User talk:Harryzilber/Archive 1

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

Contents

Thanks![edit]

Thanks a lot for helping me to improve the article "SMK Semera".--Mark Chung (talk) 04:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

You can call me "STEW"PID[edit]

Sorry, I didn't notice your comment (on March) on SMK Semera talkpage until now. FYI, I rarely reads talkpage. Anyway, thanks for the comment.--Mark Chung (talk) 04:25, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Kindly point me in the right direction[edit]

{{adminhelp}} I've posted the following text below at both 'Help Desk' and 'WP:VPT', but am not sure those are the correct locations. A responder at the Help Desk said that it should go elsewhere, but I don't see a Help Desk at WikiSource. Pls take a quick look and suggest where the best location would be... Thanks HarryZilber (talk) 21:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


==Large volume media additions to WikiSource and/or Commons==
First off, I'm making the assumption that this is the correct location for discussions on Wikisouce and Commons, which might not be correct.
Question: is there Wiki software available to allow Wikipedia users to view image files (of books/magazines/journals) on the left side of the user's display, with the matching digital article on the right side of the screen? That seems to me to be the ideal: viewing the original document/book/journal/newsclipping complete with illustrations and photos on the left side, while having the digital article (with all its advantages) displayed on the right side of the user's screen.
I've noticed in Wikisource only a few issues of National Geographic Magazine had been uploaded, and of those many were only indexed while only a few had been proofed and were readable as digital articles. To me that seems to ignore the huge stores of desirable articles available from quality magazines/journals that are no longer under copyright protections, prob. a hundred issues of National Geographic alone prior to 1923 as well as tens of thousands of journals. It also seems that an easy way to provide significant benefit to Wikipedia editors and the general public would be to make those public domain magazines and journals available as quickly as possible (via uploaded scanned .Jpeg image files), followed with very simple article indexing with subject tags. Digital conversions, proofing and meta-data could follow afterwards on a time-available basis. If Wiki viewing software (as noted earlier) were used and the scanned article's digital text were not yet available, a message stating so would be added to the blank view on the right side of the screen, opposite to the page image on the left side. Other messages on the right side could indicate the absence or completeness of proofing and meta tags.
For your consideration if this has not yet been discussed -thanks....
Hiya. For stuff on Wikisource and Commons you need to go to Wikisource and Commons. Discussions here are relevant to English Wikipedia only. Cheers. //roux   21:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


Re: Vandalism[edit]

Re your message: It was vandalism and I should have tagged it as such. My mistake, but I suspect that the IP got the point. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 18:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


File copyright problem with File:Japan-Korea tunnel.png[edit]

File Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:Japan-Korea tunnel.png. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Radiant chains (talk) 08:06, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


Canadian Parliamentary Motion 37/1-1205[edit]

Hi Harry, thanks for contacting me. I did a cursory "sweep" just to harmonize refs and cites, but the gist of the article was maintained other than one statement I juxtaposed. One aspect of the article that may be explored is the role of Professor Basilio Catania and former Republican Congressman Vito Fossella. These two engineered the original bill, H. RES. 269, and delving into their background brings out some disturbing conflicts of interest. Fossella has an especially interesting portfolio. One change that should be made is in your citation that devolves back to another Wikipedia article which is not considered tertiary referencing and has to have a second-person source instead. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC).


Unreferenced tag[edit]

Please do not add the above to articles unless they have no references. Abberley2 (talk) 23:27, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Abberley2: Since you haven't noted specific webpages, I'll have to guess that you're discussing the use of 'External Links' as a substitute for referencing, which is what I frequently tag for. If I have actually used 'unreferenced' tags in lieu of 'refimprove' tags, please advise which article(s) are involved and I'll be happy to adjust them.
Regarding references placed in the External links section, refer to Wikipedia:External links:
References and citation
"Sites that have been used as sources in the creation of an article should be cited in the article, and linked as references, either in-line or in a references section. Links to these source sites are not "external links" for the purposes of this guideline, and should not normally be duplicated in an external links section. Exceptions (i.e. sites that can be both references and External Links) include an official site of the article's subject, or a domain specifically devoted to the article's subject which contains multiple subpages and which meets the above criteria."
Note that the 'exceptions' refers to a site being both a 'reference' and an 'external link', i.e.: such sites can be 'duplicated' or listed in each section . If I've erred by mistagging, there will be no problem for me to revise them, but if a contributor is too lackadaisical to bother following referencing protocol, then the ref tags need to stay.
A related, but different possible scenario would be where I've added a 'refimprove' tag, which most people would realize is a judgement call. This can be discussed on the talk page where I can review my reasoning in discussion.
Best --HarryZilber (talk) 16:21, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


Articles for deletion/Russell Blaylock[edit]

The above link directs to the archived discussion debating the notability of the Russell Blaylock article.


Japan-Korea Undersea Tunnel[edit]

Bonjour, je ne suis pas sûr d'être à la hauteur, ce n'est pas une sujet que je connais. Avez-vous contacté le fr:Projet:Traduction ? Cordialement, — M-le-mot-dit (T) 13:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

- - - - - - -

You cannot use opinion as fact. There was a source for somebody's opinion, but it is not written as opinion in the wikipedia entry, it is written as fact. So either re-word it (e.g. some people believe that it ended island mentality) or remove it entirely. Furthermore, the term island mentality is nowhere that I can see in your source.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.9.243.13 (talk) 12:41, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi there: you're right about not permitting opinion to be represented as fact, and I was somewhat right in my phrasing of that paragraph. I've rewritten the noted sentence to clarify its intent; Nozawa and Kim originally wrote: "Fifteen years later, British media estimate nearly 300,000 French citizens live in London. An entire industry has arisen to serve Britons looking to buy property in France, Italy and Spain. Discount airlines are partly responsible for the increased travel between Britain and the Continent, but without the Channel Tunnel breaking down a key psychological barrier, it is doubtful the airlines would have had such success", which I interpreted to refer to an 'island mentality', which I've now parenthesized. I've also moved the source reference to the end of that line to clarify that it refers to Nozawa and Kim's editorial. Best: HarryZilber (talk) 17:03, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

KV33 changes moved to TT33[edit]

Hi

You seem to have got KV33 (a tomb in the valley of the kings) and TT33 (in the Theban necropolis) mixed up, I have moved you changes from KV33 to TT33. Markh (talk) 20:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Ericsson videophone -color image w-licence- GetImage.ashx.jpg[edit]

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:Ericsson videophone -color image w-licence- GetImage.ashx.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

  • make a note permitting reuse under the GFDL or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
  • Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 17:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't have access to the Wikimedia OTRS system, but, hopefully, a volunteer should get to it soon. Feel free to remove my notice and instead tag the image with {{OTRS pending}} in the mean time. Thanks, J Milburn (talk) 20:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


Congratulations.[edit]

You have cost the project my support for a while. 128.100.5.116 (talk) 15:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


Hydyne[edit]

Thanks very much for your contributions to the Hydyne article! You are quite right to point out the toxicity of these compounds. It would be great if we could find a source comparing the toxicity of Hydyne with e.g. Aerozine 50, which uses hydrazine in place of diethylenetriamine. Unlike Hydyne, Aerozine is still in use in the United States for e.g. Delta II second stage motors. And UDMH is still regularly used by Russia for e.g. the first stages of Proton rockets. These stages get dropped, still containing residual fuel, somewhere in the middle of Kazakstan! In regards you other comment, I wonder if an environmental tariff approach would hasten Russian conversion to less toxic propellants? (sdsds - talk) 06:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


File permission problem with File:Ericsson_videophone_-color_image_-_GetImage.ashx.jpg[edit]

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:Ericsson_videophone_-color_image_-_GetImage.ashx.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

  • make a note permitting reuse under the GFDL or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
  • Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rettetast (talk) 21:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


Please help in deletion[edit]

I need help in deleting an article. A family member of Scott Kalapos has requested that the article about him be removed, but when I tried remove the page I was stopped by an autobot (I think). If you or one of the other admins could help get the page taken down I'd really appreciate it.

unsigned edit by 69.182.56.168 on July 10, 2009


Meucci's 1871 caveat[edit]

The document was formerly listed at the U.S. National Archives:

Meucci A., Sound Telegraph, Caveat No. 3335, filed at the US Patent and Trademark Office, Washington, D.C. Filed on 28 December 1871; renewed 9 December 1872; renewed 15 December 1873; Located at the National Archives and Records Administration, College Park, MD, RG60 (Department of Justice), Year Files 6921-1885, Box 10, Folder 1

The next part of the puzzle is how to obtain a copy of it so it can be uploaded in the Commons for use within the relevant articles. For your reference, here's what a Meucci proponent, Shiavo, said of the caveat in specific and Meucci's affairs in general:

"At any rate, the following facts should be made clear, once for all:
1.      In 1871 Meucci was not granted a patent, but a caveat, a kind of provisional patent.  
       Anybody could get a caveat, even if the invention was worthless.
2.      Meucci's caveat does not describe any kind of a diaphragm--none whatever.
3.      There is no United States Supreme Court decision either in favor or against Meucci, 
   and the reference in the October Term of the 1888 U. S. Reports (or in any other volume), 
    exists only in the imagination of some irresponsible people.
4.      In the thousands of pages of manuscript and printed records dealing with Meucci  
   consulted by me, there is no such description of the telephone as given in the Italian  
   encyclopedia. Least of all, is there any reference to any substance "capable of 
   inductive action" precisely defined. We have, of course, documentary evidence that 
    Meucci constructed an electric telephone with material capable of inductive action,  
   such as iron, as well as Meucci's description of the effect of the diaphragm on the magnet, 
    but Meucci never used the precise scientific definition quoted in the Treccani article. Least 
    of all in the caveat.
5.      The various detailed articles on the Meucci telephone which appeared in the 1880's in 
    American and British journals, such as the Telegraphic Journal and Electrical Review of  
   London and the Electrical World of New York, with accurate drawings of the various  
   instruments constructed by Meucci, have no legal value whatsoever.
6.      The only court decision about Meucci's telephone in existence was rendered by Judge Wallace  
   of the U. S. Circuit Court in 1887 in the case of the Bell Telephone Company against the Globe  
   Telephone Co., Meucci et Al. That decision was against Meucci.
   I have mentioned the above facts so as to clear the air of all the nonsense that has been written and 
    is still being written about Meucci. As for the facts, the true facts, they will be found in the 
   following pages (of his book, Antonio Meucci Inventor of the Telephone)."

HarryZilber (talk) 06:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


Shiavo's comments would make a good addition to the Meucci and telephone articles, but only if there are links to an online copy of caveat 3335. I don't have time to search for it, maybe in the U.S. National Archives web site. Shiavo has a misunderstanding about what a caveat was when he wrote: "In 1871 Meucci was not granted a patent, but a caveat, a kind of provisional patent."
No, like a provisional patent APPLICATION. The caveat was a document prepared by Meucci's lawyer and taken to the patent office and filed there. Nothing was "granted" to Meucci, other than a receipt saying the patent office received it. The caveat document was then docketed and filed with other caveats in the electrical department where Examiner Wilbur could find it easily. A caveat was secret and was not published. Publication of the caveat could have messed up Bell's chance of getting broad claims, but it would not have prevented Bell from getting narrower claims that included a diaphragm or anything else not mentioned in the caveat. But when Meucci and Gray abandoned their caveats, the caveats remained secret and not published prior to Bell's patent, and therefore Examiner Wilbur was free to issue Bell's patent. Greensburger (talk) 14:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


Hi again Greesburger: thanks for your comments just received. I intend to pursue the caveat as time permits, but obtaining a copy may involve paying a National Archives staffer to go into the file box and scan it for transmission -I'll have to see what type of charges are involved for that.

One other possible source for the document is the possibility that a notarized copy of it might have been deposited in one of the two other legal cases that Meucci was involved with (such as Meucci v. Bell, or Bell v. Meucci -just going by memory). If those Federal docs are viewable online then the caveat would be easy to access. What's really annoying is that other people probably have a copy of it but are unwilling to post it in the Commons.

HarryZilber (talk) 14:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


Persistence pays off —an official copy of Meucci's 1871 patent caveat No.3335, is viewable online here as a .PDF document, on image attachments from pp. 14 thru 18. Some of the wording is difficult to read, but for the most part its a decent scan. Since its a U.S. Federal doc, its copyright free, so it will be good to figure out how to convert the images into .jpeg's or .gif's to add them into the Commons, from where they can be added to the Meucci article and others. The pdf file itself is easily downloadable onto your harddrive for safekeeping.

B.t.w.: a second copy was also on file at a different National Archives location in Maine, specifically at the National Archives and Record Administration, New England Region, 380 Trapelo Road, Waltham, MA, under Records of the Circuit Court of the United States, District of Massachusetts, "United States of America vs. American Bell Telephone Co. and Alexander Graham Bell," Exhibit from Defendants. However those N.A. copies are now moot since its viewable online.....

HarryZilber (talk) 16:34, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


Thank you very much for the web address! I transcribed the text of Meucci's Caveat into the Meucci article. I will also add the web address to other articles. Greensburger (talk) 19:31, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


Thanks for doing the transcription and analysis of Meucci's caveat —that was a fair bit of work. One further significant point about the caveat is that in a number of places it refers to the sound conduction 'wire' in the singular, not plural case, e.g.: "......I believe it preferable to have the wire of larger area than that ordinarily employed in the electric telegraph, but will experiment on this. Each of these persons holds to his mouth an instrument analogous to a speaking trumpet, in which the word may easily be pronounced, and the sound concentrated upon the wire".

Since he was using a single wire as for sound conduction and employed glass insulator(s) for its user(s) to stand on, then, obviously, there was no return or ground path for an electrical circuit, and according to the known laws of physics, you can't produce a circuit carrying a modulated electrical signal in that instance. That fact has been reported previously a number of times by other reviewers. I believe I've also read somewhere that modern researchers trying to duplicate his results have never successfully built a functional 'electrical' (not mechanical) telephone.

Meucci advocates have to come down to Earth if they want to retain any credibility, and address these central issues. Its no wonder that none of them wanted to post the caveat on Wikipedia -they knew it wasn't a credible description of electrical telephony. To bulletproof the new Analysis section of the caveat so it doesn't get deleted under WP:OR, we need to add citations for those issuues. B.t.w. I've just added a new photo to Bell's article, and gained GNU licenses to a few others.

