Talk:Automatic link establishment

Leave a comment!

Wikipedia Telecommunications Project
In process. Baleywik (talk) 23:33, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Article Technical Discussion
The Article could be improved with some more images and diagrams. If users know of any that are available for this purpose, please add them. Also, we need some NATO STANAG references, if anyone knows where one can be referenced, please add the cite, or post the information here and one of the other editors can do the wiki coding for you. It would be great to add more reference material or old photos on the history of ALE, particularly other types of early ALE systems or scanning selective calling systems that were used before First Generation ALE. Thanks. Expeditionradio (talk) 12:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

It would also be nice to have more citations and reference papers on ALE history and development, particularly other types of ALE or selective calling that were used before First Generation. Expeditionradio (talk) 15:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

This article appears to be almost exclusively focused on (U.S.) Amateur Radio applications and culture. Perhaps a technical article should be written covering the as-designed tactical usage and technical standards. This article would be more appropriately referred to as Automatic Link Establishment(Amateur Radio), or so it seems to me. I believe this article has value as it stands. It just overlooks a great deal of applicable subject matter while focusing excessively on one particular usage. 75.140.243.0 (talk) 05:01, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

A useful (draft) ALE Application Handbook is at http://www.its.bldrdoc.gov/pub/oa-rpt/hf-ale/handbook/. It touches (at least in passing) many of the uses ALE can be put to, including 2G and 3G messaging, HF Email, and HF Internet access (and specifically covering the significant issues that arise from using an unreliable transport layer capable of 100 to 1000 bytes per second "made good). There is much useful documentation in here that could be used to improve the main article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.140.243.0 (talk) 20:04, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Can be enhanced with more detail covering commercial/governmental application, yes. If contributor has that info, he should simply research it/add it, he should not complain it isn't there! To the above calling for more technical images, tables, and charts: good call, add them. Already seems to be some material/info derived from ALE Application Handbook, though not verbatim. As to amateur/ham technical material: well documented; should be retained; is valuable information; don't gut it. Reviewed sectional framework: excellent; provides for additional enhancement; add government/commercial ALE material to the paragraphs. Notice some recent spelling/grammar errors crept into the article in past month; errors weren't there before; edit wikipedia but don't know how to use a spell/grammer check? Doubtful. Get your act together. My first serious editorial look at article; took it on under the WikiProject Telecommunications; currently working in HF comms/ALE equipment; will contribute more to technical update of article as have time. Baleywik (talk) 08:12, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Amateur Radio Project Discussion

 * It is not yet Class B either. It lacks in-line citations and supporting material. Also it is not well balanced as ALE has wide application outside amateur radio.
 * Sv1xv (talk) 10:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Update: As of this date (early September 2008) the article has now been greatly improved, and is probably Class B (or better), especially since the historic background, indexing, citations, and supporting material have been added.
 * Expeditionradio (talk) 12:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Citation and Footnote Discussion
All footnote citations in the article presently are reputable external sources. This article is more thoroughly footnoted than most Wikipedia articles of similar nature. The GAREC citation is a paper presented at the main session of International Amateur Radio Union Global Amateur Radio Emergency Communications Conference in 2007 by Crystal, B.; Barrow, A.. It was published by both IARU (an ITU entity) and the HFLINK organization (the Internationl ALE organization of Amateur Radio). The paper is the most widely recognized document on ALE in the Global Amateur Radio Emcomm community on the subject matter. Those two organizations are the most appropriate for the material in question. If anyone knows of other similar citations that can be added, please add them as additional footnotes to the article. --Expeditionradio (talk) 20:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Edit History Discussion

 * Today, reverted 3 sandboxing edits by anonymous 97.97.151.99(talk) to a previous known good version. This reversion restored the links, and citations that were broken by anonymous 97.97.151.99 (talk). It is unknown if the user was really sandboxing, or if the errors facts/grammar/sandbox was vandalism due to disagreement. Since it appears to be that user's first attempt at Wikipedia, we will just let it slide :) Expeditionradio (talk) 04:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Disagreement does not automatically equal "vandalism"... You should not have reverted that user's edits without discussion.  You appear to be attempting to take ownership WP:Own of this article, allowing only edits that you approve.  I have added the Weasel WP:Weasel tag to the biased sections until such time as they are cleaned up.  Tallaeus (talk) 14:30, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Noted today that user Tallaeus (talk) seems to be back again, defacing the encyclopedia article as usual, this time with crude injection of the "weasel tag" improperly placed. Please note that edits to Wikipedia should be constructive, not destructive. Weasel tags may be properly placed when "citation needed" has been tagged for some time. If no one finds a citation reference for the text with "citation needed" within a reasonable time, the text may be removed at some point. This is the 5th time the user Tallaeus (talk) has made destructive edits, injected graffiti, or placed unverifiable text in this article for the purpose of vandalism. See documentation click here... [|Tallaeus_vandalism]


