User talk:75.108.94.227/Archive 1

User talk:75.108.94.227/Archive 5

RSS BLP
Hey there. I added some stuff to the draft... Ron Schnell 05:04, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


 * And for my part, I have been completely lazy. ;-)      I still have two dozen schnell tabs open in the browser, but have been otherwise occupied.  And, I'm still backlogged on David Coliman.  Sigh.  So many wiki-tasks, little wiki-time.  p.s.  I only just now realized that you were using your own initials in the section-title, and were not giving me an ad-hoc type of Real Simple Syndication feed here on usertalk.  ;-)      Best, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 11:48, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm wondering if there's any way (or reason) to include something about my first startup, which was with Sylvester Stallone. There was never any press about it.  I do have written agreements, etc. In any case, I know you're busy, but I hope we can get started again (but WP:NORUSH). Ron Schnell 13:24, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * He's a bluelink, so if he posts something about you and his SOS investment, on his "official voice-of-Sly" publications (offline or on), then it is something that can conceivably be mentioned, using mutually-supporting-WP:ABOUTSELF (he says it is true and you also say it is true). Because it is a claim about somebody-besides-the-BLP, and is not a boring cold hard encyclopedic factoid in the general sense (e.g. DOB and school attended is a typical WP:ABOUTSELF boring historical factoid ... whereas angel investor is non-boring and non-aboutself), we cannot use pure-singular-WP:ABOUTSELF.  It is promotional, in a vague way since the company in question is now defunct, but also a historically interesting factoid, if we can WP:V it with our wiki-honor intact.  Since there was no press, that we know of, it fails WP:NOTEWORTHY and is thus subject to local Talk:Ron_Schnell consensus.  p.s.  I hate WP:NORUSH, personally, but sometimes life is unfair.  ;-)      p.p.s.  Technically your 'zeroth' startup was those years as a kernel consultant, and we also have no press-coverage of that stuff, which is arguably more formative to the biography methinks, than your 'formal' first startup which as I understand it was an extension of your consulting-business, aka SOS was mostly about kernel-hacking-projects.  DriverAces was peripheral-hardware interfacing with kernel-mode OS drivers, so that was a bit further afield than SOS, but again, still in the same vein.  MailCall was a distinct effort with seemingly little relationship, beyond that computer programming was involved, and that it was a startup, but since it had the most success (and since you had some practice at startups by then), it is the effort that got the press-coverage.  As mentioned before, life is often not fair.  Anyways, I expect we'll get it all figured out.  Just mash away at the draft when you have spare time, and I'll do the same.  I think Braun is saved, and my Coleman-contact has gone on to greener pa$tures.  Still need to get C.J. Pearson fixed, though.  Actually, Pearson endorsed Rand Paul at one point, so if you feel like helping me with that via your CTO connections, usually the BLP has the best chance of digging up press-coverage about themselves, as we've seen.  Best, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 13:42, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the excellent work today. I fixed most of the stuff that you left for me to fix.  We should discuss the rest.  The attorneys (attorneys general, actually) were not co-workers, and not supervisors.  We were a truly independent non-profit corporation. Ron Schnell 04:25, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm glad you liked it, but I really was in a rush, and did not have time to review whether I was hewing firmly to NPOV and the sources, mostly I just jammed stuff in from memory, so you would see where I was aiming. On the TC question, yes, you were truly independent in the sense that you were not financially linked, and they could not order you to do anything in legally binding fashion, but you were acting as a kind of court-appointed quasi-special master, and were enforcing the legal decrees handed down by the judge in favor of the plaintiffs, who were in turn represented by lawyers (most of who happened to be AG of their state).  I understand you weren't co-workers in any traditional sense, but you'll note that you didn't get the kind of praise from the Microsoft lawyers as you got from the state-of-NY-group lawyers.  :-)      Knowing something about both politics and computers, I'm reasonably certain that was not an oversight, Microsoft pays their lawyers very well to avoid such beginner-mistakes.  In any case, we don't need the dotGov links, because we can back the relevant factoid up ("Schnell was in charge of the TC") using the infoweek cite, or whatever that ref was, I forget but it was a 2011 article about the MSFT decision compliance-monitoring getting ended, and you were given a couple paragraphs.
 * Anyways, I'm happy to let some other wiki-reviewer-eyeballs peek over the dotGov material, and see whether they think it's worth mentioning that you were praised by name from the mouths of some reasonably-likely-to-be-bluelinked bigshots, for your role in the courtcase-stuff; if it does get mentioned, it will prolly be WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV unless I'm just being extra special conservative in my wiki-spidey-senses, since I know you in the on-wiki-dialogue-sense. But I don't think I'm off the mark here, they were technically separate, but definitely not on the same side.  By way of explanation, your segway team-mate and the insinuations about the motivations and proclivities of the barbados team, whilst hilarious to read, are pretty much entirely explained by the fact that the barbados folks whipped up on the polo bears, that year at least.  Wikipedia can certainly *link* to the motherJones article, and even quote it in the footnote, but it would be way outside NPOV to put in the mainspace article about the Barbados Flying Flippers that the reason they are so good is because Barbados is a little island with not much to do, so they practice segway polo out of boredom, right?  :-)      It is true that the statement is sourced, but it is also true that the source was quoting your team-mate, not speaking in the journalist's voice, and moreover, I do seem to recall some *other* member of the Polo Bears seeking to avoid a defamation lawsuit, and/or maybe a vicious cross-check, by repeatedly noting that the unwise comments were not on the record.  ;-)
 * Anyways, point being, your friend's quotation about the Barbados team is the opposite of NPOV, because they were competitors, and by the same kind of analogy, the lawyer's quotations about the work done by the TC personnel is also not on the correct side of NPOV, because your role was to be the compliance-monitor for MSFT, and their role was to get MSFT to comply, which makes you quasi-team-mates. Plus, the usual wiki-rule-of-thumb, is to avoid primary sources like court docs, as a thing generally to be avoided, partly because they tend to be long POV-laden monologues by lawyers, and partly because they are legally required to be COMPLETE records of the proceedings in question.  Thus, wikipedians prefer to stick with the secondary sources, that report selectively *about* the court cases, rather than delving into the court case stuff itself.  I agree there is some wiggle room here, but I don't think there's very much.
 * Is there other stuff on the needs-discussion list? I notice I put down that SETL was once again on the CDC 6600, but I have the excuse, dern it all, that in all those UPI telephotos, they show you with your feet propped up on the sysop console of the Cray supercomputer, and *not* on the VAX.  Also, wikipedia has to be formal, don't say VAXen in mainspace, tut tut.  :-)      I don't think we can mention Artspeak and the CDC 6600, because the sources just talk about SETL, right?  I know that WP:THETRUTH is that you were there working on ArtSpeak, not just SETL, but for bullet-proofing purposes, best to leave ArtSpeak out unless we have a source.  And, be very careful about adding stuff into a sentence that *is* sourced, which is not reflected in the source specifically:  "He worked with the programming language SETL on VAXen minicomputers as well as the Artspeak language on CDC 6600 supercomputers at NYU during the summer of 1981.[2][3]"  You cannot just insert a factoid midsentence, and leave the sources at the end of the period.  Either the new factoids must be in the [2] && [3] sources already, just not summarized well enough by a previous editor (me in this case who was summarizing from memory), or an additional source [4] which backs up the added sentence-fragment needs to be stuck onto the period as well.  There is a third way, which I use pretty often actually, which is to alter the prose so that the sourcing is mid-sentence, rather than after the period.  In this case, assuming that 'artspeak' is NOT in the [2]&&[3] (which I'm not sure of one way or the other), the alteration would look like this:  "He worked with the programming language SETL on VAX minicomputers at NYU during the summer of 1981,[2][3] as well as the Artspeak language on CDC 6600 supercomputers."  Thataway, there is no potential appearance of improprietry, because the fragment was added in a separate clause, then self-tagged.  I edited this as a standalone one, so if the nyp81 and/or upi81 cites did mention artspeak and I forgot, go ahead and fold it back in.
 * p.s. I remember saying that we would need the dunnet-bit to be relatively short, and then I went ahead and expanded it anyways, since in fact that's mostly stuff that you've personally done, and although we have little in the way of WP:RS, it seemed like the thing to do at the time.  But I'm pretty sure that will get cut as WP:UNDUE for the topic of Ron Schnell, but WP:PRESERVE'd as properly a part of the development-n-background section for the topic of Dunnet (video game).  Same thing with SOS.com and UNIX-consulting work, whether it belongs in mainspace, depends on how closely we stick to WP:NOTEWORTHY and how much leeway we give to WP:ABOUTSELF.  I think we can mention that you were involved in a startup called SOS.com for 19xx-19yy, and that from 1988-1995 you were a UNIX kernel consultant (or whatever phrase best describes you).  75.108.94.227 (talk) 05:28, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * In terms of when to have someone look at it, I'm up for whatever and bow to your experience and expertise. I say let's go for it when you're satisfied with the current version. Ron Schnell 04:26, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, we're getting close, but I'll give our source-listing that we've transferred to draftspace one more look-see before I call in additional eyeballs. I think we have the major ones in now, although the Mitnick EpisodeTM has yet to be added, but that one is closer to wp:noteworthy than to wp:n, if memory serves. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 05:28, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I fixed up the references for Equifax and The TC. Wasn't sure what to do with the "notes". Ron Schnell 13:26, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * When I'm doing a draft-article, and indeed whenever I'm doing an article where I don't have to worry about compliance with some existing ephemeral local consensus, I always put the WP:ABOUTSELF material, the USENET 'sources' such as ours for the 1992 release of dunnet, WP:PRIMARY court documents such as your DOJ hearing, and other such things into the 'notes' section, to keep them separate from the wiki-reliable WP:SOURCES found in the 'refs' section. Ideally, I'd actually have four sections, one for wp:aboutself, one for primary docs and wp:blogs and such, one for wp:noteworthy mentions in wp:rs, and the most important section for in-depth coverage in the wp:rs that demonstrates wiki-notability.  Anyways, usually I settle for two sections, the wp:rs 'refs' and the non-wp:rs 'notes'.  Because the refTags are weak and annoying to work with, the usual syntax-trick is to use efn for notes, and refTags for refs.  The content inside the two, is otherwise identical, just the "wrapper" portions are distinct.  75.108.94.227 (talk) 20:12, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Added Politico article as ref to my announcement as CTO, which gives added benefit of WP:RS of my having worked on kernels at Bell Labs, IBM, and SUN, which I also added, as suggested by you. Ron Schnell 14:33, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It is true that politico repeated the blurb you wrote for your CTO position, or perhaps that the campaign wrote for you, but we cannot use the politico cite as wp:rs for your history as a unix consultant, because (the strictest interpretation of) wp:noteworthy requires that the journalist themselves mention the factoid, in the journalist's voice aka in the newspaper's voice. Here is politico saying something in their voice:
 * Here is politico saying in their voice, that *Rand* said something in *his* voice, or more exactingly, that the Rand Paul presidential campaign, 2016 put out a press-release saying quoth xyz unquoth:
 * Now, it just so happens you were a child prodigy. ;-)      That's WP:THETRUTH.  But wikipedia cannot call you that, because no wiki-reliable source has called you that.  We have a quote from politico, saying that your employer Rand Paul called you a child prodigy, via a press-release his campaign organization put out.  But that's not journalist Mike Allen calling you a quote child prodigy unquote in Politico's voice, that's Mike Allen saying that Rand Paul said that.  Just like pointers in C++ many objects are really just RAM addresses, not apparently-bitwise copies.  Mike Allen said only that you were named CTO, and then gave a juicy sound-bite.  We can use the journalistic factoid as WP:NOTEWORTHY, but we get the same exact Schnell-the-CTO factoid from our Recode-cite (plus a lot more depth about the hackathon and so on -- which helps WP:N and is thus more useful than the politico-cite).  Anyways, at the moment we have only WP:ABOUTSELF material about your unix-consulting-career, not any 100% Independent WP:SOURCE with no promotional motive nor competitive motive, that speaks about your work at att/ibm/sun.
 * We cannot, with wiki-honor intact, say in wikipedia's voice that quote Schnell was an "incredible"(ref) kernel consultant and worked(ref) at att/ibm/sun unquote. The 'incredible' bit is not from a truly-independent wp:rs, in the strictest sense of independent (cf the NY AttyG) who said Schnell did "great"(ref) work.  We can, per the WP:ABOUTSELF strictest-sense-possible, probably say something about-you-yourself, aka "from 1988 through 199x, Schnell worked as a software consultant, first on the east coast, then on the west coast" ... because there we use no superlative adjectives (which require WP:RS cites) and there we use no *named* employers nor products (unix/att/aix/ibm/solaris/sun), but stick purely to aboutself aka what you said you were doing in that time.  One would think that the politico source backs up the 'incredible' and the unix/att/aix/ibm/solaris/sun bits, but it really doesn't in the strictest sense.  There are some wikipedians who will be fairly reasonable about such things, and say, well clearly even though *politico* might not be legally standing behind the claims, it is clear that *paul'16* is standing behind those claims, right?  But the trouble is, in the strictest sense, paul'16 is not independent of schnell, because one is the employer and the other is the employee, and presidential campaigns are inherently promotional.
 * A slight improvement on mere wp:aboutself, would be if we had some mutually-supporting-WP:ABOUTSELF material, from your website and also from IBM's website, e.g. some kind of 1996 codebase where 'ron schnell' is mentioned in the bowels of A/IX, then we can ... given local talkpage consensus of non-COI-encumbered wikipedians ... insert that stuff into mainspace, with a bit more in the way of WP:V than merely a quote from your website. It helps that IBM is a bluelink.  It also helps that IBM, although a corporation and thus inherently self-promotional, is not *quite* as promotional as a presidential campaign.  Same store for Sly:  he's a bluelink, and he's not running for president, and he's not running a venture capital firm, so even though as a celebrity he's somewhat promotional as an inherent aspect of his being, mutually-supporting-aboutself from him and you is decently strong.
 * The next step up is WP:NOTEWORTHY, where we have a journalist saying in a journalist's voice, "Schnell... child prodigy" or equivalent. We don't have that, but we have the 'equivalent'.  nyp81, whiz.  upi81, genius at fourteen.  And a bunch of other refs like that.  They don't say 'child prodigy' per se, but they do hype your youth and your brainpower.  Not only that, but often the *title* of the piece is thataway.  Now, clearly these are somewhat POV newspaper-pieces.  It is a fact that you were smart.  It is a fact that you were young.  Is it a fact that you were a genius?  Well, it's WP:V that you were a genius, according to UPI.  But wikipedia strives to maintain NPOV, which means, if we were to actually *call* you a genius, we'd want a direct peer-reviewed quote from somebody that is an expert in geniuses, like Patrick Winston for instance.  :-)      Some newspaper calling you a genius, even in the title, is less valuable than someone with expertise in the realm of identifying geniuses calling you that... as long as they call you that in some form of published work.  Per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV it is perfectly permissible for us to say something neutral like 'newspapers at the time ran headlines saying Schnell was a "whiz"(ref) "genius"(ref) "teen"(ref)' or somesuch.
 * And of course, there is the next step up, which is something along the lines of, some famous researcher in the field of cognitive science writes a dozen papers on intelligent children, and as their magnum opus, publishes a 1500-page non-fiction book entitled "Ronnie Schnell: Genius, Child Prodigy, And All Around Nice Fellow, The Most Interesting Instance I've Encountered In All My Years Of Research" which goes on to become a bestseller. Plus, you solve an unsolved mathematical problem, unify gravity with electromagnetism, implement strong AI, and found an orbital colony using your anti-gravity-based launch-vehicle controlled by your hyperintelligent robotic sidekick.  ;-)
 * But in general, it is *always* better not to even quote the POV, if we can simply give the facts, and let the readers draw their own conclusions. You were programming punchcards for mainframes at age nine, check, got the wp:noteworthy covered for that.  You were doing programming language research at a major university at age fourteen, check, got some reasonably-in-depth coverage of that (a few sentences with specific details).  You were writing apps for dialcom and an early precursor to the internet at age 15, and getting free hardware to hack from major personal computer pioneers in foreign countries, check, got some in-depth-wp:n for that.  You were giving out arpanet accounts -- sometimes to the Wrong People -- at MIT as part of your "ITS tourist slash LCS sysop" job between circa-1982 and circa-1985, once again still as a teenager.  You later went on to found a dotcom startup, and do some other cool things (teevee wall and segway mayhem and dunnet port and so on ... plus equifax and the TC and paul'16 and so on).  Do we really need to say that you were a child prodigy?  the whiz?  genius at fourteen?  Not in my book.  Sometimes, the best way to tell the tale, is to accurately summarize the cold hard dry boring facts, and let the reader figure it out.
 * In the case of your UNIX consulting work, the hard etc etc facts that are backed up by wp:rs, are nada, that I have noticed. I haven't read all the mailcall refs, and maybe one of them mentions it?  But with what I've seen/noticed, we cannot say that you worked on the sys5r4 and aix and solaris2x kernels, because no journalist mentions them.  One of your employers mentioned it.  Your own website mentions it.  Maybe we can use the xflick codebase to partially document a bit of mutually-supporting-aboutself, related to it.  But sticking to the wp:rs, you were a computer genius as a teenager, you disappeared off the face of the earth from 1990 through 1997, and then out of nowhere you founded mailcall.  :-)     Nobody said wikipedia got it *right* when NPOV was picked as the non-negotiable pillar (I'd rather have objective truth be the standard personally).  We also don't get to mention 7-card-stud, except under the personal-section.  By contrast, motherJones journalist, bless their little hearts, mentioned your cheese addiction via french onion soup, so we can mention that.  All this stuff make sense?  And in particular, are you catching the drift that this is maximal-hard-core-wiki-strict interpretation of the wiki-laws, and that in practice nobody except me... and people that you might meet in AfD and other controversial places... actually tend to follow such hard-core standard for 99% of the articles?  75.108.94.227 (talk) 20:12, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * But in general, it is *always* better not to even quote the POV, if we can simply give the facts, and let the readers draw their own conclusions. You were programming punchcards for mainframes at age nine, check, got the wp:noteworthy covered for that.  You were doing programming language research at a major university at age fourteen, check, got some reasonably-in-depth coverage of that (a few sentences with specific details).  You were writing apps for dialcom and an early precursor to the internet at age 15, and getting free hardware to hack from major personal computer pioneers in foreign countries, check, got some in-depth-wp:n for that.  You were giving out arpanet accounts -- sometimes to the Wrong People -- at MIT as part of your "ITS tourist slash LCS sysop" job between circa-1982 and circa-1985, once again still as a teenager.  You later went on to found a dotcom startup, and do some other cool things (teevee wall and segway mayhem and dunnet port and so on ... plus equifax and the TC and paul'16 and so on).  Do we really need to say that you were a child prodigy?  the whiz?  genius at fourteen?  Not in my book.  Sometimes, the best way to tell the tale, is to accurately summarize the cold hard dry boring facts, and let the reader figure it out.
 * In the case of your UNIX consulting work, the hard etc etc facts that are backed up by wp:rs, are nada, that I have noticed. I haven't read all the mailcall refs, and maybe one of them mentions it?  But with what I've seen/noticed, we cannot say that you worked on the sys5r4 and aix and solaris2x kernels, because no journalist mentions them.  One of your employers mentioned it.  Your own website mentions it.  Maybe we can use the xflick codebase to partially document a bit of mutually-supporting-aboutself, related to it.  But sticking to the wp:rs, you were a computer genius as a teenager, you disappeared off the face of the earth from 1990 through 1997, and then out of nowhere you founded mailcall.  :-)     Nobody said wikipedia got it *right* when NPOV was picked as the non-negotiable pillar (I'd rather have objective truth be the standard personally).  We also don't get to mention 7-card-stud, except under the personal-section.  By contrast, motherJones journalist, bless their little hearts, mentioned your cheese addiction via french onion soup, so we can mention that.  All this stuff make sense?  And in particular, are you catching the drift that this is maximal-hard-core-wiki-strict interpretation of the wiki-laws, and that in practice nobody except me... and people that you might meet in AfD and other controversial places... actually tend to follow such hard-core standard for 99% of the articles?  75.108.94.227 (talk) 20:12, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