HarryZilber (talk) 20:28, 31 July 2009 (UTC) HarryZilber (talk) 20:45, 31 July 2009 (UTC) HarryZilber (talk) 16:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


Thanks for the suggestions. I added several refs pointing to specific pages in the Caveat on which things I quoted are located. But I could not cite refrences to conspicuous absent items. I also added your objection to no ground return. Greensburger (talk) 21:20, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


DYK nomination of Alexander Graham Bell[edit]

Symbol question.svg Hello! Your submission of Alexander Graham Bell at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Manxruler (talk) 02:26, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


Links[edit]

I disagree, especially in List of video telecommunication services and product brands, where the link amounts to WP:SPAM. As for the rest, I'm happy to discuss in light of WP:ELNO and WP:NOTLINK. --Ronz (talk) 01:40, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining your perspective in such detail. I'll defer to you on the need to identify the image source. I have removed the link as discussed.
The problem with such links is that they encourage more links, and editors are rarely as thoughtful as you when it comes to considering their suitability. I'd conservatively estimate, from my monitoring of recent changes, that 1/300 edits to Wikipedia is an inappropriate link. It's a huge problem, requiring a great deal of work to keep in check. I'm glad we could resolve this quickly. --Ronz (talk) 17:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


LAV III[edit]

Hey there. Just wanted to note that I reverted some of the changes you made on the LAV III page. In reference to the date, 1994 was the date that the new armoured vehicle replacement project started, not the date that the Liberals were elected. The Liberals are mentioned to provide rationale for the start of a new program based on the previous program being canceled under the Conservative government.

Also 'army' is acceptable to use when referencing the Canadian Forces Land Forces (which, as you can see, is a bit awkward). If you check the Canadian Forces website, you'll see that the term army is used (and by definition of the word, the Land Force is an army). Navy and air force are also finding their way back into common use. Just a minor quibble. :) - Jonathon A H (talk) 23:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


ICU Global[edit]

Hello Harryzilber, I deleted the material of the page because its an advert. Sorry i am new to this and unaware of the protocal needed to cite an article as a term violation —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.48.16 (talk) 08:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

== Deleting: ICU Global? Be careful and follow Wikipedia's policies on article deletion ==
Hiya:
Deleting or blanking article content arbitrarily on your own is considered vandalism, and is a big no-no at Wikipedia, and if you continue to do so you'll be promptly banned from doing anything other than reading its articles. After all, you could be a competitor to ICU Global merely trying to eliminate your competion, or be doing so for entirely personal or extremist purposes, or you could have a non-rational reason for doing so.
At the very minimum if there was some normal content within the webpage (which appears non-controversial to me) that you objected to, you should have stated so with your reasoning on your edit summary line, and also in the article's 'Discussion' (talk) page accessible via the tab at the top of the page, detailing what your objection(s) were. As another editor pointed out when he reverted your blanking (deletion of text), Wikipedia doesn't need your permission to create, update or add new material into its articles, and no court in the United States has the ability to order such changes outside of the laws on libel (willful lies), national security issues and the such. Note also that no court outside the United States has any authority over Wikipedia, period.
If you feel that the ICU Global article has in some way libeled you or otherwise contrevened Wikipedia's article policies, your are free to request changes and/or deletion of the article following the encyclopedia's policies found at this webpage. HarryZilber (talk) 15:41, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


Transcluding page content[edit]

Hi,

I'm curious about this edit. I can see the value in using transclusion to keep snippets of pages in sync with one another, but wasn't aware that this was accepted practice. Is this something you've seen used a lot? Any guidelines anywhere? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:11, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Chris: 1) the article change you pointed out actually doesn't have any transcluded content in it, only hidden comments that text has been copied manually into the new section, added so that a change to one article can be coordinated with other relevant articles. However you may be thinking of another section further down in Webcam (Videotelephony descriptive names & terminology), which does have < includeonly > tags and which transcludes text from the 'Descriptive names and terminology' section of Videophone. As you mentioned, it saves a lot of time in not having to edit several different articles every time you need to make a change to the wording (that section is transcluded to four other articles). 2) It terms of Wikipedia's accepted practice and usage, I can only say that it appears to be acceptable based on this help article and the fact that wikicode has been implemented for the feature –its likely the feature has been authorized at some higher level within Wikipedia's programming community as I doubt that freelance programmers could make arbitrary unauthorized code changes to the system. 3) I can't say how prevalent its current use is, but the help article noted above points out a featured article that used to employ it, as an example of its use: Pathology, which at one time had multiple passages of transcluded text from various other medical articles (however has now been changed to a manual format). If you come across any other useful info on this feature, kindly drop me a note; I'm looking for a way to transclude different sections of text to different articles. That would probably use multiple tags, such as < includeonly-S1 >, < includeonly-S2 >, etc..... Hope this helps....... HarryZilber (talk) 14:45, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


Pre-WWII public videophone services[edit]

Hello Ft93110:

I would like to improve an article you contributed to on 5th February in, Videophone, where you wrote:

"The first public video telephone service was opened by the German Reichspost in 1938 and closed due to the war in 1940. Video telephone lines linked Berlin to Nuremberg, Munich, and Hamburg. The terminals were integrated in public telephone booths and transmitted at the same resolution as the first German TV sets, at 440 lines. The British General Post Office operated another public video telephone service prior to World War II."

The video telephone service of the Reichspost is well documented, however I have not found any literature or references of the equivalent British video telephone service run by the British General Post Office before the Second World War. Was that something you personally saw in Britain, or did you happen to read about it, and if so, where?

It would be good to mention the British service in detail, but that can only be done if we can cite a written reference to it. If you can point me in the right direction it would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks and best: HarryZilber (talk) 21:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


Hi Harryzilber,
Thanks for your interest. I read about the service in some publications that I now have to find again. To give you a more rapid answer I looked whether I would rapidly find the source via the Internet, but to my surprise the BT historical website does not speak about it. However, a website connected with BT speaks about a French service before WWII [[1]. I shall look that as I have a history of the French telecoms somewhere among my books. So, for the British case I continue to look.
Regards,
--Ft93110 (talk) 17:38, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


Hi Ft93110: Thanks for your update. I wanted to let you know that I contacted both the British Postal Museum and the British Telecom Museum previously. Both reported back to me that they had no references on file for a pre-WWII public videophone system. You can see there email replies which I've posted on the Talk pages, as can be see here.

While researching TV history a few months ago, a came across a single sentence that alluded to a public videophone system in London, pre-WW2. It discussed the several miles of 'dual coax cable' that was installed in London prior to the war. It didn't directly mention videophone service, but as I understand the technology, you would use dual coax for videophone lines between videophone stations, with one 1MHz line for receiving and the other 1MHz line for transmitting -to me that appeared to be the most likely use for the coax that the book mentioned. Other than that single sentence, the book offered no other information on pre-WWII videophone services in the UK.

I appreciate your looking for the reference to the British pre-WWII system, and could you also kindly double check the website for the French service as well. I viewed the French webpage last night but didn't spot anything related to their pre-WWII videophone service; the first item starts in 1964.

Thanks and best, HarryZilber (talk) 17:21, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


Welcome![edit]

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

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  --Guinnog 11:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Pre-WWII public videophone services (endpoint)[edit]

Removal of 'Alleged holocaust perpetrators' cat from the Charles Zentai webpage[edit]

G.O.: you removed the noted Alleged holocaust perpetrators cat from the Charles Zentai article after speedy deleting the same without discussion, reporting simply on your deletion summary: "they either are or aren't: we don't "allege"; duplicate of Category:Holocaust perpetrators".

Synopsis:

Well that was all hunky-dory so far (the slang type, not the David Bowie type), since according to the tenets of law in most western countries its improper to address a rapist or murderer as such unless they've actually been convicted of the appellation. Until such time they're normally referred to as: John Doe, the alleged rapist/murderer.... etc....

  • At this point, we now have the Charles Zentai article now without a connection to the Holocaust war crimes alleged of him and the reason for his arrest, hence, two days ago I created the new category: Alleged holocaust perpetrators, and
  • I then tagged the Charles Zentai webpage with the new Cat, followed by:
  • you speedy deleting everything without discussion or precedence.

G.O., what exactly is Charles Zentai? Is he a 'holocaust perpetrator' despite sitting at home in Australia waiting to be deported to Hungary for trail on war crimes, or is he an 'alleged holocaust perpetrator', as per the new cat created to fit his ilk?

So, when you say: "they [Zentai et al] either are or aren't: we [Wikipedia staff] don't allege, are you referring to Zentai is or isn't a convicted holocaust perpetrator? If he's not a convicted war criminal, then under the circumstances, doesn't that make him an 'alleged holocaust perpetrator'? You can't have your cake and eat too, can you? HarryZilber (talk) 07:55, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

With references, I assume you can refer to him as an "alleged" whatever in the text of an article. But Wikipedia doesn't categorize individuals (especially living individuals) by "alleged" statuses. If you want this can be taken to discussion at WP:CFD, but see here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:59, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I previously reviewed 'Category:Alleged war crimes' (plus similar), which referred specifically to allegations of war crimes committed by American Armed Forces, not to genocide –so I again submit that you speedy deleted the cat without precedence. Would you reconsider your deletion and restore the cat? HarryZilber (talk) 08:18, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
I'll move it to WP:CFD, but I don't like its chances. Categories with names like this are fairly routinely deleted. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:32, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

October 10 Category:Alleged holocaust perpetrators

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Using "alleged" in a category name is almost never a good idea, because it automatically introduces a host of definitional problems. Who has to do the "alleging"? Does there have to be a criminal indictment, or is a criminal investigation enough? What if it is "alleged" and then the person is found not guilty in a law court? Are they still "alleged"? We have Category:Holocaust perpetrators for those who are proven to have been so; this is enough, in my opinion. Many similar categories have been deleted in the past, including Alleged U.S. war criminals; Alleged war crimes; Crime suspects; Persons accused of filicide; People accused of crimes against humanity; Documentaries about alleged war criminals; and others. Good Ol’factory (talk) 4:42 am, Today (UTC−4)

Possibly unfree File:Ericsson videophone -color image w-licence- GetImage.ashx.jpg[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Ericsson videophone -color image w-licence- GetImage.ashx.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --J Milburn (talk) 16:55, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

First Telephone Central Office photo[edit]

Notice: Use of Holocaust template on Zentai bio[edit]

Just a notice that I asked input about Charles Zentai template issue in Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Use_of_Template:The_Holocaust.--Staberinde (talk) 19:45, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


Looks like we finally got an outside opinion on this issue, would you still object removal of the template from article?--Staberinde (talk) 15:08, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


I find legalistic efforts to remove references of the Holocaust from Zentai's bio counterproductive to Wikipedia's mission, which it to provide the sum of all (legitimate) knowledge to everyone on the planet. The editors who assigned the template to the Zentai article did so with the belief that he was, in some fashion, connected with the events of the Holocaust, a view with which I agree. Neither they nor I invented any of the press reports of indictments, investigations or the extradition hearings that have been reliably reported by the media in Europe and in Australia. Further, the Holocaust template also does not imply that he has been convicted of any charges listed on the indictments. I find your reasoning for its removal to be specious, and that fact that a single person has provided a favourable comment for the templates proposed removal is insufficient to change my view of this situation. If you believe that eliminating this template, which I view as both legitimate and relevant, serves Wikipedia's mission, you are free to request a formal review, keeping in mind that such actions may invoke the Streisand effect. Best: HarryZilber (talk) 19:02, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Would you be nice enough to provide this argument in same or similar wording at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Use_of_Template:The_Holocaust to see if it is considered good reason (hoping that this issue will get some more attention there so that we get wider input)? I don't really see this issue as worth of edit warring or RfC or some other horribly time consuming wikiprocess, but we don't seem to reach to consensus between each other.--Staberinde (talk) 19:30, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Improper warning of 24.173.92.65[edit]

Hello. The warnings you gave to 24.173.92.65 (talk · contribs) appear to have been improperly issued. The IP's last three edits were made at around 16:00 yesterday, for which ClueBot reverted and issued a warning. As such, all three of the warnings you issued 19 hours later ([2], [3], [4]) as well as your block request appear to be improper. Please note that escalated warnings should only be issued if an IP ignores the previous warning and continues to vandalize. — Kralizec! (talk) 15:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Kralizec,
I accidentally erred in repeating the last Level 4 warning for User:24.173.92.65, but, respectfully, since that individual went out of his/her way to commit three specific acts of vandalism on Language Interpretation, two of which defamed named individuals who were the object of his/her scorn, a single bot generated Level 1 warning was wholly insufficient. Each instance of vandalism warrants a response, especially in this case where many Level 1 warnings were issued to that account in the previous month. The anti-vandalism bot software, and frequently other individuals who keep reissuing Level 1 warnings, are allowing miscreants to excessively vandalize Wikipedia to the detriment of all legitimate users worldwide. In that context, multiple warnings for a vandalism spree are more that justified.
Vandalism patrol is an incredibly dubious activity which consumes countless hours that would be better devoted to article creation and improvement and other project work; however its currently necessary in order to preserve what we have jointly create and value –the frustrating cost of a system which does not properly address vandals. In my view its better to place a fence at the top of a cliff (i.e.: effective anti-vandal protocols and registration procedures), rather that an ambulance at the bottom (a/v patrol and cleanups, which collectively consume many thousands of hours). I fully support Wikipedia being a "....free encyclopedia that anyone can edit", but not "a free encyclopedia that any vandal can abuse." Kindly help convey this philosophy to other Wikpedians, Admins and SysOps. Best: HarryZilber (talk) 16:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks like the same thing happened with 207.81.157.1 (talk · contribs). The IP's last edit was at 16:26 yesterday, because it appears that the IP obeyed the level-three warning issued to it at 16:27. However 18 hours later you issued [5] another, escalated warning for the exact same edit it had already been warned over, and then reported the IP to AIV claiming that the IP had vandalized after receiving a final warning [6], when in actuality the IP had stopped vandalizing after receiving a level-three warning ... 18 hours prior to your improperly issued final warning. Please explain. Thank you, — Kralizec! (talk) 16:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi again, further to your last query, similar to the above, User::207.81.157.1 committed two separate acts of vandalism to Fax, warranting two user warnings. Please also keep in mind that this is a vandalism only account -every edit has been vandalism since its creation, and I believe that was also reported when I requested a block. If that vandal was blocked, it should have been on the basis of his/her being a vandalism only account; the fact that one warning was 18 hours late I find to be somewhat irrelevant. Lets fully document a vandals negative actions in order to reduce and eliminate their impact on Wikipedia. Best: HarryZilber (talk) 16:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

