User talk:NapoliRoma

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm a big fan of keeping discussions on one page, so unless otherwise noted, I'll reply here to anything started here. Similarly, if I've started a discussion elsewhere, I'd prefer to keep it there, but if that's something you're rabidly against, I'm easy.

Welcome!

Hello, NapoliRoma, 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!  —Wknight94 (talk) 01:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Itanium

Hi! It was proper to remove the "may yet be successful" from the Itanium page. I only put it there as a replacement for the even worse fluff that I replaced. Basically, Lots of stuff from this article should be moved to the Itanium 2 article. Arch dude 23:11, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

...but does it really make sense to have a separate Itanium 2 article? It's the same family, and it seems like most of what's being discussed is germane to Itanium as a whole, not to the separate implementations. If I were doing a cold lookup for current Itanium info, I'd expect to find it in an article named "Itanium." --NapoliRoma 00:12, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
You are of course correct. However, the first sentence of the article explicitly defines its topic as the original Itanium implementation, not including the Itanium 2. The correct solution would be to create an Itanium (family) article, and convert the current article into the Itanium (Merced) article. I do not wish to do this, as the subject does not interest me that much. My edits were motivated my irritation at the NPOV marketing orientation of the article when I encountered it while researching Project Monterey. -Arch dude 16:31, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ARC

Thanks for expanding the Solaris link. Henk Langeveld 01:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for review and comment

Hi again. I have now written a consolidated Itanium article. Please take a look at it in my workspace. I've added merge tags to the three articles and paragraphs to the discussion pages. If I don't get comments, I'll eventually just do it. Thanks. -Arch dude 00:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you!

Hi NapoliRoma, I was checking my watchlist and saw your edit summary at D... please keep up the counter-vandalism and your wonderful sense of humour! :-) --3M163//Complete Geek 21:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image Amador Valley High School

Hi, yes the image is still around. It's Image:Avhs2.jpg. Garion96 (talk) 05:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SPARC

Hi NapoliRoma

Sorry for that - I came across an article with a link to SPARC (meaning the Open Publishing group) and saw that it wrongly pointed to SPARC (the architecture), and noticing there were a couple of other SPARCs too, naturally I created a disambiguation page. I noticed the SPARC page was fairly inactive, so I just went ahead and did it without bothering to discuss it. Anyway, sorry to have ruffled your feathers - your alternative solution is fine.

RayNorris 02:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Help with Itanium FA?

Hi! In a burst of unrestrained hubris, I self-nominated the Itanium article for FA. If you have time to do so please ad your comments to the FAC.The only commentator so far is competent and positive, but does not have enough technical expertise to be credible. Thanks. -Arch dude 01:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Sun's Secure Global Desktop

Thanks for the message. I've had second thoughts, the redirect is pretty unlikely so it's gone! Thanks, Mallanox 23:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Whoo-hoo!

The Barnstar of Diligence
I have no idea how long you were looking for those Orange Whip references, but that was some serious digging you had to do to get that info there. Thanks for helping flesh out my little whim! Great Job! Thespian 23:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SPEC

I assume Spec stands for specification, and wouldn't see how someone could (easily) confuse it with SPEC? Feel free to revert it. I just found the note to be more distracting than helpful when I read it. —Ruud 16:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Java discussion

(excerpt from Java discussion)

I said It would be a great service and benefit to the user community if someone more knowledgable than myself could investigate this performance issue and report on it. I fear that too many programers are misguided and consequently make the wrong decision in choosing a language for a new application. Roesser 22:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

you said Wouldn't that be original research?? What would seem to be in scope for Wikipedia would be to find a reliable source that already discusses this, which you are encouraged to do. And you should of course try to keep preconceptions to a minimum.--NapoliRoma 23:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I say I'm not sure of your motivation for the reply above. Asking someone to investigate does not imply original research. That someone could do just what you suggest - find a reliable source or actually be the reliable source. You encouraged me to do that, so what's wrong for me to encourage someone? Furthermore, why did you bring up preconceptions since I did not write one word in the article. Clearly there is nothing objectionable about preconceptions in a discussion about the article - I even asked for the investigation to be "objective".