my wikiname is 75.108 and I approve of this section-break

 * Yes. Makes perfect sense, and most of that I already knew.  Of course I have no interest in it saying I am a genius in there, in case that wasn't obvious.  It's probably not useful, but I do have requirements specs and design documents from my work on UNIX.  Confidentiality has expired on them.  I'll try to think of some other sources.  I wrote a book at Sun called "Guide to porting SVR4 Device Drivers to Solaris 2.1"... Ron Schnell 20:23, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Depends on if the docs were 'published' at any point, online/offline/whatever, or if they were always 'internal' docs; you cannot self-pub them, because of WP:COPYVIO rather than NDA clauses, but did ibm/att/sun do so? And yeah, that bit was obvious to me, at least; you're an over-sharer, but not a glory-hound, except perhaps in the sense of someday yearning for victory in the Orbital Weightless Segway Polo World Championships of 2026. Which I sincerely hope becomes a bluelink, by the way. Unfortunately for you, the WP:RS call you a genius, right in the title even, so wikipedia pretty much has to call you that. I like to take a more tasteful approach, per NPOV and WP:IAR, and just let the reader figure it out, so we'll be trying thataway. But if somebody edits 'genius' into the article per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, it will be tough, albeit not impossible, to keep it out. Poor you. ;-)         75.108.94.227 (talk) 21:05, 30 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Yeah, well I have a dilemma... I've always thought it was 1975, but I also thought I was 9 years old (as proven by WP:RS ;-) ). But it was in the summer, and I was born in November.  So either it was 1975 and I was 8 years old (and many WP:RS are wrong), or it was 1976 and I was indeed 9 and just wrong about the year since 1981. Ron Schnell 21:23, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * When WP:THETRUTH conflicts with WP:RS, always go with the former, unless local talkpage consensus forces the latter, per WP:IAR. Since we *have* sources that specify you were quote nine years old unquote, as well as conflicting sources which specify you were quote at 14 unquote, the usual way to make it all make sense is to have some hidden-HTML-comments, like so:
 * Ron Schnell (born Ronald S. Schnell on November XXth, 1966 &mdash; sometimes Ronnie Schnell) is a computer programmer.... began programming at age nine during the mid-1970s during summer 1975 at age eight (some sources say age nine [1][2][3]) on the IBM 360 ....
 * Here is my own personal WP:CALC, just for reference.
 * 0 in nov'66 (aka born)
 * 1 in nov'67
 * 2 in nov'68
 * 3 in nov'69
 * 4 in nov'70
 * 5 in nov'71
 * 6 in nov'72
 * 7 in nov'73
 * 8 in nov'74 (thus still age 8 in summer-of-1975)
 * 9 in nov'75
 * 10 in nov'76
 * 11 in nov'77
 * 12 in nov'78
 * 13 in nov'79
 * 14 in nov'80 (thus still age 14 in summer-of-1981 during UPI/NYP/etc coverage-burst)
 * 15 in nov'81
 * Anyways, for basic biographical details like this, that aren't making claims about other people (claiming you worked on an IBM 360 obviously isn't the same as claiming you worked on A/IX for IBM), and aren't contentious (the difference between age 8 in summer'74 and age 9 in summer'75 will not make the difference in scientific priority for discovery of an idea or anything like that), wikipedia should just go with the bare facts. In your case, the *fact* is that you have two memories, which conflict:  you think it was in summer 1975 that you first became a punchcard programmer.  You think you were age nine, and told the newspapers as much, which they reprinted without fact-checking your claim, tut tut.  Both cannot be true, if you were born in November 1966, either you became a punchcard programmer at age 8 in summer 1975, or you became a punchcard programmer at age 9 sometime after November 1975.  Now, although you were present for both events (your birth and your first punchcard programming experience), you seemingly do not have crystal-clear memories of either event.  ;-)
 * So: get it worked out, what date you were actually-the-truth first a punchcard programmer. That factoid-qua-factoid, is definitely WP:NOTEWORTHY, because half a dozen sources mention that you started programming 'when young' and wikipedia should also so mention, but unlike the newspapers that have to get their story in by the deadline, on wikipedia there is no WP:DEADLINE, and thus we have time to get the exact chronology correct and truthful.  Generally speaking, in cases where the truth is 8, and the sources say 9, wikipedia says 8 per WP:IAR, but parenthetically mentions the incorrect sources per the usual implementation of WP:NPOV in practice (and to avoid future editwars where other editors happen upon the article and good-faith 'correct' the 8 to be a 9 per the flawed sources).  Not many articles *permit* the use of WP:IAR, and instead form a flawed local consensus to instead go with what the flawed sources say; that is unfortunate, albeit within wiki-policies.  Since we're the only two active wikipedians on Draft:Ron_Schnell, we can follow the pillar, and ignore the wiki-policies, until and unless somebody objects; in this specific case, I doubt they ever will.  Best, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 12:20, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I have a feeling we'll never know.Ron Schnell 14:15, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Spoke with my mom. She said that it was during the school year and not the summer, so conflict resolved. Ron Schnell 16:24, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I had a feeling somebody who *was* an adult at the time of said events might be available, for an interview with some wikipedians if not necessarily all wikipedians. :-)      There is not yet a wiki-policy called WP:WHENINDOUBTCALLMOM but there definitely should be.  75.108.94.227 (talk) 16:39, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Are you in this composite work as a chapter-author or section-author? ?? See chapters 8,9,14 perhaps. Or maybe you were working on a predecessor/successor document. There is a table-of-contents, with relatively detailed info, but no actual book-contents, at this link anyways. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 16:55, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Mine was earlier, and specific to SVR4 porting to Solaris x86 (2.1). It came with the DDK.  I just had an idea of someone to ask for a copy. Ron Schnell 17:10, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * No answer yet. Not even sure he's still alive...anyway, where do we stand, this part notwithstanding?  Am I waiting for you, or you me? (WP:NORUSH) Ron Schnell 03:29, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

where does the BLP stand
Demonstrating WP:42, three WP:N sources with 25+ sentences , three more pretty-WP:N sources with 5+ sentences, three more better-than-WP:NOTEWORTHY with 2+ sentences.
 * 1) 	wp:n	~30 sentences setl'81,
 * wp:n	~15 sentences coll'82,
 * 1) 	ntwrthy	~5 sentences mitnick'85/'91
 * 2) 	abtslf	~0 sentences att/ibm/sly/sun '86-'94
 * 3) 	abtslf	~2 sentences family'94
 * 4) 	ntwrthy	3 sentences dunnet'94/'96/'13
 * 5) 	wp:n	~50 sentences mailcall'97
 * 6) 	wp:n	~25 sentences eHouse'98
 * 7) 	ntwrthy	2 sentences equifax'04
 * 8) 	ntwrthy	~3 sentences tc'08/'11
 * wp:n	6 sentences segway'13
 * 1) 	ntwrthy	~2 sentences prof'13/'15
 * wp:n	6 sentences paul'15

Assigned tasks, feel free to punt your tasks over to the other, feel free to steal tasks from the other, but update the tasklist if you do so, to keep us from doubleworking:


 * add birthdate to first sentence, see Marilyn Monroe for example-style to use, also see notes about WP:CALC above Ron Schnell 12:04, 1 September 2015 (UTC)


 * tighten up 1975 sentence, exact date, omit needless words - Partially complete. Not sure I omitted anything. Ron Schnell 12:06, 1 September 2015 (UTC)


 * tighten up 1981 sentence, is artspeak wp:source'd aka wp:noteworthy for this BLP-article? if not, cut.  'worked with' is vague, and WP:RS give details, expand that to four or five words giving specifics.
 * add refs for 1981 sentence
 * inside a hidden-HTML-comment, since not actually verified:  Computers and People, 1981 (Volume 30), Berkeley Enterprises. Page #25 == Pat Wallace, Navigational Support for Oceanographic Research. George Jones, Western Electric. Ron Schnell 12:21, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * inside a hidden-HTML-comment, since not actually verified:  Computers and People, 1981 (Volume 30), Berkeley Enterprises. Page #25 == Pat Wallace, Navigational Support for Oceanographic Research. George Jones, Western Electric. Ron Schnell 12:21, 1 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Miller, Robert (Summer/Autumn 1981). "Evening News". Independent Network News (US). Season 2. Episode TBD. Tribune. WPIX.


 * 1982 sentence has details, but is a bit awkward in prose-style, maybe can be rephrased to flow-more-betterer? Ron Schnell 12:29, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * has mid-1980s usenet release of net-talk-as-ported-to-C been located for wp:aboutself factoid?
 * "Schnell wrote[7] the text adventure game DUNNET in 1983,[a] then ported it from MacLisp to eLisp in 1992,[b] and shortly afterwards relicensed the game under GPL2 so it could be included in GNU Emacs.[8]" cut down from 34 words to roughly eleven words, most of these details belong in Dunnet_(video_game) not in Ron Schnell, per the amount of emphasis that the wp:sources give to the author-specifically. Retain "Schnell wrote the text adventure DUNNET in 1983, then ported it in 1992."   I realize that I wrote the expanded version of this sentence myself, after telling you not to, but I was correct the first time, wrong in the middle, and am correct again now.  :-)  Ron Schnell 02:21, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * insert brief sentence about Mitnick and MIT, with corresponding wp:source
 * Is 1986 really when you started at ATT? I thought it was 1987.  Internship doesn't count, this is the encyclopedia.  ;-)    But seriously, when did you start working as a full time programmer, and were no longer at Syracuse, for good?
 * Also in the late-1980s sentence, cut mention of bell labs, ibm, sun, and their products, simply say instead 'computer consultant'. If we found wp:source making WP:NOTEWORTHY mention of sos.com, can namedrop first startup, too, else cut this down to a simple aboutself sentence.  Can also mention poker in this bit, if it was a significant source (aka statistically significant meaning 20+% of your annual income) during at least a couple of years, otherwise cut it.
 * mailcall sentence gives 1997 + ivr + tts, but we have sources with more details. add second sentence, about the reception of mailcall product in the wp:rs , and about the acquisition by vwlr-fka-kensington in 2001 or 2000 or whatever. Also, revise both sentences to specify what you-the-BLP did, aka your role is mentioned as 'co-founder' but wikipedia should specify what you mainly did, and what you mainly let the other co-founders and employees do.  Go ahead and write up a series of sentence-pairs about mailcall, one sentence-pair per year 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002andBeyond, that say in sentence#1997A what *you* did and in sentence1997#B what mostly was done by others, etc.  Then I'll try to help extract the essence of those dozen sentences into a good neutral couple of sentences about the mailcall startup, and your specific role therein.
 * mailcall refs to be added
 * iff needed, as Template:efn , http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/854608/000110465901500205/j0223_10-ksb.htm
 * maybe the highbeam one, although we don't need it to satisfy WP:N
 * equifax looks okay in prose && weight, has excess whitespace between the two refs however. should add approx-four-word-summary of your work there, "on outbound email marketing" might be close?  please revise per wp:thetruth
 * TC sentence is bloated in terms of weight... 23 words ... but at minimum, we need 8 words just to say orgname & jobtitle, so question is, can we cut down the 15 words saying what the thing *was* without going vague? already pretty vague.  See if you can dig up some wikilinks that will help us summarize TC, and the role it played in the lawsuit, and in the msft-product-dev-process.
 * Nova is okay; go ahead and add the 2015 news.fiu.edu ref to backup the mutually-supporting-aboutself (non-independent-employer), but don't bother mentioning the contest-judge-bit in body-prose, readership interested in your 2010+ professorship stuff will have to clickthru on the two refs and/or do their own googling-fu at bing.com or whatever. still no syr.edu refs?  should never have gone to university in the 1980s, no www back then!  ;-)
 * we have 21 words on Paul'16 campaign, which is probably sufficient for the moment, since we'll need to add more verbiage as more campaign-cto-related-press arises. We can actually even cut a bit:  nix the "in 2015" at the front since we say your first cto-event was in "July 2015" at the end of the sentence.
 * add refs for paul'16
 * MSNBC, http://www.msnbc.com/jose-diaz-balart/watch/rand-paul-ramps-up-tech-savvy-campaign-473573443696
 * ABC/Yahoo, http://fusion.net/story/158519/rand-pauls-24-hour-hack-a-thon/
 * http://thebaffler.com/blog/unbearable-emptiness-politics-code
 * http://freebeacon.com/politics/rand-paul-building-campaign-database-off-nsa-fight/
 * personal life section is pretty tight, good. maybe try to expand a bit on the key takeaways from your ElectronicHouse article, and your SegWayPolo article, which is dense enough prose it might be worth direct-quoting.
 * can add an early life sentence-or-maybe-sentence-fragment, prior to the at-age-nine bit.
 * add Template:efn bits about your bibliography:
 * Popular Home Automation (or maybe Popular Home Electronics?), September 1997, www.pophome.com
 * Mooney Pilot Magazine, September 2003
 * plane & pilot, circa 2001(?)
 * http://www.uscg.mil/proceedings/archive/2014/Vol71_No4_Wint2014.pdf
 * Solaris DDK chapter
 * things that are probably to be left out, but which you may want to put into the draft briefly, then self-revert, so that they're visible in the edit-history for someday-in-the-future editors to revive iff needed:
 * cheese business (don't cite the wp:primary about that corp in edit-history since once mainspaced the edit-history will be trawled by search-engines potentially),
 * french onion soup (wp:noteworthy says motherJones)
 * att/sun/ibm stuff (already added this one actually)
 * make and model of first computer you owned (prolly in some of those 1981 cites?)
 * list of programming languages you have learned, chonological , with depth-of-skill-attained rating ... which is prolly not mainspace worthy , most WP:RS just care about the cumulative total , sigh. But I'd be curious to see this on usertalk, or one-way dir, if you are interested in this specific over-sharing
 * imagefiles
 * pic at age 14 for early life subsection, photographer needs to be somebody who can release copyright, on both the image and the derivative-work imagefile, as ccbysa/gfdl dual-license , e.g. WP:WHENINDOUBTCALLMOM again probably
 * pic from 1990s, for personal life subsection , need to be able to relicense ccbysa&gfdl
 * pic at age now, digicam encyclopedic-quality portrait , for top of article , need to be able to relicense ccbysa&gfdl
 * color-coded derivative of this file, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Arpnet-map-march-1977.png , showing your login-credentials (green for legit + optionally orange for not) ... but like the language-list , this is presumably more artspeak dir info than mainspace , probably.
 * maybe possibly add some see also links? ones we haven't worked into the article-prose, which is prolly not many.
 * no need to mess with adding wiki-categories, people with edit-count-itis show up to do that for all new articles
 * color-coded derivative of this file, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Arpnet-map-march-1977.png , showing your login-credentials (green for legit + optionally orange for not) ... but like the language-list , this is presumably more artspeak dir info than mainspace , probably.
 * maybe possibly add some see also links? ones we haven't worked into the article-prose, which is prolly not many.
 * no need to mess with adding wiki-categories, people with edit-count-itis show up to do that for all new articles


 * add some cite-templates into the draft, which I have sitting in an open tab, sigh
 * Sun Sentinel
 * Fast Company
 * PC World
 * look over the refs, and make sure we've got our WP:42 ducks in a row. ✅
 * add hidden-html-comments which point out the WP:N bursts, and the borderline-WP:N bits.
 * ping some informal reviewers, to come see how much rose-colored-COI being your wiki-buddy has given my wiki-eyes
 * maybe mainspace then, if they don't see major problems

At the moment, I'm planning on doing the four five at the bottom, and leaving the tightening-and-cleanup work for you, but as time allows I'll help. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 07:59, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