On my talk page, you said that "multiple warnings for a vandalism spree are more that justified." This is incorrect, as WP:WARN states (emphasis mine), "you should check that the user has made harmful edits since their last warning – the user must be given a chance to see and react to each warning given." — Kralizec! (talk) 16:14, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Kralizec!, you stated on my talk page: "This is incorrect, as WP:WARN states (emphasis mine), "you should check that the user has made harmful edits since their last warning – the user must be given a chance to see and react to each warning given." — Kralizec! (talk) 11:14 am, Today (UTC−5)". Would you not agree that WP's procedures are in need of updating regarding vandalism sprees and vandalism-only accounts? I believe those instances warrant aggressive responses different from an occasional sloppy edit or a curious youngster experimenting with the edit process; after doing a/v patrol for several months its easy to spot the difference between the two types. WP's protocols need to be updated to address such issues, would you concur on that? I shall pay more attention to the specifics of wp:warn, however I would ask that you also look into helping WP evolve into a more user-friendly experience which also properly addresses anti-social behaviours. Best: HarryZilber (talk) 16:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of if Wikipedia's vandalism-control procedures are in need of an update, can you agree that everyone here should follow the current generally accepted practices for dealing with vandalism? If everyone follows their own rules, WP:AIV will quickly turn into chaos. — Kralizec! (talk) 16:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

As noted above, more attention can be paid to wp:warn. Can you forgive me for being bold? HarryZilber (talk) 16:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:AIV[edit]

Hi Gogo Dodo: you wrote: "I saw your two WP:AIV reports today and wanted to mention a few things about them. Both of your reports resulted in no action. The first is that both reports were stale in that the IPs in question had not edited for hours or days before you reported them. Secondly, unless the vandalism is similar to the previous block reason, IPs are generally not immediately reblocked unless it is an obvious shared IP like a school IP. Finally, your request for an indefinite block of IPs is not likely to be done. IPs are very rarely blocked indefinitely." Gogo Dodo (talk) 03:15, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing that to my attention. A recurring issue seen is that when other involved editors revert vandalism, they frequently neglect to check the vandal's contributions to see what type of user they're dealing with. Where I request an indefinite block, I've confirmed that the IP or user has in fact been an bad-faith editor. The fact that my AIV request occurs several hours or more after the last vandalism edit is trivial in comparison to the vandal's action.
To quote wp:warn: "If a user stopped vandalizing some time ago, and their edit histories don't suggest a pattern of chronic vandalism, there's no need to warn or block them at all (although a welcome template might help future visits). Likewise, if a user is in the midst of an obviously bad-faith vandalism spree, there's no need to warn them before temporarily blocking them."
I would point out that being a day late in issuing an AIV request does not fall into the user having '[vandalized] some time ago'. If the user has committed 20 or so vandalism edits in a span of three weeks, with 0 good edits, you can be reasonably assured he/she is a bad faith editor. If an Admin chooses to ignore the obvious then a disservice is being done to Wikipedia, its target audience and its legitimate editors. I would also suggest that wp:warn be improved to remove non-specific language such as 'vandalism spree' and 'chronic vandalism', since such phrasing is open to interpretation which results in Admins chastising AVU staff for cleaning up after vandals. Like any business process, a lack of precise language will ineveitably cause confusion and conflict. B.T.W. in the past other Admin staff have agreed to requests for indef. blocks of Vandalim Only users. Best: HarryZilber (talk) 03:42, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Replied on your talk page. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:12, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Re your message: WP:AIV is for recent vandalism reports. Not edits that have occurred days in the case of 24.173.92.65 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) or hours in the case of 71.192.98.65 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) earlier. In the case of 24.173.92.65, your issuing of warnings were also incorrect. The last edits occurred on the 9th, you warned him three times in rapid succession [7][8][9] 18 hours after the edits were bot reverted and the IP was warned [10]. You should have not warned the IP at all. You then reported the IP to WP:AIV three days later. During that intervening time, the IP made no edits. As for indefinitely blocking IPs, that is very rare. Neither of these two IPs would warrant an indefinite block in my opinion. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:11, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi again: Thanks for the advice and assessment. Until wp:warn is updated to allow for improved responses to vandalism sprees, vandalism-only accounts and bad-faith editors, I'll limit my AIV requests to those responding to vandalism edits less than 5 hours after they occur (a reasonable timeliness to respond to such acts, would you agree?), and I'll remember to provide the uw-v warnings on a staged basis as apposed to lumping them together when responding to sprees. Best: HarryZilber (talk) 15:08, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Videophone / Video phone[edit]

A disambiguation page is not needed to list two pages where one is obviously the primary topic. A dablink can be added to Videophone. Chase wc91 15:08, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: ISP Followup[edit]

We generally don't issue abuse reports with ISPs except for rampant abuse from a single user - unless there appears to be a pattern of abuse by this person, there's no reason for me to do a check or reveal his IP address. In any event, such requests should be made through Wikipedia:Long-term abuse, not on a checkuser's talk page. Hersfold (t/a/c) 22:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Fonts – Inability for browsers to render all characters or ligatures within an article[edit]

I replied to your question on Typographic ligature -Inability for viewers to render all characters. (talk)


[extract}

While reviewing this article, I noted that several sentences, such as this one:

"Rarer ligatures also exist, such as Ꜳꜳ, Ꜵꜵ, Ꜷꜷ, Ꜹꜹ, Ꜻꜻ, Ꜽꜽ, Ꝏꝏ, ᵫ, ᵺ, Ỻỻ and Ꜩꜩ."

....did not render properly (except for the eight and ninth characters/ligatures) on my Windows based Internet Explorer and Firefox viewers. On my IE browser, all unrendered characters are represented by single empty rectangles. On my Firefox viewer, each Unicode character is represented by a double set of rectangles, ex: the first character represented by a pair of rectangles, after the words 'such as', contained the code pair: A732 and A733.

What setting or LIP needs to implemented to properly view all characters or ligatures within the article? Also, would it be possible to add a warning/caution notice at the top of the article page to inform readers that certain viewing parameters need to be met for a complete rendering of the article? Such caution boxes exist on other articles containing uncommon scripts. Thanks --HarryZilber (talk) 15:10, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


I have added {{SpecialChars}} to the lead section. The ligatures in the quoted sentence probably should go into the table under the Ligatures in Unicode (Latin-derived alphabets) section for better presentation.Kxx (talk) 18:53, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
For Windows, I suggest using the "Identify Characters" add-on to Firefox, followed by the latest version of "Babel Map" which includes a tool to tell you which fonts contain some specific character. I've seen a funny char once that simply looked wrong in the font that was chosen (Firefox will apparently look for some font containing a rare character), as well as letters that simply aren't in any installed font.

File:Ericsson videophone -color image w-licence- GetImage.ashx.jpg[edit]

I just wanted to follow up with you, I understand that you sent a permissions email for this image, unfortunately the email was not sufficient for verification. Statements from the copyright holder must specify the exact license(s) they are releasing the image under. I know that on Wikipedia we may understand "GDFL Creative Commons" to be the dual license we sometimes use, but this is not sufficient for legal purposes. If they wish to release the image in that manner, they must specifically state that they are releasing the image for publication under the GFDL and CC-by-sa 3.0 (or whatever licenses they prefer). The email template at Wikipedia:CONSENT can be helpful; you can even pre-fill the licensing information if that would be easier for them. For the time being, I've had to go ahead and delete the image; I do have OTRS access, so if you receive the necessary verification, feel free to drop me a note and I'll take care of the undelete and verification immediately. Shell babelfish 10:00, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

In regards of external link-spam. Yes or no? That is the question ;)[edit]

I've replied to your last message at my talkpage.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

BTW, if you take a look at the top of my talkpage I have a disclamer regarding talkpages but if I reply to someone not within reasonable time and it seemed to be important I'll always leave some message at the user's talkpage to let him/her know that there is a reply. Just a general note to keep things simple ;) . Regards, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

approaching 3rr[edit]

Just a reminder that you are on your 3rd revert :) Unomi (talk) 19:43, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Barry Fox as RS?[edit]

You have got to be joking. The guy's a hack journo, a laughing stock in the UK electronics industry and why NS (who are generally robust) employ him at all is a mystery...

Any credible source on Blumlein immediately discredits any sabotage theory. The crash report itself is so specific as to trace the cause down to specific nuts! (tappet locking nuts on one engine). Then there's the well discussed problem of the early Halifax's undersized tail, making an accident such as this into an unrecoverable situation. Although obviously "sabotage" would be an early rumour with any such crash in wartime, it has simply nothing to back it up. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Meucci[edit]

Your last edit to Antonio Meucci has major implications and it has to be discussed prior (consensus is uncertain). Please revert it and open a new discussion in the talk page. -- Basilicofresco (msg) 08:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Basilicofresco: I understand your concerns of accurately reporting facts in the Meucci article, which I support on a personal basis in order to document knowledge free of Point of View. Consensus is indeed an editorial policy of this encyclopedia, however it does not trump Wikipedia's requirement of verifiability and reliability of factual sources.
I have just now started a new section on Meucci's Talk page: 'Substantiation of Meucci's priority...', which points out that that Wikipedia does not permit a reverse onus to disprove facts –it is up to the original contributors of the facts or statements to provide reliable, verifiable and citeable documentation to support their facts.
Here's what a prior Meucci researcher, Giovanni Ermenegildo Schiavo, stated in the preface to his bio on him:
"At any rate, the following facts should be made clear, once for all:
1. In 1871 Meucci was not granted a patent, but a caveat, a kind of provisional patent. Anybody could get a caveat, even if the invention was worthless.
2. Meucci's caveat does not describe any kind of a diaphragm--none whatever.
3. There is no United States Supreme Court decision either in favor or against Meucci, and the reference in the October Term of the 1888 U. S. Reports (or in any other volume), exists only in the imagination of some irresponsible people.
4. In the thousands of pages of manuscript and printed records dealing with Meucci consulted by me, there is no such description of the telephone as given in the Italian encyclopedia. Least of all, is there any reference to any substance "capable of inductive action" precisely defined. We have, of course, documentary evidence that Meucci constructed an electric telephone with material capable of inductive action, such as iron, as well as Meucci's description of the effect of the diaphragm on the magnet, but Meucci never used the precise scientific definition quoted in the Treccani article. Least of all in the caveat.
5. The various detailed articles on the Meucci telephone which appeared in the 1880's in American and British journals, such as the Telegraphic Journal and Electrical Review of London and the Electrical World of New York, with accurate drawings of the various instruments constructed by Meucci, have no legal value whatsoever.
6. The only court decision about Meucci's telephone in existence was rendered by Judge Wallace of the U. S. Circuit Court in 1887 in the case of the Bell Telephone Company against the Globe Telephone Co., Meucci et Al. That decision was against Meucci.
I have mentioned the above facts so as to clear the air of all the nonsense that has been written and is still being written about Meucci. As for the facts, the true facts, they will be found in the following pages (of his book: Schiavo, Giovanni Ermenegildo. Antonio Meucci, inventor of the telephone. New York, Vigo Press, c1958. 288 p.)."
Please take special note of items #3, 4, 5 and 6, which bear directly on writing encyclopedic articles.
I propose that we continue this discussion on Meucci's talk page in the new section. I'm willing to listen to your views on the wording for Meucci's claims to priority, and if they can be supported by reliable evidence then adjustments can be made, however again I must stress that the onus is on contributors to properly document their facts. I have personally witnessed in the past several embarrassingly egregious inclusions of false materials to the Meucci article that have bordered on either science fiction, or worse fantasy, and I hope that all people working on Wikipedia will guard against such transgressions in the future by carefully following Wikipedia's policies.
Thanks and best: HarryZilber (talk) 20:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

V-mail[edit]

Hi. I note that you categorized V-mail as a Canadian invention. However, there should be something in the text to support this assertion. Can please also add a reference for this? thanks! Verne Equinox (talk) 20:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Verne Equinox: that Cat was indeed incorrect and has now been removed -thanks for pointing it out to me. A quick double-check showed that the U.S. military's V-mail was based on British Airgraphs, which were based on Eastman Kodak's patent obtained from New York City banker George McCarthy. Prior to that, a similar system was deployed during the Franco-Prussian War which used carrier pigeons to send primitive microfilm strips across German lines, developed from French optician Rene Dagron's first patent granted for microfilm in 1859, which of coarse was based on British scientist Benjamin Dancer who created microfilm in 1839.
So for the lineage of invention we appear to have: American military --> British military --> American corporation --> American banker --> French army --> French optician -->British scientist. That's sort of a Heinz 57 type parentage! To me it probably makes more sense to leave the nationality of invention out of the article, but I have no objection to you deciding. Thanks and best: HarryZilber (talk) 21:44, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

False vandalism report on IP address[edit]

Referencing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:76.192.49.42#January_2010

You mistakenly accused this IP address of vandalizing a page on wind power when it wasn't this IP. 76.192.49.42 (talk) 17:11, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

You were correct that I accidentally posted against your page in error, instead of against user:Nothingandn0one. I've deleted my vandalism notice and posted a retraction on your page as a reference, and then deleted that as well so that the page has returned to its original blank state. My apologies for the slip. Best: HarryZilber (talk) 17:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Which Britannica editions are Public Domain and available for inclusion into Wikipedia?[edit]

Village pump discussion on January 15, 2010 at this link here.

