User talk:Jmccormac

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


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

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

Djegan 23:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Satellite television[edit]

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

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

Your edit to the article Galaxy 19[edit]

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

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

County Waterford[edit]

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

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

May 2010[edit]

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

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

Domain Hacks / .am / ccTLD[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Not vandalism[edit]

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

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

Minor edits[edit]

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

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

Invitation to wikiFeed[edit]

Hi Jmccormac,

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

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

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

URL Shortening wiki[edit]

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

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

Domain Tasting[edit]

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

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

TLDs and ccTLDs[edit]

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

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

Pirate decryption/card sharing[edit]

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

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

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

July 2014[edit]

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

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

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

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

Scorpion (TV series)[edit]

Hi. Looking at this page, notice the long list of articles in other languages (left side of page). This strongly suggests the series is airing in other countries/languages. This would also suggest the controversy about O'Brien's history has followed him around the world. Which would suggest there are probably non-English reliable sources that discuss the controversy. Are you familiar with using Google's "" to narrow a search to a country-code (Brazil in this case), and Google Translate? It will take some time and work but I suspect a fishing expedition might come up with good results. -- GreenC 20:22, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Apart from the usual dog and pony show promoting the series, it seems to have sunk without trace. There is an interview of O'Brien on the main Irish TV channel chat show being asked about the supposed NASA hacking incident. [4]. This is an inteview of Gary McKinnon, a chap who really was facing extradition from the UK for hacking NASA and the US military. [5]. Apart from the initial press promotion of the TV show in Ireland and the UK, its subsequent coverage has been nil. There were three Irish Times articles. The first was the usual promotion piece. The second (mentioned in the article) was the more skeptical one and it seemed to have brought up the claims. The third one was a rather sarcastic and funny review of the show by a TV critic. It is also possible to see how those press releases are propagated almost verbatim by entertainment sites by Googling for the phrase, in quotation marks, "SCORPION, inspired by a true story, is a high-octane drama". CorporateM's rewrite does go a lot of the way towards solving the problems with the article. Jmccormac (talk) 11:38, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Jmccormac. I wanted to post here to encourage you to keep in mind Wikipedia's policies about civility. Wikipedia needs to be an open space for thoughtful discussion, which requires focusing on the content, not the editors. I brought this up in particular because of your comment about a "random Wikipedia editor quibbling" which is obviously targeted at a specific editor and is demeaning in tone. We need to show fellow editors respect and participate in a calm and civil manner, even on controversial issues. I've posted a similar message on Wink's Talk page. Just something to keep in mind, please. CorporateM (Talk) 19:42, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Langton, if it is the same individual, has a rather strong CV and his comments on the matter do have more credibility than those of a Wikipedia editor without any such expertise or qualifications. People in the IT business tend to use the phrase "random" in the manner above to illustrate the difference between reliability of provable and known expertise, and opinion of unknown reliability or provenance. It is not demeaning. The article is quite problematic and has serious issues over various claims. The problem with technology based claims is that many editors don't have the background knowledge or expertise to distinguish between the dubious and the accurate. The NASA story sounds like a combination of various stories from the Hacker mythos of that time along with various movie scenes. It is very sparse on technical details. Autocad shipped with a demo copy of a drawing of the space shuttle Columbia. Autocad had its own file format for drawings and the software ran on IBM compatible PCs. The computer that O'Brien supposedly used for the hack was either an Amstrad 464 or a Commodore 64. Both of these computers, from what I remember, had around 64K of RAM and operating systems that were not compatible with that of the IBM PC. They also typically used audio tape as storage with floppy drives being rather expensive for the time. Even getting on to the Packet Switched Network that would have been required to access the NASA servers over Arpanet was problematic. It would have involved going through a local connection which would have been the Telecom Eireann Eirpac X.25 network. The connection speed at the time would have been low (probably maxing out around 2400 Baud as 9600 Baud and higher only became available in the early 1990s). Eirpac charged by the packet of data and it was quite expensive. Downloading large files would have taken hours as the the rate would be about 240 bytes a second on a clean line. The commonest printer type at the time was Dot Matrix Printers as laser printers were extremely expensive (they cost over a thousand Pounds/Dollars). Thus you have the file format incompatibility, the memory size and operating system of the computers, file sizes potentially larger than the available memory size of the computer being used, storage issues, printer issues and line quality issues (phoneline quality in rural areas of Ireland at the time was patchy at best). This is why people in the IT business are rather skeptical of O'Brien's claimed hack. The way that other claims did not stand up to fact checking means that the article is a highly problematic one because of the way editors rely on non-technical sources about technical claims. The way that these claims do not stand up to fact checking demonstrates that Wikipedia should be wary of relying upon non-technical sources such as entertainment sites and puff pieces as reliable sources. Jmccormac (talk) 20:41, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

