just noticed that one of the blocks has :=s... TWiStErRob (talk) 18:44, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't really care which language is used, but hand formating the syntax takes it further away from looking like code. All the code should be readable; I don't care about the compilable issue, so fancy relational operators are a wash to me. Pick a language that highlights the main reserved words and then make the comments match.
if (x > other) while (1) i = 6 * 7; // here's a comment
if x > other then begin while i < 6 do i := 6 * 7; end // here's a comment
It also looks like syntaxhighlight has been replaced recently; language (algol is no longer supported) and color schemes have changed. Glrx (talk) 19:20, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your edits to Gray code[edit]

re: My first edit restoring less idiomatic algorithm but keeping many of 71.41's changes
re: [ My second edit] changing uint32_t to unsigned int, the type declaration used in rest of article
re: "this criticism" is Johnuniq discussing 71.41's edits while I was unknowingly changing them.

I was trying to satisfy this criticism and a third opinion is very useful. I really appreciate the first, but I undid the second one because I think using a size-specific type helps reinforce the fact that the code only works up to 32 bits. I'd be happy to discuss it (we should move to Talk:Gray code, of course) if you still disagree. Thank you! (talk) 13:05, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

I reverted back to unsigned int and added a "32" suffix to the procedure name. Code in WP is intended to illustrate the algorithm; WP code is usually not about programming. Readers should not have to know clever language features, know about some typical type decls (WP C code seldom has include files), or decipher too much. If you still want your changes, then bring them up on the article talk page so other editors can chime in; they may support your position; see WP:BRD. Glrx (talk) 16:02, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
A very nice solution! To me, the idea that even someone who's never seen C would find uint32_t confusing seems comically implausible. The abbreviation isn't exactly obscure to start with, but add the syntax highlighting, the similar function a few lines away, and the comment, and it's just it's just not a problem. The for(;;) syntax would be a far greater obstacle.
But a -32 suffix on the function name is equally clear, and has the nice feature of avoiding a multiply defined function name. Thank you for taking the time to respond.
(Aside: I keep wishing there was a quick way to "upvote" an edit, to quickly add a "thank for for this edit" note to the edit log without having to edit a talk page somewhere. It'd generate nice attaboys for the editor, indicate that a potential editing dispute is resolved (e.g. "My mistake; thank you for the correction"), and show that someone has reviewed the edit. It would also let watch lists show "edits since you last reviewed this page". I'm often pleased when I can find a lingering minor typo just so I have an excuse to make an edit log entry.) (talk) 03:27, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:18, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Steampunk vacuum tubes[edit]

re my revert of steampunk being predominate user of decorative vacuum tubes

Actually, the steampunk world seems to be quite taken with vacuum tubes [4][5][6][7][8]. SpinningSpark 08:45, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

And see this steampunk wristwatch! SpinningSpark 08:47, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Forgive me, for I am backward and cannot recognize trends. Where's the steam? And why the blue LED? Is the cathode so hot we only see the blue tail? Shades of francium! Glrx (talk) 17:39, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
The page says the display is a vacuum fluorescent display. They could be lying, but I don't think so. VFDs are not blue LEDs. I don't know where the steam is, perhaps it's in the little pipes. SpinningSpark 17:59, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Your has filaments that glow blue. Maybe I'm being punked. Glrx (talk) 18:10, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Oh right, I thought you were replying to wristwatch thing. Yes, the instructables thing is lit up with LEDs, not the tube heaters. If you click on to step 2 they say that explicitly. The colour though, I think must be an artefact of the photograph - they say they used white LEDs. SpinningSpark 22:24, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Comma-separated Values[edit]

