Talk:Turboencabulator

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 2006-07-27. The result of the discussion was keep.

Contents

[edit] Authenticity of Rockwell Automation retroencabulator film

User:Mikkalai removed the reference to the retroencabulator film, claiming that it was not by Rockwell Automation but rather by nonnotable April 1 pranksters. I've seen no evidence to support that assertion, but at least anecdotal evidence that it was actually produced by R.A. as part of training for tech writers (e.g., what not to do). I've added back a reworded reference, as in either case the film is still relevant to the turboencabulator. However, unless evidence of it being unrelated to R.A. is forthcoming, I will add back a less strongly worded claim of the relationship. --Brouhaha 19:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

  • I was talking about "nonnotable April 1 pranksters" because the linked video indicates the authors (or the posters): "exorsystem". If they are not authors, as you hint, then all the more, their post is copyright violation and all the more has no place in wikipedia.
Wikipedia is not a collection of techie jokes. If this video is not mentioned by any urban folklore publication, it has no place here. `'mikka (t) 00:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
What copyright are you claiming is violated? And how can you seriously claim that a video about a retroencabulator that was obviously inspired by the turboencabulator paper is not relevant to an article on the turboencabulator? That makes no sense whatsoever. --Brouhaha 18:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
If it is created by an "exorsystem", then it is a work of nonnotable April 1 pranksters. If it is created by R.A., then the poster "exorsystem" violated the copyright of R.A. and wikipedia cannot promote copyvios by providing links. `'mikka (t) 19:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, I consider this item closed by a recent confirming addition. `'mikka (t) 19:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disagree with "Not Solid References"

I strongly disagree with the claim that the links from the page are "not solid references". The link to a copy of the classic turboencabulator paper may not be authoritative in and of itself, but given that many online sources provide the same information, and that this is a discussion of folklore (not a real product), I think that link is sufficiently solid. The link to the page from an actual GE instrumentation catalog page seems very solid.

Unless someone explains why these are not sufficiently solid, and what would constitute a sufficiently solid reference, I will remove the "unreferenced" tag. --Brouhaha 19:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

  • It is one thing a "classic" turboenc paper. (although I reasonably doubt that the mentioned publication exists. All references to this "Students Quarterly Journal" are about the turboenc thingy) If you so fond of this joke, please provide the correct bibliographic reference.
However it is totally aother thing to claim that the device was slipped into product catalog which you haven't seen yourself and did not provide a reference in a reputable publication which states the fact. `'mikka (t) 00:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I have seen the catalog, and provided a reference to it. That I have not managed to find any other printed documents that cite the catalog proves nothing; I can't find any printed citations for many of the catalogs that are on my bookshelf. For instance, I'm not aware of any publication that cites the 1987 Newark Electronics catalog, yet that catalog definitely exists. --Brouhaha 18:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
If you have the catalog on your bookshelf, please provide the exact reference. Once again, the main issue is wikipedia:Verifiability. If the only reference to a catalog which has already been shredded everywhere but your bookshelf, then this is an invalid reference, by wikipedia rules: it is impossible to verify the claim. If you cannot find any independent confirmation, then the claim has no placfe in wikipedia until you find one. Plain and simple. Wikipedia:Verifiability. Read it, colleague. `'mikka (t) 19:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Before you claimed that if I *didn't* have a copy of the catalog, it wasn't a valid reference. Now you're claiming that if I *do* have it, it's not a valid reference. Get your story straight.
My story is very straight: that you have or saw the catalog, it is your word of mouth, and sorry colleague, I don't believe you. I know only too well that people may go to unbelievably great lengths to propagate a hoax. `'mikka (t) 20:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
The "exact reference" is "General Electric 1962/1963", published by the West Lynn, Massachusetts division of General Electric. It obviously did not have an ISBN number, since it predates the ISBN standard by a decade, and it is common practice even today for commercial catalogs to not have ISBN numbers. I don't have a copy on my bookshelf; there are a lot of sources that I have cited that I do not have on my bookshelf. Whether a book is on *my* bookshelf does not affect its verifiability, nor does whether it is on *your* bookshelf. --Brouhaha 20:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh yes it does. If you don't have it on your bookshelf, then where did you get the reference? You wrote "That I have not managed to find any other printed documents that cite the catalog". So where did you get it after all? `'mikka (t) 20:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
At the time that the catalog was in my hands, it belonged to another engineer. There are a lot of documents that exist in the world that I don't personally own, but that doesn't make their existence less credible. --Brouhaha 05:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quit the edit war already!