 * Third opinion editor has already stated that my previous edits were not vandalism. See Opinion from Averell below.  Tallaeus (talk) 17:22, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Today, reverted crude edits by anonymous 97.97.151.99(talk) to a previous known good version. This reversion restored the links, and citations that were broken by anonymous 97.97.151.99 (talk). Since the user has previously destroyed part of the article in a similar way, and broken its citations/references before, it is not believed to have been due to sandboxing or innocent errors (looks now like vandalism). It now appears we have 2 users Tallaeus and 97.97.151.99 who's only purpose has been to deface this Wikipedia article for some unknown reason. Please note that edits to Wikipedia should be constructive, not destructive. Expeditionradio (talk) 11:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Note 18 September 2008. The recent source of 6 vandalism attacks to this article (bad edits, reversions, blanking, graffiti, deletions, etc) has now been traced to Florida USA. It appears to be the same anonymous person or a sock puppet using 2 IP Addresses: 67.78.138.130 RADIOLOGY-WEST-COAST in Hudson Florida USA, and 97.97.151.99 New Port Richey, FL 34652. The two locations are 8 miles apart and the vandal's bad edits and destruction in each case are similar. Expeditionradio (talk) 21:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Restored cite/references. Fixed tags. Repaired vandalism damage (blanking, graffiti, bad edits, etc) caused by anonymous vandal who uses 2 IP addresses: 67.78.138.13 and 97.97.151.99. Note to vandal: Please note that edits to Wikipedia should be constructive, not destructive. Best Regards to all the constructive editors :) Expeditionradio (talk) 23:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Restored to last known good edit by Smokeybehr. Cleaned up what was left of misguided or vandal attempts to tag the article to death. Did the daily clean-up of vandalism perpetrated by anonymous repeat-offender at IP address 97.97.151.99 (talk) and today we had a new anonymous vandalism at IP address 72.147.58.242 (talk). Those who wish to tag anything else are well advised to discuss it beforehand. It isn't OK just to spew tags throughout the article out of spite when one doesn't agree with something. The first part of the article has never been in dispute. There are tons of citations and references for the first 90% of the article. Only the very last couple of sections have really been the subject of discussion here, and they are already tagged sufficiently with derogatory tags (8.4.1 ALE in US Amateur Radio Popular Subculture and 8.4.2 Anti-ALE Advocacy in US Amateur Radio Popular Culture). The part about the FCC Ruling already has adequate citation, and since it is almost verbatim from the FCC ruling, there's not much better we can do on it. Any help tracking down the vandals would be appreciated. Expeditionradio (talk) 10:54, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Undid edit by Sv1xv which removed the word "subculture" from each of the lower sections' titles. Explanation to Sv1xv: these sections are titled specifically ALE in Amateur Radio Popular Subculture, rather than generalistic ALE In Amateur Radio, because these sections are chronicling the Amateur Radio popular culture's interaction with the development and increasing use of ALE within the social framework. True, Amateur Radio is classified as a Service by ITU, and the service/Emcomm/technical aspect of ALE in ham radio is covered well in the preceding sections. Ham radio's long subculture history combined with elements of lifestyle-hobby provides a different platform for ALE use than is found in other services using ALE, such as commercial/gov systems. In some ways, it is similar to the early days of the industrial revolution, when machinery was first introduced to skilled hand laborers. This social aspect within ham radio affects ALE use... thus the encyclopedic inclusion of this subject matter as a significant factor in the article. Expeditionradio (talk) 13:07, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Today, the anonymous vandal at IP Address 97.97.151.99 returned to hit the article for the 7th time. It was then reverted to the last known-good version by Baleywik. Also, noticed that a few days ago, it looks like the wikiproject "telecom" has taken the article under its wing. That is a welcome sight. Perhaps we could see some new technical info and research by the additional technology-savvy editors. Expeditionradio (talk) 05:35, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Today I removed both "sources" provided by Expeditionradio for the "Digital Stone Age" passage. Reference 20, the Monitoring Times citation, was unverifiable, and reference 21 linked to an amateur radio club newsletter, which doesn't meet Wikipedia's criteria for a reliable source, and also appears to be a direct quote from a message posted by Expeditionradio herself on 5/08/2008 to a QRZ.com discussion thread .  Tallaeus (talk) 13:57, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Restored damage due to anonymous vandal at IP Address 97.97.151.99 who has vandalized the article for the 8th time. Restored the valid citations that were blanked by user Tallaeus. See further discussion below in the Opinion section of this Wikipedia article discussion talk page. Expeditionradio (talk) 23:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Again removed the unverifiable/unreliable for the "digital stone age" section. Tallaeus (talk) 22:49, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, Tallaeus, whoever you are, but I needed to revert your edit because you inadvertently removed a good verified footnote. I checked the link that pointed to the digital stone age ref and it is a good one, a published newsletter, and it is what it says it is in this article. I also googled the term, and there is also ample popular instances of this term in ham radio circles during the past year pertaining to the reference, including some that I found with those exact words 'digital stone age' referring to the petition within the FCC comment filings on their own FCC website. So, please stop deleting the ref, because it looks like you are doing it simply to stir up trouble.We5280 (talk) 08:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I also googled the phrase before deleting the citation, and what you apparently failed to notice was that, almost without exception, each Google result was a message posted by Expeditionradio, or someone's response to such a posting, quoting her use of the phrase. None of those results appear to show popular use of the phrase, which would be required to support the claim that the petition became "widely known as The Digital Stone Age Petition."  And, as I noted above, the newsletter item is simply another quote of one of Expeditionradio's postings and therefore, amounts to self-citing.  Tallaeus (talk) 14:16, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * If this comes up again, note that this phrase is found nowhere on any website in the fcc.gov domain as of the posting of this comment: http://www.google.com/search?q=%22RM-11392%22+OR+%22Digital+Stone+Age%22+site:.fcc.gov&hl=en&filter=0 although the recent edit history suggests this is no longer an active issue.75.140.243.0 (talk) 14:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Opinion
I'm adding to this discussion because it was listed as a third opinion request on WP:3O. The first thing is, of course, that you should please stop the edit war, even if it's slow-motion. It's much better to use the discussion page and reach and agreement before changing the article yet again.