re my revert] at Comma-separated values

You reverted an edit of mine recently which indicated that a CSV file could be generated from a database with multiple relations providing the export process made suitable joins. This puzzled me. I have worked for many years with EDI, in which the most common application export format is a CSV file of that type. The EDI construction process then uses the values of key fields in the exported records to infer the critical relationships and generate a hierarchical output which obeys the syntax requirements of the relevant EDI standard. In this respect the CSV file is a very clumsy form of intermediary, since there is a massive duplication of field values across groups of records, but it remains the one most commonly used. I do not intend to enter into an edit war, but my daily work does incline me to believe that my original edit was correct! Chrisj1948 (talk) 12:57, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't think either statement is good, but I think the original statement is better.
The orginal states that a database with multiple relations (i.e., tables) cannot be exported as a single CSV file. That makes some sense in that a CSV file is only intended to export one table. The statement leaves open the possibility of exporting the relational database as several CSV files. Yes, that's not going to be perfect because a CSV file does not specify which fields are keys and other relationships are also lost. The statement is flawed but makes sense.
Your edit immediately denies the predicate: it says that the database can exported if the multiple relations are first removed with a join. If the database is flat to begin with or has been flattened with a join, then a CSV file can be used. It's a strange exposition: a relational database can be exported if there are no relations. Yes, there are C-normal form tools that can recover some of the relations, but that is getting far afield for an encyclopedia article that hasn't even discussed the format yet.
Your EDI example sounds more like a subset of the problem: the EDI example wants to export some data from the database rather than the entire database. I know next to nothing about EDI, but I thought there were more involved (non-CSV) data exchanges such as ANSI X.12. It doesn't change my viewpoint.
If you want your edit, bring it up on the talk page. My voice isn't any stronger than yours around here.
Glrx (talk) 20:46, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Thank-you for your response. You observe, very fairly, that I work in terms of selective extraction from database tables rather than with an export of the entire database. You also observe, equally fairly, that a single CSV file containing information extracted by table joins is of little value without external knowledge of the key fields (which must be present) and the relations they represent. I actually see little difference in this respect between export as a single 'joined' CSV and as multiple ones, one for each table. The latter case is operationally rather simpler to handle, but I rarely encounter it because it is easier for an application programmer to make table joins and then export as a single CSV, thus transferring some of the burden of sorting out the export to the EDI ayatem programmer (me).
I shall not be re-instating my original edit. I am lazy and, since I think some of the observations in the article about transforming between hierarchical formats and CSV are not accurate, it would be too much work to do a proper job. Incidentally the EDI standards such as ANSI X12 (no dot) and EDIFACT are used to transfer documents between trading partners; my job is to transform data between the hierarchical form which they use and the myriad formats used for application import and export :-( Chrisj1948 (talk) 10:01, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I agree completely with your statement that the CSV is weak in either case. I think CSV survives because it is a lowest common denominator that is trivial to use. When one starts adding bells and whistles, then the effort needed to translate from one format to a "neutral interchange" format grows. Glrx (talk) 18:01, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[edit]

re: Kabir Sadeghi edit tags

Just saw he removed the the maintenance tags again. Seems like it is time for a block. Can you report it, I'm mobile at the moment. Tiggerjay (talk) 00:44, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

  • I'm online now and reported it. This IP clearly can see these notices, evident by this post... Tiggerjay (talk) 17:28, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
(e/c) Sigh. I just looked at it, and the latest revert was not by British IP but rather Turkish IP I'll start poking around. Glrx (talk) 17:30, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Notice you made an AIV report against I would have gone to edit warring for 78.135 (if 78.135 had made last revert); maybe RFPP is appropriate with the IP shift.
I've been troubled with the article. For a time, the article claimed KS was a "distinguished professor", and that statement alone would satisfy WP:N for an academic. The cited source did not mention him being a distinguished professor, so I tagged it as verification fails. I did search for his academic rank at the time, and I found sources that identified him as an associate professor (2 ranks below distinguished). The recent edit by 212.175 (judging from the URL alone) only puts KS at associate professor.
I've wanted to give the IP some time for sources, but I'm thinking the appropriate action for the article is WP:AfD.
Glrx (talk) 17:46, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
The IP was blocked for 31 hours. But I agree the article has issues, and the various IP editors don't help. I'll give it a quick review and nom for AfD as you suggested. Seems to be the best route. I was thinking about Edit Waring, but it wasn't quite a WP:3R so I figured AIV was best. Tiggerjay (talk) 00:32, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
AfD created and I threw you under the bus too... Hope you don't mind. My own research turned up little and I actually went through and removed a LOT of bad references on other articles that link to his page. Appears a lot of work was done to attempt to establish notability, but none of it appears to meet required thresholds. Tiggerjay (talk) 00:57, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kabir Sadeghi
If you threw me under, then I guess I belong there. I'll check it out. Glrx (talk) 01:15, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Note: removed the AfD template; I reverted and left User talk: (talk) 16:34, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

78.26's RFA Appreciation award[edit]

Thank-you-word-cloud.jpg The 78.26 RFA Appreciation award
Thank you for the participation and support at my RFA. It is truly appreciated. I hope to be of further help around here, and if you see me doing something dumb, you know where to find me. Again, I thank you. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 24:02, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Barcode revert[edit]

re my revert at Barcode

Hi there! Thanks for reverting my edit: any edits, even those which I disagree with, are a fundamental part of Wikipedia.