a.s.b. 7

 * I'm frustrated by the search for the net-talk distribution. I'm almost certain I saw it last week, but now I can't find it.  I even have the .shar file...  I'm taking a break ufn today, so feel free to work on any of mine. Ron Schnell 14:30, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I was glad when the WP:GOOG bought out dejanews, but they've really let it go downhill. Think it might be gmail-and-googleGroups-and-googlePlus-fka-Orkut-advocacy-related, unfortunately.  p.s.  Joining Union des Forces Nouvelles will almost certainly get you press-coverage, but that's really not necessary methinks, I'm pretty sure we crossed WP:42 quite a while ago.  :-)      In any case, I forgot to make clear that I'll start from the bottom of the list and work upwards, if you'd like to start from the top of the list and work downwards.  I'll skip things that are too tricksy for anons like imagefiles, but will mark done each bit I mess with.  In the meanwhile, since I think the sourcing bit is pretty solid, I'll go ahead and do some informal hey-remember-last-time-you-helped-me-here-I-am-begging-for-favors-again type effort, though I know at least two of the people I'll be pinging are on real-life-vacations presently.  Best, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 14:53, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It's okay to say I was a UNIX programmer but not UNIX kernel programmer? All of my time as an IC was as a kernel programmer.  Ron Schnell 03:42, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It's okay to say you were a Unix programmer, or even a kernel programmer; however, I thought that SOS.com was not kernels, right? It's not okay, without a cite, to say you were a UNIXTM programmer, aka an AT&T employee at Bell Labs, sans a better cite than politico-scare-quoting-your-current-employer.  It is WP:THETRUTH that you were, but no press-coverage, means no way to WP:PROVEIT exists.  Saying 'from 1988 to 1994 schnell was a Unix kernel consultant' without citing the sentence, or citing it to WP:ABOUTSELF which is what's we will end up doing in, *is* perfectly reasonable.  It explains what you were doing, in the years between NYU/Dialcom/MIT/Mitnick in the early 1980s, and your 'big win' startup MailCall in 1997.  What we cannot do, is go outside the bounds of WP:ABOUTSELF, and say that you were a kernel programmer on a specific product (sys5r4 UNIX, Solaris 2.x, AI/X versionWhatever) nor for a specific company (BellLabs/SunOracle/IBM), since such prose contains non-aboutself claims, until and unless we dig up some kind of mutually-supporting-WP:ABOUTSELF like the Sun DDK thing, or preferably, until we find a journalist in a journalist's voice saying that "before he founded MailCall he worked for X on A, Y on B, and Z on C" quote unquote which satisfies WP:NOTEWORTHY.  The politico quote, which is a WP:RS publisher, is only quasi-WP:NOTEWORTHY and only quasi-WP:RS-independent... because although politico is a wiki-reliable publisher, and mike-whatever is a wiki-reliable author, they specifically declined to publish the factoid about your work in their journalistic voice, instead quoting your present employer, who in turn was basically just quoting straight from your resume.  So even though we *have* the WP:RS in hand, seemingly, it is only quasi-WP;NOTEWORTHY because of the independent-ultimate-authorship-issue.  (Somewhat-similar kind of problems with e-tactics.com, was she independent and wiki-reliable, or was she only WP:BLOGS, who would republish any press-release that anybody bothered to send to her.)  Anyways, per WP:NOTCV the main goal isn't to write an article about every job you've worked, the goal is to write an article that summarizes what the WP:SOURCES said about you-qua-you.  There's tons of press-coverage about UNIX and tons of press coverage about Solaris and even a modicum of press-coverage about AI/X (great keyboards but not the best proprietary UNIX-flavor).  There's no press-coverage about role-of-Ron-Schnell in those events, because you were a kernel-hacker working deep inside the company tech-team, not a CEO waltzing around promoting the products and the company and yourself to the press.  Once you became the President of your MailCall startup, suddenly you got press-coverage... not because you were suddenly so much smarter, or so much better of a kernel-hacker, but simply because you were now in the business of promoting your startup in the press.  Wikipedia is stupid about some things; to you, and to myself, your career-formative years spent on kernel-hacking and your early failed startups, are *far* more crucial than your later success -- they EXPLAIN your later success, in fact.  So wikipedia, as a duty to our readers, needs a brief sentence that says Schnell worked hard to become a Unix wizard from the mid-1980s though the mid-1990s, and founded a failed startup.  But we cannot, staying within the strict confines of WP:NPOV as currently implemented, give much in the way of details (though we can link to driver-aces after the unix-and-sosDotCom-related-sentence in a footnote).  The sources are silent on this aspect of your life, thus, per WP:UNDUE, also must wikipedia be (largely) silent.  Moreover, staying within the strict confines of WP:SYNTH, we cannot actually say, in mainspance, Schnell's early work-experience and early startup-attempts are what permitted MailCall to succeed.  We must draw no conclusions.  We must employ no logic.  We can use WP:CALC, but only in obviously-improving-the-encyclopedia-ways.  We can use WP:ABOUTSELF, ditto.  Anyways, sometimes the rules are not very helpful, but knowing the wiki-culture, and how it works nowadays, I can say with 99.4% certainty, that the perfectly true sentence "Schnell worked as a kernel hacker at Bell Labs on UNIX version N, then at IBM on AI/X version M, then at Sun Microsystems (now Oracle) on Solaris 2.x, plus founded a startup SOS.com largely funded by an angel investor (Sylvester Stallone)"  ... put into mainspace without citing it to an impeccable non-interview-quotation-non-Rand-Paul-press-release-quotation-WP:RS ... somebody will most definitely delete it, and probably AfD the article too, just for spite.  :-)      So we must conservatively and strictly stick to the wiki-laws engravethed in wiki-stone:  Schnell worked as a kernel hacker on Unix from 198x to 199x, and founded his first (soon defunct) startup.  No companies, no product-names, pure WP:ABOUTSELF. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 15:39, 2 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm still looking for that blasted net-talk thing. I'm pulling my hair out.  Did find this interesting link: https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/federal_register_notices/definitions-and-implementation-under-can-spam-act-16-cfr-part-316/080521canspamact.pdf  - never knew about it.  I am cited quite a few times. Ron Schnell 06:05, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry about the hair; wigs are expensive, you should channel your frustration into something more constructive. ;-)      We don't need a net-talk footnote to pass WP:42, it's just for completeness, and for interested readership to have a 'Notes' footnote to click on.  As for the other thing, will check the latest FTC doc out.  WP:PRIMARY applies, prolly, but we can likely add it to the 'Notes' section with the others of that nature.  75.108.94.227 (talk) 15:39, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, having read the FTC link, or at least, skimmed some of it and ctrl+F hopped through the rest of it, I'm probably more confused than before. :-)    This is a 2008 final ruling, and you are listed as a commenter in the appendix, and then cited (usually just as 'Schnell' with nothing further but in a few cases with snippets from your presumed-to-exist-somewheres-commentary) a dozen times in the footnotes.  It's obviously a governmental document... it's also obviously been brewing since 2003, when the CAN-SPAM act first was put forward.  So, is the 'Schnell' commentary, your 2004 speech as an Equifax employee, on the topic of spam and SMTP and the DKIM-precursors and such?  Or was your specific commentary on the final ruling proper, aka made in 2008, but not visible in that particular PDF?  75.108.94.227 (talk) 02:38, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The latter. Usually the commentary is *somewhere* online, but I couldn't find it when I searched the other day.  I remember composing my comments as an agent of Equifax, so it would have had to be 1/2005 or earlier. Ron Schnell 02:42, 5 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Here's another WP:RS brief mention, if you haven't seen yet: http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/09/02/rand-paul-campaign-makes-pixelated-pitch-through-an-app/ Ron Schnell 12:06, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, that's actually borderline-WP:N, because as the architect of the app, the features thereof count as SomethingRonSchnellDid.  Well, potentially, anyways, depending on how much of the app is yours, and how much of the app is 'yours' in the corporate-chain-of-ultimate-responsibility-sense, but not yours in the nose-to-the-grindstone-sense.  Are you also the programmer?  How many people worked on the code, how many people worked on the architecture-slash-infrastructure-design, how many people worked on the graphics-slash-visual-design?  Don't need names, just headcounts, and your specific role; as CTO you were spending what percent of your time the past N weeks on this app, say?
 * Here's the nice template-ized ref, which somebody with WP:REFILL could make, but which I prefer to hand-create so I can |quote= the key bits. Now, assuming for the sake of wiki-training, that you personally are 100% behind the app, architect and designer and programmer and graphic artist and all that, put on your cloak of wiki-neutrality, and write me a nice neutral boring just-the-facts sentence with 15 words that summarizes the cite.
 * Problem-set-question-number-two, assume that your actual role was relatively minimal, and 90% of the work was done by other people, which makes the NYT cite WP:NOTEWORTHY since you were namedropped (and they were not ... cf related discussion about why you have press-coverage for prez-of-mailcall but not press-coverage for kernel-hacker-of-att/ibm/sun), once again put on your cloak of wiki-neutrality, and write me a nice neutral boring just-the-facts sentence with 5 words that summarizes the cite. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 15:39, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Problem-set-question-number-two, assume that your actual role was relatively minimal, and 90% of the work was done by other people, which makes the NYT cite WP:NOTEWORTHY since you were namedropped (and they were not ... cf related discussion about why you have press-coverage for prez-of-mailcall but not press-coverage for kernel-hacker-of-att/ibm/sun), once again put on your cloak of wiki-neutrality, and write me a nice neutral boring just-the-facts sentence with 5 words that summarizes the cite. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 15:39, 2 September 2015 (UTC)


 * We've been working hard on the app for weeks. I was indeed the architect and managed our team who wrote the code.  I like your proposed kernel wording.  It was a long way to go to say "yes, we can add the word kernel", which is what I was asking! Ron Schnell 16:23, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Do. Or do not.  There is no 'ask'.  If you want a fast answer, I'm not the anon to seek out, in other words.  ;-)      But it actually is a bit subtle:  kernel hackers have special street-cred, in the programming world.  Adding 'kernel' could be seen as promotional, if you weren't actually a kernel hacker.  So per WP:THETRUTH, we can say Unix kernel consultant.  But it's a mild risk, slightly higher than just saying 'Unix programmer', that somebody will pull out WP:PROVEIT, and if they are clear on the wiki-policies, strictly applied, they won't accept the politico-ref, they'll want a ref of the mutually-supporting-WP:ABOUTSELF type from Sun/IBM/ATT, or better, WP:NOTEWORTHY fully-not-quasi-independent mention by a journalist.  So adding that additional word, 'Unix kernel consultant', is actually a bit of a risk, more than just saying 'Unix consultant'.  But I think only a bit.  :-)
 * Mentioning the first startup, now defunct, is also a bit subtle, for the same reasons. We do at least have some WP:BLOGS that prove that SOS.com was a thing, but of course, that's not noticeably better than WP:ABOUTSELF in most ways.  What was the elevator-pitch description of the goal of SOS.com?  What were the customers you actually got?  Basically, was SOS.com just a kernel-hacker-startup, a variation on your kernel-hacker-consulting-gigs?  I was under the impression it was NOT kernel-hacking-specific, but was some kind of infosec startup, but I'm fuzzy on the details.
 * Re: NYT cite, I do want to know the actuality of your involvement, o'course, but I also want you to practice wearing the cloak of neutrality, and write (or at least dash off a rough draft of) the two sentences. What is the 15-word-summary-sentence, if you alone are 100% responsible for all arch/design/code/graphics/sqa/marketing of the app?  By contrast, what is the 5-word-summary-sentence, if you were only vaguely-involved, aka ceremonial-role-but-with-some-ultimate-public-facing-responsibility?  Sounds like your actual role was in-between those two, so probably the actual sentence we mainspace will be closer to 15 words than to 5 words, but it's good practice to over-write, and then under-write, before trying to hit the happy medium.  Then we have to look at the overall length of the article, and see if the 10-word-summary-sentence, really belongs or not.  Is this Paul'16 app worth the same number of words as the Net-Talk and BBC sentence?  Or is is worth as few words as the hackathon currently gets?  That's the question of WP:UNDUE.  It's clearly WP:NOTEWORTHY and thus deserves a mention, but how much detail, and how much we let the reader click through to the NYT to discover, is the key to the core of wiki-neutrality.  75.108.94.227 (talk) 20:23, 2 September 2015 (UTC)


 * http://www.theverge.com/2015/9/2/9248495/rand-paul-presidential-app Ron Schnell 20:16, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Better than the NYT? Worse than the NYT?  In terms of specific depth-of-details about Schnell-qua-Schnell, your role and what you did and such.  75.108.94.227 (talk) 20:27, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it's better in all of the aspects. Ron Schnell 20:34, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

asb8
Well, let's build the cite-web-template, and then compare and contrast.



By my count, there are 276 words from TheVerge cite, which are specifically about what you did or said, or directly related thereto. This is slightly more than the 264 from the NYT cite. But what about factoid-count, which is often distinct from word-count? Again, they are about the same, in my estimation. We get *different* factoids in some cases; NYT says it is compatible with both android-and-apple smartfons, Verve says you were 'chief' architect. NYT gave a deeper analysis of the space invaders aspect, Verve gave a deeper analysis of the help-Paul-vote aspect.


 * both: Ron_Schnell (CTO) quoted (Verve: quote analyzed: more polls !== direct democracy)
 * both: Schnell was architect of app (Verge says 'chief', NYT elides adjective)
 * NYT: smartphone app, on iTunes and Google Play appstores
 * both: app promotes Paul'16 (NYT: donate-now-link is first thing you see, campaign news, featured video, 2nd POTUS campaign w/ 'official' app, "tries to offer a blend of digital mischief and communication that has come to be a hallmark of Mr. Paul's online campaign")
 * both: Space Invaders (Verve: clone / NYT: hidden easter egg version), logo of Paul'16 vs OtherLogos (NYT: Trump or Bush [or etc])
 * NYT: shoot rockets to blast into pixelated embers... game over msg: 'You have not defeated your inferiors! Assuage your guilt by making a donation to the campaign!')
 * both: sends push notifications prior to Senate votes, users 'vote' on Senate bills (NYT: "asking users how they think Paul should vote")
 * Verve: political engagement !== actual influence on Senators; app-based-'votes' not a novel idea, but potential for good (decisions made on behalf of electorate), potential for bad (over-simplified issues-activism)
 * both: Paul'16 event_calendar (NYT: send[s] [[push alerts when the senator is hosting an event)
 * both: meme mini-app for social media (Verve: meme generator, e.g. pro-gold_standard && anti-surveillance_state) (NYT: post their own Rand Paul memes, e.g. create an artificial selfie with the senator)

So to return to the wiki-challenge, currently on the table: can you boil all that down into at 15-word summary? Jamming it into a template is easy. I find writing the sentences to be frigging hard! :-)     75.108.94.227 (talk) 21:38, 2 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, I like to think I'm good at writing prose. I just want to make sure of what you are asking.  Would this be a 15-word summary of the mobile app launch? Ron Schnell 22:11, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You *can* write that sentence, sure, but Ron Schnell needs a sentence specifically about Ron-Schnell's-role-in-the-Rand-Paul-2016-app (all phases not just launch), as reflected in the WP:RS. The sentence you're describing is *also* needing to be added to wikipedia (tho WP:NORUSH applies), but over in the Paul'16 article, not Ron Schnell.  The bulk of the sources don't mention the infamous CTO, but just react to the app and/or campaign, so the sentence-contents are actually quite distinct, because they draw from different source-groups, and from different *parts* of the sources.  The sentence for the Paul'16 article, covers all of what all of the sources say, and probably 15 words would be too few; the sentence for the Ron Schnell article covers all of what all the sources say about Ron Schnell specifically, and to a limited degree, about the app itself, since you were one of the co-creators thereof.
 * Similar to the sources on Dunnet being generally vague on who wrote Dunnet (of the dozen dunnet sources we have you get passing mention as the author in a couple), your role in the app is only covered by some sources, and then only as a part of their overall coverage, so the outcome of neutrally-summarizing is very different, because the wikipedia-article-focus is different. Consider the firm in Covington, from what I can tell, none of the sources even mention them, even though they are co-creators of the app, at minimum.  Distributor and namesake gets all the credit, in this case:  Rand Paul is the namesake, and you as campaign CTO are the distributor, with CanDo getting shortest shrift in the press.  With the sources for Dunnet, the situation was rather similar:  EMACS was the namesake ("type  "), OSX was the distributor, and Schnell got the shortest shrift in the press.  As mentioned with the Unix kernel hacker thing, sometimes wikipedia's rules are badly skewed, with what the objective reality of the situation is:  OSX had basically zip to do with Dunnet, but gets lots of press-credit.  Rand Paul is the *reason* there is a Rand_Paul_2016 app, of course, but I kinda doubt he was hacking on the codebase along with the others.
 * Anyways, I'm looking for a 15-word summary of the Schnell-specific-portions of the WP:SOURCES that mention you with respect to the app launch. WP:NOTNEWS applies (a subset of WP:NORUSH), so we cannot *really* add a story that just broke to wikipedia mainspace, since the coverage-burst is ongoing... but draftspace is another matter, o'course.  75.108.94.227 (talk) 00:54, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

sentence-drafting convenience-sub-sub-sub-sub-section

 * (after describing my position), and architected the Rand Paul 2016 mobile app, and described it as being "about letting the candidate know what you think."
 * I don't really like it, but I was trying to make it short. Ron Schnell 01:55, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, so that is neutral, but it is not balanced, or at least, not balanced by my interpretation of "you and your role". It is true that both places quoted you, and the Verge actually gave some journalistic-voice-analysis of your quote.  But the wikipedia article is supposed to stick to describing what the WP:RS said, and giving the various bits the *weight* that the WP:RS gave them.  In this case, the articles in question gave most of their weight to the quote, in terms of how *specifically* they described your role.  So your picking the quote, as the key bit beyond the project-specific-job-title, is not actually wrong, per se.  However, they also list you as the chief architect, or as the architect at least, and then go on to describe the features of the app, which (per WP:SYNTH ... but in this case an allowed type of it methinks), means I think we need to mention the features of the app, which you architected during the last few months, to get some mention.
 * Now, in the case of Dunnet, by contrast, there is an extant dedicated article serving that purpose, but in the case of the Paul'16 app, there is not such as article. (And Rand Paul 2016 (app) doesn't pass a strict reading of the WP:NSOFT guideline, because there is only a single coverage-burst about the app so far.)  So, since there is no article about the app we can wikilink to, and because you were the architect of the app and thus largely responsible for the features thereof, it makes sense to me that our sentence for Ron Schnell BLP-article should pick out some of those features:  the hidden easter egg logo-invaders game, the donation-prompts, the feedback-on-Senate-votes (which we can cover more succinctly without quotations), and the virtual-selfie are the main ones methinks.  It's hard to cover all that ground in fifteen words, but methinks it can be done, with judicious use of wikilinks.  Something like this:


 * Schnell architected the app for Paul'16 including a hidden game, vote feedback, donations, and (virtual) selfies.


 * Which works out to 17 or 16 words, depending on whether you count "Paul'16" as a single word or as two words. So *pretty* close to what we're aiming for.  Cutting it down to 10 words, might not be possible, but I think we can give plenty of details whilst keeping it under 20 words.  You started at 21 words, but used no wikilinks:
 * Schnell architected the Paul'16 mobile app which "let[s] the candidate know what you think."
 * So with wikilinks, deverbosification of "and described it as being about" to simply "which", that goes down from 21 words to 14 words. Also, depending on whether we make a standalone sentence, or integrate it into the hackathon-sentence, we might be able to de-duplicate things (like "Paul'16") and save a word here or there. But clarity first, we don't want our sentences to be super-long, just so we can cram a bunch of extraneous details into them.  And balance always, we want to balance out what the sources say when we summarize them into a sentence, and we want to balance out the *overall* coverage of the topic of Ron Schnell in terms of the total article.  The Paul'16 app is an important component of your overall coverage (prolly the first time you were in the NYT for instance), but we don't want to give more coverage to recent events than we do to past ones, but rather, try and look at the bulk of the coverage of yourself and your activities, and then boil them down into a nice balanced-in-proprotion-to-the-sources article.  Toughest part about wikipedia is NPOV, but also the most crucial part.  Best, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 17:10, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

asb9
These are the other app-related-refs that have appeared, that I noticed.