Your warning on 76.206.249.101‎[edit]

I noticed that you have given an only warning to the IP I'm referring to. This user is new to wikipedia and has only made one contribution, so don't assume bad faith and go straight to the only warning template. Remember: It's not the severity of the vandalism, it's how many vandalism edits he/she makes. Minimac (talk) 06:49, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Minimac: When I issued an 'Only Warning' tag, then that was covered in discussions at the Anti-Vandalism Unit's think tank, which said: "When to use the Level 4im tag: According to Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace, the Level 4im tag should be be placed on a vandal's talk page when you assume bad faith and want to give the vandal [a] strong one-time very strong cease and desist warning. ...this language is vague and open-ended....". Hence the coverage for the 4IM tags I've issued. Best: HarryZilber (talk) 20:21, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


User :115.117.8.5[edit]

You placed a level four warning on User talk:115.117.8.5 a few days ago. First, I think it was overkill as it was the first warning in over a month. Second, you didn't follow-up and the editor continued to vandalize and apply edit tests to articles. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:03, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi: Sorry Walter, I did not place a level four (final) warning on that IP; if you check the warning tag wording, it reads only warning, which was a deliberate '...vague and open-ended warning used with an AVU's discretion' (see the item Your warning on 76.206.249.101, two items above this section. The 'final warning' tag can sometimes be more effective, but wasn't in this instance. I would only ARV a vandal after going through the 4 step protocol, not after violating such a warning, b.t.w. I believe, however, its discretionary use has been effective in a significant number of cases none-the-less.
Second: Wikipedia has absolutely failed to provide me with a full-time paid position doing this AVU work, so I obviously can't catch every reoccurance of vandalism to every vandalism tag I've issued! My AVU work is done intermittently throughout the week, and sometimes not for a few days at a time. In my other role as a Wikipedian, I enjoy writing and editing articles; AVU patrol is the 'dirty' end of the stick, so to say, of my contributions to the compendium. Best: HarryZilber (talk) 19:06, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Bell Postage Stamp[edit]

Greetings 'Harryzilber'

Thank you for your note and thank you for pointing out my (what should have been a glaring) mistake in spelling Bell's middle name. I didn't realize AG'Bell appeared on 'many' other stamps of the world. To the best of my knowledge, he only appears once on a US Postage stamp in the 'Famous Americans Series' of 1940. I added a small write up about the great popularity of this stamp on the AG'Bell page. It is this stamp which led me into the finer history and involvements of Bell. Once again, thank you for the correction notice and for the contributions you make to Wikipedoa overall. All the best. GWillHickers (talk) 23:00, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

CSI[edit]

FYI, we don't report continuity errors and the like unless they establish notability beyond simply being noticed by a Wikipedia editor. First off, Aadieu's contributions are completely unreferenced and based solely on his/her own observations. The language is non-encyclopedic, and includes opinions such as "lines that sound professional to a layman are anything but", "grossly distorted caricatures that use language clearly invented on the spot by the writers" and "the show's attention to minor details leaves something to be desired". Even if we were to address the writing through the normal revision process, however, there is a more important consideration. Pre-established consensus from the Television wikiproject (as described in the television style guide) states:

"Unsourced sections about technical errors or continuity issues should generally be avoided. If there is a major mistake that is discussed by a reliable source it can become a part of the production section. See also WP:BLOOPERS."

--Ckatzchatspy 21:54, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Ckatz: sorry for the delay responding to your posting above. You are quite correct and I was quite unaware of the bloopers protocol guideline provisions within Wikipedia. I'm now better informed! FWiW, I tend to look favourably on minor trivia sections at the end of articles so long as they don't get overdone, since they usually add a bit of lightness to what are often pedantic writings. Best: HarryZilber (talk) 01:23, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Elisha Gray and Alexander Bell telephone controversy[edit]

On May 25, 2009 you added a reference to an article by Meyer, Ralph & Carlson, Bernard on "The Bell-Gray Controversy" that links to "Invention & Technology" magazine, Fall 2008, vol 23, issue 3, page 14. I clicked on "Archive >" and got as far as the front page of that issue, but was blocked because I am not a subscriber. Can you provide a short summary of their one-page article? Greensburger (talk) 00:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Greensburger: sorry for the delay getting back to you due to a heavy workload. It was actually a three page article, with five drawings and photographs (most of them common). I'll provide some salient descriptions.
Pg. 14: The article's introduction refers to the Shulman book Telephone Gambit, which declared that Bell "stole the key idea behind the invention of the telephone" by copying Gray's liquid transmitter design from his patent caveat. The article author's then say: "Putting aside whether Bell stole anything or not, Shulman's theory contains a major technological error. While Bell used the liquid transmitter to confirm his theory about how a telephone worked, the device did not lead directly to the first commercial telephone." Meyer and Carlson then describe the importance of induction in Bell's receiver that was used in the first commercial telephones of 1876-1877, as well as Bell's priority of wave-described electrical signals dating to November 23, 1974. "Bell used induction extensively in his efforts to create a harmonic telegraph...."
Pg. 15: Bell's fundamental insight on June 2, 1875, when the plucked reed's multi-tones caused Bell to realized that voices could be transmitted by wire, resulting in the Gallow's Telephone model the next day, which was too weak to be successful. Then in February 1876 Bell investigated variable resistance transmitters, accompanied with his standard induction receivers.
Pg. 56: After Bell tested the liquid transmitter to confirm that his wave-described signal theory was correct, Bell returned to producing improved induction transmitters, demonstrating them a few months later, notably at the Philadelphia Centennial Exhibition, and then had the Bell Telephone Company place them into commercial service. Then Meyer and Carlson summarize Elisha Gray's continuing telephone investigations and developments, culminating in his late 1876 patent application of a phone using both induction transmitter and receiver, which was turned down due to Bell's prior patent award. The article authors contend that the liquid transmitter was inconsequential to the invention of the telephone, merely serving to confirm the described-wave theory more clearly to Bell, who would use the induction transmitters in commercial service.
By the way, the Invention & Technology website does not require any payments for a user account; online registration takes only about a minute and gives you access to a wide range of their magazine articles. Unfortunately, not every article is archived from each issue, mainly the major ones, and this particular article was not one of the seven that were accessible online so I dug out my back copy of that Fall 2008 I&T issue to provide the above descriptions. I'll leave that copy handy in case there are any follow-up concerns or questions. Best: HarryZilber (talk) 20:13, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you very much for all these lengthy quotations. They support my understanding expressed in Elisha Gray and Alexander Bell telephone controversy. Although the court said that Gray was the first to invent the variable resistance transmitter, Bell did not lose the crucial claim for it in Bell's patent. Because of a technicality, Gray lost because he did not publish the idea or convert his caveat into a patent application. When Gray abandoned his rights, that gave Bell the right to enforce his variable resistance claim against Edison after Edison invented the carbon transmitter. And without the carbon transmitter, Western Union could not make the telephone practical for long distance, after they bought the patents from Edison. Although I have not seen this point expressed in print, I think it was Bell's variable resistance claim that persuaded Western Union to make a compromise deal with Bell. All because Gray listened to the bad advice from his lawyer. So Bell did not steal the variable resistance telephone from Gray. Gray gave it to Bell for free. Greensburger (talk) 21:05, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
What I find ironic if not funny about the whole telephone patent fiasco is that Bell could easily have filed his original patent in Washington seven months earlier had he not given a copy of it to George Brown to first file for a patent in London (Brown was subsequently told it was a worthless idea and forgot about the patent documents at the bottom of his briefcase, causing the extensive delay and cascading events). For want of trying to capture the entire (British/American patent) marketplace, Gardiner Hubbard and Bell very nearly ended up with none of it.
None the less I've forgiven Brown for his errors, as I read his Globe & Mail paper daily, and consider it amongst the top five newspapers in the world. Best: HarryZilber (talk) 23:02, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, Bell and his partners very nearly lost the patent rights, not only because of Gray's caveat, but also because of the financial power of Western Union. But Brown's delay was actually a stroke of good luck for Bell, because it delayed prosecution of Bell's patent application until after Gray invented the variable resistance feature which Gray had kept secret from his own lawyer until February 11, the Friday before the Monday the two patent applications were filed. When Bell's lawyer learned of the variable resistance feature, he added the 7 sentence paragraph and claim 4 into Bell's draft application to cover the variable resistance feature. That claim 4 was broad enough to cover Edison's carbon transmitter in a telephone circuit, but would have been missing if Bell's application had not been delayed by Brown. Greensburger (talk) 00:52, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Personal Attacks[edit]

This [11] is unacceptable. Unfounded accusations of meat puppetry/sock puppetry are considered one of the more serious personal attacks as per Wikipedia policy at WP:NPA. Consider this your formal request to remove your comments from the article talk space. Fell Gleaming(talk) 04:28, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Your outrage is noted, so I've clarified my belief. HarryZilber (talk) 04:43, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
[FellGleaming], your outrage is a joke and I expect you realize that. I would strongly suggest you cease your gaming. Polargeo (talk) 11:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
As an elaboration: FellGleaming's many contentious edits have been the subject of numerous administrative blocks and actions for aggressive posturing, misuse of citations, edit warring, etc..., for example this one found here and shown below. I imagine such notices are the reason why that person regularly deletes his/her own user talk page contents.
Most people make constructive and helpful contributions to Wikipedia in whatever way they can, while others, little more than middle-school vandals, enjoy messing up its works. I've worked with on AVP for several months and believe I can recognize people's intents. Most people can identify which group FellGleaming belongs to. HarryZilber (talk) 15:02, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

RE:Using Wikipedia for advertising or promotion on Camgirl.[edit]

Thanks for welcome Harryzilber, But that was not for promotion or advertising. As far as I know wikipedia provides the informative articles. I have added that articles in the hope it will benefit the user/reader. —Preceding unsigned comment added by George Widget (talkcontribs) 07:29, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Formatting unique to Video Relay Service[edit]

I see that you are the primary contributor to this article and others related to it. Why do they all have formatting unique to them (as in, not part of the WP:MOS, and only seen in these articles)? I'm talking about the following:

  • Bolded text used outside of the lead section
  • External links in image captions. Links to the Commons in particular belong in an "External links" section.
  • The use of =<small> Section name</small>= instead of using level 2 (==) and level 3 (===) headings.
  • Using <onlyinclude> to include parts of one article into another. The problem about this is that people who wish to edit included text cannot do so because what they see is the transclusion code only, and of course most people don't know how to reach the text. Also, the included text should ultimately be replaced with text specific to each article.

That's all the ones that I've found for now. Gary King (talk) 03:39, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


Hi Gary,
  1. I've never seen restrictions on the use of bold text for emphasis (outside of the lede section); I'd appreciate if you could point out the specific WP info page on that;
  2. the < small > command was used to avoid having an extended branching of the article menu but still maintain proper looking subsection titles. Its not used very often but it suited this article for its various section headings (i.e.: it looks better than starting with Level 2 headings, which leads to a higher branched menu);
  3. the transclusion code is an authorized feature in WP, and is a large time saver for editors who'd like to make use of it. The introductory text between the commands in VRS is automatically ported to 4 or 5 other relevant articles, each of which has a remmed out notation next to the transclusion code informing editors where to locate the source text. A sample of the edit remarks can be seen at this article section on Videophone -Sign Language Communication Via Videotelephony.
VRS and deafness articles are not my specialization at Wikipedia, although I have an interest in assistive technologies; they were updated to help assist the general public and those affected by deafness needing VRS services. Please feel free to help improve the article in whatever way possible. HarryZilber (talk) 21:02, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


I made some changes. For bold text, see MOS:BOLDTITLE#Format_of_the_first_sentence. I fixed the section headers so <small> is no longer necessary. I already laid out my arguments against article transclusion. I won't be touching that in these articles since it appears as though you've setup an intricate web of article transclusion (which, again, is pretty dangerous; a vandal could remove the <onlyinclude> tags from one article, for instance, and affect other articles). Gary King (talk) 21:44, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


Vandalism! ARRRG-HH!!! —the mere mention of it gets my dander up ;-) —I can appreciate the concern since I work on the CVU project. I do, however, try to monitor my top few dozen articles daily for nefarious changes, any would eventually notice a change to the transcluded sections within a reasonable period of time. Thanks anyways. Best: HarryZilber (talk) 01:06, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Rank bias and inaccurate POV against Meucci's contributions to invention of telephone by editors...[edit]

It's blatant POV (not to mention inaccurate) to say that ALL Meucci did was "claim" it..., and nothing else. Congress doesn't share that view. (Also, Bell shared a lab with Meucci, so don't claim that "Meucci's ideas didn't help others"...) To say in the info box that all Meucci did was "claim" invention of the telephone, or that that's all he's really "known" for, is sloppy, inaccurate, biased, and incomplete.