And even if the content in question may be false or misleading -- it is not vandalism by Wikipedia's standards. Please remember to assume good faith and try to find a solution for the problem at hand.

Of course the factual information still has to be verifiable and reliable sources should be provided. However forum postings are usually not reliable sources in Wikipedia either; you really should provide other third-party sources on this.

For the current dispute I'd suggest that you leave the information in for now, but with the "fact" tags. If reliable sources are not provided within, let's say, a month, then delete it for good and don't re-add it without sources provided. Averell (talk) 14:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your input, Averell.
 * For the purposes of all further discussion, it must be noted that user In the major edit posted by Expeditionradio yesterday, all material from sources authored by "Crystal, B.; Barrow, A." are self-published and therefore not acceptable under Wikipedia verifiability standards, and should be removed.
 * While internet forum postings may not be generally acceptable as reliable sources, in support of a factual statement such as "...some amateur radio operators have expressed concerns about the legality of automatic periodic soundings...", they certainly should be, if in fact those postings contain expressions of such concerns.
 * Please note that the "Anti-ALE Advocacy..." section is a blatantly biased op-ed piece, and as such, should be removed and replaced with a neutrally-titled paragraph stating the simple fact that concerns have been expressed, and the FCC has been asked to address those concerns.  Tallaeus (talk) 19:10, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I have looked at the references. It's blog entries and thus weak sources (as much as web forum entries). However it seems to be mostly technical stuff and I don't see these statements were disputed in any way. So I don't see any reason for a deletion there, even if it would be good to find more reliable sources. Maybe you have valid concerns over these facts, but at the moment it feels - to me - that you bring it up just to make a point.


 * I know that forum postings (as well as blog postings) are not "forbidden" per - it depends on the circumstances. And of course you can use web content to support statements about online communities. Moreover, such links can be used to provide context. The important thing is that the sources should make the given facts plausible to an outsider who is not part of the forums or the subculture.


 * It seems that both of you now agree that a dispute is going on - although you may hold different opinions. It also seems that if this is an important discussion in your community it would sooner or later get mentioned outside the forums - e.g. in specialised journals (Expeditionradio already added the FCC ruling, which is a good start).


 * As for the "Anti-ALE advocacy..." section: Yes, it's tone is biased. However it can be improved and I see that you both agree that the topic exists and that you're working on the content instead of reverting forth and back.


 * I'll also answer to Expeditionradio below, continue reading there ;-) Averell (talk) 16:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * If it is agreeable with the other editor participants in this discussion, I would like to edit the specific sentence about the British Luddites to delete the word luddite, and turn the sentence into a bland shadow of its former self :) Yes, I know, the Luddite sentence is interesting, 100% true, and relevant to this subject... especially confirmed by the huge number of recent vandalisms to this article! However, in Wikipedia, perhaps there are times when it is best to avoid printing the plain bold reality of truth, whenever an article becomes a constant target of anonymous destruction by vandals. This sort of edit could help diffuse some of the vandalism. Anyone object? Expeditionradio (talk) 10:14, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I would like to make several suggestions here, and its intended audience is all editors of this article. 1) The article is approaching "very long", and a large part of the length of the article is what could be called reference material (the coordinated frequency list). Do as has been done in other situations, split this type of data to a separate article and link to it. This will save valuable screen space. 2) Both of the 'subculture' sections are borderline opinion sections and should be either removed or split to separate articles. Remember, this is supposed to look more like Britannica and less like an OpEd page. Calling names and pushing an agenda guarantees an edit war, and no one wants that. 3) Since both the FCC DA cite and the less-neutrally-entitled 'Digital Stone Age Petition" cite are the exact same PDF, and since the FCC link is the original source, it would be a nice good-faith move to replace all of the 'stone age' cites with the original-source FCC cite. 4)If you want to keep the information about the actions by the FCC in the primary article, the section needs to be pared down to facts only, and it needs to be more balanced. For example, a straight historical-only account (no namecalling) of both RM-11306 and RM-11392 and each of the RM's possible effects on ALE on amateur radio (and possibly other modes) would be much more encyclopedic than what is there now. If I can find the time, I may try to include an edit with a new section, entitled "Regulatory Actions Impacting ALE" or something similar. This would be intended to be in replacement of the FCC RM/DA history in the other sections, but I wouldn't initially remove the other sections.   Finally, everyone needs to review the Ownership WP:OWN policy.  --Electrontrap (talk) 19:52, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Show the door to trolls, vandals, and wiki-anarchists, who, if permitted, would waste your time and create a poisonous atmosphere here.
 * Discussion about subtle vandalism, specifically in the paragraph talking about the FCC RM-11392 Digital Stone Age Petition in the ALE in Amateur Radio Popular SubCulture section. Recently, it has been noted that a small group of vandals has been attacking the article in the said paragraph. The context, specifics, and subject matter have all been well-documented and inclusion of this is pertinent to the Wikipedia article's section. It seems though, that some who were possibly on the losing side of the FCC action are "taking their revenge" on this Wikipedia article. Perhaps those individuals don't bother to even read this discussion page, but if they do, my message is... "Please don't kill the messenger, just because history doesn't support your own bias or viewpoint". The vandals started with large-scale blanking and poorly thought-out injections of nonsense, and now may have fine-tuned their destructive efforts at eliminating the context, reversing the meaning of sentences, and then blanking or manipulating the citations that supported the original subject matter. Some users who started out with basic grafitti and other types of vandalism may have now evolved their efforts into gaming the system or personal attacks. But their original destructive intent continues to be transparent. Expeditionradio (talk) 01:27, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * For those who have previously vandalized this Wikipedia article, and want to come in from the cold, join in the discussion of compromise, let us offer up an olive branch. Join our discussion here of the opinions, facts, issues, and details on hand. It is my opinion that we can put more joint effort into following the core Wikipedia objectives, such as forging compromise and striving for agreement. For those who clearly offer only destruction or maliciousness with no desire to compromise, let us offer them only relentless reversion and dogged pursuit :) Expeditionradio (talk) 01:27, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Expeditionradio, I applaud your invitation to discussion. This is a great idea, if you are actually willing to engage in that discussion and take the other side seriously. Frankly, during the last days you didn't even budge on the simple and somewhat reasonable request on the FCC petition link. And if you are the only editor on the talk page in favour of that revision, you should at least explain why you feel that it's important to link a reference from a third-party site with a "warname". Instead you simply reverted each and every edit, stating that they are "vandalism" and "destructive". (Note that I'm not talking about the sentence "The petition came to be know as..." - this is another fact, that requires references. However it's not unreasonable to request that the citation in itself is neutral and references the document from the original source. Electrontrap made some level-headed comments above, but he got completely ignored. Maybe it would be a sign of good faith if you changed that reference yourself.