I disagree with the removal of the {{which}} tag, as the sentence is still very vague. Which stores? Even if it's referencing the study in the previous paragraph, no stores are actually mentioned by name. The previous paragraph mentions studies done for the grocery industry committee, and does not mention which stores participated in that study or which stores are on that committee.

What should we do to improve that paragraph? I'm taking a look at the reference at the end of that paragraph, and it seems like Kmart was the company that turned the tide of applying barcodes. I would love to hear your input! Air Combat What'sup, dog? 01:40, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

I looked at it again. Yes, it is not clear, but it looks like the Selmeier 2008 reference stretches over three paragraphs with other sources spliced in. Not many stores adopted, but there were fewer than 200 that had (go back 2 paragraphs). Those are stores from which IBM got feedback and learned tidbits such as increased sales. Selmeier does say once a customer bought a system, they were not interested in looking for additional benefits. Clients even pushed back when IBM asked about additional benefits. I tried fixing some stuff, but then gave up. The refs are there, but in odd places. Selmeier even repeats page numbers. Glrx (talk) 05:42, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Your edit to WWVB and my revert[edit]

re my revert at WWVB

Hi. I wanted to explain why I reverted your edit.

At first, I have to confess, my reason was "that doesn't sound right". On further research, though... I am not an English major, but this is what I came up with:

A comma splice only exists if the comma is combining two independent clauses. An independent clause is one that could stand on its own as a sentence. It has to have its own subject and its own verb.


"WWVB is a time signal radio station near Fort Collins, Colorado, operated by the NIST."

"operated by the..." is not an independent clause. It doesn't have its own subject. You couldn't write this as

"WWVB is a time signal radio station near Fort Collins, Colorado. Operated by the NIST."

The latter clause is instead a dependent clause: It adds information about the subject of the first clause (which is, of course, WWVB). Therefore this was not a comma splice. A comma is perfectly fine between independent and dependent clauses when the latter adds non-essential information (which this is, because the subject would be perfectly well identified without it).

To be sure, some other constructions are possible. However there's nothing wrong with it as it is now.

Thanks for raising the issue - I always enjoy learning a little more about grammar beyond what I got in school. Hope you feel the same way! Jeh (talk) 10:56, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I reverted again.
Your explanation is even further wrong. If "operated by NIST" is not a clause, then it cannot be dependent clause. "operated by NIST" is just a predicate, so it cannot be a clause (dependent or independent).
There is an implication: "WWVB is operated by NIST". It's a horrible passive construction (better is NIST operates WWVB), but it has a subject and verb.
If you want the dependent clause, then it needs a function word such as "which" or "that": "WWVB is an X which is operated by NIST". We get into odd territory because WWVB is already a proper noun, so it does not need any further restriction; the other tidbits are just additional information rather than identifcation. It is in Ft. Collins and nowhere else (e.g., there's no WWVB in New York, NY), and NIST is the only entity operating time broadcasts in Ft Collins (there's no WWVB or other Ft. Collins time station operated by General Electric). If one assumes there is no restriction, then we get "WWVB is an X, which is in Ft. Collins, which is operated by NIST."
There is further ugliness because the modifier is uncertain: "WWVB is (an X) in Ft Collins, which is operated by NIST". Modifier bindings naturally go to the closest noun. That has NIST operating the city of Ft Collins rather than the WWVB. I've been in Ft Collins (and scraped the ice off too may windshields at 6 AM), and it is not run by NIST.
We can write "WWVB is an X, and it is operated by NIST".
Both clauses share the same subject, so we can share "WWVB is" to make a dubious compound object: "WWVB is (an X) and (operated by NIST)" or "WWVB is (an X) and is (operated by NIST)".
We don't put a comma between two compound items: "WWVB is (an X) and (a Y)." Not "WWVB is (an X), and (a Y)."
Glrx (talk) 16:10, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Vitruvian Barnstar Hires.png The Technical Barnstar
Thanks so much for all of the help with Wikipedia:SVG help#File:FiveThirtyEight Logo.svg! Elisfkc (talk) 23:06, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Mary Margaret Revell[edit]

re: edits at Garces Memorial High School#Notable alumni:
IP deletes 3 entries (including her) from notable alumni with no edit comment.
I restore the links after googling them and leave WP:BEFORE comment.
Trackinfo fixes 2 alumni links but deletes Revell

You left sources indicating you have a case for notability. That's fine for me, but other people will clear out the red links. The safe thing to do is rather than suggest notability, go ahead and write the article, then you establish notability, use your source to establish the unique accomplishment. Then there is no question. Trackinfo (talk) 06:04, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