That's called in logic "the fallacy of selective observation". Otherwise known as "cherry-picking the evidence to suit your own agenda." There's enough evidence (and reference sources) to show that Meucci did not just "claim" to invent the telephone but at the very least had a hand in the pioneering of the invention, (patent "caveat" or not...) Again, also, if you look at articles like "History of Telephone" & external reference sources, there's enough "evidence" to show that he was a forerunner & not just "claimed" it. But at the very least was one of the pioneers. This has been established as more than just "opinion". Enough reference sources (external as well as internal) confirm this...Stop the edit warring on this. Thank you. Sweetpoet (talk) 07:58, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, this is what I wrote to your section on Meucci Talk page, in case you miss it...
With all due respect, none of what you wrote above makes any real difference. Or deals with the actual problem that's going on here.
Because the simple bottom line is that to say that all Meucci did or all that he was "known" for was only "claiming" to invent the telephone is simply not accurate, and it is borderline WEASEL WORD-ish and is rank POV...
And I'm not even writing that Meucci was the first to invent the telephone (even though he was...), but simply per WP Policy that he was one of the first to PIONEER in the inventing of it, etc.
to say "all he did was claim to, and his ideas never helped anyone" which flies against MANY reference sources (why not look them up instead of conveniently ignoring them??) is POV and is what is against true WP policy...
it's blatant POV (not to mention inaccurate) to say that ALL Meucci did was "claim" it..., and nothing else.
Congress doesn't share that view. But acknowledges officially Meucci's role as NOT just "claiming" it, but actually working on it, as one of the fore-runners.
(Also, Bell shared a lab with Meucci, so don't claim that "Meucci's ideas didn't help others"...)
to say in the info box that all Meucci did was "claim" invention of the telephone, or that that's all he's really "known" for, is sloppy, inaccurate, biased, and incomplete.
That's called in logic "the fallacy of selective observation". Otherwise known as "cherry-picking the evidence to suit your own agenda."
Also, to say that "none of his ideas helped anyone" in the edit comment is also insane. Because that's NOT the view of congress or of sound scholarship and actual history.
(Bell used the same lab that Meucci used...coincidink?)
There's enough evidence (and reference sources) to show that Meucci did not just "claim" to invent the telephone but at the very least had a hand in the pioneering of the invention, (patent "caveat" or not...) Again, also, if you look at articles like "History of Telephone" & external reference sources, there's enough "evidence" to show that he was a forerunner & not just "claimed" it. But at the very least was one of the pioneers. This has been established as more than just "opinion". Enough reference sources (external as well as internal) confirm this...Stop the edit warring on this. Thank you. Sweetpoet (talk) 08:16, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
my response:
There IS common ground in a sense, because I said very clearly that I'm NOT saying (although I may personally believe it, but that's not relevant), that "Meucci invented the telephone and was the very first to". You don't see my putting that stuff on the article, do you? I'm ONLY doing what Congress itself (which you called "ingenius") has done. Stating that Meucci (which is somewhat verified already, otherwise why would Congress "acknowledge" or craft anything even saying it??) HELPED IN THE PIONEERING OF IT...or was one of the forerunners. That's a CAREFULLY worded and "inferred" statement. You notice, as to your "inferred" point. No?
but this is the thing. To say "known for CLAIMING invention of the telephone" is too loaded in its tone, and is border-line WEASEL word. And that's NOT JUST what Meucci did. He did NOT just solely "claim to invent the telephone" in his whole life !!!!! He worked ARDUOUSLY for years on this stuff.
And look here what a BELL official himself admitted:
Brian Wood, curator of the Bell Homestead Museum in Brantford, was surprised to hear of the resolution.
"If this can be proven, then Meucci certainly deserves recognition as contributing to the realm of telephony," Wood said. "But I don't see it as a huge threat. There may be others all over the world who did similar things but didn't get patented or legally known."
He said that a bit grudgingly obviously, but look at the point. MEUCCI SHOULD BE RECOGNIZED FOR WHAT? HE DIDN'T SAY FOR "SIMPLY CLAIMING TO INVENT THE TELEPHONE". (sighs)......but for his "contributing to the realm of telephony."
and see here what this reporter wrote in 2002:
Historians and Italian-Americans won their battle to persuade Washington to recognise a little-known mechanical genius, Antonio Meucci, as a father of modern communications, 113 years after his death.
The vote by the House of Representatives prompted joyous claims in Meucci's homeland that finally Bell had been outed as a perfidious Scot who found fortune and fame by stealing another man's work.
Calling the Italian's career extraordinary and tragic, the resolution said his "teletrofono", demonstrated in New York in 1860, made him the inventor of the telephone in the place of Bell, who had access to Meucci's materials and who took out a patent 16 years later.
(there seems to be a difference of view of whether Bell used the same lab that Meucci used.....you call it a "lie", but why should I believe you when you seem very biased against Meucci, and pro-Bell?)
check this out carefully:
When Meucci's wife, Ester, became paralysed he rigged a system to link her bedroom with his neighbouring workshop and in 1860 held a public demonstration which was reported in New York's Italian-language press.
In between giving shelter to political exiles, Meucci struggled to find financial backing, failed to master English and was severely burned in an accident aboard a steamship.
Forced to make new prototype telephones after Ester sold his machines for $6 to a secondhand shop, his models became more sophisticated. An inductor formed around an iron core in the shape of a cylinder was a technique so sophisticated that it was used decades later for long-distance connections.
Meucci could not afford the $250 needed for a definitive patent for his "talking telegraph" so in 1871 filed a one-year renewable notice of an impending patent. Three years later he could not even afford the $10 to renew it.
He sent a model and technical details to the Western Union telegraph company but failed to win a meeting with executives. When he asked for his materials to be returned, in 1874, he was told they had been lost. Two years later Bell, who shared a laboratory with Meucci, filed a patent for a telephone, became a celebrity and made a lucrative deal with Western Union.
Meucci sued and was nearing victory - the supreme court agreed to hear the case and fraud charges were initiated against Bell - when the Florentine died in 1889. The legal action died with him.
Please, with all due respect...spare me this NONSENSE that "Meucci's ideas didn't help anyone", as the other editor arrogantly inaccurately wrote in his edit comment days ago.
And also your fixation on "pre-1875" this or that. SOMETIMES FACTS COME TO LIGHT LATER ON...so your dogmatic thing on the "pre-1875" is just that.....DOGMATIC. And not all that reasonable. WP policy can sometimes be interpreted various ways.....my friend. And if there's been new info and facts and evidence unveiled (whether certain biased parties want to ignore those facts "selective observation") then the neurotic fixation of "pre-1875" is not all that meaningful.
Also, again, Meucci was very poor, and simply didn't have the means to bring everything out in the open at the time. (Bell had more money, and that's just a fact.) DIDN'T MEAN MEUCCI DIDN'T CREATE AND DO CERTAIN IMPORTANT AND REMARKABLE THINGS IN THIS MATTER.
anyway, again, the point is this: saying that all Meucci is known for is simply "claiming to invent the telephone" reeks of bias and is just incomplete. He WORKED on making a proto-type telephone apparatus that utilized electricity. And there's real evidence to show and prove that. Not just "opinion" or "supposition". And more than just "claims". Meucci was at the very least, objectively, caveat or not, a PIONEER in that whole thing. Not just some clown who simply "claimed" it with no basis. Thank you. Sweetpoet (talk) 05:01, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


Note to Sweetpoet and readers: all replies to the above are posted on the Talk: Antonio Meucci article webpage, accessible via this link. HarryZilber (talk) 17:14, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


Ok, that's fine, bro. I'm glad you agree to some extent. If something more neutral and fair can be put in there, that would be good. By the way, I have to say though (lol) that in your other comment you said that Congress's wording was a work of "genius"....NOW you say that it's "not a reliable source." (You have to see my point with that, Harry...) But I do agree with you in a way. Congress is about politics more than about facts. LOL.... So it's fine. I was just making the point that even though Congress may not be 100% reliable, it's not likely they would acknowledge Meucci with absolutely zero basis at all. Congress WENT by other sources, that would be considered a bit more "reliable".
But anyway, my friend, if you can edit the info box with something a little more understandable and factual as well as "verifiable", then it's cool. We have to believe, as I said, that Antonio did more than simply "claim" this or that, and nothing else his whole life. The guy worked like a DOG on this stuff (partly because of his wife's paralysis, etc), for YEARS. We can't overlook that. I think Bell was brilliant too, by the way. But Meucci did some important work as well. Anyway, hopefully we'll find some good wording in the article.....peace out. Sweetpoet (talk) 20:46, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Japan–Korea Undersea Tunnel[edit]

Hello Harry,

I'm Rebmat de Marseille, the translator in French language of the article Japan–Korea Undersea Tunnel. Thank you for your message, it was a pleasure to work on this translation, because the subject is very interesting, cause I like this kind of big technology project! Unfortunately, I don't know any russian translator who can help you in a translation. I hope you will find someone quickly!

Regards.

Rebmat (talk) 14:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Michaëlle Jean[edit]

There is no Canadian date format. The official rules are that either American or British date formats may be used. Many editors have pointed-out that American date formats are most common. The overarching rule with dates in Canadian articles is that format in which the article existed after ceasing to be a stub should be the format in which it remains. In Talk:David Lloyd Johnston, an editor admitted that he changed the format to British. This change was just over a year ago. The article was in originally was American date format. I wasn't going to make the change until consensus was reached, but I will follow the anon's lead and keep it in the correct format. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:27, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Walter, thanks for your insight above. Of coarse, my comment on 'Canadian date style' reflects the fact that the Canadian federal government and provinces officially follow the British date style, hence 'Canadian' style.
Regarding the use of a Canadian/British date style for the GG, I would like to point out that that those articles present an exception to the normal WP date style rules, which state:
"In June 2005, the Arbitration Committee decided that, when either of two styles is acceptable, it is inappropriate for an editor to change an article from one to the other without substantial reason; for example, with respect to British date formats as opposed to American it would be acceptable to change from American format to British if the article concerned a British subject."
While an article started with an American date format on an average Canadian would keep its American style, the GG, as the Queen's personal representative to Canada, is viewable as a British subject, although he/she may or may not hold British citizenship (many have in the past). In the particular case of Governor Generals and Lieutenant Governors, they act as regal viceroys (a royal official who runs a country or province in the name of and as representative of the monarch) and should be considered British subjects. For the sake of consistency, I suggest that all such articles maintain British/Canadian date styles, IMHO. Best: HarryZilber (talk) 15:19, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Japan–Korea Undersea Tunnel[edit]

Thanks for your message. These days, my Japanese isn't good enough to check the article for you anymore. I would suggest asking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan, as you should be able to find better translators there. Good luck! howcheng {chat} 00:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Sign language[edit]

First let me say I believe your reverts are done in good faith. And let me preface my comments by stating that there are some articles I never edit because I know just enough to misunderstand but not enough to know what I'm doing. Unfortunately, that kind of editing occurs too often on Wikipedia, and this article is a prime example. Now, to the issue at hand. If someone removed from "See also" equivalent links from the article English language, such terms such as grunt, moan, or giggle, it is almost certainly would not be challenged. That's because most people understand that English is a langauge, and these terms, though forms of communication, have little to do with the language. That often is not the case with sign language articles. There are a number of reasons for this. One is simply that many people fail to realize that sign languages are legitimate languages with their own syntax and grammar, as has been shown definitively by linguists. Thus the assumption (often done with the best of intentions but with little knowledge) is that any form of nonverbal communication (such as gestures) are relevant to sign languages. After all, the thinking goes, deaf people making pictures with their hands is about the same as you and me pointing and gesturing. A deeper, much more subtle reason has to do with misconceptions about deafness itself. "Deaf and dumb" is a term that sadly persists to this day. They can't hear, so they can't talk, so they don't have language, so they're dumb.

It is not the case that almost any term that has to do with nonverbal communication is relevant to this article. One utterly ridiculous example is "Braille". Braille is simply a method of transcribing a language. It is not "the language of the blind". "Chinese number gestures" or "gestures" are not any more relevant to sign language than "grunt" or "moan" would be to the English language article. I even considered removing animal language because attempts to teach animals American Sign Language have never been proven to actually be use of language by animals; but at least the concept is based on a language, unlike the other items that I removed. The bottom line is, to allow such irrelevant terms in sign language articles but remove them without question in articles pertaining to spoken languages makes that assumption (perhaps subconsciously) that these aren't real languages, or that they're not really like spoken languages.

I'm reverting one more time, with no intention to edit war and with no intended offense toward you. If you wish to have it changed, please provide unequivocal evidence on the artilce's talk page that such terms are as relevant to sign language as terms such as "moan" or "giggle" would be relevant to an article such as English language. Otherwise, please seek consensus on this (now) controversial issue. Thanks. Cresix (talk) 19:16, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Cresix, while the editorial process you've just described is valid for the body of the article, the tight rules you've created are doing a disservice to the lay readers looking for ancillary forms of human and other communication. Specifically I don't believe you're in conformance to Wikipedia's editorial policy that I pointed to in my earlier edit summary: WP:Also, which states, amongst other things:
"Links included in the "See also" section may be useful for readers seeking to read as much about a topic as possible, including subjects only peripherally related to the one in question."
Nobody is claiming within the article body that gestures, braille, etc... are the equivalent of signed languages, but the section we're discussing here is meant to allow lay readers to broaden their scope of readings, including topics only tangentially related to the article, as discussed in the noted Wikipedia MOS layout guide. Its quite apparent that you'd like to improve the article's quality, which is commendable, however since signed languages, braille, gestures and body language are all forms of human communication, your stance is being counterproductive to the intent of the 'See also' section, which, again, is to allow lay readers to increase their overall scope of their knowledge, IMHO.
Anyways, keep up your good work. Best: HarryZilber (talk) 20:08, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. I understand your points (I believe), but I would have to disagree that I have created "tight rules", or at least no tighter than those that shape the articles on spoken langauges. What I think would be most convincing to me would be an explanation about the terms that would not be allowed in articles on spoken languages. I have examined a number of them, and I fail to see any such terms. "Braille" would apply equally well to many languages because there are Braille (or equivalents) for many languages; a notable exception would be there is no Braille equivalent for sign languages (that I know of), even though methods of transcribing sign languages have been developed. If I've missed something please let me know. BTW, some of the items that I removed I feel are more deserving of removal than others. If you think some are more important to include than others, I'm always open to discussion. Thanks for this discussion. Cresix (talk) 20:19, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Here's an offer: the article on Spoken language now also includes more inclusive See also links to: Body language, Braille, Gestures and Sign language, etc... How about restoring some of them (your choice) to the Sign language article as well? I don't believe for an instant that they'll denigrate the article in the least, and will help show an open-minded spirit. Best: HarryZilber (talk) 21:01, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
I restored Body language, Braille, and Gestures. The one that makes the least sense of those is Braille, but no need to split hairs. Thanks for the civil discussion. Cresix (talk) 21:33, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Whitespace[edit]

Yes I agree memory costs are irrelevant, and indeed SmackBot/AWB do add white space (including before the category block, but only one line, and two before stub templates for formatting reasons) as well as remove it. As a small monitor user myself I often have only a dozen or less lines to edit in (and more people are using mobile devices now so there is probably much company) and I find the opposite of what you say. The figures for article space which I last collected on 22 June are:
   * Spaces in header 2,246,272
   * No spaces in header 10,398,391
   * Blank line after header 1,417,076
   * No blank line after header 10,713,717
indicating preference for less white space after and within headers (I did not check blank lines before headers but I would estimate over 99%). Nonetheless SmackBot does not currently make these changes on a regular basis, I suspect that the one you noticed is due to the list following. I will check further. Thanks for your note. Rich Farmbrough, 15:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC).
P.S. SmackBot also has 650,000 edits on RuneScape Wikia, so it is not as idle as you might think! Rich Farmbrough, 15:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC).
P.P.S. You might want to collapse the archive contents at the top, I navigated right off the end of the world using them. Rich Farmbrough, 15:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC).