Outside the WP:RS, which contain very little programming-related-info except the phrase "app", it is possible to find some technical data. There are also some bugs and complaints in WP:NOTFORUM, such as the relatively-high iOS reqs (v8+) whereas droid support extends all the way back to 2.3.3, aka 99.9% of linux-based tablets out there nowadays. One person in the google store claimed there was a bug with LG Flex smartfons, which a later update to the app fixed (but they still left you only 2 stars for daring to release without testing on all variants of the LG Flex! ;-)       Also said that virtual-selfie-sharing ought not to be hyperlink-based (presumably wanted JPEG-based). Somebody claimed that there was no share-this-app-to-another-nearby-user-via-NFC-or-wifi-or-bluetooth feature. Another person complained that you couldn't download the APK from the campaign website, aka for side-loading, but had to run it from the appstore-app (and share it via those as well). However, since all these tech-related-complaints are not yet mentioned in WP:RS, they wouldn't be factors as far as wikipedia is concerned; software is assumed to be buggy, nowadays, by the vast bulk of the media. :-)     Most of the complaints in the WP:RS are related to the v-selfie feature being free-form, which permits various sorts of silly pranks, although the look-at-the-funny-pranks article in politico also mentioned the gaffe that the app requires precision-location-tracking-data (the NYT was the only one that concentrated on the fundraising-related aspects that I saw).  For your role in the development of the app, most of this coverage is excessive, because it's about the app (which coverage-summarization belongs in the paul'16 article).  75.108.94.227 (talk) 02:56, 3 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Here's another for you: http://www.vocativ.com/news/227868/we-found-the-easter-egg-in-rand-pauls-app/ Ron Schnell 03:05, 3 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure '"server-side" text-to-speech' is a meaningful description in the contact of a phone service bureau. There was no real "client" in this context (think landlines, as that was what was predominantly used at the beginning). Ron Schnell 19:59, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Am open to clarification, but my distinction was between the 'customer premises telephony device' that the mailcall enduser was holding in their hands, which would in turn be the 'client' that connected them to the telephony network... and somewhere on the other end of the toll-free-number, an IVR server was reading them their email. Siri is also server-side text-to-speech, albeit theoretically (because an ARM-based smartphone is Turing-complete whereas a DTMF-handset is not) it would also be conceivable for the text-to-speech to be implemented client-side.  And actually, that proves what I know... quite possibly the protocol under the hood is that the enduser creates an audio-streamed query, which is sent to the server for speech-to-text processing, and then the server sends ASCII back to the smartphone, which generates the Siri-voice with the answer?  But I was assuming the Siri stuff was bidirectional audio streams, since old-school-telephony typically was bidirectional audio streams.  Anyways, in the context of mailcall, there was no computationally-capable client, but there was a client-side electromechanical device.  If you have some image-skills, maybe you can put together a nice block diagram, which shows the architecture?  human, phone handset, ESS6 switch, telephony network, 800-number-mux-thing, and whatever you did server-side.  Since the article is about Ron Schnell rather than Mail Call (company) probably the diagram is WP:UNDUE, but it kinda depends on the other two co-founders; were either of them techie-types, or did they work on sales/marketing/finance/etc?  75.108.94.227 (talk) 20:20, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I understand that from a literal perspective it's server-side. What I was saying is that I don't think it really has a "relevant" meaning in this context.  No big deal, in any case.  The other two co-founders were not technical by any stretch of the imagination. Ron Schnell 20:53, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree the prose needs work. For one thing, the average wikipedia readership isn't going to understand what 'server-side' even means, it is nerd-jargon slash hacker-speak, and needs a rewrite just on those grounds.  I already think we need to have 2 sentences about mailcall; I suggest that one of the sentences focus on the business-aspect:  founded 1997, product was check-your-email-over-the-telephone, job title & role you played, acquired 2000(?), product defunct 2xxx.  The next sentence can give specifics about what the technology-details were, aka the specific features you implemented.  As with the Paul'16 app, where the *actual* features of the app are in the dozen-or-so range, the *key* features (aka the ones the WP:RS gave the most ink unto) were the vote-on-senate-bills (Verge), the donate-now-btn (NYT), the v-selfie (most *every* other WP:RS put the focus on that), and the logo-invaders-easter-egg (also a very 'key' feature per press-coverage).  Mail Call had a lot of features, but the press coverage at the time emphasized relatively few of them; so, we should give the 'key' features that got the most notice, plus try to explain to our 2015 readership *why* the product was considered Way CoolTM back in the late 1990s by non-techie-audiences like Working Woman targetted, for example.  In as few and maximally-succinct words as possible, per usual.  ;-)    75.108.94.227 (talk) 21:19, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Funny, seems there isn't the handy  closing-tag that I imagined. Thanks for the temp-fix, I've unwedged my comment a little better now.  ;-)      As I believe I've mentioned, you're free to mess directly with my comments to edit them for clarity/grammar/whatever (or to unwedge my poor attempt at SGML), but generally speaking it is best to do what you just did, and make an edit *outside* other people's comments, since plenty of them are touchy about their comment-turf and don't like anyone messing directly with what they said.  So the wikiquette is to do exactly what you did, adjust the flow of HTML outside the other person's comment, nice fix.  Though for me-only-specifically, feel free just to fix-in-place (or feel free to keep practicing wikiquette as a way to develop an ingrained habit -- either way is fine by moi).  75.108.94.227 (talk) 10:34, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Responding to the mad blocker's talkback...I am not comfortable doing an AfC request on my own. Whether or not COI is allowed, I do not feel comfortable creating my own article, and would rather someone (at least originally) unbiased did it because they think it's WP:N.  I was perfectly happy with your idea to confirm WP:NPOV by asking around, but if the answer is for ME to spearhead an AfC, I'm not very enthused.  Ron Schnell 23:44, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Now, now, WP:NICE. They aren't angry, WP:AGF, they are just trying in good faith to wiki-police the 'pedia to keep people away, whom are out to screw said 'pedia up.  There's definitely a need for anti-spam patrollers, and although the impersonation-thing was over the top, it *has* happened before, that some e.g. campaign staffer from one of the Democratic Party candidates (say), would pretend to be the Republican Party opponent-candidate (say), and then engage in a false flag political attack designed to get that opposing-candidate bad press.  WP:CHECKUSER can detect such schemes, but there are only a few dozen people on wikipedia that have access to the raw server logs.  That said, certainly I think they're wrong on the wiki-policies, since we're obviously doing everything with full wiki-properness and our wiki-honor intact, and DOUBLY-CERTAINLY that block was a little, um, heavy-handed.  I'll probably be giving some of my own wiki-goosing to the folks involved in that, to make sure everybody is on the same page about WP:COI and WP:NICE and WP:DRAFTS and the subtle interactions thereof.
 * But yes, the plan at the moment is still the same as before, to informally advertise the draft to TheBanner whom I met via working the wp-coi-queue, and (when he is back from vacation) to FiddleFaddle who approved one of my AfC submissions past, and to one other person who approved some AfC draft of mine, their username slips my mind at the moment but it might be primefac? If most of those long-haul wikipedians thinks we've passed WP:42, and that I'm not rose-colored-wiki-glasses-encumbered, then I'll ask them to mainspace Ron Schnell for us -- anons cannot mainspace, and User:Aviators99 shouldn't be mainspacing *this* article since you are wp-coi-encumbered.
 * We'll only be going through AfC if the answer comes back as maybe-this-BLP-article-passes-but-seems-borderline, in which case what will happen is that 1) I'll submit the article for AfC review, since I have no question that it passes WP:42 now, since we've found the mail call offline refs, and even before then I knew it was borderline-but-probably-over-the-line, then 2) you Ron will continue improving it ... with me helping as time permits ... and unforunately at least half the AfC reviewers are utter Manual Of Style sticklers which is *not* what AfC is supposed to be for but that is another gripe for another day ... see tips from Brianhe on their usertalk page about slimming the humongo-quotes and templatizing the bare-URL-refs and paying attention to MOS:APPENDEX and such which we can defer until and unless we get stuck into the AfC approach. Finally, 3) when an AfC reviewer happens along, to afc_comment or even to AfC-decline-with-specific-things-to-fix-attached, you and me both (as well as the AfC reviewer although in most cases they don't help directly but merely give tips) will fix up whatever complaints they had.
 * Anyways, the AfC process is not painful, it is just inherently-always-backlogged so it takes a very long time. And in fact, if you didn't have me handy, one of the *primary* purposes of AfC is to let employee-of-company-XYZ write up a draft-wikipedia-article about Company XYZ (ditto for human-named-Ron writing up their autobiograph Ron Schnell in the AfC queue), and then get neutral AfC-reviewer-eyeballs to help them whittle out the promotionalism, and wiki-experienced AfC-reviewers to give them tips on inline referencing, manual of style, whether press-releases count as wiki-reliable, and so on.  Quite frankly, the long monologues you're getting from me, are more painful and more exacting than what you'd get in the AfC queue.  You're free to escape to their gentler wiki-standards any time you get tired of suffering under my wiki-lash.  ;-)      75.108.94.227 (talk) 10:34, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you misunderstood a couple of things. I'm fine with the use of AfC if that's necessary.  I just don't feel comfortable being the requester.  Just like I didn't want to go through the process of creating my own WP:BLP before I met you.  Before I thought it was disallowed, now I still find it uncouth.  I was perfectly happy to have it not happen if nobody thought I was WP:N enough to have it.  Ron Schnell 14:01, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, we're on the same page about AfC and all that. Mostly I'm explaining what is going on, to the ears in the wiki-walls, as it were.  Creating your own autobio, contrary to popular belief, is 100% allowed.  It is frowned upon, because statistically it cannot be done wiki-neutrally, due to the inherent internal bias.  Such as, for instance, in your summarization of your own role as the app-architect, where rather than quoting what some journalist said about the app, or about your role in the app, you quoted yourself.  ;-)      More on that later, I'm trying to write my own 15-word-summary, 5-word-summary, and 10-words-about-right-summary.  While I'm trying to write a sentence for Draft:Ron Schnell, put on your cloak of wiki-neutrality, and try to write a couple sentences (roughly 25 words or thereabouts) that describe the *overall* app-launch, and would go into the Rand Paul presidential campaign, 2016 article.  Right now it doesn't mention the hackathon, which got five or ten hits in the press, nor the app-launch, which got ten or twenty hits in the press (so far at least).
 * Anyways, whether writing your own BLP-article for wikipedia is "couth" or not, generally speaking it is almost always absolutely necessary, since wikipedians are generally speaking lazy, and since the Ron Schnell BLP-article simply could not pass WP:42 without the offline refs from the 1980s and 1990s, which often only the subject-of-the-BLP-article-aka-Ron-Schnell-the-human will have ready access to, and ready knowledge about. Which proved to be the case in at least three of the four BLP articles I'm currently messing with (the exception being Jeff Berwick who has plenty of online-refs since he's a relatively recently-born human.  Even for him, though, zero online refs about stockhouse.com which was apparently a Big Deal in the mid-1990s Canadian internet-startup scene.  Or maybe I just answered my own question?
 * As for the other thing, angry and mad and other synonyms for emotion-driven-editing are all going to boil down to the same thing, in my book: not very WP:NICE.  But by the same token, it is not WP:NICE for you to be complaining about the editor that blocked you.  Incorrect to impute motives of anger, when very likely none actually exist, and the block by User:SmartSE was heavy-handed but dispassionate and an honest attempt to Improve The Encyclopedia.  Theoretically, after all, you could be a sekrit spy from the Hillary'16 campaign, out to tarnish the Paul'16 campaign.  Or theoretically, you could be a disgruntled Dunnet player, or a disgruntled Mail Call employee, out for revenge on that dastartdly Schnell, by tarnishing their wikiname.  Now, in practice, such hypotheticals are obviously rubbish.  And the block was heavy-handed... although I've seen MUCH MUCH worse ones, at least this one said 'temporary' and mostly conveyed the correct wiki-policies, and clear instructions for correcting the problem.
 * Similarly, per WP:AGF and per my direct usertalk discussion with User:Brianhe, it seems pretty clear that what happened is simply a template-bug that led to a misunderstanding, which didn't balloon out of control, because it turns out Ron Schnell and Aviators99 and the CTO of Paul'16 and the author of Dunnet really are one single humanoid, and said one single humanoid remained cool-calm-and-collected despite the inconvenience of getting accosted by the wiki-cops in the typical guilty-until-proven-innocent fashion that the wiki-culture has become in the last few years. In the mystery-of-the-missing-COI, a little background is needed.  There are three ways to declare aka disclose one's COI:  on one's userpage (once), on the relevant article-talkpage (once), and iteratively in every edit-summary (continuous).  Your userpage discloses that you are named Ron Schnell, of course, and has for some time, but it doesn't explicitly disclose that you are *that* Ron Schnell the author of Dunnet and the CTO of the Paul'16 campaign.
 * Also, Draft_talk:Ron_Schnell discloses your username has COI with respect to Draft:Ron_Schnell, which I added long ago when we moved from usertalk to draftspace, but this draftspace-talkpage-disclosure is only possible to see, if one actually visits the drafttalk page. Unfortunately, the COI template that Brianhe used (which is the standard one for undisclosed COI) is buggy, since draftspace is new, and instead points to Talk:Ron_Schnell... and obviously *that* one is a redlink, and thus cannot have article-talkpage-disclosure, hence Brianhe's misinterpreting the situation, and demanding you cough-up-your-identity-or-else-bub.  So yes, Brianhe jumped the gun with their please-disclose-or-else-noticeboards-for-the-both-of-yas message, not very WP:NICE, they should have just asked politely, but it was an honest mistake:  they looked for COI disclosure in the usual places, and didn't find it, because the COI template pointed them to the wrong place, and because your userpage is still somewhat 'under construction' and neglected.  I don't think they were angry, I think they just jumped to the wrong conclusion, whilst trying to protect the 'pedia from spam... and with the Orangemoody-related-fiasco, which involved draftspace and AfC, they have reason to be jumpy, though of course, that's no excuse for starting off on the wrong foot at usertalk.
 * As for the impersonation-block, I don't think that was done angrily either, it was just a procedural dispassionate temporary block... although obviously, strict reading of WP:COI shows that SmartSE's "order" to quit writing Ron Schnell is not what the wiki-policy actually says, and strict reading of WP:NOTBUREACRACY strongly suggests that procedural blocks when no damage to the 'pedia is actually ongoing are heavy-handed, and cause more disruption than they prevent, as turned out to be the case here. But Ron, don't be under the misimpression that the COI-disclosure-request and the OTRS-impersonation-verification were done in anger; they were mistakes, but all the same they were honest dispassionate mistakes made with Improving The 'Pedia as the goal, methinks. Compare with the AfD of the dunnet article, which was *not* a mistake... at the time it was sent (honestly and dispassionately) to AfD, the article on dunnet simply didn't pass WP:42, but as luck would have it, I happened to talkstalk you, and together enough sources were dug up to get a legit bangkeep.  75.108.94.227 (talk) 14:46, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

asb_0xA

 * Here's some more:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DoxlRQJmma4&feature=share

http://jpupdates.com/2015/09/04/rand-pauls-mobile-app-lets-supporters-stand-with-rand/

http://www.theatlantic.com/notes/2015/09/i-cant-stop-looking-at-these-weird-rand-paul-photoshops/403756/ Ron Schnell 18:57, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Whoa, did you get namedropped in The Atlantic? Or are these just app-launch coverage generally?  If they are general-campaign-coverage, put them in asb9 (preferably directly into the bulleted list), but if they are Schnell-BLP-article related, then put future ones into asb8, por favor.  Best, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 19:35, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Only the first one talks about me (the web newsmagazine)... Ron Schnell 19:39, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict...) Ah, no mention of you there.  Pretty hilarious though.  You should ask your boss if "Make America Great Again Or At Least Make It Weird Again With Virtual-Rand Selfies"TM is a suitable slogan for the Rand Paul 2016 (app).  There are live updates going out, right?  :-)      With any luck, Trump will sue you personally, for violating his newly-trademarked phrase in your android APK, and then your wikipedia article will be... Bangkeep. For. Ever.  ;-)    75.108.94.227 (talk) 19:41, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * However, make sure you release the *slogan* as dual-licensed under CC-BY-SA3 and GFDL, or the wikilawyers will *also* sue the pants off you, for copyright infringement rather than for trademark violation. :-)    75.108.94.227 (talk) 19:45, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You should watch the first video. Good name drop there. Ron Schnell 19:43, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Will do. But youtube not WP:RS.  Better link?  75.108.94.227 (talk) 19:45, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The Young Turks is the video, but they are actually quoting Vocativ quoting you, midway through. http://youtube.com/watch?v=DoxlRQJmma4#t=70s  is where the put the ref onscreen. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 19:49, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * And from the looks of their wikipedia pages, both TYT and Vocativ are plausibly WP:RS. Here is the vocative URL.  Will add it to the Schnell-list.  Besides getting sued by Trump, you also should issue a flat denial that the campaign is responsible for the easter egg, and say that logos attacking other logos is one of the violent videogames that is leading Rand Paul to introduce a new bill on the floor of the Senate, jointly with Justin Amash, HR.5432/S.666 An Amendment To Ban Presidential Candidates From Releasing Apps, Which Could Potentially Be Found Amusing, aka Communications Decency Act of 2015.   :-)    75.108.94.227 (talk) 19:57, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Hannah Cranston, host of Think_tank_(disambiguation), was the one doing the bulk of the TYT piece. But there was also response-commentary by Cenk Uygur, and by the other guy on the set, who might have been the ThinkTank co-host John Iadarola... do you know if the third human, on the far right, is Iadarola?  75.108.94.227 (talk) 20:07, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * No idea. Apropos of nothing, I now know for sure that Independent Network News piece was on a Sunday.  My savant friend assured me, an then upon re-watching the clip, it is apparently (and undeniably) true.  But it was not the anchor you mentioned who did Sundays (based on my Google of his images compared to the clip). Ron Schnell 01:41, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Possibly the convenience-link you have, was a highlight-reel, aka it was reported on day X, but then repeated on Sunday as a re-run? Also, note well that the sunday-anchor-thing was an uncited wikipedia factoid, nothing more.  Not the best kind of factoid to rest our case upon, in other words.  :-)      Have the WPIX folks done any digging, that you know?  75.108.94.227 (talk) 02:23, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * No. I remember recording it on its first and only airing (my clip is off of my own Betamax tape).  And my savant friend is never wrong.  The first 20+ second of the clip is the end of the weather forecast: "Today, Sunny and blah blah, tomorrow, blah, blah, and Tuesday, blah blah."Ron Schnell 02:31, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Heh, WP:CALC to the rescue. Yeah, I've known a few people like your friend.  Please tell said friend, that it irks me to no end, to know that some people have the luxury of REALLY being never wrong.  I used to think of myself as infallible, but am no longer able to do so... you see, back in 2008, I once thought I was wrong about something, and that hurt my self-confidence.  Later, when it turned out I was mistaken, and had been correct all along... my self-esteem was utterly shattered!  ;-)    75.108.94.227 (talk) 02:43, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Hillarious Ron Schnell 03:51, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Here's a piece, not for BLP, maybe for RP. I know how much you like German stuff ;-) http://www.n-tv.de/mediathek/videos/politik/US-Senator-Rand-Paul-hat-ein-Selfie-Problem-article15871296.html Ron Schnell 13:59, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I prefer learning SETL to learning sie Deutsch. Gotta love those agglutinative things though:  "Selfiefunktion" is just awesome, eh?  Counts as WP:RS, also bluelink, n-tv, but is basically just the German-lang-affiliate of CNN methinks.  I was unable to find *English* CNN coverage of the selfie-app (or of any other aspects of the app such as the logo-invaders ... which *somebody* in the WP:RS finally noticed is more akin to galaga than to space invaders... sigh).  So a bit weird, that the German CNN gives coverage, but the English CNN does not.  Does 'fliegt ... um' really translate properly as 'flies ... around' in their sentence?  Or is there some metaphor being used here, like 'floating ... behind' perhaps?  75.108.94.227 (talk) 14:41, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * So, I wonder if you're up for a little experiment? I put the source code for net-talk in the directory.  I worked on it this weekend, but largely left it intact.  I had to change a bunch of stuff to make it compile on Linux.  The last time it compiled was under 4.2 BSD.  It's also pretty gross (as I was just trying to rewrite from FORTRAN as quickly as possible).  You should untar it and compile just the client ("make nnett") and then run the client.  I might be waiting on the server.  NOTE that by default it will "log you in" with your username on your system, so you should do one of 2 things to preserve your anonymity: 1) login as an anonymous user before running, 2) Change the code so that it sends something anonymous.  You've been pretty inactive over the weekend, so I'm not sure if you're even going to see this tonight... Ron Schnell 02:20, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * and yes, I know about the misspelling in the help text...I said I left it intact! Ron Schnell 02:21, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Did I lose you? Ron Schnell 19:09, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Nope, I'm still here, but you're not persistent enough in bothering me, and my talkpage is getting too long to keep track of the sections. :-)      I need to delete a bunch of this into the edit-history, but have not yet done so.  If I don't respond promptly, and you can see I'm active elsewheres, it usually just means I didn't see your note, and that you should whack me again.  I won't mind.  :-)      With other talkpages, sometimes getting ignored is a "polite" way of telling somebody that you WP:DGAF about their question/problem/whatever, since not everybody here is actually WP:NICE, but with me it's just getting otherwise occupied.  So, now that I've noticed what you are talking about, I will see if I can fathom what you are saying, and take a peek at the NET-TALK source code or whatever.  (But yes, been otherwise occupied off-wiki the past several days; no uncommon and WP:CHOICE plus WP:NORUSH as always.)  Best, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 21:42, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

NTA additions
Hello :) I started to add references to two articles, then remembered it is better if someone else does. Would the following be appropriate to add to the article, and remove the "warning" on the top of our page, as most items are now referenced properly (I think).

Also in 2009, NTA established green building standards for park model and recreational vehicles.