So let me suggest that you do something constructive and perhaps find a reliable source rather than expending time criticizing someone for what they bring up in a discussion. Roesser 02:24, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

you said on my talk page

Howdy; apologies if you think I was too harsh. What I read was "I think Java is too slow" -- which seemed like coming in with a preconception -- "and I'd like someone else to investigate this and report" -- which seemed like either a call for OR, or asking others to do work that you could do pretty much as well as anyone else if it's not OR.

Perhaps my best option at that point was to say "huh" and move on, and here I am passing up that opportunity again. But really, my impression from what you're saying is that you have decided that a serious number of programmers have been led down the garden path, and are looking for others to do the research to confirm or deny this.

A possible alternative for you might be to Google Java performance , pick some likely candidate sources, and cook up a paragraph or two and see how it's received. If you want to be less bold, try it on the talk page first. That way, I think it would feel less like you've got a random question you're throwing out there and more like you're part of the process. If you can't find anything obvious without too much trouble, you might want to reconsider your hypothesis. Java's been out there for a while, and unless there really is a Vast Java Performance Conspiracy, I'd expect there to be something out there about any problems that would make someone reconsider Java as the language for their project.--NapoliRoma 07:11, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Roesser"

I'm now saying

Your points are well taken. I'm still very concerned about Java performance and admit that my working hypothesis is that it does suffer from a severe performance limitation. I did Google the web, but only found rather inconclusive results. The articles generally admit that Java started with a very bad performance ratio (as much as 20 to 1), but has improved due to a number of innovations. But they don't quantify the improvement.

Concerning a conspiracy, I suspect there is one, which is perpetuated by Sun and fueled by their battle with Microsoft.

Anyways, I'll continue searching and will add something to the article if anything convincing turns up. Thanks for your comments Roesser 19:51, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rfd

You convinced me. It'll be gone soon. Carlossuarez46 21:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pleasanton Monologue on Craig's show...

Hey, there...

I was the guy who had originally posted the video of Craig Ferguson talking about Pleasanton for about 7 minutes on his show.

YouTube thought it would be hilarious to delete my account based on my posting of small clips from Major League Baseball. All my videos went with it.

Well, needless to say, I changed my posting name to "kitsa42" and restarted.

I have also put back the FULL MONOLOGUE from Craig and re-corrected the link on the Pleasanton Wikipedia page. Thanks for keeping the monologue link there in the meantime. It meant a lot to me.

Take care! :)

TabascoMan77 10:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Solaris entropy

Hi, thank you for your edit on Solaris entropy. I noticed you deleted the paragraph about the emulation of /dev/random, but I re-included it, since it applies to older Solaris versions. NerdyNSK 07:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CADAM (motorcycle group)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of CADAM (motorcycle group), and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: CADAM. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot 03:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Help desk

There's a discussion about you at Wikipedia:Help_desk#How_to_contact_Wikipedian_who_deleted_article_in_error_due_to_typo_in__title_of_related_article.3F. Corvus cornix 20:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tiger for Intel

And there was in mine (until I upgraded to Leopard). However, Tiger was not sold in an Intel version, unlike Leopard. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 01:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's right; that's what I meant. If I somehow didn't make that clear when editing an article, you might want to edit it :P. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 04:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Daisy Systems (disambiguation)

You are mistaken. `'Míkka>t 02:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