First, thanks for doing a lot of work about California schools. I recognize your username.
WRT the article, thanks for fixing up the other two links, but why did you delete her entry in the first place? "English channel swimmers do not seem to be notable." I don't know about the lady; I just watchlisted Garces Memorial High School because it's been hit with vandalism. Recently people have been deleting material without doing something like WP:BEFORE: they are confusing the requirements of WP:N for a standalone article with the lesser requirements of WP:DUE for mention within an article. Principals are mentioned in high school articles all the time, but that does not mean they need to have WP:N by themselves. Maybe the lady doesn't merit an article (I didn't find anything that said she actually swam the English Channel), but I doubt she should be deleted from the article when the school believes she's a notable alumna. I kept the WL because the simple step of googling her name turns up hits in the Chicago Tribune,[1] a government archive of a story,[2] a BBC video in Getty's archive,[3] and her own story (complete with polio) in a post to the Bakersfield Californian website.[4] Glrx (talk) 18:17, 3 February 2016 (UTC)


  1. ^ "Girl to Try 24 Mile Swim on Lake Mead", Chicago Sunday Tribune, 21 January 1962, Part 2, page 6,
  2. ^ "She had her hair set first! American girl's nice swim up the harbor from Manly to Domain in 3hr. 55min.", The Australian Women's Weekly, 7 July 1965,,
  3. ^
  4. ^ Mary Margaret Revell Goodwin, "You can't go home again?", Wed Oct 8, 2008,


Why are you giving me a 3RR warning? Aside from the fact that I haven't made a 3rd revert, let alone passed it, it's not needed. Second, it could be argued that the first revert wasn't applicable since it was improperly removed as vandalism, which the edit clearly wasn't. I informed the editor about what is and is not vandalism and he thanked me for restoring it. Arguing about who is responsible for starting the discussion is a dodge on your part. It was restored and you've removed it twice now. You have the same number of reverts. Except that I made 2 reverts in 3 days and you have 2 reverts in about an hour. So if you're going to even hint at saying I'm edit warring, you have no high ground. Citing BOLD is also a bit pointless. It's a large editing guideline. If there is a specific part of it you think applies, then actually talk about that part. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:56, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

On your talk page, I told you that it was your burden to bring up your insertion on the article's talk page; I also quite clearly linked WP:3rr; I did not give you a templated warning.[9] You inserted some dubious material and have now reverted two different editors who removed the material. You inserted an editorial "so-called" in Wikipedia's voice in front of "'truth report'".[10] Emt1299d removed the editorial using the edit comment, "Undid revision 702638661 by Niteshift36 (talk) Clean up Reverting vandalism or test edit -- Not needed insertion."[11] You reverted.[12] I removed the text.[13] You reverted me.[14] I reverted you[15] and commented on your talk page with a reference to 3rr.[16]
You did complain on Emt1299's talk page about being labeled a vandal.[17]. As of right now, I see no response on that talk page nor any edits by Emt1299 since he reverted you. Another communications channel, perhaps? I can see Emt1299 apologizing for the vandalism / test edit remark, but I don't see Emt1299 thanking you for restoring a dubious POV edit about a "truth report" that hasn't been published yet. Neither cited source uses the words "so called"; both sources put "truth report" in quotation marks as does WP. Glrx (talk) 21:36, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
  • First, the burden is not mine. It is shared. We ALL bear the responsibility of discussion. Refusing to start it because of an imagined responsibility is not productive. Second, the first revert made of my edit was incorrectly labeled as vandalism. Even so, I have reverted twice. Period. No matter how you try to twist it, I have only made 2 reverts, just as you have. I made 3 edits, 2 reverts. You don't count the initial edit as a revert. No, you didn't template the warning, but the mention serves the same effect, so it's a warning (that wasn't needed). Third, I didn't "complain" about being labeled as a vandal, I informed the less experienced editor that falsely labeling legitimate edits as vandalism is considered bad faith. Fourth, I got the notification for Emt1299 thanking me for the edit. Now maybe you can't see the so-called "public thanks", but it was done never the less. If you'd like continue implying that I'm not being truthful, just come out and say it and I'll be happy to send you the screen capture. Yes, the sources put "truth report" in quotes, but that doesn't preclude labeling it as "so-called". Both sources are questionable in their objectivity. Of course I wonder why we're having this discussion about the content here when I started the discussion on the page hours ago. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:04, 4 February 2016 (UTC)