 * And I'm not even going to discuss the word "vandalism" any more. You've made quite clear that in your world it has a meaning that is completely different from common usage in Wikipedia and from WP:Vandalism. But you shouldn't be surprised if people don't like being called vandals and trolls and start being antagonistic towards you. Just be very aware that simply asserting vandalism, destructiveness and whatnot does not win you the discussion and doesn't make you right. Along the same line, it doesn't create consensus if you use "we" while talking for yourself.


 * Sorry, this is dragging on for quite a while now, and it's moving nowhere. Instead you're still engaged in some kind of slow-mo revert war. Since my single third opinion failed to help resolve this, I suggest opening an RFC as a next step in the dispute resolution if the discussion here continues to fail. Averell (talk) 09:53, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Arguments
And just where is the reliable third-party source for the entire "ALE in Amateur Radio" section of the page????#  Self-published sources are generally not allowed [WP:SPS], and that includes your hflink.com website. FACT: there ARE a growing number of amateur radio operators concerned about the legality of ALE soundings. 12 months ago there were none, today there are dozens, as proven by multiple postings on QRZ.com. FACT: the FCC *HAS* been asked to look into the legality of soundings. This is also well documented on QRZ, and can also be verified by the ARRL Regulatory Information Branch. A third-party opinion resolution will be sought. Tallaeus (talk) 17:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Response - Opinions not needed. Wikipedia articles are encyclopedia entries, not a blog or forum, (nothing personal). If ARRL or FCC has published documentation to support the above arguments, users may cite links to the material here for verification and discussion. Expeditionradio (talk) 08:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * First off, the WP:3O process is to provide some neutral opinion on two-on-two discussions, to provide the editors an outside perspective and help them to cool down. The main idea is to provide some outside perspective and make the discussion less confrontational.


 * Expeditionradio, you obviously know ALE quite well and I saw you put a lot of effort in this article. However, please remember that editing Wikipedia also means reaching agreements with people who disagree with you.


 * You are very right that the discussion should not be personal. However, it is still about opinions. I have an inkling that you might think that there is an objective "right" point, and therefore a discussion is not needed. But this is not true.


 * Wikipedia doesn't care if ALE is cool or if it should be banned or who has the better arguments in that dispute. All we care for is to describe the dispute in a neutral, nonjudgemental way: Who is involved, what are the arguments, and so on.


 * And since there are people involved they tend to disagree about what a neutral, nonjudgemental description should look like. This is what the discussion pages are for: Finding the best solution that is agreeable to the editors involved. (Added note: I left some wiki-technical stuff on your talk page that is of no interest here) Averell (talk) 17:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Nice tone, Averell. On the basis of what you've written I'll suggest (as a technical communicator with some experience) that "there are people who disagree about what a neutral description should look like" is a fact. And as a fact it can be documented. If folk are calling for a review of the techniques, then that's a fact and links can be provided, which would assist in the discourse. (I note a large number of un-cited proclamations above ... hardly the way to win a discussion, though it might serve as a way to win an argument.)
 * p.s. "... is the worldwide de facto standard for initiating and sustaining HF (High Frequency) radio communications" should be regarded as over-statement. I've initiated and sustained hundreds/thousands of HF exchanges, many of them QRP, many more under less than ideal conditions, and I have never ever used ALE. IMSHO too say that something is the anything is just asking for a dust-up. --BenTremblay (talk) 04:03, 17 September 2008 (UTC) VE6IU