If the above is good to add, I would like to take you up on your offer to add the necessary sentences. Wscribner (talk) 10:37, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I added in some curlycurly magic, which keeps the refs you mentioned from 'floating away' like balloons. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 21:48, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * So here are the edits you were attempting, and then remembered the wiki-guidelines shortly thereafter.
 * 10:33, 14 September 2015 (diff | hist) . . (-537)‎ . . NTA (company) ‎ (→‎Company: removed two references) (current)
 * 10:32, 14 September 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+200)‎ . . NTA (company) ‎ (→‎Company: added trade magazine (woodallscm.com) reference)
 * 10:14, 14 September 2015 (diff | hist) . . (+337)‎ . . NTA (company) ‎ (→‎Company: added south bend tribune article reference)
 * Thanks for undoing your stuff, and remembering to ask for help from somebody without financial ties. That's a wiki-crisis averted:  you have not finished making the userpage, or adding the connected_contributor thing, and didn't mark your edits as 'paid edits' in the summaries, so it is good that you self-reverted.  For the moment, the tags cannot yet be removed, because they are still truthful tags.  Look at what the tags are saying:
 * The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for companies and organizations. See WP:NCORP aka WP:Notability_(organizations_and_companies).  The shorthand is WP:42, longhand WP:N.
 * "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject." See WP:PSCOI aka WP:COI.  The shorthand is the note I left you here, Talk:NTA_(company), and the second nudge here, User_talk:Wscribner, and this is your third nudge.  Make the userpages, add the connected-contributor thing, if you aren't sure what exactly to do, just ask and I'll help you get it figured out.  Same goes for User:Dtompos, have them log into their wikipedia account, make their own userpage, add their own connected-contributor thing -- since they are the CEO it makes sense for you to get the exact steps figured out yourself, so you can give them exact instructions.  Please note, do NOT just get their Dtompos-password, and make the changes yourself, WP:NOSHARING of passwords-and-useranmes (this is related to WP:COPYVIO -- when you click save you are putting forth a copyright-license on the content you just added).
 * As for the other problem, wiki-notability... so what does it take to pass WP:42 aka demonstrate that NTA is wiki-notable... very much distinct from real-world-notable? Well, simply what it says:  we need to find several WP:SOURCES, that are independent of NTA, which discuss the company in multi-paragraph depth.  That means newspapers/magazines/books/teevee/radio/academia/governmentAgencies/etc.  I've started to train you about what to look for, and you've come up with the South Bend Tribune source.
 * That's multi-paragraph specifically about NTA. ✅
 * And, it's got an author/editor/publisher who are 100% independent of NTA. ✅
 * It's a newspaper, a type listed at WP:SOURCES, which means it has a reputation for fact-checking, so it counts as wiki-reliable. ✅
 * Therefore, sbTrib counts towards demonstrating WP:42. We need several sources like that.  Consider:  we also have the HUD portal, right?  Government agency means wiki-reliable, and the people publishing the HUD page aren't getting paid by NTA or kinfolk to NTA so that makes it an independent source, right?  But the trouble with the HUD source, in terms of helping with WP:42, is depth:  there is the name of the company, and the names of a couple of the employees, but that is all.  Contrast with the sbTrib piece, which has some *depth* of coverage.  HUD source doesn't help demonstrate WP:42, but it does still count as wiki-reliable, and thus a sentence about the HUD page *belongs* in the article, per WP:NOTEWORTHY.  But that HUD-sentence only helps, if the *article* belongs in wikipedia, which means, that we have multiple in-depth independent WP:SOURCES to show wiki-notability.  Our first is sbTrib, we need more like that.  Make sense?  See my longer explanation of why some of the URLs that you found are wiki-reliable but brief and thus WP:NOTEWORTHY (like WoodallSCM and HUD), whereas others are wiki-reliable with some depth and thus help WP:42, over here at User_talk:Wscribner.
 * Anyways, in answer to you question, about whether I can help you put them into the article, sure. But I'd rather teach you how to hop through the proper hoops, so that you know the ropes of adding new material to wikipedia, and can get it done even if I don't happen to be around to help, by using the 'normal' venues for such reqeusts.  More on that later, since first things first, you need to get the userpage and the connected_contributor things done, before we go asking other editors to assist us with changes.  Please ping my page here again, when you have had a chance to get the stuff straightened out, or if you get stuck and have questions.  You can also use WP:Q for questions, especially WP:TEAHOUSE which is pretty friendly and instant-gratification.  75.108.94.227 (talk) 22:20, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Ok, so... if I am understanding this right, I need to now make a 'userpage' and 'connected-contributor' information straightened out. If you tell me how to do that, I will be happy to get it taken care of :) Sorry I am having a hard time wrapping my mind around all of the shorthands.. 74.84.114.34 (talk) 13:05, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, there are a bunch of wiki-rules. Don't try to wrap your noggin around all of them, just be open about what you're doing, and listen when somebody reverts you or complains or whatever, use WP:Q if you get stuck generally speaking going forward.  Some of the wiki-rules are extra-important, and this particular one is in the WP:TOS, see https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use , because there are legal FTC rules about astroturfing.  There are also such wiki-rules partly because of copyright worries:  people getting paid to edit , or people with a too-close connection to the company , have a tendency to copy-n-paste straight from the corporate homepage which is usually improper because it is too promotional , but is also actually a violation of international copyright laws that could get *wikipedia* into trouble for hosting such stuff.  Anyways, here is what you gotta do:
 * Step #1, click on User:Wscribner, tell it you want to create the page, and then leave a brief note like "Hi this is Wscribner, I work for NTA (company)." Click save.  That way, you've disclosed your financial incentive.
 * Step #2, click on Talk:NTA_(company), click 'edit', and then paste in something like this, at the top of the page:
 * One of the fields was InsertNameOfEmployingPrFirmHere, since I didn't know the answer -- are you working directly for NTA on a W2 basis, or are you a contractor that does marketing-work for other companies as well, or are you an employee at some PR firm or marketing firm that has assigned you to NTA as their client? That's a detail that goes into the |U1-employer= InsertNameOfEmployingPrFirmHere, which can be wikilinked to the company-article about the PR firm.  If your dayjob is working only at NTA, then you would say |U1-employer= NTA_(company) just like you are saying |U1-client= NTA_(company), but normally U1-employer is different.  Make sense?  See also the examples at connected_contributor_(paid).  If you try and fail to get it perfect, with these steps, please just go ahead and 'save' your partially-working version, and I'll try to correct any goofs or syntax-errors.  Then we'll go for step#3, #4, etc.  Don't worry, there are not TOO many steps.  :-)    75.108.94.227 (talk) 13:41, 15 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Okay, steps one and two completed. My training is not until this afternoon today, and I am 'caught up' (at least no fires are burning) for the moment, so I can concentrate on this.Wscribner (talk) 13:57, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Cool, thanks. I've added some colons for you, to indent your reply; just keep sticking a new colon in front, each time.  75.108.94.227 (talk) 14:27, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

When you get tired of adding colons, usually after five or six of them, use the curlycurly magic I posted above, which will outdent back to the left margin. So step#1_B ... which can be anytime, does not have to be today, but should be done at SOME point, is to have Dtompos login as themselves, and create User:Dtompos which says "Hi I'm Dtompos and I own NTA_(company)" or words to that effect. There is also step#2_B, which is to have User:Dtompos login as themselves -- don't do this bit for them per copyright law -- and stick this slightly but significantly different stuff onto the Talk:NTA_(company) page:

In your case, the otherlinks was to your declaration, in their case, it will be to their userpage-as-the-declaration. Also, they use the 'CC' template not the 'CCP' template, because editing wikipedia isn't part of their job description. Make sense? As far as step#1_A and step#1_B, those look fine to me. The 'CCP' template is confusing, though, because it has both the |U1-employer= and also the |U1-client= fields, and people often don't get which is which. I understand that Dtompos is hiring you to work on the wikipedia page for NTA, and help add sources and such, but the CCP template is supposed to distinguish between full-time employees of NTA, who as part of their job-description edit wikipedia from time to time, as opposed to part-time-employees-slash-contractors for NTA, that spend most of their time working for other companies, or doing self-employed contracting, or that sort of thing. Are you in group#1, full-time employee of NTA that does not take on work for outside entities, or are you in group#2, part-time employee of NTA that also (at least theoretically) works for other entities? 75.108.94.227 (talk) 14:27, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

step 3, digging up WP:SOURCES
Okay, so the COI-tag is mostly covered above. Once steps #1A / 1B / 2A / 2B are completed, we can yank that portion of the multiple-issues-tag. The other portion of the tag is wiki-notability. Is the difference between the South Bend Tribune piece (which helps demonstrate WP:N and counts towards WP:42) and the legit-but-not-as-helpful WoodallSCM source (which counts as WP:NOTEWORTHY and prima facie WP:RS but does not help WP:42/WP:N aka wiki-notability), reasonably clear to you? Along the same lines, is the difference between the sbTrib piece and the prNewswire advertorial, 100% clear? The sbTrib counts as WP:RS but the prNewswire only counts as WP:ABOUTSELF and there is no point in using the press-release for WP:ABOUTSELF since we can just as well use the company-homepage (which is preferred since there's no question who paid for that company homepage). Step#3 is the ongoing quest to dig up more WP:42-compliant sources like the South Bend Tribune piece. That's what wiki-notability is all about: demonstrating that there has been multiple WP:SOURCES which give multi-paragraph coverage specifically about NTA (or the founders or the products or the activities of the company), and that groups 100% independent of the company/founders/products/partners/marketers actually noticed, and published something about it. Make sense? 75.108.94.227 (talk) 14:33, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

step#4, writing wiki-neutral boring just-the-facts prose that summarizes the WP:SOURCES from step#3
Okay, so we have the sbTrib source, and we have the WoodallSCM source. Let's start with the WoodallSCM info. Here is the sentence you were wanting to add to NTA_(company):


 * Also in 2009, NTA established green building standards for park model and recreational vehicles.

(And yes, I realize that you were also backing that sentence up with sbTrib, but one thing at a time. :-)

So what factoids do we see? Well, we get WP:NOTEWORTHY mention of Alan Reder, so he should be added to the employees-section, with his job title, and the factoid that he worked on the Cavco evaluation-project. There is a basic factoid right at the start, that the company is based in Nappanee, and that the WP:COMMONNAME is "NTA Inc" in the press. There is a useful sentence that NTA specializes in manufacturer certification, and in particular, of environmentally oriented products. And there is the mention that in 2009 NTA certified some Cavco Industries products, to the 'emerald' rating. So here is what I would do, to summarize these factoids:


 * (WP:PROVEIT for an existing factoid) ...Nappanee, Indiana ...
 * In 2011, NTA certified solar-powered cottages made by Cavco Industries, intended for off-grid use at campgrounds.
 * (added to the history-section) ...senior project manager Alan Reder...

Note that I included a fair use quotation-snippet from the WoodallSCM source, put into my own reworking of the ref-syntax. Also, I linked *directly* to the piece, not to the tagged-search-page of Woodall. Also, I broke out the WoodallSCM ref into a separate sentence, because it is about a separate event in the company's history: in 2009, NTA established some standards, and in 2011,(ref:sbTrib) one of the clients certified using that standard was Cavco(ref:woodallsCM). Make sense? Notice I just stuck to the boring facts: I say solar power, not 'green'. I don't say they are 'the most environmentally friendly client NTA was ever hired by'. Not encyclopedic tone, such things, even though WoodallsCM reported such quotes. I also don't rehash the stuff that *Reder* said, in the source, because that was WoodallsCM quoting Reder, an NTA employee, not WoodallsCM speaking in their journalistic voice. Clear as mud so far? 75.108.94.227 (talk) 14:58, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

End
The RfC 30-day period ended for the POTUS 2016 election, and it looks like Option C received the plurality of votes, with the square photo version came in second. Thoughts? I hope some administrator comes along and formally closes it, but it seems like circular photos might come. Nonetheless, consensus is obvious that a table should be used.  Spartan7W  &sect;   17:57, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * That's a complete mischaracterization of the poll. The poll was not supposed to be about the circle images.  It was about the organization of the candidates.  No consensus was reached and so the status quo will remain.--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:01, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh hello there Mr. Stalker. And no, the status quo does not stay. Why? Because 8 votes for C, 6 votes for F mean there are 14 votes for a table. Overwhelming majority wants a table.  Spartan7W   &sect;   18:06, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a democracy. No need for a table has been demonstrated.  Rather, things have been quite fine without one.--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:08, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You are a real ass you know that? If a formal RfC is brought forward, and an overwhelming majority of editors believe there should be a table, then maybe there should be. You have an incessant clinging to keeping wikipedia looking like 2007.  The present format is inferior, it just is. Its redundant, scattered, and looks like a list. Tables organize information in an efficient way, and the RfC demonstrates that. 3 votes favored keeping it, so yes some might feel that.  But you are acting with a dictatorial ownership of these pages like you know better than everyone else. You don't. The only 'need for a table' that could ever be demonstrated for you is if you changed your own mind.   Spartan7W   &sect;   18:11, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Here's how the votes really turned out - 8 supported C (one of which was a sockpuppet master), 5 supported F, 2 preferred F over C, 3 supported the status quo, 1 supported anything with squares and 75.108.94.227 supported something sortable. If this supported the use of a table (which I still reject since the status quo has worked fine for a month, e.g. no disputes), F would win with 8 votes (5 support + 2 preferred + 1 supporting squares) as C only received 7 legitimate votes (8 support (minus) the sockpuppet vote).--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:25, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * User:William S. Saturn, if you have commented on my sortable-is-the-silver-bullet obsession, I have not noticed. Do you think sortability is worth having?  Option#F is non-sortable, and status-quo-bullet-list-opt#B is also not, so I'm guessing that you also don't see the need for a sortable list, but I'd like to hear the rationale if you don't mind.  There were a couple of bangnotes I'm not sure got into your nosecounting, Prcc27 below, as well as YoursT, who both voted for "something with circle-pics" and thus implicitly not opt#F.  But as you know, bangvotes aren't about pluralities, they are about the best policy-backed arguments, and closers are given wide latitude, to ascertain the correct pillar-five-close.  We do agree though, that the most likely outcome is 'no consensus' aka please try another RfC which has a cleaner clearer outcome.  Maybe we can jumpstart-generate such a cleaner clearer outcome, before the closer arrives?  There is always a backlog, so even though we are beyond the 30-day-mark, possibly we have some time yet.  Any ideas for how to disentangle the wheat from the chaff?  75.108.94.227 (talk) 19:15, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Stop bickering you, two, or I'm turning this 'pedia around and taking us right back to the 1990s!  :-)       The poll is inconclusive, per the technical rules of wiki-procedure.  However, there *was* strong sentiment for a change.  We just have failed to properly characterize what exact change, and to what extent such change was supported.  Partly this is my fault, because I've gotten caught up with other things.  I have a posting open about trying to jumpstart the RfC again, and have yet to act on that.  Anyways, rather than argue about what the consensus is, let us instead try and figure out how we *can* get a clear consensus.  Maybe some miniature-RfC-sections within the RfC, as User:Stabila711 once attempted, will be helpful?  75.108.94.227 (talk) 18:29, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

What sockpuppet vote? I see no sockpuppets in that vote. And the status quo has remained because there was an ongoing RfC. What do you expect? The world isn't going to explode if it doesn't 'work fine'. What does that mean? Just because 'it works' doesn't mean it isn't inferior. Its ugly, redundant, and poorly organized, and doesn't give as much information as it could, nor as efficiently. And 1 supporting squares would also agree with Option C square version, FYI.  Spartan7W  &sect;   18:31, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * There was one sock, I forget their name. They are noted in the vote-list, though (I added a link to the incident).  75.108.94.227 (talk) 18:35, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It was this human. Vote: Option C User:CloudKade11 (talk) 04:22, 13 August 2015.    Now, just because they were socking earlier/elsewhere, does not mean the closer will necessarily disregard their opinion about circles-pics and table-layout and such, since the socking in question was related to television-articles not political articles.  But it depends on the admin, plenty of them take a very dim view of socking (I'm with them), and in this case it didn't seem to be a one-off nor a mistake, if my memory of my scan of the edit-history serves me.  75.108.94.227 (talk) 18:45, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Now that this RfC has ended its 30 day run, we should have an RfC to see what in a table people would like to see. And a seperate poll for rectangular vs. circular portraits. Also, the bickering is all this guy who has a personal vendetta against me.  Spartan7W   &sect;   18:32, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * No, it takes two to tango, you are both being prickly here. Needlessly I might add.  Not sure if an additional RfC is ready/kosher yet, since the current one may not get 'closed' by somebody official.  And if they do, my wiki-eyes would bet 70-30 they close as 'no consensus' and ask us to restart with a simpler premise.  So I suggest that we cut to the chase, and do some mini-RfC stuff ourselves, to help the closer get a sense of the true consensus.  75.108.94.227 (talk) 18:35, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I have decided that maybe IRV will be easier for people to understand than multi-voting, yet still more helpful for ascertaining consensus than plurality-voting, and thus have elected to pull some WP:OTHERPARENT on Stabila711's usertalk, to see if they agree. Ping Spartan7W and ping User:William S. Saturn, is my posting to User_talk:Stabila711 sufficiently neutral, that it would not sway the discussion one way or the other?  75.108.94.227 (talk) 12:43, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

ok, this was just harsh :-)

 * I slaved on option G, and get the Ralph Nader award? Oh the humanity!!   Okay, I admit, that was pretty funny.  And yes, now that you mention it, the similarity is painfully accurate.  Painful to my pride as a table-designer, anyways.  :-)      But yes, aside from myself, Option#G got no traction.  75.108.94.227 (talk) 18:50, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Lol, sorry if I offended you, but that's literally what came to mind when I saw that option! Prcc27 (talk) 18:56, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * No offense taken, I'm a bad designer. But I didn't realize at the time quite that bad.  Now that you have noticed the resemblance, though, of course I see it fits perfectly.  Sigh.  I'll never live down the shame.  :-)    75.108.94.227 (talk) 19:06, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

But so, while I have you here, Prcc27, can you give us some advice? The RfC is officially "over" aka has run the requisite amount of time, but William S. Saturn and myself suspect that it will probably close as 'no consensus' even though there was pretty clearly strong sentiment that SOME sort of change was likely to be viewed as Improving The Encyclopedia, quoth unquoth. What can we do, in the now, that will help the closer ascertain The One True Consensus? I've suggested that we run a series of quasi-informal-mini-RfCs, for instance asking people to give their preferences with regard to how important circle-pic-versus-square-pic is. But I already tried to do that, with the multivote section, and it fell flat, instead people just left normal comments. Are we worried about nothing, and the closer will be peachy-fine? or do you agree with me that the RfC is still too much of a messy-consensus, and we should try to stimulate further progress towards a firmer local consensus, before the closer arrives? 75.108.94.227 (talk) 19:06, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It's quite clear that there is consensus to change the status quo. The Option C people probably prefer Option F over the status quo (myself included) and Option F is like a reformed version of the status quo. So I think we should try to get Option F implemented for the time being since it is similar to the status quo and has a lot of support. In the meantime the people who prefer circle pics can continue arguing their opinion on the current RfC or start a new RfC on circle pics vs. square pics. Prcc27 (talk) 19:25, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, having counted the noses (despite WP:NOTVOTE saying this is a policy-decision), your assessment is prolly correct, at least, per WP:IAR aka common sense. Not so sure about per the letter of the WP:PAG though.  Here is the chronology:

Not pinging anybody here, so as not to unduly annoy. There were six bangvotes for C_circle (perhaps five), when F_square was not yet part of the RfC, plus one for square-pics-aka-neither-C-nor-A. Later, there were seven bangvotes for F_square once *it* became available, albeit two as the second-pick over the status quo, plus another three bangvotes for C-or-circle-pics. About half of the F_square bangvotes were cast before the C_square option became available. As for the status quo, there are at least four people that prefer that to either F *or* C, maybe five.
 * Option C --00:03, 13 Aug Spartan7W
 * Option C --01:38, 13 Aug Ariostos
 * Option C --02:39, 13 Aug TDKR Chicago 101
 * Option C --04:14, 13 Aug NextUSprez
 * Option C --04:22, 13 Aug CloudKade11 (blocked for socking elsewhere on the 'pedia)
 * Option C --14:11, 13 Aug ONUnicorn
 * Option B --14:38, 13 Aug Tarc
 * sq. pics --23:23, 13 Aug Smallbones
 * add:DEFG --01:23, 14 Aug
 * Option F --05:14, 14 Aug Stabila711 (was option C as of 01:43, 13 August)
 * B#1, F#2 --06:04, 14 Aug Writegeist
 * DGEHBFCA --13:25, 14 Aug 75.108.94.227
 * Option C --18:17, 14 Aug SOXROX
 * Option F --18:21, 14 Aug Rollins83 (was C as of 14:09, 13 August)
 * Option F --20:44, 14 Aug JayJasper
 * add:C_sq --21:37, 14 Aug
 * Option F --00:36, 15 Aug Nations United (was C as of 04:32, 13 August)
 * B#1, F#2 --01:11, 15 Aug William S. Saturn
 * Option F --01:57, 15 Aug David O. Johnson (was C as of 05:09, 13 August)
 * added: H --16:18, 15 Aug
 * cir.pics --00:38, 16 Aug YoursT
 * C, or H. --22:49, 11 Sep Prcc27
 * So at the end of the day, it's something like 4.5 to 6.5 to 6.5 by my nose-counting ... and to me, that says "no consensus" because even though there was clear sentiment that the status quo was inadequate, the bangvoting was not very clear-cut about which specific change ought be enacted. If the closer is a stick-to-the-letter admin, no-consensus is prolly what we'll get.  If they are a more WP:IAR type, they'll probably suggest we try implementing option#F as the most-likely-to-win-in-the-long-run-by-reading-the-tea-leaves-trends, and keep the RfC *open* so that additional people can come bangvote, after being attracted to the RfC by noticing the changes made to mainspace.  But most closers, and most admins, would probably hesitate to pull a stunt like that.  :-)       75.108.94.227 (talk) 20:58, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd like to see Option F put in place for now. Although I would like to see refs segregated later on. One more thing, for Governors (and Sec. of State for Clinton) order of service (with link to list if relevant( should be added. Unlike a Senator, someone is the 69th Governor of Ohio, for instance.  But yes, Option F far beats the status quo for organization, cleanliness, and style.  I agree with teh above quote that the circles look like buttons, thats what I was getting at.   Spartan7W   &sect;   05:01, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, depending on who the closing-admin is, that reviews the RfC, and how *they* count the noses (which is NOT supposed to matter but is 'easier' than supervoting), and on how *they* weight the wiki-policy-backed-arguments, maybe it will come to pass that option#F is put into place, and further discussion of whether to use circle-pics-vs-square-pics, and whether to use inline-refs-versus-own-table-cell-refs, and whether to make the wiki-table-sortable, can be discussed in additional RfC follow-ups. But as I said, this takes a closing-admin with the gumption to make a call that is technically outside the letter of the wiki-laws, and we may not get such; the 'correct' call at the moment is "no consensus" because of deadlock slash unclear consensus -- there is *some* kind of sentiment in favor of change, but what *specific* change is unclear, and conservative-letter-of-the-wiki-law type closer will say 'no consensus but feel free to restart the RfC again N days from now' or something along those lines.
 * Anyways, if you are really willing to see option#F, as a temporary compromise-solution that still Improves The Encyclopedia, then I suggest that changing your bangvote to "first choice C second choice F" or something along those lines will probably help demonstrate clearer consensus to the closing-admin. (Personally I'd rather see B than either C or F but only have one nose to be counted!)  I'm not sure if we are 'permitted' to ping the bangvoters that liked option#C, and ask them to reconsider, so we better cogitate a little before thinking about trying that.  I already pinged Prcc27 but that was because I nearly fell over when I saw that butterfly ballot thing.  :-)      Midway through the top-pick-only-bangvoting I attempted to get multivoting started, because I think there are a lot of mostly-orthogonal issues up for discussion in this RfC, and plurality-voting is not a very good system for that sort of work.  However, more recently, I simplified my own bangvote as part of this usertalk discussion, into DGEHBFCA which is the order I support the proposals, roughly, from most-prefer to least-prefer.  User:Spartan7W, what is your ranked-listing, if you don't mind ranking the letters in order?  Same question, User:William S. Saturn.  I won't be too hurt if option#G is in the dregs.  :-)      75.108.94.227 (talk) 07:09, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