While there's no explicit rule against it, it's generally not helpful to pounce on every comment made by another editor you disagree with, especially when so many of the comments are essentially the same thing and are often long or perpetuate bickering. It would be best to let each editor speak their mind, just as you are allowed to speak yours. In some cases, consensus may go your way, and in others it won't, but yelling at everyone over and over actually diminishes, not increases, your chances of getting your way and is just more rude and disruptive than I think you may have realized. I'd encourage you to be patient, give other editors' time to chime in, and allow people to speak their mind without being pounced on. There's no need to get the last word in. Generally it's best practice to give editors a week to register their viewpoint, knowing that many editors are only available to contribute during a certain day they have off work. CorporateM (Talk) 17:54, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Actually that kind of interaction encourages participation in Wikipedia. It lets people know that there are others out there who care enough to agree or disagree with their viewpoints. The big problem for Wikipedia, compared to the early days, is that the number of articles being created seems to be declining. Some of this is down to people having their work reverted by random editors of varying or no expertise. They just give up and stop editing. The number of people reading an article is always going to be massively larger than the numbers editing or commenting. Waiting for a week or so is, in my opinion a classic PR type move that slows down or kills the development of an article or story. Articles tend to develop faster and are generally more reliable when a number of people are working on them and doing so actively rather than waiting days for a reply. The main problem with that particular article is the gullible acceptance of technical claims by journalists who may not have the technolgical knowledge to gauge the technical accuracy of the claims being made. This technological gullibility, or otherwise, was the main factor for the disquiet from the IT community getting Fast Company and Cnet to reevalute their initial stories. When there are editors who have the technological (or other professional) backgrounds and knowledge commenting on an article and editors who have no such exertise upon which to draw, the talk pages, and unfortunately the articles, can quickly become a mess. Waiting around for a week or so in the vain hope that other editors will saunter by to give their opinion exacerbates the problem. Jmccormac (talk) 18:44, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:19, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Elyes Gabel vs Fenton[edit]

J, why not include Elyes quote? We just established that it was rare for someone that knows Walter O'Brien to talk about him. The original is just from Fenton. We should include the actual quote.DavidWestT (talk) 18:34, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

It is the context of the quote, David. Without the piece of text that explains the context, the quote can appear misleading. "But even Elyes Gabel, who plays O’Brien in the show, admits he has some concerns over the veracity of the story. He says that to find the character he had to push those doubts to one side and just accept O’Brien’s story as gospel. “That meant everything that he was saying I believe rather than kind of questioning,” he says. “That becomes a very dangerous, treacherous area if you don’t really fully commit or believe in what somebody is saying. So once I got rid of that, the balance became: ‘How do I make this guy? How do I create vulnerability in a character?” ” " Without that establishing context, Gabel's truncated quote loses meaning in that it becomes unclear if he is talking about believing the real O'Brien or the fictional O'Brien. Jmccormac (talk) 22:44, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

400 baud[edit]

