User talk:Kim Meyrick
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Kleinrock
The problem I have with including that anecdote is that it's just a fun story, and as such not really suitable for inclusion in an encyclopaedia article. We do link to Kleinrock's stuff (although from the packet switching page, not the ARPANET page, I see - I will fix this - too many pages!), and if people click on the links they will be able to read it there on his web site. Plus to which, as I said, it makes Kleinrock look more important than he was in the early ARPAnet work, to the detriment of many people we don't name at all.
As to the correct division of credit: I don't think there's anything at all to be gained by interacting directly with Kleinrock (whom I first met in about 1978, if memory serves). I have known for a long time what his claims are (I helped Katie Hafner with the research for her book - you'll find me in the credits), and I think that by now I have a pretty good model what the division of credit is - and I think all of the people I named get a share of the credit, each contributing a specific facet. Noel (talk) 04:51, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Frankly, I hope he doesn't show up here, because if he does he's quite possibly going to insist on editing things to match his story on what the importance of his role is, and it's just going to turn into an ugly situation - which I frankly don't need. It would really be a lot easier to get this all straightened out without the principals directly on hand. Oh well. Noel (talk) 05:01, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Look, I'm really heartily sick of dealing with this. I spent a long time reading everything that was readily available some years ago, when I was helping Katie Hafner with research for her book. (E.g. for the early stages, I read Kleinrock's 1964 queueing theory book many years ago, along with Baran's complete study, etc, etc.) The papers recently provided online do not alter that picture in any way.
In any event, I'm not about to totally reverse the conclusion of DARPA's own in-house historians, who had acccess to DARPA's internal papers, plus interviews with all the principals there. There might be reasons to paint a slightly broader picture, but that's all.
It would also be unfair to give weight to Kleinrock's memories, when Davies is no longer here to lay out his case.
If nothing else, Wikipedia's policy is no original research, which means we're supposed to rely on historians who have the time to delve deeply, and do wide-ranging research into original sources - which DARPA's historians already did. So I suggest you get ahold of the Norberg/O'Neill book and use that for a guide.
If you will look at the Leonard Kleinrock page, you will see that I recently redid it to be NPOV, and moreover, credit Kleinrock with an important piece of work that he himself doesn't make any noise about in his "list of accomplishments" page, so it's not that I have any anti-Kleinrock axe to grind.
I have no interest in delving any deeper into this, because I've already spent too much time on it. I have zero interest in having you serve as a go-between, and I deeply wish you would stop trying. Noel (talk) 23:03, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- The thing is that I really don't have the time/energy to deal with this right now, and so I'd have really preferred to let this sleeping dog lie until another day. The pages aren't perfect, but they are reasonable, and there is much else on Wikipedia that's in even worse shape. So if I'm sounding cranky at you for bringing this all to life, that's why. Time I spend on dealing with this is time that I just don't have right now... Noel (talk) 01:31, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Image Tagging for Image:Coreforcescreenshot.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Coreforcescreenshot.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 04:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Mul-t-lock article
If you can source your statements, that is if they are verifiable, then they should remain. If anyone removes them without a discussion, you can revert that edit. Arbitration is not necessary at this point. --Fahrenheit451 05:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
I suggest you also make a formal complaint using the affidavit to the consumer affairs department in your state government. That way it becomes public record which is citable.--Fahrenheit451 17:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Possibly unfree Image:Vss.JPG
[edit] Mul-t-lock
A tag has been placed on Mul-t-lock, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group or service and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11, as well as the guidelines on spam.
If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any citations from reliable sources to ensure that the article will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 06:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:Coreforcescreenshot.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Coreforcescreenshot.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 17:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
