User talk:Jthomp4338

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please do not add commercial links or links to your own private websites to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or a mere collection of external links. You are, however, encouraged to add content instead of links to the encyclopedia. If you feel the link should be added to the article please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thanks.

Either you are a spammer or a nonexpert/crank; either way, please stop spamming Wikipedia; every article you've contributed to (Information theory, Series of tubes, Network neutrality, Information superhighway, National Information Infrastructure) has been worsened and will be reverted (if not by me, by someone else). Calbaer 18:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I got your message. No spam/crank intended. I'm a new contributer and just learning how to do this appropriately. External links to anything other than references/sources will be deleted. Neither am I trying to promote original thought, but these are fuzzy subjects.

I've made changes. I'm not totally clear on the use/non-use of internal encyclopedia (redirects). I have found them very useful in providing background/further study references. Perhaps I've over applied them. For this I appologize and seek further feedback. Thank you.

Okay - I didn't know which it was, but it did seem the links to your own article were motatived by self-interest, as it is likely not the best source for the subjects in question. If you are experimenting with how to make new articles, you can always use Wikipedia:Sandbox. And if netricity is a legitimate topic, hopefully the AfD will draw experts out who can improve the article, which, as written, does seem a bit crankish. Working on the focus of the article — and avoiding buzzwords in favor of plain English — would help a lot with this. Calbaer 19:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps my bio/credentials/history would help to avoid the crank issue. My name is John W. Thompson Jr. (aka Jack Thompson) I'm no PHD, but have done grad work in Computer Science at JHU's Applied Physics Lab in Maryland. My expertise comes from over 35 years in the telecommunications industry where I dealt with others that did. I have been published by the International Engineering Association (IEC) and the National Academy of Science via the NII-2000 Committee project. I also am an inventor and hold U.S. Patent No. 5,236,199. Does this help? As for "self-interest", and how it relates to the dissemination of Knowledge, that's a harder issue to address. Thanks again.

You added links on various articles to your external article, and this external article is neither tutorial of the theories involved (e.g., information theory) nor an important paper in the fields. Experience and expertise in your field mean nothing with regards to either expertise in related fields or relevance in Wikipedia. You may be successful in your career, but I hope you can be relevant to Wikipedia. A Google search for netricity reveals that the top 30 entries are names (of companies and aliases). The top page not to use it this way uses it as an off-the-cuff buzzword, while the next is one of your Wikipedia modifications. Google isn't Webster's, but I'm sure you can see my point; these are the reasons I question your contributions. Calbaer 20:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Questions/observations respected. If I understand you correctly, you consider "netricity" a buzzword. That's a valid observation/opinion. My question is, at what point in time does a "buzzword" become a legitmate "conceptual" term up to Wikipedia standard for accepted knowledge? I remember when "information superhighway" and "infobahn" were not only buzzwords, but highly polarized political ones and even the concept of a "Google Search" didn't even exist yet. Are 'Series of Tubes" or "Network Neutrality" any less or more buzzwords that may or may not become legitimate wikipedia terms or are they already? I too did a Google Search on term "netricity" and though not appearing in the lowest numbered pages, the reference I was looking for did exist. It was a rare cached entry at [ http://64.233.161.104/search? q=cache:WqmpZqWBjd4J:www.northstar.k12.ak.us/new/april01.html+netricity&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=58 ], an article by Converge Magazine. Here's an excerpt from that article in the August 2001 issue of Converge by Helen Soule (U.S. Department of Education):

"I wait for the day when technology is treated more like electricity - in that it is taken for granted and becomes an expeceted part of teaching - a kind of 'Netricity'".

  As for the netricity links I've added to other articles, they were definitely not intended as spam or self-promotion.  They may be removed without objection from me until such time that I can add a "tutorial" section to my article.  Would that be a fair resolution?

The link in question presents the term as a single-use neologism by a bureaucrat who merely meant, "taking network technology's presence for granted." One civil servent coining one word in one article doesn't make it notable, and this simple idea is miles from an explanation involving Maxwell's Demon, K-waves, strange attractors, black holes, etc. Anyway, I doubt I'll be persuaded by any further argument you make, so we'll just have to leave it up to the opinions of others. Calbaer 01:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. You have provided good thought. Much appreciated. Jthomp4338 02:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)