There's only one active link on the page, back to Daisy Systems the CAE company. Neither the floral software company nor the Dutch printer company have WP pages, and I couldn't figure out any alternative WP page to point them to, as WP:MOSDAB guidelines call for (that is, if the entry line is a redlink, there has to be exactly one relevant navigable link on the line, too.)
Dab pages aren't supposed to be dictionary entries or Yellow Pages; they're supposed to help someone find the page they're looking for in case of ambiguity. In this case there's no ambiguity: the only remotely appropriate page for "Daisy Systems" is Daisy Systems -- thus there's nothing to disambiguate.
In any event, you're not supposed to remove a speedy tag yourself; that's what {{hangon}} is for. Regards,--NapoliRoma (talk) 02:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
We are writing wikipedia, which is a source of information. There are potential wikipedia articles here and red links are invitation. Don't do wikilawyering to me here. I can do it better than you. For example, your reason "It is a disambiguation page that only points to a single article" is false: it points to three artices, two of which are missing. `'Míkka>t 04:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi -- I'm not trying to get into an argument, truly; I'm just trying to do the right thing. I'm all for preserving information (including links) whenever possible, but in this particular case, the second and third entries are not only redlinks, but neither one of them has a plausible link to any existing WP article that I could think of (and I did make the effort to consider what links could be put in). I even poked around to find out what became of the Daisy printer company -- it seemed to have been taken private in 1987, at which point I did lose the will to pursue it...:-/.
Redlinks without any corresponding navigable link are not useful on a dab page.
Oh yes they are useful, for those who are interested in interconecting of information. `'Míkka>t 04:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Both of these companies have managed not to get articles written since the dab page was created in '04, so it seemed reasonable to yank it until there was some interest in either one of these apparently obscure companies that would justify it being reconstituted.
Daisy printer company was very notable in computer industry. It is not your fault that you don't know everything, just keep this in mind. Yes it is obscure now, since the technology progressed beyond. `'Míkka>t 04:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Wouldn't the appropriate action, if these companies really ought to be represented in WP, to create stubs for them? Then there's no argument at all that the dab page should exist. Regards,--NapoliRoma (talk) 04:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
That's what I am usually doing when I am hit by deletionists. `'Míkka>t 04:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
"It is not your fault that you don't know everything, just keep this in mind."
"That's what I am usually doing when I am hit by deletionists."
Ouch and ouch. I consider myself an inclusionist in general, and I'm also very much cognizant of "just because you don't know about it doesn't make it unimportant." I've had at least one article of my own marked for speedy because the admin made that assumption. (and I got it saved...)
But dab pages are different. They're not articles; they're more multichannel redirect pages. They should never have original content (other than perhaps an alternate article name, just like a redir), they don't require and should not have cites, and each entry on a dab page is supposed to serve one purpose: to move the reader from the concept they were looking for to exactly one existing WP page with content.
You can have a redlink on a dab page, but only if there's a corresponding useful navigable link. If you can't come up with a useful link, that means that not only does the page not exist yet, but basically, the topic of that page is not represented on WP yet. If there's nothing to direct the user to, it should not clutter the dab page until there is.
(In the case of Daisy-the-printer-company, Netherlands would not be a valid alternate link (too vague) but maybe list of printer companies, if it existed, would. Even better, if Daisy was that significant a company, would be to do up a stub for it.
Anyhow... I see this is all moot now, since that's just what you've done. Sorry to come off as a deletionist twit; I'm really not. "Dab page pedant" is probably closer to the mark. :-)--NapoliRoma (talk) 22:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

About Cresta: while I doubt this company deserves a separate article, it does merit a mention somewhere, because its founders are real big guns, and the link to its home page is by no means spam: it is a valid reference about the mentioned company in the immediately necessary place. `'Míkka>t 05:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, it merits a place on WP, just not on the Daisy Systems page, since they really have nothing to do with each other, besides being high-tech companies with a common employee. Again, a CrestaTech stub might make sense, or maybe putting it on one of the "big guns"' pages (Andy Bechtolsheim?).--NapoliRoma (talk) 22:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Notability of Blue Note (jazz clubs)

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Blue Note (jazz clubs), by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Blue Note (jazz clubs) seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Blue Note (jazz clubs), please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 21:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Model 100 picture

Thanks for the fine picture [[Image:Model 100.jpg]] - about the only way to make it better would be to show the Model 100 turned on. --Wtshymanski (talk) 05:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Funny thing, that—when I went to take the picture, I discovered we were completely out of AA batteries. So, I reshot it today; not only is it now powered on, but I took a little more time to get a somewhat better picture overall.
I had to look up how to set the date/time/day... things have come a long way since 1983. Can you imagine asking someone to go into a BASIC interpreter to set the time on their computer? I'd managed to completely forget that the string symbol in BASIC variables was a postfix rather than a prefix (Perl being more of my thing these days), or I would have been able to work it out without cheating :-).--NapoliRoma (talk) 21:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
The new picture is much appreciated - the LCD photographs surprisingly well, considering it's non-back-lit and 20+ years old. Nice illustration of the Y1900 problem, too. Thanks for the extra effort. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Only problem is that now I've started poking around Wikimedia Commons: yet another rabbit hole for me to disappear down... . All sorts of fun pictures there, such as the one of the NEC machine I've now added to the article. I also found yet another machine of this genre there, the Zenith ZP-150, whose article in turn references a TRS-80 Model 600, neither of which are currently mentioned in the model 100 article. I'll rectify that as soon as I sort out some POV-looking stuff in the ZP-150 article.--NapoliRoma (talk) 19:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, I recall a Tandy Model 1400 but not a 600. If it was an MS DOS machine it was a lot more capable than the 100/102/200. And here it is at [[1]] - clamshell folding display, not the one-piece format of the 100, and an 8088 processor. I've never seen one. --Wtshymanski (talk) 03:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Caere

