Talk:Marcian Hoff

Untitled
Anyone knows why did he lose his Intel Fellow title in 1983?

competition at age 15
The following line was added by 152.163.100.5. It is not valid English, has no context, and is not sourced.

He won a competition when he was 15 to Washington DC.

Sheldrake 21:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Comma before Jr.
Hello fellow editors! This is about this edit and its revert.

I was involved in the most recent round of the years-long debate over this comma. The current community consensus is that that comma is a style element—in other words, there is no "correct" usage of it for any individual, only varying styles used by different sources. English Wikipedia's house style is no-comma.

As a compromise, the community decided that the comma can be used in cases where (1) the living subject individual can be shown to clearly and consistently prefer the comma, -OR- (2) all reliable sources include the comma. That's all, not most. I didn't have to look very far to find these two reliable sources that omit the comma:

http://www.nytimes.com/1983/02/01/business/atari-hires-inventor-of-microprocessor-chip.html?mcubz=0

https://books.google.com/books?id=UUbB3d2UnaAC&pg=PA390&lpg=PA390&dq=marcian+hoff +jr&source=bl&ots=SdjZPbZP3d&sig=nkRViLlvsLCpSYWNlgOp2G84KD8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjH4OCjiMTWAhUO5WMKHRaIDpU4ChDoAQg3MAQ#v=onepage&q=marcian%20hoff%20jr&f=false

It's a high bar, and it was intended to be high. I'm not aware of a case that has cleared it, and I and others have already modified thousands of articles to remove the comma. Unless someone wishes to claim that the The New York Times is not a reliable source, or can show that Mr. Hoff clearly and consistently uses the comma, there is nothing to discuss here, and I'm removing the comma again. ― Mandruss  &#9742;  00:59, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Ok, with this revert you are now making up your own rules and edit warring. Please show me in WP:JR where it says that the only sources that matter are those used in refs. I will give you 24 hours to respond intelligently here, and then I will revert once again. ― Mandruss  &#9742;  02:28, 27 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Huh?
 * You acknowledge that you are a long-term MOS warrior on an inflexible campaign.
 * You acknowledge that the article refs are using the comma.
 * You've essentially discarded what you don't like by putting a rigid interpretation on "all": "no case has cleared it".
 * Instead of using the first six references in the article (that include authorities offering personal awards that would be careful about the name), you do a google search and come up with a recycled press release (Atari hires Hoff) in the NYT business section (PRs are not RS; Atari just hired him and would be prone to mistakes about details) and a crappy endnote that is just a mention in passing. Gee, I wonder how the actual IEEE articles mentioned in the endnote spell his name. Uh, no I don't.
 * If I google (marcian "hoff jr"), only two hits on the first page show it without the comma: the first is a typewritten US Internation Trade Commission Investigative report (hardly a reliable source for his name); the second is in German.
 * You are clearly cherry picking your refs.
 * Then you give me a 24-hour demand.
 * You are not following WP:BRD.
 * You are also not waiting for others to comment here.
 * Glrx (talk) 03:19, 27 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the response.
 * You acknowledge that you are a long-term MOS warrior on an inflexible campaign. I acknowledge nothing of the sort. I stated that I am one of several editors who have devoted a significant amount of our time to implementing this community consensus. Not that we are the only ones doing these edits, I regularly see others doing them in smaller numbers, and that includes editors with more years than I. So "MOS warrior" is a misplaced criticism here, even if it's an appropriate one in any context. But I see you are one of those who refuse to abide by the community consensus because you disagree with it, inventing rationales that are nowhere to be seen in the guideline. I don't think WP:IAR means we can ignore a community consensus because we disagree with it.
 * The "all" is not mine, it's the community's. This consensus is shown not only in WP:JR's language—"clearly and consistently preferred"—but in the thousands of edits already long-done and accepted, with zero exceptions to my knowledge. This includes many hundreds of undisputed article moves, many of them technical moves that were carried out by perhaps five different admins without batting an eye. Please don't claim this is about what I like or don't like as to article content. I like respect for community consensus.
 * I hear your reasoning as to content and it's not entirely bad reasoning. I wish you had presented it during the debates that formed the consensus (or maybe you did, I don't know). Other editors presented similar arguments and yet WP:JR is the consensus language we ended up with. Per WP:CCC you're free to try to change the consensus, but until that happens we all need to abide by the current one.
 * I am not cherry picking anything. The guideline is not about the predominance of sources, as I said. Per the guideline, I only have to show one source, and I showed two.
 * You're correct, I did not follow strict BRD. My bad. In the end I opened this discussion, so your use of present tense seems a bit overblown.
 * I will wait for other input, but I figured there wouldn't be any at such a low-vis article. I don't intend to do any WP:CANVASSing. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  03:56, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

I think 10 days is long enough to wait for more participation. Regardless, after reflection I doubt I would defer to a local consensus in this case anyway, per WP:CONLEVEL. Are you still adamantly opposed to this edit? ― Mandruss  &#9742;  16:58, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Given their editing activity since my above ping, I can only assume that Glrx has withdrawn from this discussion. That ends the BRD process and I'm reinstating my edit. ― Mandruss  &#9742;  15:24, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Marcian Hoff. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20120910130712/http://www.societyforscience.org/sts/history/1954 to http://www.societyforscience.org/sts/history/1954

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:49, 16 January 2018 (UTC)