 * Hi Ben (and thanks :-), it's good to see that there's someone else taking an interest here. Especially someone with a bit of experience in the field; as I said I'm not into amateur radio (although I've always been fascinated ;-) and so I couldn't provide any input on the subject itself. I came here to provide a neutral opinion and to help people cool down a bit. So I hope if you (and maybe even some more editors) join the discussion, it will break up the fronts a bit. Averell (talk) 08:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Averell ... always glad to ack sentient life (contra knee-jerk). FWIW I was doing SigInt *cough* I mean CommRsch back in the days of the Evuhl Empire. (Search for "Yuri Gagarin"; if it doesn't refer to the Soviets' communications vessel that hung around off our east coast mebbe we should start a new page. *snort*)
 * I counted something like 17 edits in the few hourse since I came to this page. I am not new here ('Pedia). Yuppies' kidz pissing contests is outside my pay-grade. ^5 and stay well. --BenTremblay (talk) 05:31, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Votestacking and stealth canvassing by soliciting comments from a potentially biased audience such as the Yahoo group is a violation of the Wikipedia canvassing guidelines. Tallaeus (talk) 21:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, we see nonsense and improper placement of discussion being injected here by user Tallaeus(talk), in an effort to create confusion. The only part of the actual article that user ever wrote, is the highly questionable and argumentative two sentences at the end where "citation needed" is indicated. The primary reason that user inserted those two sentences was to inject discord in the article. Instead of destructiveness, if Tallaeus(talk) user indeed desires to contribute constructively to the article, the time should be spent researching and providing citations for the user's unverified and questionable content already inserted. The only reference that user ever came up with was his own "reply comments" in a blog :) If the "citation needed" content is not verified within a reasonable length of time, it can be removed. The clock is ticking. Expeditionradio (talk) 08:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Expeditionradio, Tallaeus has already politely asked you to assume good faith. Please cool down and do not make personal attacks, which is never acceptable in Wikipedia for any reason. (Remember? It was you who placed the "conflict triangle" picture her.) Voicing your opinion about another editor on the talk page will get you nowhere. Keep to discussing the content with (not against) the other editor(s) in order to improve the article. Averell (talk) 10:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Reply to user Averell. Good faith can be assumed for the first several instances when a user makes known bad edits. The user was reminded politely. After that, the user's objective of destruction was clear, and the user was warned. Check the history of the article for verification of this. There is no valid place for destructive practices in Wikipedia, no matter how it is couched in phraseology. Expeditionradio (talk) 11:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * In the history I basically see you guys are disagreeing. Be that as it is, this discussion is getting uncivil, so I'll rather take a break from it. Since my attempts at informal mediation didn't seem very successful, I've asked a neutral admin to take a look at it. Averell (talk) 13:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The wording of the two sentences in question is yours, Expeditionradio, not mine (see diff ). Tallaeus (talk) 16:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Just some nitpicking:

I do think that the statement that ALE is a standard for digitally sustaining HF is somewhat inaccurate. ALE has no functionality in sustaining a link. It only initiates it. Sustaining could easily be read to mean that the protocol does something during a linked connection to keep the link as best as possible. Which is not the case. The other nitpick is the first sentence in the 3G part:

Newer standards of ALE called 3rd Generation or 3G ALE, use accurate time synchronisation via GPS-locked clocks to achieve faster and more dependable linking.

This is also somewhat inaccurate. GPS is in no way mandatory to have 3G functionality. It is sufficient to have the radios in the net in sync. Whether or not the time used is GPS or grandpa's wallclock isn't important as long as the same time is used in the different radios. Granted that GPS is a very useful method for time synchronization, but a wristwatch could be just as good. 3G ALE has a time synchronization protocol to keep radios in the net synchronized even without a GPS. KjartanA (talk) 21:17, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Discussion and Talk page usage, Templates
I've removed the idiosyncratic sectioning of this talk page. For the sake of usability, please create new topics at the bottom of the page and use this talk page in a way that is consistent with common practice and WP:TALK.

As for the templates in the article: Please also use them in a standard manner. I'll remove the reformatted "weasel" note and place a general "disputed" template, which I think is appropriate her. Please keep that until the dispute is resolved. (Note that a template, in itself, does not endorse any opinion - it simply exists so that readers are notified of an ongoing dispute and may take part in it) Averell (talk) 10:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * A "dispute template" is not needed in the article, Averell23, because there is no viable dispute. yet? :) No one has placed any valid reference to answer the "citation needed" sentences that might apply to your suggestion. All we have so far there is one person's opinion, without any supporting documentation. It has been sitting like that for a couple weeks, and is due to be deleted in a few more weeks from now if no one comes up with a citation to back it up. So, no thanks, there isn't a dispute. There is only the lack of a couple of citations. Expeditionradio (talk) 15:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I will happily supply the citations for that section when you, Expeditionradio, stop reverting every edit made to the page and calling it "vandalism," even when a neutral third party has told you that it is not.  Tallaeus (talk) 15:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Expeditionradio, why did you (in edit 239402932) remove cite links to the original source (FCC) that had a neutral title (FCC DA 08-1082), replacing it with the original cite, which is a link to your own site with a "less than neutral" title (Digital Stone Age Petition)? Further, why did you *again* remove the weasel tag, which you previously removed an replaced with the 'small' text? Making such edits to an article already in dispute and under 3rd party review does not appear to be consistent with Wikipedia rules, especially trying to hide weasel tags with 'small' text replacements. --Electrontrap (talk) 02:22, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Electrontrap, it appears that expeditionradio did a GREAT job repairing all the vandalism that we've been watching here over the past week or so. Expeditionradio restored all the original cite links and sources including the neutral title (FCC DA 08-1082). So far everything looks good and it doesn't look like there is a need for a weasel tag. The Point of View tag and the Citation Needed tag look properly placed now. Hopefully we won't see any more anonymous vandalism but, after all, that's the nature of the Wiki beast ;-) We5280 (talk) 07:16, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The "Digital Stone Age Petition" title still appears once in the article, and twice in the references. Its use is far from neutral, and disingenuous, at best, as it was coined and used almost exclusively by Expeditionradio, herself.  The reference to luddism is also inappropriate, and there are still several occurences of "weasel words" within the last two sections, as well.  I have added the "who?" tags where appropriate.  Tallaeus (talk) 13:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Additional Comment: I have reverted your edit here. Frankly I have no idea what "external links" you are talking about, but I'm sure they can be changed if it's important. I also hope that your deletion of my comment was by accident. Averell (talk) 12:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Re-arranging deck chairs here in the discussion area doesn't help matters, Averell23. Although it may seem like an innocent change on its face, it actually lead to more confusion on top of the existing confusion that has been purposely been created by another user. Deleting or renaming sections that have already been in place with existing discussion, no matter how "idosyncratic" you personally think they are, should be carefully considered and discussed prior to removal and especially before a 2nd removal after they were reverted... because changing a section often results in broken links in other places that are pointing to it. Unless you search for all the links that were pointing to the section, you may not know what you are breaking. That was the case in this instance. The section link has been fixed. Expeditionradio (talk) 15:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The "external link" Expeditionradio is referring to is the link she posted in a Yahoo group (the name of which she removed from my warning above) that she owns and moderates, soliciting comments off-Wiki in violation of the canvassing guidelines. Tallaeus (talk) 15:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Learn what "vandalism" is!