specific content of the list-or-vtable-or-htable
Spartan wrote: "One more thing, for Governors (and Sec. of State for Clinton) order of service (with link to list if relevant) should be added. Unlike a Senator, someone is the 69th Governor of Ohio, for instance." Well, agree that there *is* an ordering of governors. And there is also an ordering of senators -- Cruz is the 19th United States Senator (Class 1) from Texas. And we can wikilink to the relevant list-articles methinks, like this: Kasich, Governor (2011+); Cruz, Senator (2013+). But I don't want to mention 19th and 69th in 'visible' prose, because those have more to do with turnover rate of the office (six years for Senate versus 4 years for Governor) and longetivity of the state of the union (1846 Texas versus 1803 Ohio), and very little to do with the candidate's qualification for becoming POTUS-nominee. Years in the position, on the other hand, *do* have a directly-relevant impact on POTUS-nominee suitability: years served indicates experience, and recency of service also matters. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 07:09, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, there is a difference. Nobody counts legislators like they do executives, save the Speaker & Vice President. You're either a Jr. or Sr. Senator. Including the link to history of Senators from that state is good, but in no way have an order of service #, because that is not a convention in use anywhere.  Spartan7W   &sect;   23:30, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, no argument. I just think that saying "69th Governor of Ohio (2011+)" and then saying "Junior Senator Class One from Texas (2013+)" clearly has some NPOV-fail.  ;-)      Plus, not as space-efficient as saying "Governor (2011+)" and "Senator (2013+)".  And as mentioned, I don't think Kasich being 69th in line, makes him 'more presidential' than Perry being 47th in line, or Christie being 55th-or-71st-depending-on-who-is-counting.  p.s.  Do you have any opinion on the sorting-out-the-non-bona-fide-candidates, which I'm gabbing about over on William's page?  75.108.94.227 (talk) 03:25, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

response
I replied to your recent comment 74.84.114.34 (talk) 20:32, 16 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Response :) I am not sure if I have to leave a comment here, everytime I comment on the other one. Wscribner (talk) 11:50, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * (Added a colon for you, best to indent even when "replying to yourself" as here.) Well, as for the not-sure-bit, when you are working with somebody not logged in, it is helpful as a means of speeding things up, so please keep doing it -- you can be brief and just say   if you like, when doing so with me, but most other wikipedians appreciate a sentence, as you've been doing.  :-)       On the other hand, when you are working with somebody logged in, usually they will put a note at the top of their usertalk page explaining their preference, or will have a WP:PAGENOTICE that appears when you edit their usertalk, or similar.  Some wikipedians like to be nudged, when something needs their attention.  Some of them are annoyed enough by talkback and by polite nudges, that they leave a note which says "if we are having a conversation elsewhere I will have watchlisted that conversation so please do NOT leave me a reply here on my own talkpage" or words roughly to that effect.
 * Generally, the usual rule is to be flexible and WP:NORUSH-conscious, most wikipedians don't check their wiki-usertalk-messages every hour 24/7, and just fiddle when they have an urge, which sometimes means every couple days and sometimes means every couple of weeks. You can get an idea how active they are, by clicking on their 'user contributions' link on the left sidebar, which appears when you visit their usertalk page.  If you reply to somebody, and some time has gone by (hours when you are talking to very active wikipedians or days when you are talking to more laid back contributors), and they have not responded, but you can see from user-contribs they have been editing elsewhere, it is possible they believe there is nothing further to say, but it is also very possible (especially if you asked a direct oneliner question) that they have just forgotten to come back and reply.  It's okay to leave a polite note, saying that you replied, and leaving a wikilink to where you replied for their convenience like this, "Hello, not sure if you noticed my last question, if you have a moment it is here, User_talk:Wscribner, thanks much, Wscribner" type of thing.
 * For me, as I mentioned, just say 'replied' and I'll figure out in a click or two where you replied, but it might be good to get in the habit of wikilinking so that you remember to do it when you've been off the 'pedia for awhile yourself. Make sense?  Wikipedia talkpages are not much like email, and not much like instant messaging, they are something completely different.  There's some project to replace them with a more facebook-y thing, which has luckily or unluckily collapsed into a mess under its own weight -- the main advantage of wikipedia talkpages is they are *extremely* flexible and powerful, but as with most such tools that can be described in that fashion, they are not especially user-friendly and there is a learning-curve.  See WP:TALKPAGE and WP:ETIQUETTE for official helpdocs, worth a skim. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 12:39, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

note on nta
Left you a note74.84.114.34 (talk) 19:59, 10 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Is there a way to "tag" you in my comments on the other talk page, or do I continue to leave messages here, when I respond there? Wscribner (talk) 15:52, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * See longer explanation of talkpage-mechanics here, User_talk:75.108.94.227, where the answer to that question is alluded unto. But the nutshell version is, nope, you have to come back here to User_talk:75.108.94.227, click 'new section', type 'replied Wscribner', then click save.  You can speed up the process by having the conversation here on my talkpage, of course, which we sometimes do, but I wanted to leave that list of instructions about how to request edits, over on your own talkpage, since you may need to refer back to it a year from now or whatever.  There is a shortcut I just learned today, that cuts down on how many clicks you need to leave, which is this little bit of magic:
 * After clicking, you can use the  hotkey, if your browser supports it, to quickly 'save' your ping, or if your browser doesn't support it, you can just manually click save.  Normally, when you are working with another wikipedian that has an explicitly-registered username, you can notify them by saying User:Wscribner or similarly  but those are technologically-broken for anons like myself, aka implemented in a way that prevents that from working, for silly wiki-cultural reasons which can be elided here.  75.108.94.227 (talk) 16:25, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * After clicking, you can use the  hotkey, if your browser supports it, to quickly 'save' your ping, or if your browser doesn't support it, you can just manually click save.  Normally, when you are working with another wikipedian that has an explicitly-registered username, you can notify them by saying User:Wscribner or similarly  but those are technologically-broken for anons like myself, aka implemented in a way that prevents that from working, for silly wiki-cultural reasons which can be elided here.  75.108.94.227 (talk) 16:25, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

ping Wscribner (talk) 17:47, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Ah.
 * Thank you as well. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 18:10, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

ping Ron Schnell 17:33, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Testing.
 * Thanks. No need to mash out 'testing' since if you just save, immediately after making an interesting edit, I'll be able to check your contrib-history easily enough.  Best. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 18:11, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

not so arbitrary section break, 0x0000.000b
Ping User:Aviators99, better put the conversation thread down here, until usertalk cleanup is complete. :-)     75.108.94.227 (talk) 21:46, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Great. Where were we? Ron Schnell 00:38, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I was going to ask somebody I met in the wp-coi-queue to look over the draft, but they got into an unfortunate blocking mishap. I was going to ask somebody I met at AfC to look over the draft, but they are on vacation.  I was going to ask somebody I met at AfD to give it a peek, but they are ALSO on vacation.  :-)     I asked Brianhe to look it over, who we jointly met via the COIN board as you may recall, and they criticized my combo of bare-URLs and humonogo-quoting, but didn't mention any WP:42 violations.  Which is a good sign.  I have another AfC reviewer I was going to ask to kick the tires.  And I still have two dozen imagetabs open in my browser, which I've mostly finished reviewing, but need to save the cite-webs.  Mostly, vis-a-vis the Schnell-BLP, I've been trying to get referencing worked out to my satisfaction, partly to satisfy Brianhe's accurate critique (humongo-refs suck) and partly because I've needed the same thing elsewhere.  For processing-speed and user-interface-simplicity-reasons, wikipedia doesn't permit nesting of, you get a syntax-error.  My usual workaround is to use a two-hop combo of template:efn with the normal singly-nested refTags, but there might be a way to do it better, I'm complaining at WP:VPT presently to Trappist.  Other than that, there is still the checklist-of-minor-cleanup-things, but that can proceed in draftspace or in mainspace, either way.  75.108.94.227 (talk) 01:12, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * For the text adventure article, I see that is still moldering in the queue. Are you planning on parallelizing some edit-requests, so that we have a small batch waiting, when somebody does show up?  That one is in need of cleanup, but is in mainspace at present, so is less of a concern methinks, to the both of us.  But as your recent brush with the wiki-cops shows you, and as my outright astonishment at the horridly-stuffed-up wiki-queue may clue you in, there is apparently a much larger problem than I have seen in the past with WP:ABF when it comes to COI-encumbered editors.  Part of that is the orangemoody thing (this is NOT an article written to NPOV standards and the sources linked therein are also not very real-world-reliable unless you read betwixt the lines).  Anyways, that has put lots of long-haul wikipedians on edge, and there was a big push the past year to get more explicit COI-terms out in the open, whcih also may have something to do with it.  One of the people that does editing-wikipedia-for-pay type consulting, was forced to out themselves, and no longer does any volunteering here as a result; pretty shabby.  *You* won't need the *paid* coi hoops for Dunnet, nor for Ron Schnell, methinks -- though we are complying with them anyways -- but you will need them if you have to do any work on political articles, short of grammar fixes and blatant-vandalism-reverts.  How is WP:NORUSH treating your peace-of-mind, on this orthogonal pursuit to the BLP-article?  I'm starting to be curious how many months your request will be open, quite frankly.  We can always use  to seek some eyeballs for assistance, or WP:TEAHOUSE or whatever.  But at the moment, if you're not in a hurry, my somewhat-motivated-by-wikipedia-inside-baseball-curiosity recommendation is that we just begin drafting additional sentences, when and as convenient, and suggesting them on the article-talkpage in new sections, but without opening additional edit-requests... and see how long we have to wait.  Eventually most likely Czar will just take pity on us, but then again, maybe we'll be surprised and somebody will come by tomorrow.
 * In other news, Pearson, Frazelle/Docker, endorse-list, debate-details, book-reviews, artspeak & logo-language, and a few other things are on the back burner somewheres. How is the world treating you?  Ready to see the CNN war-room, and compare and contrast with the other ones?  How goes the app-launch-aftermath, swimmingly or frustrating or insert-sentiment-here?  75.108.94.227 (talk) 01:12, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * In general, I have trouble with WP:NORUSH. I'm very happy with the app launch and follow-up.  We will be adding some really cool stuff as time goes on.  I guess we *should* add some more fixes to the dunnet page... Ron Schnell 01:22, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, you and me both: there is a deadline, if not us who, if not now when, all that jazz.  But there's only so many hours in the day.  I've tried training my pet monkey to edit wikipedia, but after thousands of hours of effort, all I got was WP:COPYVIO of Shakespeare.  Dern monkey said something about public domain blah blah blah, whatever, I *told* them to read the wiki-policies but they just start wiki-lawyering me rather than write original prose, so I sent them back to their old job, and took away their typewriter.  ;-)      p.s. Suggest you make some easter eggs inside your easter eggs, and not announce them.  Rand Paul:  The Text Adventure is sadly still a redlink, as yet.  :-)     75.108.94.227 (talk) 01:31, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * If it wasn't the complete works, maybe Koko could claim fair use (though it may take a while to write the Answer to the Complaint). My article in the Proceedings journal showed up on Google Scholar since I last checked.  I'm wondering if it might be considered peer reviewed.  There were a lot of hoops they made me go through after they requested that I write it. Ron Schnell 16:16, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Here is link, hit#1. More wiki-properly, here is the templatized format:
 * Per WP:SCHOLARSHIP, piece might well count as WP:RS (and did before scholar.google.com picked up on it), but the key question is, WP:RS on what topic(s)? The article is in a journal, and is edited, and so on.  The publisher is WP:RS being a government agency, military branch, and the editors are independent of you, since none of them are kinfolk / co-workers / similar.  The author is obviously not independent.  The all-seeing eye of WP:GOOG lists no cites as yet, which doesn't impact WP:RS status (well... depending on how much of a deletionist you are talking to... I recently saw an AfD where anything less than one bleeping thousand cites was 'not wiki-notable' quote unquoth), but lack of cites does impact the *degree* to which the publication counts towards wiki-notability, i.e. helps to overcome the non-independence of the author being named Schnell, just like the BLP-article is named Schnell.  There are several bits in the article where you talk about yourself:  the about-the-author blurb at the end, the Nova.edu namedrop on the title-page, the story of Mitnick-without-naming-him, the toll-free call to NJ incident (shortly afterwards followed by donation of a synthesizer no doubt ;-) and the cautionary tale of the nurse quasi-accidentally spoofed by the lingoist slash television fan slash infosec prof.  Some of that stuff is obviously not phrased neutrally and just-the-facts, but we could conceivably use it, if the publisher and editor in question are counted as wiki-reliable enough with respect to those factoids.
 * It's a judgement call, right? They obviously printed the stuff.  But you can see on page two, they don't claim that everything they print is gospel:  "The articles contained in Proceedings are submitted by diverse public and private interests... views expressed by the authors do not necessarily represent those of the U.S. Coast Guard...."  In other words, they trust you to write something that won't embarrass the USCG and cause them to lose face, and they edited your material (and probably fact-checked at least *some* of it ... the militarily-relevant bits most likely), but the 'author' is more or less on their own after that.  So although they vetted you, to make sure you were a WP:RS author sufficiently clueful to get your words into their wiki-reliable publication, they don't back any of your specific words.  If they had you give them the name of the hospital so they could double-check with the nurse, and the name of your schoolmates and principal so they could double-check the payphone stuff, and requested press-clippings about your 1981 blurb, then maybe I'm wrong here.
 * But generally speaking, when the author themselves doesn't happen to be a wikipedian, the publication falls under WP:ABOUTSELF w.r.t. the BLP-article (it gives your views in your words), even when in other articles the same piece might fall under WP:RS w.r.t. the topic(s)-thereof (e.g. social engineering ... but then the question of WP;UNDUE weight comes into play and we have to balance your cites versus other cited works on the topic of social engineering). The first few pages of scholar.goog turn up these:
 * * 57 cites, 1995, Information Security Technology? Don't Rely on It. A Case Study in Social Engineering., IS Winkler, B Dealy USENIX.org
 * * 68 cites, 1999, Systems architecture: product designing and social engineering, RE Grinter - SIGSOFT dl.ACM.org
 * * 91 cites, 2001, Social engineering fundamentals, part I: hacker tactics, S Granger - Security Focus 123seminarsonly.com
 * * 43 cites, 2003, A multi-level defense against social engineering, D Gragg - SANS Reading Room, taupe.free.fr
 * * 52 cites, 2003, Penetration testing and social engineering: hacking the weakest link, N Barrett - Information Security Elsevier
 * * 57 cites, 2004, Social engineering: the dark art, T Thornburgh - Proceedings of the 1st annual dl.ACM.org
 * * 88 cites, 2004, The urgency for effective user privacy-education to counter social engineering attacks on secure computer systems, GL Orgill, GW Romney, MG Bailey… - Proceedings of the 5th dl.ACM.org
 * * 47 cites, 2006, Social engineering: concepts and solutions, TR Peltier - Information Systems Security Taylor & Francis
 * * 68 cites, 2007, Gaining access with social engineering: An empirical study of the threat, M Workman - Information Systems Security Taylor & Francis
 * * 58 cites, 2008, Wisecrackers: A theory‐grounded investigation of phishing and pretext social engineering threats to information security, M Workman - J. of the American Society for Information Wiley Online Library
 * * 59 cites, 2009, Towards automating social engineering using social networking sites, M Huber, S Kowalski, M Nohlberg… - … and Engineering, 2009 ieeexplore.IEEE.org
 * * 45 cites, 2010, An overview of social engineering malware: Trends, tactics, and implications, S Abraham, IS Chengalur-Smith - Technology in Society Elsevier
 * * 84 cites, 2010, [BOOK] Social engineering: The art of human hacking, C Hadnagy books.google.com
 * * 58 cites, 2011, [BOOK] No tech hacking: A guide to social engineering, dumpster diving, and shoulder surfing, Johnny Long books.google.com
 * * 58 cites, 2011, Reverse social engineering attacks in online social networks, D Irani, M Balduzzi, D Balzarotti, E Kirda… - Detection of intrusions Springer
 * And that's before we even *get* to Mitnick's book(s), or for that matter Phil Zimmerman who has 1200 cites for the Official PGP User's Guide of 1995. There is more of a case, in a way, for your piece someday making the reflist at cyberwarfare for instance, since it is a USCG publication, but the disclaimer on page five takes away some of the brunt.  p.s. Interestingly, 'social engineering' is a lingoist-reworking of a traditional field of inquiry, which was related to political 'mind-control' techniques, e.g. "The engineering of consent: Democracy and authority in twentieth-century America" by William Graebner in 1987 via University of Wisconsin Press.  p.p.s.  Besides the nurse-incident, we have alternative sourcing for the other bits, methinks.  Was there a specific something that you thought would add a sentence to the article, outside the TBD-bibliography-section? 75.108.94.227 (talk) 06:41, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry to make you go through all that...it's not really what I was asking. I was wondering whether or not it should be considered "peer reviewed" (not just for wiki purposes). Ron Schnell 13:53, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Nobody is making me, WP:CHOICE applies, so no apologies needed. (See also the contrapositive:  all comments by 75 to rss are per wp:choice ; if 75 comments to rss, then it was wp:choice ; if comments were wp:mandatory, then 75 wouldn't make comments.)  Also see-also, that wp:choice is a two-way street:  not trying to force my verbose replies onto you, and in particular, sometimes I give the answer to the question I'm more interested in answering, or think will be more wiki-illuminating to your wiki-eyes, than the question that you actually asked.  Cf, closed-ended_question and yes–no_question, both of which I often purposely "misinterpret" (albeit NOT with unethical intent) into the more expansive concepts of socratic_questioning and/or the socratic_method, though I tend to be a hardline Aristotelian about most things.
 * Anyways, the reason I did the sourcing-work, was because you will find a lot of wikipedians will out of hand reject the USCG paper as WP:SELFPUB, and that is totally wrong-o. You see this a lot at BLP-articles where the person is a professor (aka your own... which like dunnet you will be the primary wiki-steward of your own BLP-article until and unless the wp-coi-queue is unstuffed which is a perennial difficulty... and I doubt per WP:CRYSTAL that USCG will be your final contribution to the literature).  So the reason I did the legwork here, was to show you how to do the legwork; plus I find the topic-matter interesting.  And of course, sourcing-legwork is never wasted, if stored in the right location -- I can paste my list-o-social-engineering-cites over on the Talk:social engineering (computing) page and it will get used someday per WP:NORUSH.  But my main goal, was that I think you need (for your wiki-steward-duties going forward) a good grip on the idea that there is such a wiki-guideline as WP:SCHOLARSHIP, and also the more subtle concept that it applies with *varying* strength aka wiki-weight, depending on which article-title is being talked about.
 * So anyways, if you just want my opinion on whether the USCG Proceedings (magazine) is a peer-reviewed well-respected publication, I think the answer is no, unless there were some steps not mentioned on page five. Academia EECS lingo -- to feed your off-wiki passion for jargon variants -- seems pretty clear that to be a "peer-reviewed" paper the work has to be not just edited and published by independent folks (Chiarizia&Webster were the indep eds && USCG Legal Division was the indep pub), but also formally *reviewed* by your peers in academia aka by other computer science profs&researchers.  In a typical respected-but-not-peer-reviewed publication, you have a call for papers, a vetting process where they check your credentials (e.g. phoning Nova to confirm you are a prof and then phoning your office *at* Nova to confirm you are you and not an impersonator), then a few rounds of editor-related-back-n-forth (usually non-zero:  in newspapers the journalist writes the story and the editor blue-pencils it with no iterations but in academia there is usually a chance for the author to double-check the editor).  With the peer-reviewed process, all those steps still occur, but some additional steps are tossed in on top, which is normally, call for papers, credentials vetting, initial submission, peer review by N other profs&researchers (min three max a dozen), author gets a chance to revise paper after peer-review critiques, re-submit for final review, present at conference which serves as 'informal' final peer-review round, final tweaks by author, editors check it over, author gets final approval go-or-no-go, publication of proceedings.
 * The real-world question, then, is whether the USCG Legal was paying for the peer-review steps to happen: did you get feedback-critiques on your original paper-submission, which were from other EECS/infosec professionals (named or anonymous)?  Then probably 'peer-reviewed' well-respected publication.  If you got editorial feedback, and maybe even editorial-back-n-forth, but no peer-review-rounds by other infosec/EECS types, then "merely" a well-respected publication.  See also peer-reviewed journal.  (Did I get closer to the nail this time? :-)      75.108.94.227 (talk) 19:31, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I meant "make you" in terms of me not being specific enough... Anyway, I'm leaning towards you probably being right, and that was my initial thought. However, its appearance in Google Scholar got me thinking more about it.  The directions from the editor was specifically NOT to submit it to them, but to submit it to what they call a "champion's" office, where it would be reviewed, and then forwarded on to the editor, if accepted.  It's unclear how many people at the "office" of the champion would review.  One of the important reasons I care is that I often testify in court as a declared "expert", and in Federal Court it is the rule that all peer-reviewed journal articles MUST be disclosed.  It would be a big problem if I failed to declare one. Ron Schnell 20:04, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You were specific enough, but as I hinted before, even when I understand your question perfectly, I will often go off on a tangent intended to talk about some wiki-subtle-thing I'm tryna ram down your gullet. Q:  "Can we add 'kernel' to the line about UNIXTM consulting?"  Hypothetical A:  "Yup, but say Unix the generic term." (which is seven words)  Actual A:  seven thousand bleeping words, about how politico is not speaking in the journalistic voice, and so on ad infinitum.  There are other more recent examples, where I pretty much knew exactly what you meant, but answered at length anyways, per my tangential goals, that have also already been discussed.  I'm attempting to steep you in the wiki-lingo, more or less.  Anyways, you aren't making me, that I can tell, and from my perspective, I'm making you, but since you keep coming back, I figure you don't mind all that much.  Lemme know if you *would* like the straight answer from time to time.  :-)     And the straight answer on this one is, "wikipedia does not provide medical nor legal advice".  ;-)      In the article, there is a profile of one of the USCG champions, who is a captain of some kind, which means they are a front-line-officer, not a legal rear-vice-admiral-paper-pusher-type.  I expect that the champions are officers that are in line for promotion to colonel or major (or whatever rank-equivs the USCG dubs such folks), and thus are probably specialists in warfare-slash-security, and maybe even cyber-warfare slash infosec, but it seems unlikely they are *your* peers aka professors in EECS departments.  It might be the case that Proceedings-of-the-USCG counts as a 'refereed' journal publication, which is usually not distinct from a 'peer-reviewed' journal publication, but in this particular case might be.  Prolly the easiest answer is just to call the journal up, this *is* the USCG Legal branch, there *have* to be some actual not-just-playing-one-on-teevee-lawyers there.  See page five of the PDF.  75.108.94.227 (talk) 21:44, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You were specific enough, but as I hinted before, even when I understand your question perfectly, I will often go off on a tangent intended to talk about some wiki-subtle-thing I'm tryna ram down your gullet. Q:  "Can we add 'kernel' to the line about UNIXTM consulting?"  Hypothetical A:  "Yup, but say Unix the generic term." (which is seven words)  Actual A:  seven thousand bleeping words, about how politico is not speaking in the journalistic voice, and so on ad infinitum.  There are other more recent examples, where I pretty much knew exactly what you meant, but answered at length anyways, per my tangential goals, that have also already been discussed.  I'm attempting to steep you in the wiki-lingo, more or less.  Anyways, you aren't making me, that I can tell, and from my perspective, I'm making you, but since you keep coming back, I figure you don't mind all that much.  Lemme know if you *would* like the straight answer from time to time.  :-)     And the straight answer on this one is, "wikipedia does not provide medical nor legal advice".  ;-)      In the article, there is a profile of one of the USCG champions, who is a captain of some kind, which means they are a front-line-officer, not a legal rear-vice-admiral-paper-pusher-type.  I expect that the champions are officers that are in line for promotion to colonel or major (or whatever rank-equivs the USCG dubs such folks), and thus are probably specialists in warfare-slash-security, and maybe even cyber-warfare slash infosec, but it seems unlikely they are *your* peers aka professors in EECS departments.  It might be the case that Proceedings-of-the-USCG counts as a 'refereed' journal publication, which is usually not distinct from a 'peer-reviewed' journal publication, but in this particular case might be.  Prolly the easiest answer is just to call the journal up, this *is* the USCG Legal branch, there *have* to be some actual not-just-playing-one-on-teevee-lawyers there.  See page five of the PDF.  75.108.94.227 (talk) 21:44, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