There is no article about the company, only about a product that they sold to Nuance Communications. The only mention even of Caere in either article is that they sold the product. Therefore there is nothing currently on Wikipedia that would make a good link, and so the link can not be disambiguated to a page. Do you have any other suggestions besides removing the link?? MrKIA11 (talk) 22:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I'm too optimistic, but I had tagged it in the hopes that whoever mentiond Caere would be able to say one of:
  1. "I meant to reference Omnipage the product"
  2. "I meant to reference Nuance"
  3. "Gee, there's no article about Caere; I'll create one"
But you've presented a plausible case that really neither Omnipage nor Nuance has anything to do with this person who once worked for Caere (unless he had a significant part in the creation of OmniPage, which is quite possible, but we don't know that), so the last option is the most likely. So... if the ambiguous-but-tagged-as-such link is really that offensive, my other suggestion would be to change the ambiguous link Caere to the redlink Caere Inc. Either way, it's a flag that this link is in search of a knowledgeable editor who can set it right. Just deleting the link doesn't make that request.--NapoliRoma (talk) 23:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Have you asked Mlpkr yet? My bet is that he (or she ☺) just got it from other source, and did not mean to reference anything else. Personally, I think that Caere Corporation would be better than what is there currently. MrKIA11 (talk) 02:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Ask? Wouldn't that be cheating? :-) I agree that making it a redlink is the way to go, and I see you did so just now; cool. Cheers,--NapoliRoma (talk) 19:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AT&T & Unix

(Response to my comment at: User talk:Azrael Nightwalker#Your edit/summary comment on AT&T Computer Systems)

See the following articles: Novell, Unix System Laboratories and SCO v. Novell case, where court ruled that Novell owns the Unix copyrights, not SCO. Azrael Nightwalker (talk) 18:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks -- the first two aren't much use, since neither have cites, and the USL article makes no mention of what happened to the USL assets after they were acquired by Novell. However, the SCO v. Novell article does have a wealth of citations, including a collection of documents under "Novell's Unique Legal Rights". These docs make it clear that Novell retained the right to approve all deals "old SCO" might make to assign or waive SVRx licensing rights to another company.
It's a tangled web—I'd still be interested in knowing, for example, whether or not any employees were transferred from Novell to SCO in '95 as part of the deal—but I think your edit to pull this part of it completely out of the AT&T article makes even more sense in this light. Thanks again,--NapoliRoma (talk) 19:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, here they say that Novell just sold the Unix business, they're not too specific about it. Azrael Nightwalker (talk) 20:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
The UNIX article has this press release as a source. The article says "In 1995, the business of administering and supporting the existing UNIX licenses, plus rights to further develop the System V code base, were sold by Novell to the Santa Cruz Operation." Later it also states: "Novell disputed the SCO group's claim to hold copyright on the UNIX source base. According to Novell, SCO (and hence the SCO Group) are effectively franchise operators for Novell, which also retained the core copyrights, veto rights over future licensing activities of SCO, and 95% of the licensing revenue." (no source though) Azrael Nightwalker (talk) 11:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Yep, that's the same press release I pointed to on your talk page; I was the one who added that reference to the Unix article back in August '06... .
A possible source for the "veto rights" portion is in the "Novell's Unique Legal Rights" collection I mentioned above, where in a letter to McBride, Novell quotes a section of the 1995 agreement:

"Buyer shall not, and shall not have the authority to, amend, modify or waive any right under or assign any SVRX License without the prior written consent of Seller."