TIN CAN PHONE[edit]

Hi Larry,

I wasn't indeed using Wikipedia as a promotional tool in any way shape or form. If you'll notice that when you do a Google search for the term Tin Can Phone, the top two positions(above Wikipedia) are for the band Tin Can Phone. And with this in mind it is important to give Wikipedia visitors a full understanding of the modern term "tin can phone".

Princeton University describes an Encyclopedia as the following:

a reference work (often in several volumes) containing articles on various topics (often arranged in alphabetical order) dealing with the entire range of human knowledge or with some particular specialty

Would you not consider the band Tin Can Phone part of the entire range of human knowledge on the topic "tin can phone"?

Looking forward to your response,

Matt —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrsideshow (talkcontribs) 16:43, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Matt/Mrsidewhow: I'll AGF that you're a new contributor unfamiliar with Wikipedia's editorial procedures. Irregardless of what definitions you'd like to use, you're still required to follow Wikipedia's policies if you'd like to be a contributor, meaning that you need to respect the organization's rules, including the ones that prohibit advertising.
In order to better contribute to Wikipedia, please acquaint your self with topics found here. Best: HarryZilber (talk) 02:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: Removal of section heading blank lines and spaces[edit]

Hi Piotrus: I'd like to point out that your AutoEd changes to articles, such as this one in Telegraphy are actually regressive, making it harder for other editors with small monitors to properly edit in a cluttered edit box, as well as presenting issues for various spell checkers. Please refer to this MOS guideline on blank spacing/blank lines which states:

• Spaces between the == and the heading text are optional (==H2== is equivalent to == H2 ==). These extra spaces will not affect the way the the heading is displayed to readers; however, in the edit window, the spaces tend to be more compatible with browser spell-checking software.
• A blank line below the heading is optional; but do include one blank line above the heading, for readability in the edit window. (Only two or more blank lines above or below will add more white space in the public appearance of the page.)

Many years ago software writers habitually removed blank spacing due to the ancient very high cost of memory, which also resulted in the systemic removal of '19' from years stored in memory (e.g.: 1967 stored as only '67', thus saving two bytes). In the present day with ultra-low cost memory available, such byte-saving techniques are trumped by the need for more accurate, stress-free editing (and I'm willing to donate more to WP to that end!). I hope you'll be able to assist with improving Wikipedia's articles in this respect by allowing blank space and blank line insertions to persist. Best: HarryZilber (talk) 14:03, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


Interesting. Is it an AutoEd bug? I'd also suggest that MoS is updated to support your variant, as it seems to me it should indeed be preferred. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 15:18, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
I suggest you bring this up at Wikipedia:AutoEd as there are likely hundreds of editors using this tool and removing those spaces. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 15:58, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

No offense was intended[edit]

Please see my response here. It was a formatting error on my part, but nothing more; I was at work at the time, typing my responses in Lotus Notes and copying and pasting to Wikipedia. It's half a sentence - it doesn't even make any sense. I don't know what might be considered offensive about it, it's so random. I'd appreciate it if you would remove that whole tangent, as it derails the relevant discussion. It was just a technical error. Kafziel Complaint Department 17:28, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Retraction done at the ANI page, including your explanation below my remark –I'll AGF that the noted text appended to my post was an inadvertent cut-and-paste error that bizarrely also appeared to comment on English not being my first language. Best: HarryZilber (talk) 01:31, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the understanding. As far as I know we've never interacted before, and there was certainly nothing in your message to me to hint that English wasn't your first language. I had no idea; it truly was a bizarre coincidence. Kafziel Complaint Department 03:22, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Georg Rosen[edit]

Hi Harry, good work! I would not be able to write it just as well. Only the exact meaning of the German Spiegel article was not exactly the same. Rosen advocated to enable again a few German Rhodes scholars at the Oxford University. I've changed it but perhaps not in correct English. Feel free to improve it. Best --Henrig (talk) 21:50, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Hallo Henrig, vielen Dank für Ihre Unterstützung bei der Korrektur der Absatz in der Oxford Rhode Scholars. Wie Sie sehen können, sind meine Kenntnisse der deutschen Sprache nur funktionell mit Hilfe von Herrn Google-Übersetzer. Rosen war eine sehr bemerkenswerte Thema, nicht nur wegen seiner humanitären Aktionen, sondern weil er beharrte noch in seiner Position mit dem deutschen Auswärtigen Amt trotz fast sicher zu wissen, über die Verfolgung von Menschen aus seiner jüdischen Herkunft in seinem Heimatland. In jedem Fall, unabhängig von seiner Religion zu der Zeit war, wurden seine Aktionen ähnlich der von Oskar Schindler, daß er wahrscheinlich sah alle Menschen als gleich und würdig Verfolgung, egal, was seine offizielle Politik der Partei diktiert.
Ich möchte den Artikel über Herrn Rosen weiter ausbauen, aber ich habe wenig Informationen, die im Internet veröffentlicht wird. Wenn Sie mehr Material über Georg Rosen, die im Web angezeigt werden können finden, seien Sie bitte so freundlich, mich mit dem Homepage-Adresse für sie bereitzustellen. Wenn ich erkennen kann, die britischen und amerikanischen Universitäten er lehrte, könnte mehr Biographie von ihnen erhalten werden. Mit freundlichen Grüßen: HarryZilber (talk) 15:34, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi Harry, thank you. Unfortunately there seems not to be very much direct readable on the internet. With 'Georg Rosen' you find by Google primarely infos about the film or also about several books by his grandfather with the same name. But perhaps this Google link delivers some valuable readable information. It seems a few of these books have readable previews. Perhaps you can find with other keywords some more information too. Best --Henrig (talk) 20:32, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Grammar and Michaëlle Jean[edit]

Apparently the article's owner doesn't like your change. I agree that the previous wording was awkward although not grammatically incorrect. I don't want to get into an edit war over this, but I'm fairly certain that's not the case with other editors of that page. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:54, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for alerting me to the situation you just pointed to. I haven't had such a good laugh looking at edit reverts in a very long time! Best: HarryZilber (talk) 04:07, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Jesus Christ[edit]

Why am I blasphemous for saying Jesus Christ? LOL cmon. Inappropriate maybe, but "blasphemous" should not be your reason for warning me or whatever. Jesus Christ! 76.98.237.76 (talk) 19:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

You may not consider such remarks as offensive in the same manner that you consider it appropriate to substitute Ayn Rand's photo with a photo of a petri dish of sperm –however many other people likely do, and they will probably continue to post violation notices against your user page resulting in your blockage. HarryZilber (talk) 19:59, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

AT&T[edit]

The AT&T page is semiprotected for now; this is generally a better solution than repeated blocks for an mobile-IP vandal. Soap 16:32, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Refspam in Pragmatics article[edit]

Thank you very much for comment in User talk. Smartse!

Additionally here is my comment to support "Free" encyclopedia not to mutate into "brave new worrld": In the last 25 years I developed the theory of communivative nature (Life: The Communicative Structure, 2000) or as it is called theory of biocommunication. Meanwhile it is applied to biological investigations of bacteria, archaea, viruses, plants, fungi, animals such as bees and corals and helpfull in investigations on genes, epigenetic imprinting, non-coding RNAs, gene regulation, genome formatting, telomeres, telomerases etc. The only available book on Biocommunication and Natural Genome Editing has been published peer-reviewed in Springer Science Media in 2010 and deals with all these fields of research. I integrated this publication to Wikipedia sites to give information to students and interested persons. Now this book and several other items I added in an objective and neutral way has been removed from biocommunication- Wikipedia page. This seems curious. Removers stated, that the insertion of this book to various sites is a kind of refspam and doesn’t have any relevance to the topics of these pages. This is not correct. If they would have read this books they will see that all is correct. I doubt that removing persons will change their belief states even if rational arguments are available. So this great idea of wikipedia the „free“ encylopedia turnes more and more into „brave new world“ and mind police. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ynaztiw (talkcontribs) 12:01, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

William James Wanless GA review[edit]

I've posted a GA review for William James Wanless. The GA nomination is currently on hold until issues identified are resolved. LK (talk) 03:44, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your GA review of the article. I have now corrected the licence category of the photo I inserted. Best: HarryZilber (talk) 15:02, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


Telectroscope[edit]

I am sorry to have diffirent opinion about vandalizing this mentioned article. Does article say how that device work? No! What I added was solid fact, nothing more. It just happened to lower credibility of wikipedia so you decided to make me bad guy. Judging my action vandalism is really not fair. You have power, so do not get crazy about it...

-Atso —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.221.173.142 (talk) 16:15, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Atso (User:80.221.173.142): When you wrote in the very first sentence of the article's lede "It is sad to say, but this article does not really tell how this device work", you committed at least two errors, the most important one being that ALL comments on whether or not an article is of good or poor quality, and how to improve the article, are placed on the DISCUSSION PAGE (which you access by the 'Discuss This Article' link on the left side, or the 'Discussion' tab at the top). Please NEVER add such comments directly into the article, because they are considered vandalism by Wikipedia's editors.
Secondly, you also ignored the very first sentence of the article, which said: "The telectroscope (also referred to as 'electroscope') was the first non-working prototype". The reason there's no description of how the telectroscope worked is that it didn't work. It was only a conceptual, or theoretical model, of how to provide a televised image, as opposed to the concept of magical looking glasses. The development of electronically produced images and video would require more than twenty years of basic scientific discoveries before television technology could even start to be developed. Also refer to the later section "Further developments", which states that the telectroscope likely never existed, meaning that it was a fictional device, akin to science fiction, when it was described in 1878.
I have downgraded my vandalism warning on your user page to a caution, and I ask that you read the introductory material on how to write, and improve, Wikipedia articles. Thank you. HarryZilber (talk) 16:59, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Selection of Today's Featured Article (TFA)[edit]

[copied from user_talk:Raul654's page]

Request For Comment: Can the English Wikipedia's selection process for TFA article's for its homepage be improved to allow a greater selection of non-Anglosphere articles compared to the number of Anglosphere articles currently being utilized. HarryZilber (talk) 19:21, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Raul's talk page is not the place for an RFC on this: please move it to WT:TFAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:30, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Agreed, and better yet wait a week or two, we're kinda busy right now.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:42, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Previous discussion

Hi Raul654.... First I wanted to commend you for your significant contribution to WP's works by coordinating the selection of the TFAs on the English WP. You may have covered this topic previously, however I wasn't able to find it searching your archives, although this thread related to 'White bias' is somewhat along a similar vein. My suggestion below isn't related to the technical F/A selection criteria, which is fairly well laid out and valid, but I'm querying if WP (in this case meaning you and/or your assistants, if you have any) can update its selection process to include a greater selection of non-Anglo-Saxon topics.

Not having done the requisite stats (shame on me), I'll posit some fictitious numbers for the point of illustration –there are, for the TFAs, perhaps:

  • Category 'A': 5-10% of the Today's Featured Articles of a general scientific or technical nature or topic, such as a moth genus, a notable cosmic star system, a computer game or an aspect of medical science —all well and good....
  • Category 'B': 70-75% of the TFAs related to subjects of Anglo-Saxon origin, such as U.S., British, etc.. politicians, military leaders and battles, or historical events, locations and other personalities within the Anglo-Saxon group of nations (i.e., the Anglosphere of the U.S., U.K, English-speaking Commonwealth countries, etceteras....), and
  • Category 'C': 15-20% of the TFAs related to subjects of non-Anglosphere origin, which are also outside of Category 'A'.

Since the Today's Featured Article on the English Wikipedia is (IMHO) likely one of the most important aspects of WP's collective works by reason of it having such a significant impact on our readership, I'm suggesting that to further our goal of helping the world to share in the sum of all knowledge, its categories shift to a more equal percentage of 'B' and 'C' type TFAs. I believe the net effect would be to engender a greater world view that would be less Anglo-Saxon-centric. I base this personal opinion on the fact that I've gained great amounts of knowledge from reading the TFA articles that have been presented daily, however if you look at the plausible percentages offered above for the three categories, it appears that the increases in knowledge I've gained are largely related to Anglosphere topics.

There's an abundance of well written non-Anglo-Saxon articles within the English Wikipedia; however for whatever reasons they don't appear to be nominated with a frequency as great as the Anglosphere articles, which I believe does a disservice to great numbers of lay readers looking at the English homepage daily. Putting aside any suggestions of deliberate or unconscious bias, can we improve on the TFAs as a matter of policy, such as categorizing the TFA nominations and then selecting a more equal ratio of 'B' and 'C' category articles? I'd like to tap your opinions/comments on such a proposal prior to raising it on another venue. Best: HarryZilber (talk) 18:06, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Raul has only a limited number of articles to choose from; if you have something in mind you'd like to see, go to WP:TFAR and nominate it. You have these to choose from; the "abundance of well written non-Anglo-Saxon articles" is nowhere near as abundant as you seem to think, and Raul generally does a pretty good job in balancing the articles we feature. – iridescent 18:24, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes. Raul can only choose from the featured articles he has. It's up to everyone else, including, well, you Harryzilber, to write them so he has a greater choice. So head for the library, please.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:43, 1 November 2010 (UTC
Agreed that Raul's doing a pretty good job, but I believe the category stats speak for themselves. The fact that there are more Anglospheric Featured Articles than non-Anglospheric articles to choose from is not a surprise, since most contributors are usually going to write on topics they're most comfortable or knowledgeable with, and likely most, or many editors on the English WP are not very knowledgeable on non-Anglospheric subjects. What I'm looking for is more systemic that suggesting I or another editor head to the library and put noses to the grindstone: what mechanisms can be created to enhance the selection of non-Anglospheric articles to choose from for the TFA pick list?
In a regular commercial reference work, the Britannica for example, there's likely a managing editor who reviews the overall encyclopaedia content and then says: "Hey! We need more Asian/African/Uzebisanian/, etc... content. Get more of those types of editors into our organization, and also assign Bennings, Keetch and Clarke to work on them as well....". We being a non-profit don't have that option, so we need to be more creative on how to achieve a better balance of articles for the TFA. HarryZilber (talk) 19:58, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Please move this to WT:TFAR; I do not intend to respond until the discussion is moved to the appropriate place. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:00, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we can let Raul654 make that call when he's back online, since its his page. HarryZilber (talk) 20:10, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

There's an abundance of well written non-Anglo-Saxon articles within the English Wikipedia; however for whatever reasons they don't appear to be nominated with a frequency as great as the Anglosphere articles - I think you are massively overestimating the abundance of well-written non-anglophile articles. The fact is there just aren't all that many of them that are featured, and until and unless someone comes up with a solution, there's not a whole lot I can do about it. Raul654 (talk) 07:05, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Point taken; the obvious solution would appear to be a project that enhances the quality of non-anglophile articles so that there would be many more of them for you to choose from when selecting TFAs. Best: HarryZilber (talk) 05:52, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Bell Telephone Memorial[edit]

[copied from User talk:Labattblueboy

Hi Labattblueboy: I was a bit surprized when I checked the 700px. rendering of the Alexander Graham Bell Brantford Monument 0.98.jpg image on an IE browser, and found that the horizontal scroll bar was missing, thus leaving the right hand portion of the image off-screen and unviewable at various browser aspect/zoom ratios. That doesn't appear to happen on the latest Firefox browser, thankfully. However in one of your past edit summaries you've referred to 'line breaking' which I haven't seen on a Windows platform, so I'm wondering if you're seeing that issue on Leopard or Unix.

