User talk:Discpad

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Welcome

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your recent contributions seem to be advertising or for promotional purposes. Wikipedia does not allow advertising in articles. For more information on this, see

If you still have questions, there is a new contributor's help page, or you can write {{helpme}} below this message along with a question and someone will be along to answer it shortly. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia.

I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! Yuser31415 (Editor review two!) 04:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I saw your changes to the film processing section in the article on Kodachrome. There, you state that Dwayne's is the sole remaining processor of Kodachrome in the world. (I presume you mean the sole Kodak authorized processor. Is that true?) Did the Japanese lab give it up? Anoneditor 23:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Reply:

In re Kodachrome processing:

Yes: Kodak's Lausanne plant shut down their K-Lab processor; and Horiuchi Color in Tokyo also just shut down their K-Lab as well. As of now, only Dwayne's is left; and, as I understand it, they have a full-sized K-14 cine processor, not a K-Lab.

Also, I just updated the Kodachrome page to add the link to the K-Lab technical manual Z-50, which also describes in detail the chemical, re-exposure and mechanical steps involved.

Reply to reply:

In re Kodachrome processing:

What's your source for this? The Horiuchi website, http://www.horiuchi-color.co.jp/index2/english/english.html, still (as of today) lists the K-14 process as one of the things it does. Anoneditor 23:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Reply to reply to reply:

No, Horiuchi shut down their K-Lab; and removed the page from their English version of their website. My source is Kodak itself, as they stopped making the B-I-B (bag-in-box) chemistry required for the K-Lab. Dwayne's, with the sole K-14 line, buys K-14 soup in bulk and has an analytic lab to keep their process in control.

Contents

[edit] Striking Comments

It is completely unacceptable to strike other peoples comments on talk pages as you did in the Terry Shannon AfD. Users should only strike their own comments, and doing this to other peoples comments makes it look as if they have withdrawn their own statements. --Daniel J. Leivick 16:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

In fact, it's considered vandalism to do so -- please stop, as you may be blocked for editing other's comments during an AfD discussion.--LeflymanTalk 16:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion pages, as you did with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Terry Shannon. Doing so won't stop the discussion from taking place. You are however welcome to comment about the proposed deletion on the appropriate page. Thank you.--LeflymanTalk 18:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

Please take care how you use the word "vandalism"- see Wikipedia:Vandalism. Specifically, this edit summary is inappropriate. Redirects are not vandalism, and you don't get to avoid AFD by making a second article on the same topic. Friday (talk) 19:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Please also take note that adding "vandalism warnings" to articles is entirely inappropriate and is not helping the situation. --- RockMFR 19:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this is vandalism, when pertinent content is destroyed.

It's not vandalism. Do this again and I will block you. Friday (talk) 19:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What are you doing?

What is the purpose of this edit? The talk page is where we discuss the article, not in the article itself. I know you're only doing what you think is right, but please be careful. Friday (talk) 19:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please stop forking

How many articles do you want about Terry Shannon? It would be better to work on all this in one place, and then consider breaking them out later if length is a concern. Friday (talk) 22:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Along those lines, don't screw with the Signpost. It is rude and disruptive. Teke(talk) 01:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please help with formatting and reference style

I need some help formatting two tables and the reference link on the Speed Graphic page at the Graflex manufacturer history and Graflex model history sections.

In other words, I'm good at gathering info; not so good in formatting tables.

Thanks in advance! Dan Schwartz Expresso@Snip.Net

Looking into it... —Dgiest c 17:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
OK, made a Wiki markup table example at Speed Graphic. For the others, just follow that example... —Dgiest c 17:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Also gave you an example of how to properly format a reference for citation of a website. —Dgiest c 17:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! Discpad 17:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)Dan Schwartz

[edit] Your edit summaries and talk page message locations

You do not have to sign your edits in the edit summary . It's already recorded and can be seen through page histories, watchlists, etc that you made the edit, not someone else. Please discontinue doing this as it clutters up the edit histories and it really doesn't tell us anything important that we already didn't know. Thank you. --pIrish 16:32, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, please do not move messages around on talk pages as you did to the chinchilla article. Old messages should remain where they are to not give rise to confusion about when they were added. It doesn't have anything to do with importance, it's just when someone decided to discuss something. New messages, like the one you included about sugar in the diet, should always go at the bottom of the page. I can't stress this enough. New messages ALWAYS go at the bottom of the page, not the top. That's the way discussion topics flow and most editors know to look at the bottom of the page to see if something else has been brought up. If it's just plopped in the middle, your questions may go unanswered for a very long time unless someone watching the page catches it. --pIrish 16:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rickshaw Inn