asb 0xC

 * FYI, http://www.secretcon.com Ron Schnell 19:36, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Will peek, when I have a minute. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 06:41, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * 9am 2015-10-09, MSFT NYC, SecretCon Secret Conference
 * infosec == Jon Callas Silent Circle OpenPGP DKIM ZRTP Skein Threefish PGP Blackphone Apple Tesla Kroll-O'Gara Counterpane Entrust
 * infosec == Dan Ford (computing) Silent Circle Blackphone
 * infosec == Brett Thomas (computing) Vindicia PGP
 * infosec == Ron Schnell Paul'16 Bell Labs IBM Sun Mitnick Sly MSFT
 * infosec == Andrew Case The Art of Memory Forensics Volatility (memory forensics) (or maybe WP:DBTF?? wikipedia credits Walters&Petroni not A.Case) Black Hat Briefings
 * infosec?== Riley Drake Thiel Fellow MIT
 * infosec == Rob Graham (programmer) (cf BadBIOS) BlackICE masscan intrusion prevention system sidejacking session hijacking sniffing cookies
 * infosec?== Whitney Merrill Illinois Security Lab DEF CON legality of encryption Internet law digital forensics
 * infosec == 'Yan' (computing) Bcrypt (pseudonym) pervasive encryption Electronic Frontier Foundation w3ctag MIT department of physics
 * infosec == Melanie Ensign DEFF CON r00tz Asylum Boston University
 * infosec?== Jonathan Corbett (activist) TSA
 * Michael Shinn Atomicorp Plesk/SW Soft White House
 * Karen Sittig Facebook MIT
 * Christina Morillo HedgeServ
 * Mikko Ohtamaa Secure Medical Marijuana Trees.delivery bitcoin
 * Mark Hatfield (investor) Ten Eleven Ventures Fairhaven Capital Motorola Ventures
 * Michael Latulippe Bay Area Software Engineers, New York Software Engineers
 * Elissa Shevinsky, JeKudo, Mach37
 * financial sponsors: oWasp/OWASP ; O/R Books ; Microsoft NYC / Microsoft
 * So an interesting guest-list, to say the least. :-)      Several of those people are likely to be at least as interested in your CTO work as in your USCG work, methinks.  Nice confluence.  However, please do look at the wikipedia articles about Callas and his startups (the few bluelinks in the list) for What Not To DoTM on the 'pedia.  Cleanup is badly needed, and a drastic cull prolly, unless more sources are integrated.  Want to help edit your co-speaker's wikipedia BLP-article and company-articles, before you hit the lectern at the privacy-and-infosec conference?  Might be a talking point.  I've dug up some WP:SOURCES.  Now, though I doubt this needs mentioning, do remember that wikipedia.org is NOT a suitable pentest target, "anyone can edit" applies only to white-hat efforts, by the letter and spirit of the wiki-laws.  If you want some examples for your speech, of black-hat activities, there are plenty of pointers I can give you to where those have occurred on wikipedia 'in the wild' as it were.  In fact, there is a statistically likely grey-hat-prank-incident already in the edit-history of that very article.  WP:SPA editor, anon, one non-deleted edit only, geolocates to Indiana University-Bloomington, change was live and web-visible from 2014-08-01 through 2014-10-22.  Or maybe the guy really does have a large collection of hats, but if so, WP:PROVEIT was actually WP:NOTEWORTHY, is the wiki-law nowadays.
 * p.s. Google already sucks infoboxen content from wikipedia, so that endusers that just want the first few sentences of the wikipedia article (aka the lede which summarizes the body-prose-summary-of-what-the-sources-say) don't ever actually, you know, have to leave google.com, and don't have a chance to click the edit-button.  Microsoft is also experimenting with that nowadays it seems, (see lingo-warning PRIOR to clicking) http://www.bing.com/knows/Jon%20Callas?mkt=zh-cn, but only in their Chinese-language portal (there is not currently a "Bing.com/Knows" option in the english website).  If you clicked that link, you'll set a cookie that your default language is mandarin, to 'undo' at least partially click this 2nd link -- http://www.bing.com/?FORM=HPCNEN&setmkt=en-us&setlang=en-us methinks.  75.108.94.227 (talk) 19:31, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * And the other question was, knowing the infosec landscape way better than myself, how many of these names besides yourself and Jon Callas *ought* to be bluelinks, if you have hunches? Aka would have the sources to pass WP:42, if somebody were to do the necessary digging, as both you and he (despite his relatively-non-compliant extant wikipedia articles) both do?  Shevinsky and Merrill and maybe Graham are the ones I would guess at, but it's a shot in the dark for the most part, without doing the search-engine work, and as your own BLP-article demonstrates, often search-engine work is not enough, unless the person was born after 1995 or thereabouts. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 12:22, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

asb 0x000d
FYI, http://www.fastcompany.com/3050698/elasticity/will-2016-be-the-app-election Ron Schnell 17:45, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Top 25 download on iOS for awhile, eh? Pretty cool.  Android version has four-digit-downloads, which is the "same" as the Cruz app.  (Their app demands droid v4.1+ though, yikes.)  WP:GOOG gives you 133 fivestar, 10 fourstar, 2 threestar, 3 twostar, 5 onestar.  Cruz has a higher rating-submission-count, but a lower overall-average-score, at the moment.  So here's your quiz:
 * Q: For the article FOO this source counts as nada/WP:NOTEWORTHY/borderline-WP:N/easily-WP:N in terms of depth?


 * mobile_app? e, trick question, there is not a "political app" subsection, and these apps have made too little impact (in terms of coverage in the WP:SOURCES relative to other apps ... but iff and when such a subsection does exist, a few election cycles from now, these two early apps will get some sentences
 * Paul'16? e, easily WP:N because about what the campaign "did"
 * Cruz'16? e, easily WP:N because about what the campaign "did"
 * CanDo.com? e, borderline WP:N since he was involved in making the app (not just quoted as a pundit)
 * Ron Schnell? b, borderline WP:N since he was involved in making the app (not just quoted as a pundit)
 * Rob Ratterman? e, WP:NOTEWORTHY to borderline WP:N since he was involved in making the app (not just quoted as a pundit)


 * Rand Paul? e, just WP:NOTEWORTHY because relatively little about Paul specifically
 * Ted Cruz? e, just WP:NOTEWORTHY because relatively little about Cruz specifically
 * Zac Moffatt? e, WP:NOTEWORTHY since just namedrop as a pundit
 * Targeted Victory? e, WP:NOTEWORTHY since just namedrop as a pundit
 * App Annie? e, WP:NOTEWORTHY since just namedrop as a pundit


 * Andrew Rasiej? b, WP:NOTEWORTHY since just namedrop as a pundit
 * Personal Democracy Media? b, WP:NOTEWORTHY since just namedrop as a pundit


 * Trump'16? n, actually might qualify as WP:NOTEWORTHY that the media took specific notice that logo-invaders included *this* logo (selective mentioned of the dozen or so total logos)
 * Bush'16? n, actually might qualify as WP:NOTEWORTHY that the media took specific notice that logo-invaders included *this* logo (selective mentioned of the dozen or so total logos)


 * Donald Trump? n, namedrop, which is telling since he's the black sheep frontrunner, but nada since this piece of journalism isn't especially significant to his BLP-article
 * Jeb Bush? n, namedrop, which is telling since he's the other media-frontrunner, but nada since this piece of journalism isn't especially significant to his BLP-article
 * Hillary Clinton? n, very brief namedrop, which is telling since she's the media-frontrunner, but nada since this piece of journalism isn't especially significant to her BLP-article
 * Clinton'16? n, very brief namedrop, which is telling since she's the media-frontrunner , but nada since this piece of journalism isn't especially significant to her campaign
 * Romney'12? n, mentioned in the source, but only as a subset of this-pundit-had-an-old-relevant-job , so nada in the end (Romney'12 is over)
 * Vincent Harris? n, nada because not actually mentioned in the source despite WP:THETRUTH
 * iOS? n, nada because mentioned in the piece but two big and well-sourced of a topic for one more namedrop to be worth messing with
 * Android#2.3.3? n, nada because mentioned in the piece but two big and well-sourced of a topic for one more namedrop to be worth messing with
 * HTC EVO 4G? n, nada because no direct connection mentioned in the source (though it is one of the phone-models that has a troublesome compatibility-profile)
 * Galaxian? n, nada because no real connection (cf the now-deprecated "in pop culture" subsections that used to litter most wikipedia articles)


 * Please go ahead and just jam one-letter answers directly into the comment above, or elide per WP:CHOICE. Though of course, as wikisteward you'll need to be clear on how much pieces that mention you are applicable to the BLP-article, and to keep your wikinose clean, it helps if you will go ahead and edit the articles (or talkpages thereof should COI-encumbrance exist) where the source is applicable besides to the BLP-article.  75.108.94.227 (talk) 19:21, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Aren't you supposed to be in the CNN war-room about now? :-)      I've reordered the listing to group by response, then added my own response-snippet.   75.108.94.227 (talk) 00:24, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I was in the HQ debate war-room (see https://twitter.com/RonnieSchnell/status/644260051801272320). I'm hoping you get a chance to compile net-talk.  I would like to set up a more interactive session with you so that we can knock some of these things out.  Ron Schnell 16:28, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm against twit and fbook, they aren't wiki-reliable. ;-)      Not to mention gPlay and iToon, have you worked out a raw APK download link yet, for sideloading the CanDo'16 app, or running in an emulator on PC?  p.s.  Great movie though, Stanley Kubrick is the best.  75.108.94.227 (talk) 20:51, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Just making sure you saw the above, w.r.t. net-talk. If you don't want to go through the hassle, I wouldn't mind using IRC if you'd prefer. Ron Schnell 19:02, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, truth be told, I'm still trying to finish my *assigned* wiki-tasks, from earlier, of finding a reviewer to make sure I'm not off my rocker. FiddleFaddle aka User:Timtrent is off on vacation still I believe, though they seem to be editing from their smartphone of something (shudder! no punctuation keys?) but I just asked Primefac to look at the draft with a jaundiced eye.  Plus, also from earlier, I'm supposed to templatize the first half of the newspaper refs.  Anyways, I've not looked deeper into the folder for your net-talk-v2-beta yet, because I've still got those other bits on my plate.  If the WP:NORUSH is irksome, we can submit to AfC queue now, and get in line for the ten-day wait for a reviewer.  I think there are clearly enough refs to mainspace, though that hyphenated jounalist from the FL newspaper is still missing from the draft.  Is all the stuff on the checklist, besides the pieces in my own tiny list, cleaned up at present?  Which things are holding us up, from making progress, besides independent reviewers, in other words?  75.108.94.227 (talk) 20:51, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I've lost track. That's why I think an interactive hack session would be useful.  We could just get it done.  By the way:  http://www.ipsnews.be/artikel/apps-nieuw-wapen-amerikaanse-verkiezingsrace Ron Schnell 20:57, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah. :-)    Yes, there are a lot of words here, and on your usertalk too.  You ought to try to be less chatty, dern it, you're obscuring the channel and messing up the SnR!  ;-)      At present I am schedule-locked, I have to mess with Jeff Berwick tonight, plus work on my complex multi-orthogonal-axis presidential candidate ranking scheme for the political articles, and I'd still like to get back to Coleman and C.J. articles in the BLP world, which are moldering away.  Are you going to work on Callas, if so I will post my URLs gathered so far, if not I'll finish polishing them a bit more off-wiki rather than posting a braindump.  p.s.  If you run across total-minutes-and-questions-allocated-per-candidate data for the CNN debate (preferably WP:RS but I'll even settle for twitter as long as it has accurate nums), please let me know.  Same question for the CSPAN forum, actually, when Cruz/Paul/Rubio but not Graham were present-via-satfeed, has anybody published timings with and without satfeed latency taken into account?  Or any timings whatsoever, actually?  My other begging for factoids, which I'll go ahead and post now, is if you run across Q3 fundraising totals, I'm still trying to get the Q2 fundraising put into the relevant comparison-article about the candidates.  If you see a nice clean complete table, in the next few weeks as the Q3 numbers are released (hard data for potus campaigns and likely accompanied by 'soft' bragging about superpac results), please let me know.  75.108.94.227 (talk) 21:11, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 19 September
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:21, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * On the Michael Kearney page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=681783936 your edit] caused a broken reference name (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F681783936%7CMichael Kearney%5D%5D Ask for help])

ping from Wscribner (talk) 12:42, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
Left several responses on NTA (Talk) and also on wscribner (talk) Wscribner (talk) 12:42, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you. :) Now we wait? 74.84.114.34 (talk) 15:16, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * No, now we keep going. Work on step#3 especially, find some additional in-depth WP:SOURCES that are specifically about NTA or the founders, stuff like the sbTrib one you dug up.  Also, while we wait, I will help show you how to make a series of edit-requests (in their own section) for adding or revising sentences that are related to the sbTrib source, which also needs to be integrated.  We started with the woodallsCM source, because it was just a couple sentences, and easier to deal with.  But no, you've still got tasks to do, WP:TIAD.
 * Speaking of which, Dtompos has a task, also. Wscribner, if you are comfy with the instructions for making userpages and such, explain to Dtompos that *they* need to login, they need to create a userpage (like you created your userpage), and then they need to add the connected-contrib thing to the Talk:NTA_(company) page, per my detailed instructions earlier.  Please note, don't login for him, see WP:NOSHARING, he has to login himself for this disclosure bit, CEO or not.  :-)      But it should only take a minute or two to explain to him what needs to be done, and for him to actually do it.  75.108.94.227 (talk) 15:25, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * p.s. You said, "and also on wscribner(talk)" ... but there was nothing new there.  Do you have changes open in a browser-tab, and have not yet clicked save?  Or did you mean, that you commented on Talk:NTA_(company) by using your proper username aka Wscribner?  75.108.94.227 (talk) 15:36, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

taking a stab at dunnet (video game)

 * (( most of these snippets were NOT direct responses to each other, but are gathered here from unrelated threads, since they are all about the same effort/article/project )) 75.108.94.227 (talk) 14:25, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I do suggest we spend some effort polishing the actual article, time permitting of course, so that it more closely reflects the sources (and thus grows correspondingly less-likely-to-be-stubified-or-nominated-again-for-deletion sometime in the future). There is no hurry about it, but if we clean up one sentence per weekend or bimonthly or something -- we already have a cleaned sentence written on your usertalk but need to utilize the coi-edit-request-template for mainspacing that sentence -- then we will probably have to go about ten or fifteen iterations to clean 99% of the article properly, aka 10 weeks to 30 weeks of wall-time, roughly.  I can also just clean the article up myself, we are 80% done with the work, but that's not as satisfying because as an anon I have no watchlist and cannot be a proper steward of the thing long-term.  -- 75108
 * I wouldn't mind if you took the stab at cleanup and then I would be happy to be the steward after that (as it is obviously on my watchlist). --Ron Schnell
 * Well, then we have the same basic plan. But in order to be a good steward, you have to be able to not only revert vandals and fix spelling and other stuff (which you can do directly in mainspace despite your COI w.r.t. Dunnet), but you also have to be able to suggest changes (e.g. when your book comes out some new sentences per WP:ABOUTSELF will need to be composed & sourced & inserted), which is NOT something that you can directly do with COI, you have to use a template-thing and convince an uninvolved reviewer (well... to keep your coi-nose squeaky-clean you 'have' to... there is always WP:IAR... but that's an advanced wiki-policy and a fairly subtle pillar).  If I'm handy I'll be happy to do the eyeballing, of course, but per IP rollover and per WP:CHOICE and per WP:MIGHTGETCRUSHEDBYORBITALDEBRIS, there is always the possibility I won't be handy someday, so you should learn the mechanism.  I just wrote up a how-to-suggest-small-changes-in-chunks tutorial for User_talk:Heatherer (peek inside the greenbox thing).  Skim that coi-request-example, and you'll know most of what you need to know.  A few practice runs, and I can clean the rest up... or you can via indirect-requests... and then the Dunnet article will be effectively bullet-proof (pending some kind of major wiki-policy change such as "delete all videogame articles" or equivalent).  -- 75108

Back to Dunnet...are you going to take a stab at the article rewrite? I added to the Dunnet section of my ronnie.html to mention DUNGEON.STL, btw. Ron Schnell 04:37, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * So we already rewrote one sentence together. Suggest that we get that change inserted, so you learn the mechanism for wp-coi-edit-requests, and how to best get them answered (by non-75108-editors per the orbital debris factor).  This is what you want to paste into a new section of Talk:Dunnet (video game).