Back in 1995, I don't think many people (including Darl McBride, apparently :-) realized this was part of the deal—to those of us on the outside, it looked more like Novell was dumping all their UNIX-related assets.--NapoliRoma (talk) 14:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] General Redirects

I had never read that article before, and because of it, I will most likely change the way I edit links. I had never thought of some of the points that it makes. As for the work, it is quite easy using Wikipedia Cleaner. Thanks for the heads-up, MrKIA11 (talk) 18:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removing hatnotes

I've been working through many of the names at Wikipedia:Suggestions for name disambiguation, and the instructions for that project regularly suggest adding "otherpersons4" on both pages where there is a "Joe Bloggs" and a "Joe A. Bloggs". I've found so many horrors where people haven't linked from "Joe Bloggs" to "Joe Bloggs (whatever)" that I'm now thoroughly in favour of hatnotes which link from "Joe H. Bloggs" to "Joe Bloggs", and from "Joe Bloggs (something)" to "Joe Bloggs" (whether it's a single name or a dab page). There's a wording somewhere... can't put my finger on it at the moment... which says that although not recommended, such apparently redundant hatnotes are not forbidden. I've also had a look at the heated discussion on Wikipedia talk:Hatnote over the years! I think that hatnotes like the one you've removed may be useful for the reader who comes across the page because of a duff link, or by finding it on Wikipedia, and it also helps remind editors creating new articles to think about including them in dab pages. I don't see that removing hatnotes helps readers to find information in WP.

I'd rather people spent their energies on expanding dab pages to include all the relevant articles - this morning, Charles Fisher led to a single page which had a dablink to an Australian headmaster; I've now made a dab page to help people find the 4 CFs with bracketed disambigators, one with an initial, and a "Charlie" thrown in. And the headmaster, with a piped link.

Please don't remove any more of the possibly over-enthusiastic hatnotes I've been scattering around. They are harmless and potentially useful. PamD (talk) 15:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

You're probably thinking of WP:DAB#Usage guidelines:

While there is no specific prohibition against it, adding disambiguation links to a page with a name that clearly distinguishes itself from the generic term is discouraged.

My immediate thought would be that a generic guideline page would be the preferred one to follow over a project page, but yes, it is only a guideline page, not a policy, and it does say specifically that it's not prohibited, just discouraged. In other words, there's a lot of leeway in guidance here.
So... not to worry, I'm not planning on following you around in a mad campaign to undo your work; the only reason I saw this one and acted on it at all is because it's on a page I recently created. I agree completely that my energies are better spent elsewhere. In this case, my energies were focused on improving the one page, not on a broader dablink jihad.
But I don't think "having a link somewhat like this elsewhere is useful" is a defensible reason—we do have discretionary faculties we can employ, and the odds that someone coming to a George M. C. Fisher page on their own and wondering "hmm, are there other George Fishers I should know about?" are slim enough that we could leave those putatively few users to discover the "Go" box on their own. My opinion only, of course.
Put another way: if it had been George Q. Fisher, I would probably never have bothered. But two middle initials seals the intent of the visitor—again, in my opinion.--NapoliRoma (talk) 16:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Context MBA

Sorry about that, I don't know anything about the history of computing. I stubbed it as a member of WP:Stub Sorting. It has now been reverted. Kathleen.wright5 21:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thicknet wasn't always vampire tap. You WERE right...

"These are the "stinger" or "vampire" type transceivers, with a spring-loaded "energy" stinger. You will have to specify whether you want version 1.0 or 2.0 transceivers, and "heartbeat" or not (I don't know which the 3Com board needs, but TCL will know). "

"I would NEVER buy one of the transceivers that requires cutting the cable for installation. We never have any problems with the vampire taps. "

You should find these by searching in Google Groups. The first thread was called "Ethernet Hardware Pricing," and dates to Febuary 18, 1985.

Also, "The AUI cables are the right choice. I'm concerned about vampire taps though because they aren't suppose to be too reliable. Our thicknet was going to use some transceivers from cabletron. ST-500 with LANVIEW. Totally contained with little LEDS for xmit rcv collision power and sqe (which is selectable) And they screwed into your thicknet. No worries about making a poor tap. Since your backbone requires only 3 of these (1 per floor) Cutting the cable to make the tap won't be that hard. And it will improve reliability And these things were cheap. "

"We were forced to run part of our Ethernet cable through conduit, due to a very sticky fire code. The problems that we encountered included how to install a tap in a box without unduly bending the cable, getting the black marks to line up with the boxes, and having to remove terminations to get the cable pulled, and then putting them back on. If a retap is ever required in a box, we may have to punt.