A tag has been placed on Rickshaw Inn, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Realkyhick 06:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


Holy sh*t! It's 2AM; and I just started the damn Rickshaw Inn page. It wil take a few days as I research more of this inn's illustrious history. Our family has been involved with Cherry Hill for a half-century; and there is much to say as I go back to the Cherry Hill Library's township history room in the basement... Which my parents have contributed many artifacts to.
* Is it OK to remove the "speedy deletion" tag?
* How did people even detect this page to begin with?

Thanks! Dan Schwartz Discpad 07:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC) Cherry Hill, NJ

Hi, Dan. I have removed the speedy tag and marked it as a stub instead. People often find pages like this through Special:Recentchanges or similar tools. See Wikipedia:Recent changes patrol for more info. I agree that the speedy on your article was a little hasty. A good way to avoid problems like that is by starting out with a good lead paragraph so that people can tell what you're talking about and why it's important. Please don't think too badly of Realkyhick; if you look at how much junk is entered into Wikipedia all the time, you'll see how easy is to mistake a struggling new article for something that won't make it. Hope that helps! William Pietri 07:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict, a little more specific reply) Don't remove the tag if you can't make it meet the requirements of the policies listed above. I suggest creating User:Discpad/Sandbox, writing it there and then creating the article once it meets the notability requirements. Many users monitor Special:Newpages and tag articles that meet the criteria for speedy deletion. John Reaves (talk) 07:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
John - I started several pages as part of a project to "kick-start" a project documenting the illustrious history of Cherry Hill. Not every contributor is a 20-something, `ya know...

[edit] An Automated Message from HagermanBot

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button Image:Wikisigbutton.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! HagermanBot 00:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of content from talk pages

It is not appropriate to remove content from talk pages as you did twice to this page. Talk pages can be used by other editor to see how a particular user has interacted with people in the past and should not be altered to present a particular view. See WP:TALK --Daniel J. Leivick 00:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Terry Shannon AfD

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 March 13, you will be blocked from editing. . EliminatorJR Talk 02:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The topic of deleting the Terry Shannon article has been debated; and is the subject of Terry Shannon nominated for Wikipedia deletion; Terry Shannon gets Wikipedia reprieve and Terry Shannon archive material wanted for Wikiporpoise Discpad 04:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Emphasizing my remark

May I ask why you want my comment emphasized? I'm curious now. -Amarkov moo! 04:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you're quite familiar with the readership of The Inquirer and (especially) El Reg in I.T. circles. Part of the appeal is their sarcastic writing style. But, I suggest as a starting point that you call up the articles in those respected journals on most any I.T. topic. Dan Schwartz, Expresso@Snip.Net Discpad 04:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I don't deny that they have appeal. But not everything that has appeal is necessary reliable. And sarcasm is not at all condusive to reliability. -Amarkov moo! 04:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Um... Okay, is there any particular reason you've started emphasizing everything I say? -Amarkov moo! 04:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
This user wants to capture a Shedinja.



So when your remarks hit El Reg, people the world over will have no trouble finding them. Discpad 04:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Would you like me to start a subpage for you, then? It's much less annoying than emphasis on everything. -Amarkov moo! 04:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MfD on AfD

Hi --- I fixed your MfD nom. Anyway I could be wrong, but as far as I know, AfD discussions generally themselves aren't subject to deletion unless they were created as clear vandalism (e.g. sockpuppet of a banned user). You can just express your comments on the AfD itself (e.g. by putting in an opinion of "Speedy Close"). Cheers, cab 06:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Terry Shannon

  1. Your deletion of the AfD was vandalism. It is not up to you to decide whether an AfD should continue or not.
  2. If you actually read the AfD, you'll notice that I actually voted for the Terry Shannon article to be KEPT.
  3. If you're that bothered about it, why didn't you improve the article after the last deletion review, so it didn't get nominated again?
The problem is that the article HAS been improved; but references and footnotes have been REMOVED.Discpad 11:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
  1. I deleted the references? I did no such thing (see the history page), and I don't appreciate personal attacks, especially untrue ones.
  2. I have nothing against Terry Shannon, only against people who don't follow Wikipedia's rules.
  3. Please WP:CIVIL.
  4. Oh, and I know all about "old" computing. I used to program Honeywell mainframes in Cobol and JCL. Thanks,EliminatorJR Talk 07:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More on AfD issue about Terry Shannon...