It's not changing a charged non-NPOV statement to the official name of the petition. If your "well-known vandal" would have changed it to read "...in US amateur radio popular culture as THE STUPIDEST THING TO EVER HAPPEN TO AMATEUR RADIO!!!!111!OMG!" then THAT would be vandalism.

From WP:Vandalism: ''Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. The most common types of vandalism include the addition of obscenities or crude humor, page blanking, or the insertion of nonsense into articles.'' This does not fall into ANY of those categories.

You really need to review WP:Own - especially the following: ''It is one thing to take an interest in an article that you maintain on your watchlist. Maybe you really are an expert or you just care about the topic. But if this watchfulness starts to become possessiveness, then you may be overdoing it. Believing that an article has an owner of this sort is a common mistake people make on Wikipedia.

You cannot stop everyone in the world from editing "your" stuff, once you have posted it to Wikipedia. As each edit page clearly states:

If you don't want your material to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it.

Also:

If you do not want your ideas (for article organization, categorization, style, standards, etc.) challenged or developed by others, then do not submit them.'' (Bolding mine)

Off my soapbox. Get off yours and accept that other people will be editing your article to conform to Wikipedia standards.

Manway (talk) 05:11, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Greetings Manway and other distinguished Wikipedia editors. There are blantant and obvious forms of vandalism, and there are subtle forms of vandalism. Most of us are smart enough to know the difference, and observant enough to spot the tricks used in subtle vandalisms. This article's recent history shows both forms. One recent anonymous vandal decided to switch over to subtle vandalism, after many instances of blatant vandalism were being instantly fixed, such as the blanking and nonsense graffiti. Of course, such things as changing a single word in a well-referenced sentence to twist it into the opposite or false meaning, or changing the name of a reference or citation to something else, or changing a word so that the citations no longer apply, just because one doesn't agree with it, is certainly destructive intent, is still recognizable as vandalism by most of us. It is difficult for most of us to believe that the vandals who have repeatedly attacked this article are now going to suddenly change and start contributing beneficially to the article is rather ludicrous. For those who are newbies, simply bad editors, or who play around without realizing what they are doing, we all assume goodwill for a while... but for those who have hit the page destructively and repetitively, without participating in any discussion here, we must at some point assume that their intent is nothing but vandalism. And, we don't need someone to give us a good preaching on what is or isn't vandalism. It is quite obvious to all of us who the destructive editors are and who the constructive editors are. Expeditionradio (talk) 14:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Preaching? Come off your high horse and join the discussion without putting me or others down. I repeat: Changing a non-NPOV statement to the official name of the petition is not vandalism. This is not preaching. It's Wikipedia policy. If you wish to contribute and edit here, you need to learn the difference. There is a policy on Wikipedia: WP:Assume Good Faith. Perhaps this editor did something rashly a while back. Because he did does not automatically mean that every edit he does from that point on is vandalism. I happen to agree with his edit to the petition number. It is a good edit, in my opinion. Once again, you don't own this article or any others you might create. If you wish to maintain complete creative control over this article, I suggest purchasing a web page and publishing it yourself. Don't put it in an encyclopedia setting that anyone can edit and improve (or occasionally vandalize). You are welcome to take this to WP:Dispute if you don't like what others are doing to your article, or you don't agree with me or any of the other editors here. You'll get the same answer I'm giving you here. Oh, and who are these "is still recognizable as vandalism by most of us" and "It is quite obvious to all of us? Please do not assume to speak for me or anyone else. Speak only for yourself. One other thing: Please do not change heading structure or content on a talk page. Editors and admin rely on this structure to follow a discussion. When it's changed, as you did when you added your last comment, it makes a discussion very hard to follow. Some editors might even consider this to be vandalism. Manway (talk) 16:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * To Manway. Perhaps may I offer a short wikibreak for you to cool down slightly. We do find the timing somewhat synchronous that you appear here all of a sudden out of nowhere, to offer comfort, support, and encouragement to a well-documented 7-time anonymous vandal who has never done anything but be destructive in this particular Wikipedia article. Then, on top of that, you offend all of us by adding your own negative preachy opinion as a "section heading" on the discussion page as your way of introducing us to you for the first time. We wholeheartedly encourage you to offer us something constructive, such as real reference research or real new information, to show your good intent. But, if you are here solely to negatively argue a single point that has destructive intent at its core, then please don't bother us. Expeditionradio (talk) 18:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