"Answers:

       - Measure the conduit runs between boxes carefully.
       - Get the holes in the boxes placed to minimize cable bending.
       - Get *big* boxes to put the tap in.
       - On transciever cables, use a pin removal tool to remove
         pins from the 15-pin connector shell before pulling
         the cable through. Don't splice a transciever cable.
       - You'll need to remove one terminator on the coax, pull it,
         and then install the terrminator back on. You can splice
         a coax, using two male ends and a female-female adapter.
       - Beware, throughout, that Ethernet specs do not allow a bend
         in the coax togo below a 8 inch radius (I believe that's the
         number)."

"One solution, of course, is to use vampire taps. But the Ethernet package for a 3B2 includes a 3Com transceiver, which uses barrel connectors. So we're contemplating putting connectors every 12.5 meters or thereabouts, allowing for easy access. "

I do hope this proved interesting. I'm sure there's much more on the early days of Ethernet out on Usenet/Google Groups for your perusal, but these posts confirm your Thicknet memories. Which came first, if either, I'm not sure, but both seem to have been around from a really early time. Clearly, you have evidence to establish that there have been Thicknet systemms without vampire taps, at the very least. This post is unwieldy, so why not delete it and leave a summary or something once you've read.

Manimal347 (talk) 01:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Two Stockton stations

I'd suggest not merging the two Stockton station articles, since they refer to two different locations. The article you left the merge template on is for the former Southern Pacific station, used by Amtrak trains to/from Sacramento; the facility described in Stockton (Amtrak station) is the former Santa Fe depot, used by trains to/from Oakland. Unless there are any objections, I'll remove the merge template. Take care! Pitamakan (talk) 16:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Cool, thanks.
But this raises a new question -- after I saw your edits today, I followed the succession box links for the San Joaquins from Bakersfield back to Stockton. Modesto (Amtrak station) links back only to Stockton (Amtrak station) for both the Oakland and Sacto runs. It looks like this should be changed to show that it goes to the Stockton Amtrak station for Oakland, and the Stockton ACE station for Sacto, right?--NapoliRoma (talk) 16:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Yep, exactly. These skeletal station articles were probably put together back when the Amtrak service in the valley only went to Oakland, and not to Sacto as well ... so there's a fair amount of updating/clarification that could be done. Pitamakan (talk) 16:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Melchizedek (disambiguation)

Hi

You just reverted my edit to Melchizedek (disambiguation), giving your reason as rv: good faith edits, but "tidying" in this case looks a whole lot like fixing WP:REDIRECT#NOTBROKEN. I admit I hadn't studied WP:REDIRECT#NOTBROKEN, and I'm grateful to you for drawing my attention to it. However, I've studied it now, and I think you have somewhat misinterpreted it.

WP:REDIRECT#NOTBROKEN is written on the assumption that we're talking about ordinary text in articles, rather than disambiguation pages. For example it says There should almost never be a reason to replace [[redirect]] with [[target|redirect]]. . I entirely agree with that, and I hadn't brokem that rule. It also says In many cases where it might seem appropriate to make this change, ... the better option is to edit the visible text. Indeed, and I had edited the visible text.

I'd like to suggest that disambiguation pages are different from main articles. In articles, we're writing in sentences, subject to the rules of grammar and style, and links are subordinate to that. Where we follow a link, we're interested in what appears when we get there, rather than in what it's called. In the case of disambiguation pages, things are different. The names of articles are stated explicitly, and that's what we're telling people. We're not just saying how to get there, we're giving the information as to what the article is called, so any use of redirection within a link is likely to be confusing, and better avoided.

Looking at the specific changes I'd made, we previously had

which I changed to

with everything visible. I assume the original forms were written like that either as mistakes or when the names were actually like that, having been changed since. Certainly the new names are better, since the Mormons don't like to be called Mormons, and prefer the label Latter Day Saints. In the case of the other, the term Melchizedek priesthood is only ever used within a context of Christianity, so the qualification was pointless. That's part of the reason why I changed them, but also so that people can see what the articles are in fact called. The only thing I'd do differently now is to describe it as clarification rather than tidying.