As the monument's photo, as prepared by the Brantford Heritage department, is one of the most elegant memorial photos I've seen—I obviously don't get around much—it would be of great benefit to those interested in the subject to view it in its widescreen version. I propose downsizing the image to 450-500 pixels width to avoid the line breaking that you're observing, and would like your comments on this suggested work-a-round, or are the aesthetics of a wide image also a concern for you? Best: HarryZilber (talk) 15:14, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

When viewed on a mac platform the image size created line breaks, particularly when there was two. Generally images are not force sized, especially with so little text (WP:IMGSIZE, MOS:IMAGES) and to such a size. I don't really see the value in having the image larger than thumb size. This isn't a case where detail is significantly gained in doing so. The likeness of Knowledge, Joy, Sorrow and the female pair of Humanity would only be clear if cropped and displayed separately (see Canadian National Vimy Memorial as an example of such). Rather unfortunately, there isn’t the space to do so currently.--15:50, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
I moved the image into the infobox as to permit it to be displayed at 300px, without issue.--Labattblueboy (talk) 15:52, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for moving it into the infobox which I unsuccessfully tried a few times, but was unable to deduce the correct parameters at the time. Best: HarryZilber (talk) 16:35, 23 November 2010 (UTC

WikiLeaks[edit]

Which talkpage section are you referring to? Closest I can find is this, which isn't about the hatnote specifically. The current "hatnote" is article content (specifically, explanation of the name) masquerading as a hatnote. It's not serving a disambiguatory function. --Cybercobra (talk) 19:32, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Cybercobra: the section Not to be confused with... discussed the need for a hatnote. As further anecedotal, I discussed Wikipedia with an acquaintance on Monday who believed that it was related to Wikileaks. Given the strong similarity between names, and even the practice of some of the press to truncate the names to just 'Wiki', the current hatnote provides a brief, important clarification to lay readers. HarryZilber (talk) 03:00, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Pedro II and Bell[edit]

Hi, Harry. Are you sure that Pedro II and Bell were friends? Is that what the source said? Regards, --Lecen (talk) 16:44, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Lecen: I only quoted one source for brevity. There was an initial visit several months earlier by Dom Pedro to the school for the deaf that Bell operated in Boston, where Bell espoused his philosophy of aural instruction for young deaf children. Upon seeing Bell at the Philadelphia World Fair, Dom Pedro (one of the exhibition's judges) exclaimed to Bell (who had made a completely unplanned visit to the fair): "What are you doing here?!!". Dom Pedro's excitement at hearing the invention 'speak' in English and Portuguese in front of a large media crowd was pivotal to the acceptance of the telephone, earning it a gold medal at the fair. His reactions to Bell and the awards he granted to him, including a contract for the purchase of 100 telephones, are cited in several independent sources, and I'm quite positive that further letters between them can be cited or located at the Library of Congress in the Bell Family Collection. Best: HarryZilber (talk) 17:30, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that episode is very well known. But did you read the sentence? It is mentioning intelectuals who became actually friends of Pedro II. There were many others, such as Bell, whom he met but who relationship never evolved to a friendship. I plan to mention their relationship in Apogee of Pedro II of Brazil. --Lecen (talk) 21:25, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Much of the LOC's Bell Family Papers remains undigitized and thus unviewable except in person in Washington. However there are other supporting references, including:

  • Horace Coon, American Tel & Tel: the story of a great monopoly, Ayer Publishing, 1971, p.24, ISBN 0836956915, ISBN 9780836956917. Quote: ""On a hot Sunday afternoon, June 25th, Sir William Thompson (later Lord Kelvin) and many other distinguished guests inspected the exhibits. Few paid much attention to Bell, tinkering with his crude instruments. At last the party approached his booth. Among them was Dom Pedro de Alcantara, the Emperor of Brazil. He had met Bell a few weeks previously in Boston and spoke to him as an old friend."
  • Stephanie Sammartino McPherson & Tad Butler. Alexander Graham Bell, Lerner Publications, 2007, p.28, ISBN 0822576066, ISBN 9780822576068. Quote: "Dom Pedro had met Alec at a school for the deaf in Boston. When the emperor greeted Alec, the judges took note. The wanted to see what the emperor's friend had invented."
  • Fernando Henrique Cardoso. The Accidental President of Brazil: A Memoir, PublicAffairs, 2007, p.11, ISBN 158648429X, ISBN 9781586484293. Quote: "The centerpiece of the emperor's trip was the Centennial Exposition in Philadelphia. There, Dom Pedro II sought out a young, relatively obscure teacher at the School of the Deaf named Alexander Graham Bell, with whom he had exchanged letters."
  • Edgar C. Wheeler. The Laughed at Him, But He Gave Us the Telephone, Popular Science, Bonnier Corporation, February 1926, Vol. 108, No. 2, p. 21, ISSN 0161-7370. Quote: "But just then there happened an amazing thing. Into the room walked Dom Pedro, the Emperor, followed by his retinue. With arms outstretched he strode straight to the young inventor. "Professor Bell", he exclaimed, "I am delighted to see you!""

and also:

  • Huurdeman, Anton A. "The Worldwide History of Telecommunications", Wiley-IEEE, 2003, ISBN 0471205052. Quote: "....it was around seven o'clock when the 50-person delegation of judges, scientists, reporters and other officals arrived at the Department of Education. Tired and hungry, they hardly looked at the telephone, made some jokes at Bell's expense, and wanted to leave the exhibition quickly when suddenly, Dom Pedro II, Emperor of Brazil from 1840 to 1889, with his wife Empress Theresa and a bevy of courtiers, entered the room. Dom Pedro recognized Bell and exclaimed "Professor Bell, I am delighted to see you again!" The judges at once forgot their tiredness and wondered who this young inventor was who was a friend of an emperor. Dom Pedro had once visited Bell's class of deaf-mutes at Boston University and initiated the first Brazilian school for deaf-mutes in Rio de Janeiro.".... ....The judges stayed the next three hours with Bell. Bell's telephone became the star of the centennial...."

If need be, I can add these cites to the article until more correspondence between the two can be located. Best: HarryZilber (talk) 05:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC). Addendum: HarryZilber (talk) 02:36, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

There was no need for that many sources. But thank you very much! Regards, --Lecen (talk) 11:19, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Merry, merry[edit]

Bzuk (talk) 16:43, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Happy, happy[edit]

Happy New Year, and all the best to you and yours! (from warm Cuba) Bzuk (talk) 15:36, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Please Explain (American Telephone and Telegraph)[edit]

On the "American Telephone and Telegraph" page, you marked my edits as vandalism for simply changing the order of telephone and talegraph. I do not understand this, as that is the correct order of the original company name according to various high school history books and the words of an AT&T employee for 40 years. Please explain to mw how this is vandalism. Thank You —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.62.17.208 (talk) 20:36, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

While you can be excused if you made an honest mistake in believing that the name was reversed, it is still up to you, per Wikipedia's policy requirements, that when you add to or revise factual information in an article you must add a reference to a reliable written source backing up your information. In this case a cursory check couldn't find a source to back up your claim that the company name was actually "American Telegraph and Telephone". Your lack of a reference and your lack of an edit summary for your change, which is also a Wikipedia requirement, were the principle reasons that your name change was viewed as vandalism. Kindly now supply a reference to a reliable printed source to back up your claim on the company's name being reversed. HarryZilber (talk) 04:56, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
As you otherwise have no record of vandalism edits, I have removed the Only Warning and replaced it with a caution to provide references to a reliable source when making edits in future. HarryZilber (talk) 20:50, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Happy 10th Anniversary of Wikipedia![edit]

Food for thought, knowledge for change[edit]

[suggestion to WM]

Here's a suggestion on a possible new fundraising source that may be both practical and able to generate significant funds, submitted for consideration.

Aside from the annual fundraising drive which appeals to many Wikipedians, its entirely possible to have a separate benefactor donation system linked to every article page. It would permit readers of Wikipedia articles to make payments to both the contributors of an article, and to Wikipedia itself.

I'd recommend involving an electronic payment company such as PayPal, Visa, Matercard, Amex... (companies which I have no employment relationship with) to administer the actual processing of payments. I would imagine that such a company might provide the electronic payment processing for Wikimedia on a pro bono, or at cost basis since it would likely not involve a great deal of effort on their part because it would use their existing infrastructures.

The Wikipedia encyclopaedias have several stakeholders -let's reward the two principals. I believe this would benefit both Wikimedia and the quality of the articles at the same time. The two most important stakeholders are, naturally, Wikimedia, which runs and enables the entire organization, and the editor/contributors who both create and upgrade the encyclopedia articles. One system can benefit both stakeholders, and at the same time provide a greater motivation for expansion of articles and their depth.

New donation system

1) Donation system processor: a donation processing agreement is coordinated with a company such as PayPal. The processor would receive the payments from readers, aggregate them and then bill them monthly to the readers that volunteer to make such payments. As per the procedure schedule and furmula, the payments would be made to both the registered-contributors/editors and to Wikimedia itself.

2) Enrolement of donators: the Wikipedia encyclopedia would offer readers, via a hyperlink, the opportunity to register themselves for microdonations, and then make such donations while reading its articles. Registration of benefactors would be handled by the processing organization, which would obtain valid credit card or bank account information from those wishing to donate. Doubtlessly, many readers have been impressed by broad scope of articles available, and by the depth and quality of many individual articles. Lets allow such readers the opportunity to provide a modest award to the article's contributors and to Wikimedia at the same time. The range of donations can be set with minimum/maximum limits: in U.S. currency, perhaps 5 cents at the minimum, and perhaps $1 at the maximum, per article, that the reader wishes to award. For simplicity, such donations would be tax exempt: no formal donation paperwork would be issued regarding donations for income tax purposes.

If a reader found an article compelling and educationally satisfying to him/herself, the reader could click on a micropayment hyperlink button to make a payment, either for a default amount or another amount within the min/max range. After confirmation, that payment data would be registered with the payment processor. At the end of the month, the payment processor would aggregate the donations and bill the benefactors' registered credit cards or other accounts. Ex: if a casual reader read 20 quality articles in a month, and donated perhaps 10 cents for each one, that person would be billed exactly $2.00 on his or her credit card or other account, paid to both the article's registered editors who wish to receive such payments, and also to Wikimedia.

3) Enrolment of article writers and editors: contributor/editors would be permitted to register themselves if they wish to receive such payments.

  • Payments could be make to valid PayPal, credit card or direct deposit bank accounts.
  • To reduce the operational costs, payments would not be made unless the registered contributor/editors had such accounts, i.e.: no time-consuming or expensive payment methods would be employed, such as mailed cheques.
  • Registration of the editors/contributors would be entirely voluntary; they would receive such payments only if they personally take the time to register themselves.
  • Any such payments would be classified as a contract service: no withholding taxes or other fees would be applied, and it would be up to the contributor/editors to register their own earnings if income taxes were applicable.
  • If a minimal payment transaction fee were required by the payment organization or the bank or credit card company to handle the cost of the payment service, it would be deducted from the payment. If a registered contributor/editor were to receive a payment of $25 and a 15 cent service fee was required to cover the transaction, then he/she would receive a net payment of $24.85. Wikimedia would obviously have the ability to veto the use of any payment service that proposed exorbitant rates for such payment transactions.

4) Payment calculations and assignments: DO NOT AWARD CONTRIBUTORS BY THE NUMBER OF EDITS THEY MADE TO AN ARTICLE THAT HAS RECEIVED DONATIONS! Some contributor/editors (in the 'starving artist' category) would likely change their edit style to inflate the number of edits performed to create or upgrade articles.

a) Award the payments on the basis of the percentage of article's length that the editor has written which has not been reverted. If the hypothetical article 'The History of Pie' was written and upgraded by a total of three award-registered editors, and a combined total of seven unregisterd/IP editors, and if editors A, B and C hypothetically wrote 20%, 15% and 10% respectively of that article, then at the end of the payment period Editor A would be awarded 20% of the aggregated payments collected, Editor B would receive 15%, Editor C would receive 10%, and the remaining 55% of the amounts collected would be awarded to Wikimedia itself.
b) The percentage each individual registered contributor/editor would receive would be calculated by the amount of editorial material he or she contributed, minus any materials reverted by others. If the case of 'The History of Pie', if Editor A had contributed 40% of the article, but 20% of his/her contributions had been reverted due to inaccuracies, then that person's net contribution to that article would be calculated at 40% - 20% = 20%, resulting in an award of 20% of the aggregated collections for that article.

5) Net benefits:

  • Readers who wish to reward article writers for the efforts would now have a vehicle to do so with;
  • Article writers who have a need for some extra funding would be able to receive such payments;
  • Article writers would also be encouraged to create more articles and expand existing ones: exchanging 'knowledge for change';
  • Article writers would be encouraged to improve the quality of their articles, since the greater the quality, the greater the reward. Its exactly like busking: the more you impress and move your target audience, the more change they'll drop in your hat;
  • Many writers will not wish to register themselves to receive such payments; those portions, as well as the portions performed by IP editors will default to Wikimedia. If the hypothetical The History of Pie article receives an aggregate total of $100 in donations in a one month period, and only $45 is awarded to the registered editors, Wikimedia would benefit by receiving the remaining $55 for that article;
  • Finally, a certain percentage of unregistered IP editors may be encouraged to sign up for Wikipedia accounts! Hooray! More registered Wikipedians creates more Wikipedia involvement (hopefully of the positive type)—another plus!