User:Mikkalai, stop modifying or removing the information on the 1962/1963 GE Catalog without any valid reason. --Brouhaha 18:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

  • User:Brouhaha stop adding unconfirmed information mentioned in various blogs and personal webpages. Be serious, man, even in jokes. Wikipedia requires verification of any information from reputable sources. You are adding a "reference" without even ever seeing it. Either you are one of these hoaxers who love to slip a turboencabulator into a catalog or you are so naive as to believe photocopies that circulate in the 'net. Say, when did you last time send $5 expecting 4 people send you $5 each? (I am talking about chain letters). Have you ever heard about photoshopping?
Once again, reputable independent confirmation please. If you don't know which sources are reputable, please start from wikipedia:Verifiability and around. `'mikka (t) 00:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I have read it. I don't see any section that says that a book which User:Mikkalai is too lazy to track down is not a valid reference. --Brouhaha 20:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
You did nbot provide a trackable reference. If you have the catalog, please type its full description and done with it, if you don't please stop trolling. `'mikka (t) 20:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
The full description is, as I've indicated multiple times, "General Electric 1962/1963". What part of that description are you having so much trouble with?
Suppose I instead had cited the Tektronix 1984 instrument catalog, or the Digital Equipment Corporation Logic Handbook 1978, both of which I happen to have at hand. Would you be raising as much of a stink about either of those? Why, or why not? Do you have some reason to believe that GE is not a reputable company, or that GE didn't or doesn't publish catalogs? What is your definition of a "trackable reference"? Do you disbelieve in the existence of all documents that aren't in the nearest branch of your local public library? Or do you just think that you shouldn't have to go to any effort to track down the document, but rather are entitled to have someone Fedex it to you?
I have routinely cited published documents from my personal collection (both presently owned and formerly owned) and collections of otheers in various articles. Many of the documents are obscure, are not known to be cited in other publications, and are possibly hard to track down, such as documents relating to early computers (e.g., some of the IBM 7030 Data Processing System manuals, and some of the Intel iAPX 432 manuals). But I have never had anyone put up so much opposition to it, trying to claim that the documents are nonexistent, or that it is improper for me to cite them, or that such citations constitute "trolling". --Brouhaha 05:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Please explain why you are more credible than user:67.188.249.116 below. He could have also easily quoted a "CIA Internal Memo #267/14b". The problem with obscure documents is exactly their obscureness and hence nonverifiability, unless they are quoted in reliable non-obscure sources. When speaking about trolling I refer to you refusal to accept that your word is not trusted if there is no reasonable way to verify a mere existence of the document. I don't need it in my local branch. Just point me to any US library directory which lists a "GE Catalog". You also fail to see the difference in the level of credibility between quoting a techical detail from a technical document (which normally may be cross-referenced from other sources) and quoting a hoax, i.e., a quite rare thing which is difficult to cross-check from other sources. Still another factor is that there is little incentive in cheating about serious technical data and much danger in the case of cheating uncovered, whereas a hoax is a hoax is a hoax. And a hoax within a hoax is even much more fun, especially if one can convince wikipedia to propagate it. `'mikka (t) 00:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Private communication"

Private communications are commonly known as "gossip" and are not valid references for wikipedia. `'mikka (t) 19:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Private communication is considered acceptable as references in scholarly publications. For example, many of the references in "IBM's Early Computers" by Bashe et al., published by MIT Press are private communications. Private communication is thus obviously not gossip. I have confirmation from an authoritative source, but not permission to violate the privacy of the source.
Hypothetically, if your mother was the tech writer involved, would you want her name and email address in Wikipedia? --Brouhaha 19:56, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a scholarly publication. Wikipedia's authors themeselves have absolutely no credibility. `'mikka (t) 20:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Including your own lack of credibility, for removing the RA film from the page based on your own unsubstantiated claim that it was an April 1 hoax without even *trying* to verify it. If you're too lazy to even attempt verification, you shouldn't be deleting things. At this point I think it would be relatively clear to anyone studying the history of the article as to which wikipedians have made reasonable, verifiable contributions, and which have not.--Brouhaha 05:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted

How, who is going to verify this masterpiece of user:67.188.249.116:

"The author of "The Turbo-Encabulator in Industry" was a young lawyer named Bernard Salwen who was an intelligence officer in Washington DC during World War II. As part of his job, he had to review a lot of professional science and engineerng papers. He had a flair for language and was intrigued by the obscure techinical terms he encountered. The result was this paper, which was printed by a number of publications without proper attribution. It was excerpted in Time magazine some time in 1945, which resulted in some humorous letters to the editor."

I deleted it, naturally. `'mikka (t) 05:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Retro-Encabulator

I agree Retro-Encabulator should be merged to Turboencabulator. —Quarl (talk) 2006-07-27 19:57Z

These are pretty much referencing to the same thing. They should be on the same page, with two different articles. Agreed. Buzzert 04:01, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/u/r/Talk%7ETurboencabulator_6742.html"