It seems that Expeditionradio as "taken ownership" of this entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tipcar (talk • contribs) 22:54, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

HFLINK Group Member Comments: Inasmuch as Expeditionradio has again been stealth canvassing off-Wiki in her Yahoo HFLINK group for support here, I anticipate many new comments from members of that group. I actually welcome your participation, provided that, in compliance with Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy, you disclose your affiliation with the HFLINK group; forget everything you have been "prepped" to believe about the discussion here, and approach it with an open mind. Above all, assume good faith, be civil, and remember that Wikipedia relies on consensus, NOT canvassing. If you cannot adhere to these simple guidelines, do not post your comments. Tallaeus (talk) 19:08, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I feel that the charts do need to be moved to another page. Just too much on the main page. tipcar —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tipcar (talk • contribs) 13:03, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup
I've tagged this article for cleanup for a number of reasons: As I'm not someone who is experienced with this topic, I'm not about to set about rewriting the article myself, but I frankly think it could stand one. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 01:55, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The sectioning does not flow well, and the section titles badly violate WP:MOSHEAD
 * Section 8.3 ("International amateur radio ALE coordination details") may need to be deleted as it appears to violate WP:IINFO
 * In general, the level of detail achieved in this article may be excessive, rendering it inaccessible to readers not interested in "all the facts" about ALE.
 * Anyone object if the sections "ALE in US amateur radio popular subculture" and "Anti-ALE advocacy in US amateur radio popular culture" are removed? Neutrality is not there, and I feel the article would be much better without them. Manway (talk) 05:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a reasonable removal; I find the comparison to luddites to be particularly odd, and does not appear to be supported in the source. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 05:46, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Objection to recent removals. Just took my first good editorial look at article; working to improve it under WikiProject Telecommunications. Noticed today, factual tables/references/data/info/links were deleted since last looked at it. Bad move. Whatever you do as a contributor to the article - you are obligated to keep the facts/charts/references. Can be condensed; no matter how you edit other wording/material/paragraphs; no matter how significant/irrelevent you personally consider some fact/minutia; all references/facts/links are high value to researchers/those seeking technical information. Don't gut article on your own personal bias/opinion. Whoever gutted the frequency chart should restore it immediately if not sooner. Baleywik (talk) 08:28, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Baley - the chart supposedly deleted is still available - not only as a link in the section, but linked at the end. The chart is on a subpage. Let's streamline this article and get it to a manageable size in our cleanup attempts. No charts have been deleted - they're just found elsewhere and fully referenced on the main page. Manway (talk) 09:07, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, heck, I guess it's not. Someone just reverted my edit. Hey folks, we really need to shorten the length of this thing down. That table is HUGE and really deserves its own page. Opinions? I'm not trying to gut, delete important things, or push any particular point of view here. I'm simply trying to improve the article and make it readable. With huge tables of frequencies and nets in the middle, it's not, IMO. Let's talk. Manway (talk) 09:25, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I restored the ALE chart to the body of the article because it is a very important detail to understanding ALE and many people might miss the sub-page. Additionally, it is very likely that a stand-alone chart page with no context would be quickly deleted and we would then lose the most important details for ALE operation. The chart serves as a good example of how an ALE network is setup and provides context for understanding the ALE "Multinet" principle. Making people flip between the main body of the article and a sub-page to see details is also very cumbersome. Manway, I appreciate your interest in streamlining the ALE article but there are many technical articles (see Quantum Mechanics at 47 KB and General Relativity at 157 KB, for example) that are far larger and, like ALE, need the technical details in the body of the article to make them fully accurate. At 38 KB this article is on the low end of highly technical Wikipedia articles. Regarding "tables" in articles, if you look at Physical constant you will find 5 tables embedded in the body of the article defining the major constants in Physics. They are not sub-pages but integral to the basic article, just like the ALE frequency chart. Look at Mathematical constant and you will find a table of 46 basic mathematical constants embedded at the end of the article (the ALE chart has 42 entries). More to the Amateur Radio point, please see Amateur radio frequency allocations which has many tables and graphics explaining frequency allocations (many more tables and details than the ALE article). I view the ALE article the same as any good technical/scientific paper with one of the most important features being the full definition the data set in the article so that one can understand the basic principles explained. A technical/scientific paper submitted for publication that did not have the technical details/data in the body of the paper would be automatically rejected. Placing a link or a footnote in place of data is not considered appropriate or complete. Considering the fact that there are many international relief organizations that are currently setting up ALE systems, having the operating frequencies of an existing world-wide network easily available is a great assistance and the very reason why we have Wikipedia. If you want to add technical details to the article, that is wonderful and greatly appreciated but, IMO, we should all strive to meet the standards of a good scientific article in all Wikipedia technical articles. We5280 (talk) 11:07, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, We5280. Thank you for the discussion. I see your point and agree. Now, may I ask your opinion on the anti-ALE sections (see my earlier comment)? I think they are highly POV and not neutral at all. Plus I don't believe that a good scientific and technical article needs sections like this to make their point. Can we safely either delete or split those sections off to maintain the technical feel of the article? I look forward to your opinion on this - and again, thanks for the great explanation. Manway (talk) 16:25, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the restoration of these tables. Primarily per WP:NOTGUIDE and WP:IINFO. And even if this information is determined to be encyclopedic and relevant, it needs to be better integrated than a massive chart. It's standard practice to link in the external links section information that isn't encyclopedic enough to include in the article, but would be important to someone doing major research on the subject. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 18:19, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * This article probably needs to be sectioned into a main article that strictly covers the basic history and features of the protocol and some number of specific-to-usage subarticles. Amateur radio details probably belong in the sub-article if they're wikipedia material at all. Consider this article from the point of view of someone trying to get an overview of the military usage of this protocol family. All of this dirty laundry and exhaustive detail specific to amateur radio will just get in the way. The other way around is a lot less true, since much of the amateur radio interest in ALE is specifically that it will interoperate with military users in an emergency; at least that is the common reason given for not implementing a functionally similar but more streamlined amateur-specific protocol. 75.140.243.0 (talk) 23:13, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Complete rewrite
It's becoming more and more apparent to me that the article as-is was written with a significant degree of imbalance, and may not be salvageable due to the massive contradictions of WP:MOS and related guidelines. Thus, herein I propose a complete rewrite. My first suggestion would be to follow a basic structure seen in other telecom-related articles such as Data Encryption Standard or Amateur radio direction finding. I'd say this would look like: My main concern here is that the article as-written is essentially inaccessible to anyone without a good grounding in radio. However, per WP:MTAA, we should make this article accessible to as many people as we possibly can. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 18:47, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Lead section (following WP:LEAD)
 * 2) History
 * 3) Technical description
 * 4) Use in amateur radio (possibly a summary of a new article about the amateur radio uses of ALE)