I did some research and have found other users reporting connecting to Compuserve at 400 baud in the early days.[6] Maybe they are mis-memories etc but there are enough reports it is a possibility such a thing existed on Compuserve weirdly. It would be difficult to to deny so many first hand accounts. -- GreenC 16:41, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Confirmed here.[7] -- GreenC 16:45, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Looks more like some random factoid being thrown in to add credence. The hint in the story was that it was Compuserve in the UK rather than Ireland. O'Brien claims to have connected to Compuserve in the UK but the problem was that any call to a UK number back in the 1980s was very expensive and the line quality was poor. The low quality of Telecom Eireann's phonelines in rural area was legendary for all the wrong reasons. Connections used to drop quite frequently even when the call was to local and Irish data numbers. The breakout from Compuserve would have been more expensive as Compuserve was, from what I seem to remember, a pay per connection sytem with a range of higher payment tiers for different services. So you had a connection from a farm in rural Ireland to the UK phone number of a US service which charged by the minute and had a far more expensive breakout service and required a credit card for subscription. The 450 Baud connection seem to have been between modems of the same type. The other aspect is that the modem apparently connected to the Atari joystick port. Jmccormac (talk) 21:01, 30 December 2015 (UTC)


"Big Ugly Dish" has "always" been mostly to those who do not like looking at them. Various owners and other proponents OTOH consider them "Big Useful Dish" and "Big Utilitarian Dish". See e.g. and . Please undo the reversion you made at . Mrmazda (talk) 20:18, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia requires reliable sources and Big Ugly Dish has been widely used in the literature about Satellite TV. Self-edited dictionaries and forum posts are not reliable sources and this does seem to be an attempt to recoin the phrase which, as far as I remember, goes back to the mid 1990s when the smaller dishes from services like Primestar and DirecTV started to become more popular than the C-Band dishes. It might be worth trying to find a reliable source (book, trade/technical magazine) for "Big Useful Dish". Jmccormac (talk) 22:14, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[edit]