Please contact me if I can be of further help in refining this suggestion. For your consideration, with best regards. HarryZilber (talk) 20:26, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

thank you Mr. Zilber[edit]

Dear Mr. Zilber:

I am realizing this is not an email so much as a new discussion page; alas, this was the quickest way I could find to catch your eye to thank you. I appreciate you noting my proposals and edits, made in good faith if not properly styled. I feel rather honored that you are considering the deletion of an article, which was made with no intent to antagonize the authors. I probably did not put my objections in the correct style, but I will work on that. I have a background in journalism and know A.P. Style, but it's mastering the font and window changes that remains a mystery to me, so I am taking your friendly suggestion to master the style book of Wikipedia.

I guess when you use an resource so often, and you know you have something authentic to contribute (I have a Masters in English and scrape by as a writer), eventually a person can't resist being an editor.

I have a vintage Britannica, but how am I going to find out who played "The Greek" in The Wire without Wikipedia?

Are you soliciting votes for a position? If so let me know how I can help.

Thanks,

Tye Wolfe — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyewolfe (talkcontribs) 00:27, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

BTMC History[edit]

Congratulations with your text on BTMC. May I suggest some minor corrections?

You wrote " It also established the Bell Telephone Company of Belgium (la Compagnie Belge du Téléphone Bell) in 1882, as its Belgian subsidiary". BTMC was founded in 1882 as a manufacturing company. BMTC owned also "la Compagnie Belge du Téléphone Bell". This was an operating company who had a concession to managing parts of the Belgian telephone network, among different others.

You wrote "By the end of the eighteenth century, European governments moved to nationalize their phone companies. The Bell Telephone Manufacturing Antwerp facility was purchased by the Belgian Government" comment : Bell Telephone Manufacturing Antwerp facility was never owned by the Belgian government. The Belgian government purchased the concessions back (or probably the concession were expired?) from the operating company "la Compagnie Belge du Téléphone Bell" and many others.

You wrote "By 1883 Bell was employing 35 people and its workshops were accommodated in a small plant at No. 4 Boudewijnstraat, Brecht, on the outskirts of Antwerp.[1] " Indeed, the plant was at the Boudewijnstraat , but not in Brecht, but in Antwerp (at the south side). Brecht is the town where the first "System 12" was put in service in 1981. (see your ref 1)

Jan Verhelst, co-author of the article about BTMC at www.bobsoldphones.net (your ref 2). Janverhelst (talk) 18:51, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Jan: thanks for bringing these points to my attention to allow for correction. I have implemented your suggested revisions to the text (shown here) and would also appreciate if you could, as time permits, supply citations and page numbers for these items so they could be incorporated into the article.
Given your extensive knowledge and research on European telephony, please also feel free to contribute to this and similar articles in Wikipedia. I would be happy to assist your efforts in this regard if you need any help with editing of materials or formatting. Thanks again, and best: HarryZilber (talk) 22:10, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Meucci and Telecommunication[edit]

Hi Harry, I see you have erased the name of Meucci as inventor of telephon in the article "Telecommunication". I see the name of Meucci was already mentioned in this talk page, so I think you know him. Are you aware about the U.S. Resolution 269 where The United States House of Representatives recognized that legally, "if Meucci had been able to pay the $10 fee to maintain the caveat after 1874, no patent could have been issued to Bell". Please see the Resolution 269 comment at the following link: http://www.thesuperclick.com/1/ANTONIO_MEUCCI/default.aspx

Thank You Virgilio Puglia 20:17, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Virgilio: I understand your concerns. While Meucci was a very capable inventor, there is no contemporary evidence existing before 1876 that he worked on electromagnetic telephones, and it is likely that many of the claims made on his behalf were done so by the lawyers working for the Globe Telephone Company during the 1880s. The article you mentioned above is actually a mirror of this Wikipedia article on Meucci which is also more current and accurate than what you read.
The HRes 269 you refer to has been severely criticized as both inaccurate and biased for many reasons; please see its analysis at: Canadian Parliamentary Motion on Alexander Graham Bell. Best regards: HarryZilber (talk) 00:49, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

a level 4 warning to User talk:198.38.68.5[edit]

I was wondering why you posted a level 4 warning to User talk:198.38.68.5. Considering I had already reverted the only edit made by that user 10 hours previously and issued a warning on that edit. Thanks. GcSwRhIc (talk) 13:14, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi GcSwRhIc: please check carefully and you'll see that it was not a Level 4 warning, but an Only Warning, which is a deliberately vague and forceful means to reinforce the message to vandals that they are being monitored and will face consequences for their actions. I do not request blocks against vandals based only on a violation of an Only Warning, but follow the prescribed blocking protocol; nevertheless the O.W. message frequently has the desired effect. Best: HarryZilber (talk) 16:24, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Blockquotes[edit]

Actually, the MoS does cover this, here, specifically stating that custom font styles should not be used, so I will be reverting your change.

Alteration in the formatting of article prose such as font size, blank space, and color (about which, see #Color coding below) is an issue for the Wikipedia site-wide style sheet and should not be set except in special cases.

Typically, the use of custom font styles within the prose will:

  • reduce consistency, since the text will no longer look uniform;
  • reduce usability, since it might become impossible for people with custom stylesheets (for accessibility reasons, for example) to override it, and it might clash with a different skin as well as inconvenience people with color blindness; and
  • increase arguments, since other Wikipedians may disagree aesthetically with the choice of style.

Yworo (talk) 15:01, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


Jewish settlement in Imperial Japan[edit]

Hello, Harryzilber ! I’ve deleted one resource because of what is discussed below :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_89#Is_Hillel_Levine.27s_biography_of_Chiune_Sugihara_a_reliable_source

Best wishes.Tizizano (talk) 07:21, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Tizizano: the discussion on Levine's book should be located on the Talk Page for Jewish settlement in Imperial Japan, where I have posted my reply. Best: HarryZilber (talk) 19:57, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Harvey Fletcher[edit]

There's an "Edit Note" imbedded in this article which should be dealt with or moved to the Discussion page. I found it by following a link from the Hearing Aid article wherein Fletcher is credited with its invention. I'm not competent to handle this but it looks as if you are! John C Kay (talk) 19:14, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Chernobyl disaster[edit]

New at editing here. Just an observation. On a car ride from the airport to a hearing on the Chernobyl accident, Alvin Weinberg (former director of Oak Ridge National Lab, involved of the desing of the Hanford N-reactor) told me that he'd calculated the energy release from the Chernobyl accident as 300,000 GW-seconds. The article (around citation 30) cites 30 GW as possible energy output from the core around the time of the event. Don't know whether Weinberg's figure was peak or integrated over some period. But it may beat a citation of (who) in the current piece. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hardingjim (talkcontribs) 21:08, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Hardingjim: Dr. Weinberg's discussion with you would be completely irrelevant to Wikipedia unless he published his calculations in a journal or similar work, as per Wikipedia's citation and reliable sources requirements; i.e.: verbal anecdotes are forbidden from these works.
If his analysis has been published and conflicts with the citation your viewed, there's no WP:Reliable restrictions against using both figures as long as they are from reliable sources, e.g. for the prose: "While the X Journal calculated an energy release of 30 GW at the time of the second power surge, another figure several orders of magnitude greater was believed to have occurred, as noted in Y....".
I'm only a casual editor of that article but feel free to posit your notes on the article's Talk page if you're uncomfortable with making such an edit yourself. Best: HarryZilber (talk) 17:23, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Volta Laboratory[edit]

Categorization per WP:Category [copied from User talk:Bearcat]

Hi Bearcat, I've reinserted most, but not all of the categories you lopped off of Volta Laboratory and Bureau, which was almost completely responsible for the development of the phonograph industry after Edison abandoned his own invention. Besides their work on the phonograph, the Volta Associates were responsible for a wide array of other very notable discoveries, inventions and achievements, such as the first modern form of optical telecommunications on which all fibre-optical communications are based on (about 60% of all telecommunication transmissions today), all of which merit categorization per WP:Categorization which states amongst other things:

  • Each article should be placed in all of the most specific categories to which it logically belongs. [emphasis is mine]
  • Categorize articles by characteristics of the topic, not characteristics of the article....
  • It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories. Use the {Category unsourced} template if you find an article in a category that is not shown by sources to be appropriate, or the {Category relevant?} template if the article gives no clear indication for inclusion in a category.

I have not reinstated Discovery and invention controversies, Office equipment, and Bridgeport, Connecticut which are only peripherally mentioned in the article. Best: HarryZilber 14:33, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

The point is that we categorize things by categories which describe what the topic is, not tangentially-related keywords. For example, the laboratory doesn't belong in "Audio players" on the grounds that audio players evolved from something that was invented there, because the presence of that particular category on the article constitutes an assertion that the laboratory itself is an audio player. Categories are descriptions of what the articles filed in them are, not just keywords to link every broadly related topic you can think of. Bearcat (talk) 16:43, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. I appreciate hearing from you on your differing interpretation of the noted guideline. Best: HarryZilber (talk) 13:46, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:AIV[edit]

Hello

Thank you for your report to WP:AIV. However on this occasion I have had to deny the request.

The user you reported to AIV has only made one edit to Wikipedia and was already warned for that by anti-vandal bot ClueBot NG. I appreciate that the edit was to a BLP and contained profane language but we would not normally block someone after just one edit, doing so would be considered very bitey as can reporting someone after one edit.

In this case the editor hasn't even edited after ClueBot's warning so I'm not altogether sure why another warning was issued.

Finally, when making a report to AIV in the future, please do not quote the vandalism. Because the vandalism contained profane language part of your report to AIV has had to be removed from the public archives. Any question please ask me on my talk page.--5 albert square (talk) 15:25, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Airspeed[edit]

No need for the accusations, I'm happy to discuss.

You suggested:

Perhaps its time, if it hasn't been done already, for the FCMS people to incorporate GPS vertical and horizontal ground speed data into the flight control computer, so that when there are failures in the pitots' dynamic data, then the flight controller could drop down into the GPS data set. Such data would not yield any horizontal or vertical wind components, but would probably be far, far better than flying speed data 'blind', which is what may have happened on AF447. Does anyone know if such inputs are actually incorporated into modern FCMSs

The problem with this idea is that it assumes GPS data is an improvement on the inertial navigation systems already in place. In fact those systems are already GPS disciplined for long-term accuracy when GPS signals are available. Over short time intervals GPS speed is not terribly accurate. The crew are not blind to Speed Over Ground, it just doesn't help them. It is their airspeed which they need to know. Without a way of sensing it they do not know how close they are to stalling. There are other ways to measure airspeed that could be implemented as alternatives or backups to pitot tubes, such as acoustic ultrasonic flow meters. While very reliable these have their own limitations, needing compensation for variations in air pressure, but they could still be helpful. Other alternatives are small-area airfoils designed to stall at speeds slightly higher and slightly lower than the main surfaces. Strain gauge measurements on such surfaces could provide warning before the main surfaces stall. In short, there are alternative airspeed sensors possible, but GPS is not one of them.LeadSongDog come howl! 04:14, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, agreed that the sole use of ground speed is completely useless when you have a coffin corner of 30 kts, and that wasn't the intent of the single terse para. note inserted into the talk page. The FCMS can be adapted to use the GPS and/or INS ground speed data to calculate *and store* the vectorized winds aloft data independent of the static/pitot systems, e.g. monitor and compute the a/c's anticipated airspeed per attitude and thrust, compared to heading and groundspeed and track, outputting the winds aloft, which would be stored and used to provide a reasonably accurate backup airspeed should the dynamic air data fail.
The accuracy of the stored winds aloft in the FCMS data bank would degrade over time and as the aircraft progressed into new meteorological area, but it might be accurate enough for several minutes to allow the aircrew to respond to the initial failure(s) and deal with them (eg: turn on the pitot heaters, or switch to an alternate source), instead of the letting the situation degrade quickly into what apparently transpired. Best: HarryZilber (talk) 14:18, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure there's a legit reason why the pitot heaters should be turned off unless power is down to battry backup. They're too important to skimp on the power budget and they're too small to need much of it anyhow. I suppose modern wx radars would be able to provide lookahead airspeed, after all they can detect wind shear. I doubt anything that complicated (and hence low reliabiility) is going to be acceptable for a core stay aloft capability, but perhaps as an alternate (fail-over backup) sensor it might still make sense. LeadSongDog come howl! 05:27, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Thank you for your useful contributions to Environmental impact of wind power, your recent perceptive comments on the Talk page, and for rectifying more POV-pushing here. Johnfos (talk) 19:37, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Johnfos: your thoughts are noted and appreciated. B.T.W., I took a quick look at your user page and saw you're a supporter of inline <refs>, which is eminently sensible. One thought that came to me while doing a random audit of article quality which revealed the depth of uncited/unreferenced materials throughout WP articles, was that WP coders could implement software controls to minimize unreferenced text. With the right software in place any *new* edits to existing article text, or any new text being added to an article, would require a link to an inline reference.
The software would sort out the ref links assigned to the sentences in a paragraph (that the user would be required to supply), and then only display them visibly at the correct locations (e.g.: all sentences in a single para. having identical ref(s) would result in the finished text displaying the ref(s) at the correct paragraph end a single time, not at the end of each sentence.). If sentences are moved around in the article, the linked refs would follow them automatically. Users would be required to provide a ref for each edited sentence and each new sentence in order to finalize an edit. Bad, incomplete or incorrect refs would likely occur of coarse, but overall I'd expect to see a significant improvement in article quality when editors are prompted to provide an inline ref with each sentence being revise or newly created. Your thoughts? Best: HarryZilber (talk) 01:53, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Harry, and thank you for your response. Yes, I think unsourced material on WP is a problem and am interested in your idea to implement software controls to minimize unreferenced text, where editors are prompted to provide an inline ref with each revised or newly created sentence. In theory the idea is sound, but would it work in practice? Or would it possibly be too complex to implement?

In any case I wanted to offer you a barnstar for all your efforts on WP