 * Don't forget that this is a protocol currently in widespread active service with various militaries and civilian agencies. The main article should reflect the general usage details and leave usage-specific details to the appropriate sub-article. I am not sure that users other than amateur radio are enough different from the baseline usage to need a sub-article, especially if the main article is written to cover the most common usages. 75.140.243.0 (talk) 23:18, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Mm, this is a good point, which wasn't readily apparent to me from the gist of the article; most likely due to my relative unfamiliarity with the subject matter. So, if amateur usage of ALE is very significant, it might merit its own sub-article. But general usage definitely should be the focus of this article. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 23:45, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * A generic synopsis: http://www.milspec.ca/modems/ale.html versus amateur radio usage: http://hflink.com/ . Note that most users are militaries (and similar agencies such as police and coast guards), NGOs or aid groups, or commercial users such as those in the oil industry. In most cases, non-military users will be using a minimal subset of the features and ignoring the rest, if they're even aware of them. The amateur radio usage is in general constrained by unique restrictions on emissions and content, and has fundamentally different purposes for deploying the protocol. As such, its interests and usages are unique. The article as written would be nearly unrecognizable to the vast majority of ALE users out there. Where, for example, is the discussion of its usage by the U.S. Coast Guard as a reliable over-the-horizon communcation system that allows a rescue helicopter's pilot to utilize HF radio systems to remain in contact with shore and other searchers without potentially lethal distraction? I am not trying to denigrate the ham usages, merely point out that the main article references a highly specialized, unique subcategory of ALE usage as if it were the overwhelming majority of the usage. Every major US military surface vessel, long range patrol aircraft, infantry company, etc has multiply-redundant ALE hardware available to it, and actively uses it... and certainly not in the way referenced in this article, or on the frequencies so critically listed here. U.S. Military ALE doctrine is specified in "FM 6-02.74" Most modern navies and many modern armies are active users of ALE. While they all implement ALE doctrine in different ways to provide slightly different abilities, their procedures are fundamentally similar, and fundamentally dissimilar to ham usage. Lets put it this way: Someone spent the billions of dollars to develop the military radios whose "trickle-down" started the amateur ALE craze... and this article would lead a reader to assume the absence of anyone but hams from current usage. I'd expect a basic precis, a terms and implementation overview, a minor discussion of automatic linking and selective calling in the tactical battlefield communication role, possibly a short digression on its usefulness in disaster response, then a list of all the militaries and organizations confirmed to be using ALE, and maybe some links to articles or web pages about specific ALE radios and training materials. Amateur usage should be limited to a simple mention and a link to the amateur-specific ALE article. Note that the Telegraphy article only mentions amateur usage once, and that in relation to TOR/RTTY, not continuous-wave morse traffic. My commentary on this page isn't intended to "complain and dump"... rather it is intended to be pointers to resources and comments on issues. This provides a ready source of material for others who may have more time than I have to work on the article, thus leading to improvements (or "improvements" :) faster than I might be able to make them. 75.140.243.0 (talk) 10:33, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That makes a lot of sense. From what I understand, this article pretty badly violates WP:UNDUE in its coverage of amateur usage of ALE. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 07:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Another reference added to the article is actually far more representative of general ALE usage than the earlier "ham-ale" npov mess: http://www.gordon.army.mil/ocos/ac/articles/fiedler/dfale.pdf . While it is only one example, it is more in line with the primary usage and intent of ALE. Indeed, the major amateur interest in ALE came about only after first-gen military ALE gear started becoming available on the surplus market. Other "primary" consumers are energy and power companies, who use it to keep in touch with widely spread maintenance crews, and NGOs who often find it to be a great way of getting cellphone-like voice, text-messaging, and fax capabilities in the bush without having to rely on highly-trained volunteers who may be in short supply or sick when most needed.

75.140.251.185 (talk) 01:21, 20 July 2009 (UTC)