You have reverted my edit of Domain name registrar. The registration, renewal and transfer prices are major pivots of the business, yet not discussed in the article. On contrary, links to etc are present in the Registrar rankings section. So why not which is the biggest data provider in this field? The service is well known in the industry Would you please kindly agree that the edit has a merit and can be put back? Thank you. Landain (talk) 12:44, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Basically the reversion was because it was a promotional link. The article is about the domain name registrars and their history rather than pricing. In terms of data volume, ICANN would be the biggest publisher of data on registrars (in the gTLDs rather than the ccTLDs) but it does not publish registration/transfer fee prices. There are some other sites that publish registration/transfer fees on a daily basis but they seem to be small sites running some scripts to update their databases. Adding would also have these other sites trying to add their service to the article. Wikipedia is not a web directory and links to sites generally require Reliable Sources and notability. While DNW is well known in the domain name business, there's no other supporting Reliable Source for its inclusion. While a lot of work has gone into the site, references to it properly belong in the article on Wikipedia rather than on the domain name registrars. Jmccormac (talk) 12:11, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for the quick response. To answer your question about references to Please check dozens of top publishers listed here . If you know any larger database, please share the reference. To my best knowledge, is the biggest in the world. Registrar rankings section in Domain name registrar directly links back to sites and The latter is not resolving at all. The former is not the industry leader. There are few competitors in the field of zone file analysis. Shall we list them too? Let us be consistent. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia with the goal to broadly present the subjects from multiple levels. I still believe that the article on Domain name registrar should include the discussion of registration, renewal and transfer prices and how they differ between various registrars. This topic was a hot potato at the recent ICANN GDD meeting last month. I know that ICANN has joint-ventured with to use their pricing data to run the study currently in making, as ICANN has no such knowledge inhouse. If you attend at the coming ICANN56 I propose we meet and discuss the matter in more details. So if you don't mind, I would refine the Registrar rankings section in Domain name registrar and let you review it again. Looking forward to our co-operation on this article. Landain (talk) 12:44, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Namebio is referred to a lot in the industry. However I am not sure of the size of its database of sales. Sedo may have a large set of sales but it would only be the sales of domains via Sedo. The registrar rankings in the article was based on the information published by ICANN. Domaintools used to publish some information on registrar numbers but it stopped doing that. (It has changed the focus of its business from domainers to cybersecurity and IP protection along with increasing the subscription fees dramatically.) Registrarstats also published information on registrar rankings but it disappeared for about a year and then reappeared. The registrar ranking page on Registrarstats is now private. However it does publish a daily domain name count of the gTLD zones. Outside the legacy gTLDs, getting an accurate count each day for the new gTLDs is difficult because of the zone file blackouts caused by having to reapply for access to a zone file (this was not in the original specification for the CZDS and was added by someone who really didn't understand the damage it would do to tracking) and the sometimes erratic updates of the zone files on the CZDS. The ccTLD registrars form a completely different problem as ccTLD registries, in addition to typically not allowing access to their zone files, do not generally publish registrar rankings. At the zone file level, it is difficult to reliably link the nameservers of each registrar and its resellers. ICANN does publish the number of linked nameservers for each registrar in its registry reports but it does not actually list those nameservers. I won't be attending ICANN56. I think that the economics of registrar pricing may be have enough information for a separate article as the Domain name registrar article is essentially just about their history and function. The rankings, pricing and its effects would be better in that separate article than the Domain name registrar one. A report from ICANN would be a reliable source for such an article and I think that there have been some papers on the pricing of registration fees and their renewals published in the run up to the launch of the new gTLDs but they had been somewhat optimistic on their projections of the demand for new gTLDs. With pricing and renewal rates is that some registrars have a different customer base (the brand protection registrars) and the client is not just paying for the renewal of the domain name. Other registrars may be diversified (having resellers and its own retail registrations business) or purely retail. Without understanding the position of the registrar in its market and its customerbase, the registration and renewal fees will only provide part of the story. Jmccormac (talk) 10:55, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Reverts relating to copyright infringement[edit]

For someone with an obvious passion for this topic, I'm surprised that you didn't comment in the VPP discussion which grew out of a thread that involved you and two other users. The non-consensus there was about 2/3 in favour of removing "piracy". Would you like me to make another one?

In any case, the two articles you just reverted contain 9 instances of "piracy" between them. If you are interested in finding a middle ground, it might be good to rank them according to how immutable you think the choice of words is in each case. E.g. the speech might be a case in which any change of wording reduces the information conveyed. I can't imagine that the "anti-piracy" speech shied away from saying "piracy". The line about FACT's mission to "combat all forms of piracy" seems to be a different sort of line where it can be said equally well in another way. You can't tell me that it doesn't combat copyright infringement... copyright is in the organization's name! Connor Behan (talk) 06:12, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Edit I see that you made the latter change to Federation Against Copyright Theft. Thanks. Connor Behan (talk) 06:15, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello sir[edit]

Why you changed that link. i just remove and updated the dead links — Preceding unsigned comment added by BuchiManno (talkcontribs) 20:10, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Because there was no explanation for the change. The Eurid IDN links changed when Eurid updated their websites. The cited documents are still on the Eurid website but with a different URL. Jmccormac (talk) 21:29, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Jmccormac. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)



If the statement ", from the television series Silicon Valley,[11] is a parody website on the domain." is not an advert then what is it? Its a simple promotion of the site just because it has a .xyz domain.

As a corollary what to you think about " is a site on the .com domain". --Sandyiit (talk) 20:03, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

It is a notable use of the .xyz TLD in the media (in a major television series). There were not many notable, as in supported by citations and Reliable Sources, sites in .xyz TLD at that time as it was a relatively new gTLD. The .com TLD is a mature TLD and has many notable sites. The one is just one of many. Jmccormac (talk) 21:20, 25 January 2017 (UTC)