I received this interesting email on Tuesday morning:


Here's the thing.

Notability on Wikipedia demands that someone have articles written about them, for the most part. So a journalist must win an award, or be interviewed by someone else as a 'personality'. Clearly, this is a bad way to determine notability - many good journalists stay under the radar to precisely avoid being publicly profiled, and the Wikipedia guidelines determine notability purely relative to celebrity.

There is an exception to this, which is where someone makes a important contribution to their field. This clearly covers Terry, but the Wikians are totally anal about applying it, since its hard to prove. However, it does clearly cover Terry, and so it shouldn't be necessary to have Mike write something about him - that will detract from the main issue.

I think what's interesting is that since the clean up of the page I worked on over the last couple of weeks, the current AfD has got most of the Wikipedia community suggesting to keep the article. This Amarkov character is just one pissed off kid - the rest of the community seems to be in favour of finding more sources. I don't think we have too much to worry about on this occasion.

Enough said...

Whoever told you that was wrong. Articles need sources, period. There is no exception to WP:V if a guy can be shown to have made notable contributions to his field. Due to new information, I do not believe that to apply in this case, but that does not mean that articles don't need sources. -Amarkov moo! 02:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Terry Shannon

hi, those templates always go on the talk pages. Take a look at this link. You can see all the pages that link to that template. See all the (transclusion) ones? Those are the pages it's used on as opposed to just linked to, for a user's reference. Actually, if you do see any actual articles listed on the later pages of that search--you'd want to move them over to talk instead. - Denny 13:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NTFS

"Native Transactional"? Provide a source. AlistairMcMillan 23:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

If you are right, why is there not a single result for "Native Transactional File System" on microsoft.com? AlistairMcMillan 23:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Alistair, yes, it's Native Transactional, not New Technology: It's a common mistake; and the name is derived from the transactional log used to self-repair (via unwinding) disk errors.
I think you're confusing the meaning of the "NT" in "Windows NT" which indeed is "New Technology" with the "NT" portion of "NTFS"
I'll have to pull out my old NT books from the mid-90's and cite accordingly. Dan Schwartz, Expresso@Snip.Net Discpad 23:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

You know what is amusing. Searching Google for the words "Native Transactional File System" and "NTFS" brings up about twenty results. Nearly all of them attributable to your good self. Going all the way back to the 1990s.

Personally I'm going to go with Helen Custer. AlistairMcMillan 23:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll go with Sean Daily in Windows IT Pro: Windows NT 101 chapter in Optimizing Windows NT:

Installable file systems
Another portability feature of NT is its ability to support many different file systems. Currently, NT supports the FAT (File Allocation Table used in DOS, Windows 95, and OS/2 systems), NTFS (Native Transactional File System introduced with Windows NT), and CDFS (CD-ROM File System). However, because of NT’s modular nature, support for additional file systems can be easily added in the future by simply creating new file system drivers and adding them to NT. This makes it relatively easy for NT to incorporate new technologies. Discpad 23:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

That all very nice. You do know who Helen Custer is right? The woman that wrote two books called "Inside Windows NT" and "Inside the Windows NT File System". Who was asked to write them by David Cutler. Who wrote them at Microsoft, alongside the people who were creating Windows NT, as they were creating Windows NT. "Inside Windows NT" being the book that has a foreword by David Cutler. I'm assuming I don't have to tell you who Cutler is right? AlistairMcMillan 23:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I know who Helen Custer is. And Yes, I knew of Dave Cutler when he was still a DIGIT.

[edit] Sources

Please read Wikipedia:Attribution. Please don't replace content on Wikipedia with your own personal knowledge/experiences. AlistairMcMillan 21:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../d/i/s/User_talk%7EDiscpad_8ebb.html"