Finally, I'd like to point out to you that reverting is editing. If it had been written in the first place the way I left it (with Latter Day Saints etc), and you'd edited it to Mormonism, that would be considered vandalism. My edit may have been unnecessary, but it was in no way harmful. Your undoing of it was even less necessary.SamuelTheGhost (talk) 16:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Samuel,
Thank you for the very well-thought-out and comprehensive reply. I agree with many of your points, but working backwards:
First off, beware of equating "vandalism" to "an edit I don't agree with" -- calling an ill-advised edit "vandalism" is the Wikipedia equivalent of Godwin's Law. In the particular case you cited, it's quite possible the editor wouldn't have been aware that "Mormonism" is considered a faux pas in the LDS community. "Vandalism" should be reserved to refer to malicious intent to deface an article.
So why did I pull the undo lever? I was reacting more to the first change, the "champagne bottle" edit, which at first glance had the earmarks of a NOTBROKEN edit, and a quick glance at the remaining bit seemed the same; I thought, "hmm, shouldn't there be a clear disambiguation between the two Melchizedek priesthood articles?" You've laid out a good explanation as to why that was wrong -- not only are these links in a dab page, they're in its See also section, a place where having the actual article title is most appropriate.
So, I'll revert my undo; I appreciate the work you put into defending your edit. Cheers,NapoliRoma (talk) 17:31, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Broadcast Message Server

An editor has nominated Broadcast Message Server, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Broadcast Message Server and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 22:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] as you requested

Victuallers (talk) 22:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thomas King

See here, right under the heading "Columbia". Basically, I added the link because I am creating a list of BC by-elections and I am checking each name to make sure it wasn't a dab page or was taken by someone completely unrelated but with the same name. Since Thomas King (politician) definitely existed, I am going to revert your edit to Tom King. Thanks. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 04:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out that red dablinks have a precendent; see Gary Collins. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 04:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi, the issue isn't with red links on dab pages per se, nor is the issue with whether or not Thomas King (politician) existed -- I fully trust that he did. The problem here is that the sole purpose of dab pages is to route the reader on to the page he or she is looking for. There is no WP page to route people to for this particular Thomas King.
The relevant guideline for dab pages and redlinks in WP:MOSDAB is that you can have a redlink entry, but there still needs to be (exactly) one blue link for each entry on a dab page. Can you suggest an appropriate blue link for this Thomas King? Otherwise, the entry really shouldn't be there. Regards,NapoliRoma (talk) 05:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] At my talk page

I like to keep conversations at one location as well. I responded to your note. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 20:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] HomeLink Wireless Control System

OK, I've restored, it's up to you to save this article before it's speedied again

Jimfbleak (talk) 17:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks -- yes, I was in the process of adding to the talk page to explain why I was doing so and what I'd be doing when, I found the article had already been deleted. Will you be restoring the talk page, too? Thanks again, NapoliRoma (talk) 17:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
oops - done Jimfbleak (talk) 17:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
You had an hour? I can restore the page to something in your userspace and you may be able to edit/perfect it there. Rudget. 18:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Probably! :) Nice assessment. Rudget. 19:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Next Computer?

I redirected Next Computer to NeXT because that's what I was looking for when I searched for it. NeXT made more than one type of computer, so Next Computer can refer to any one of them. But there was only one NeXT Computer, Inc. I believe the latter is what most people hitting the redirect will be looking for. Foobaz·o< 02:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't know the computer was called the "Next Computer". Maybe you're right about the redirect. Foobaz·o< 22:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] SUN-3M

I am not postive about the name. I was a very early employee of Sun Microsystems and in casual converstations the original Stanford workstation was always called the "3M" machine. I never heard any other name than the generic "Stanford workstation". Shoul I rename the page to Stanford workstation? If so, how do I go about changing it?

Robert.harker (talk) 22:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The article name should be whatever name is the most commonly accepted one for the workstation (although I admit it might be difficult to determine that after almost 30 years, especially if only ten of them were ever made...). It just seemed likely to me that "SUN-3M" was not that name.
The SIGGRAPH paper you quote calls it the "SUN workstation" -- would that be the proper name?
If it's at all weighing on your mind, I wouldn't worry about the name conflicting with other Sun-related articles already on Wikipedia; I think it's more important to get the name right, and there are various ways to clear up any ambiguities and confusion if that becomes an issue.
As for "how" -- after your Wikipedia account has been active for four days, you'll notice that a "move" tab will now appear at the top of each article; you'd use that to do the rename (or I or any other editor could do it earlier). The only caution I'd make about moving/renaming is that although it's easy enough to do, it can leave a bit of a mess behind, so it should be done with some degree of consideration beforehand.
You can also have redirects to articles (think "symlinks" :-), and in fact when you move an article, a redirect from the original name to the new name gets left behind automatically.--NapoliRoma (talk) 23:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. I am checking some other sources about the 3M name, but my first result is that I have the name wrong. If I rename it though I would not like to use the name "SUN workstation" since that is a generic name for a product that sun made hundres of thousands of. Would it be better to use the name "Stanford workstation" or Stanford University Network workstation"? or do you have a better idea? Robert.harker (talk) 00:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Upon relfection I think you are right. The 3M term was a generic term, not a Stanford specific name. And in looking at many google refernces, it was known as the "SUN workstation", all uppercase SUN, lowercase w. Since I created my account today, could you move it to this name. I will adjust any other links I made. Also is it correct to use block quotes such as the one from Andy Bechtolsheim SIGGRAPH paper. Should I have attributed it with a <ref></ref> block? Thank you for your help Robert.harker (talk) 06:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

As you've probably seen, I've done the move; I also did put the attributions in reflist format. The blockquotes seem fine to me.
As a side note, the "3M" edits going on are interesting to me, as a couple of decades ago I used that term quite a bit in my professional life, and have in the past made edits to both the 3M computer and workstation articles related to that.
The Andy Hertzfield memoir the 3M article references says "megaflop", quoting Andy van Dam, who in turn was said to be quoting a "recently published paper" (presumably Raj Reddy's).
The Hertzfield anecdote takes place in early '83, a couple of years after the SUN workstation came out -- at that time PCs were still only .33 MIPs, but the Sun-1 was running at 1+ MIPS, so maybe 1 megaFLOPS was the new stretch goal by that time.
So my memory from '84 or so when I first got involved in this area was that MegaFLOPS was the big deal, but it looks like the term as Raj Reddy coined it was referring to MIPS. Since the article quotes the Hertzfield anecdote, I think the "3M computer" article should mention that too, though. Cheers, NapoliRoma (talk) 19:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the updates. They are a nice improvement of what I wrote. As far as the MIPS vs MegaFLOPS thing goes, in my research for the 3M_computer and the SUN_workstation the only place I saw mention of MegaFLOPS was in the 3M page. What I read about the SPICE workstation, the SUN workstation and the PERQ articles and discussions all talked about instructions per second, either CPU or Pascal (native language), not floating point instructions. I also added a long discussion on the Talk:Workstation page about the term workstation being outdated. I would be interested in your feedback. Robert.harker (talk) 01:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Asking for fact checking

Since you have been very helpful for a Wikipedia newbie I though I would ask for some advice on murky information. The Sun 1 had two generations. The original Sun 1 design with the Sun 1 boards and the Interphase disk controller and the Sun 1/100U with the Sun 2 boards and the Xylogics disk controller. These are both verifiable. What I do not know about is the transition from one to the other. I am not sure, but I suspect that there was a period where Sun 1 boards were shipped with the xylogics disk controller, specifically the Sun 1/150 server. But I do not know this for a fact. Now for the question. Can I use this in the article as an assumption and ask for a fact check? This would be my preference since more people would see it. Or is this something that is better put into the discussion section? I look forward to your helpRobert.harker (talk) 10:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "News" (newspaper) redlink

Are you quick. I'm working on the article now. Sorry if I created the redlink before the article, but the cart is already before the horse so I have to work it out. Thanks for the notice.--TGC55 (talk) 23:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please help save Repo Man movie article

Howdy NapoliRoma,

This guy, Dædαlus, is in there trying to remove parts that you, I and many others contributed to the Repo Man article. Please add to the bottom of this thread on the Repo Man talk page that you think the "Notable Motifs" section should not be blanked (erased), but left as is since the Pulp Fiction article also has a "Notable Motifs" section that isn't being considered for removal at all (even by Dædαlus himself).

While I agree that the "Notable Motifs" section could use some work, it certainly won't help the article to delete the whole thing and erase all our work which consists of many multiple contributers over a course of years. I'm willing to work on it and better incorporate it into the article, he just wants to delete it all!

With consensus, we can stop this guy from deleting all our work soon!

Thanks in advance. Cowicide (talk) 02:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Whoops!

Nice catch. Incidentally, I was making that change in the lead because I'm going to nominate the list for featured list status; I'll do what I can to help out, but I just wanted to give you the heads up! --jonny-mt 17:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)