Dear reviewer, please replace this sentence now in mainspace, with the following corrected version:
 * old: The game enjoys certain popularity because since 1992 it is part of the default packages in many versions of Emacs.
 * new: Since 1994,  the eLisp version of Dunnet (first ported in 1992) has shipped with GNU Emacs; the game also was included with XEmacs.
 * approx. diff: The game enjoys certain popularity because since 1992 1994 (first ported 1992) it is part of the default packages  has shipped with in many versions of Emacs  GNU Emacs and XEmacs.

If the replacement-sentence is acceptable, please also add Template:notelist to the appropriate subsection of article. Thanks, Ron, author of Dunnet'83 and Dunnet'92. p.s. See discussion at User_talk:75.108.94.227, if you like. ~

Or words of your own to that effect. After you save your dunnet-talkpage-message, stick in the appropriate template-thing above it, helpdocs at Template:Request_edit, to send out a ping to the reviewer-queue. We will see how fast this sentence gets reviewed and inserted into mainspace; not only does it correct some grammar bugz, it also has some factual corrections, and of course, adds sources to back up the info. If the reviewer forgets to put in the stuff, that is fine, don't bug them about it; you can do it or I can do it later (such a change would count as a "grammar fix" type of correction where WP:COI matters little). I also think it makes sense to leave the reviewer some usertalk links, so they understand that you didn't just zoom to wiki-ref-wizard out of the blue, but are learning the ropes with some help from 75108. Per my advice to User:heatherer linked above, it is best to keep your wp-coi-edit-requests as short and sweet as possible, and give the reviewer something they can eyeball, then cut-n-paste directly into mainspace, with as little pain on their part as possible. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 14:58, 13 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Okay. Will do this tonight and ping you. Ron Schnell 15:37, 13 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Per the tension between WP:NORUSH and WP:TIAD, here is some additional homework, for tonight or tomorrow or in a month. Or, feel free to ignore it.  ;-)      Methinks we should also go pentium on the reviewers, and start making additional sentence-correction-talkpage-suggestions, whilst we wait for a reviewer-response to our first sentence-rewrite.  Just leave the wp-coi-edit-request thing on one of the suggestions at a time, however.  Some reviewers will look over all of them at once, but we don't want to scare away the ones that just are looking for a five-minute-project.  These were the other low-hanging-fruit ones that jumped out at me, last time I looked:
 * * The game has been recommended to writers considering writing interactive fiction.(ref)http://www.getmewriting.com/interactive-fiction/intro-to-interactive-fiction/(/ref)
 * * There are many subtle jokes in this game, and there are multiple ways of ending the game.
 * * The game is easily "hackable", since the savefile is stored in plain text.
 * * Alternatively, there are plenty of sentences that could be *added* to mainspace. See my rough suggestions.
 * Several of these upgrades are straightforward (to my wiki-eyes anyways), one or two of them require a bit more finesse. And of course, if you have ideas about what you want changed, feel free to suggest orthogonally, either to me, or if you'd rather, to a wp-coi-edit-reviewer person.  75.108.94.227 (talk) 15:53, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, and if you like, ping RMS to let him know about the grammar fail in the 17th edition, namely " runs an[sic] text-based adventure game." (isbn #978-0-9831592-5-4).  My understanding is he doesn't use a browser, although that may have changed.  75.108.94.227 (talk) 16:00, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Didn't need to ping rms for that. I fixed it myself. Ron Schnell 16:55, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Handy to have commit-access to the emacs repo, eh? I have some *other* not-so-uncontroversial requests for emacs upgrades ... scrap max buffer size limitation ... scrap regex based syntax hilite ... cua-mode unless told otherwise ... default at launch should have tetris.el open in the 2nd buffer-tab and dunnet.el open in the 3rd buffer-tab ... find and replace all helpdoc use of "buffer" with instead "tab" ... hmmmm.  Well, you prolly won't keep your commit bits very long, if you listen to the likes of me, so I suggest you just ignore that last bit.  Thanks for fixing the typo though, appreciated.  75.108.94.227 (talk) 17:16, 14 August 2015 (UTC)


 * (I added the id parameter to the anchor tag for Dunnet, in particular). Re: above, I thought I was just going to do one suggestion to see how it works and then you would just fix up the whole thing?  Ron Schnell 18:09, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * (Thanks for frag-id. Also might wanna relocate the cabot-super-sharp-cheddar-subsection.... just a thought.  ;-)      I am capable of doing the whole rewrite-upgrade on my lonesome, but since my goal is to groom you for wiki-stewardship... and since I have c.j.pearson and airtime-fairness-tables and fundraising-super-pac-tables and dave coleman and a bunch of other wiki-stuff coming out my ears... I'd rather see you do some iterative revisions, so that I can give you pointers if and when you goof.  Once we've both become confident that most of your goofing-bugs are eliminated from your wiki-specific neurons, then either one of us can run the article-cleanup to completion.  But are your wiki-specific neurons bug-free, yet?
 * Just looking at the three sentences I picked as obviously-in-need-of-severe-revision, for instance, I can see with my wiki-eyes that they need a big rewrite. But will your newly-enhanced wiki-eyes see the same things, or not?  That is the sort of thing I'm trying to train you for, to be a dunnet steward partly, and partly because of my ulterior motive of getting more clueful people showing up in the political articles during the next year of repub primaries, as mentioned at some point.  So yeah, I mean, you already know how the wp-coi-mechanism works, you're a programmer and a CS prof, right?  I showed you the template, no more is needed.  But that doesn't mean you know how to write your own impeccably-neutral-sentences yet, nor how to revise less-than-high-quality sentences like the stuff above.  (By the same token, although it is true that I may now know something 'about' the syntax of SETL, that's most assuredly not the same as knowing how to hack in SETL.)
 * This is one of those old teach a man to fish parable situations, in other words. (Define irony:  teach a man to fish was insta-deleted back in 2011, and in four years has never been fixed.  Could it be, that there are too many stupid asinine wiki-rules, and too few people willing and able to stomach those crazy rules???  Naaah.  Point being, I'm not picking you at random here, I'm picking you as statistically likely to be capable of surviving the modern wiki-jungle.)    I could fix the article up myself in about an hour, since the sourcing is already done.  Teaching you how to fix up the article yourself will probably take me three hours of effort, albeit spread out over time rather than all in one batch.  But the end result would be, on the one hand, a pretty-decent article (I'm not that hot at prose... I aim for quantity over quality ;-)   that will quickly bitrot over the next few years, versus on the other hand, a pretty-decent article PLUS a newly-forged lean-mean rugged-wikipedian editor, who is themselves fully equipped to generate *more* such wikipedians, by virtue of being a CS prof and CTO, and with any luck the newly-famous co-author of the hot new python browser game Dungeon SETLment Deux: Revenge Of The Mazes, or whatever you end up calling the thing.  :-)      I'd rather have the latter outcome, even though it takes more effort for both of us.  WP:CHOICE applies though, on both ends (and in days yet to come... wiki-choices made today are not set in stone).  Make sense?  Fill me in on your thoughts.
 * Oh, and, p.s. I consider learning to pipeline multiple small wp-coi-edit-requests part of "learning the mechanism" rather than part of "working on the article" ... because in practice, any wp-coi-request larger than a sentence, is going to be ignored by 99% of the people that work the wp-coi-request queue, a pretty thankless task. The reason I'm assigning "homework" of a handful of sentences, is because to learn the cultural-aspects of the mechanism you need to practice on more than just one sentence, though of course one practice-session with a template is enough for a programmer to know the syntax-aspects of the mechanism.   75.108.94.227 (talk) 20:00, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Now see, wikipedia *is* a small world. Ran across this serendipitiously, User:Yunshui/Give_a_man_a_fish..., so the answer is not that teach a man to fish was permanently deleted but merely WP:USERFIED.  75.108.94.227 (talk) 20:56, 16 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I did the first one. Ron Schnell 02:37, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi again Ron, so okay, there is now a new section on the dunnet talkpage, requesting an edit, and it looks decent. You could stick some asterisks in front of the 'old' and the 'new' sentence-portions, like there is an asterisk in front of the 'diff' sentence-portion. But the key part is, unless you want to wait until somebody happens to visit the dunnet talkpage by sheer luck, you have to paste in into the edit-textarea, then click save. This will make a little popup-box-appear, saying "user aviators99 has requested an edit" and will send out the magic-sonar-ping-thing to the reviewer-queue. I cannot stick the thing in for you very easily, because then they would think I was the one with dunnet-COI, which I am not (although I am WP:INVOLVED). Here is the helpdocs, which explain the different types of curlycurly syntax that can be used with this mechanism -- Template:request_edit. Follow the helpdocs, paste in the sixteen ascii chars, and your request will be in the queue. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 03:48, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I've fixed up the external links to be more formal, and removed this one per WP:ELNO#11 -- https://www.iit.bme.hu/~salvi/archive/texts/dunnet-walkthrough.txt, backup at https://archive.is/BYHZe -- the site is still live, however, and if you think the walkthru is valid, I suggest linking to it from driver-aces (if memory serves you already have another walkthru linked from your dunnet.html subpage so this one could be added there). 75.108.94.227 (talk) 04:08, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * That "other walkthru" is still available externally, as well. https://web.archive.org/web/20051202042716/http://www.student.cs.uwaterloo.ca/~y7xu/dunnet.txt   There was also www.yarou.org/dunnet.txt (same content?) at one point. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 15:07, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not a fan of walkthrus. If you think it's important to have one in there, I'll bow to your non-WP:COI judgment. Ron Schnell 15:38, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Clarify, I'm listing the URL here because I removed it from mainspace, because wikipedia doesn't link to walkthru fansites. Well, in theory.  In practice many video-game articles do exactly that, in violation of this particular one of our gazillion wiki-policies.  Since we're trying to make dunnet clean and bulletproof, plus wiki-train you about some of the key wiki-policies, I documented that #1) I was removing the URL and #2) the wiki-basis was WP:ELNO#11.  Having removed the URL from mainspace, I went ahead and copied said URL here onto usertalk, since I remembered you had the sunKong99's(sp?) tips-n-tricks file up on driverAces already, so that (if you wanted to) you could also put the URL to the www.iit.bme.hu stuff, on your own driverAces website (since it's getting "deleted" from wikipedia aka filed away in the page-edit-history and usertalk pages and thus no longer visible in mainspace).  Up to you though, that's your website, even asking for the id= tag is beyond the pale except for WP:IAR.  ;-)      All make sense now?
 * And, p.s. you have competition from Stephen Colbert. Best, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 16:06, 14 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Added here as well, now that the article getting cleaned up. Have we talked about how to WP:WATCHLIST pages, so you get notified via email if something is changed?  If so, prolly you should add text adventure to your list.  Not sure if there is a way to add just a particular article-subsection, however.  75.108.94.227 (talk) 04:33, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, done. (Hopefully it was correct to put the request on the talk page and not the article.  If it's wrong, let me know and I'll fix. Ron Schnell 04:41, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, always on the talkpage-section; and you got it close enough. For future use, the Template-curlycurly thing has to be on a line by itself (sometimes but not always... sigh) or it messes with the section-header.  I fixed that bit, so it should be fine now.  Here is the place we're requesting an edit, specifically -- Talk:Dunnet_%28video_game%29 -- which will probably be answered in something between 1 hour, and 1 week.  Depends on how many reviewers have their nose to the grindstone.  Usually, once a reviewer shows up the first time, you can just ping their usertalk for subsequent changes, and say "hey can you eyeball my latest suggestion" and as long as you are making it easy on them, they will be happy to help.  Oh, and now that you've placed the template-thing, it offers us the *friendly* helpdocs, which I could not find before -- Template:Request_edit/Instructions.  Worth a skim.
 * That same page also shows that there are 65 requests in the queue... some stuck there since April(!). One of them is for David Coleman, which was a huge edit-request with a dozen sentences all being rewritten at once; I'm working on that, slowly.  What matters is the list of ones in August, since those are likely to get attention (i.e. have not been declined or passed by).  There is one from the 14th, yours, four from the 13th, two from the 12th, two from the 11th, one 10th, two 9th, and five from the 8th.  After that there is a good-sized gap, until one on the 4th and one on the 3rd, and no more in August.  Basically, the 'real' queue is just the ones from the 8th thru the 14th, aka the past week or thereabouts, and 16 requests not the nominal 65 claimed by the software.  Older than August, and either the request is too much work, or the request is otherwise getting bypassed by potential reviewers.  I'll paste the current last-week-o-the-queue here, so we can see how it changes over time.


 * Friends of Science (request) 	2015-08-03 14:37 	Not protected (log) 	Protected by Prolog on 2010-04-11: "Excessive sock puppetry: Scibaby socks"


 * Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive (request) 	2015-08-04 15:57 	Not protected (log)


 * City-Data (request) 	2015-08-08 00:01 	Not protected (log)
 * Supreme Court of India (request) 	2015-08-08 06:51 	Not protected (log)
 * Theydon Bois tube station (request) 	2015-08-08 09:55 	Not protected (log)
 * Kenneth Harbinson (request) 	2015-08-08 13:57 	Not protected (log)
 * Secret Cinema (company) (request) 	2015-08-08 15:54 	Not protected (log)


 * Jeremy Frommer (request) 	2015-08-09 22:24 	Not protected (log)
 * African Library Project (request) 	2015-08-09 23:23 	Not protected (log)


 * Whiting School of Engineering (request) 	2015-08-10 15:25 	Not protected (log)


 * Grammarly (request) 	2015-08-11 01:03 	Not protected (log) 	Protected by Bbb23 on 2013-10-20: "Edit warring / content dispute"
 * Partners In Health (request) 	2015-08-11 16:42 	Not protected (log)


 * Michigan State University School of Hospitality Business (request) 	2015-08-12 14:45 	Not protected (log)
 * Ryan Burge (request) 	2015-08-12 17:03 	Not protected (log) 	Protected by Number 57 on 2014-06-15: "Edit warring / content dispute"


 * Dov Seidman (request) 	2015-08-13 01:18 	Not protected (log)
 * User:JazmineBrenna (request) 	2015-08-13 16:40 	Not protected (log)
 * User:Lilliebelle (request) 	2015-08-13 17:52 	Not protected (log)
 * Citrix Systems (request) 	2015-08-13 20:45 	Not protected (log)


 * Dunnet (video game) (request) 	2015-08-14 04:40 	Not protected (log)
 * In some cases, no reviewer ever shows up; technical problems, or just personnel problems, not sure which. After waiting an appropriate period (three days or a week), if nobody helps, go ahead and ask for help at WP:Q, specifically either at the WP:TEAHOUSE browser-chat-thing, or at the live-help-chat-fka-IRC channel (which is also listed at WP:Q with a click-here-to-connect-via-your-browser option).  Once you are at the teahouse, or on IRC, you can explain you have COI, and ask if somebody has time to take a peek at the article URL, which is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dunnet_%28video_game%29#Request_for_editing, in this case.  Usually, though, the reviewers will be reasonably prompt and helpful, as long as you make a clear request that is an obvious improvement.  There is also some kind of noticeboard, an alternative to the Template:edit_request thing, which is at WP:COIN; I have not seen that used, so I don't know how helpful it is, compared to the normal template-sonar-beacon-thing.  Best, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 05:12, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I hope I don't look stupid for requesting an edit of one sentence when so many are ripe for fixing... Ron Schnell —Preceding undated comment added 06:02, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Nah. You'll just look wiki-proper.  And we'll get to the other sentences.  Some of which are above, if you feel like messing with some parallelism and speculative execution, while we wait for the reviewer to get to us. WP:NORUSH applies as always though.  Better to let the wiki wheels go round their usual way.  And if you'd rather do some other wiki-work, see my TBD list, or click the Special:Random button and make a few non-COI-encumbered edits.  It can be fun, not just a big pain-in-the-butt, to be a wikipedian.  ;-)      How goes other parts of life?  Did you get some downtime when your family visited, or are you still nose-to-the-grindstone in the post-debate jousting for media-attention? 75.108.94.227 (talk) 06:16, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

After cleanup is complete, you should learn to speak Polish. Deletion-discussion, as having insufficient sources. Actually, the one bangvote in favor of keeping Dunnet in the Polish wikipedia also speaks English (and even has an english-username there), so once we finish fixing up Dunnet, suggest you leave them a note. There was also a japanese article at one point, which apparently was translated from enWiki using a cellphone-based editor, which caused copyvio and/or translation-mangling; from what I can understand, the deletion there was because of needs-a-rewrite (*not* a valid deletion-reason on enWiki but might be on jaWiki).  75.108.94.227 (talk) 16:18, 14 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Ping Ron, you submitted your edit-request at roughly 2015-08-14 @ 0400 UTC, and it is now 2015-08-15 @ 2100 UTC, which is about 42 hours later. Looking at the coi-edit-request queue, I see that one new request has been added after us in the queue... and zero of the August-requests has been removed from the queue.  Conclusion to be drawn?  Nobody is working the queue.  Action to take?


 * Option#1. Well, we could always go with WP:NORUSH.  I'm constantly quoting that one, because I really have trouble following it.  ;-)
 * Option#2. So, alternatively, we can escalate our wp-coi-edit-request, aka engage in some relatively-harmless WP:FORUMSHOPPING since we know in this case that Goodness and Truth are firmly on our side (see WP:IAR and WP:THETRUTH).  The most likely place we can recruit some eyeballs, if we seek instant gratification, is here.  This is where most of the sekrit wiki-politics stuff happens, in a large series of IRC channels; this particular channel is not wiki-politics, it is a help-editing-channel, 90% populated by people who submit an article about their company/band/videogame(!)/themselves/theirboss/etc, who are seeking experienced advice.  It is, on the answering-questions-end, populated at most times (though more during USA-evening-hours than during USA-4am-hours) by roughly twenty admins who enjoy helping folks with tricksy wiki-policy questions and wiki-syntax questions.  If you want to try this option, click the link, enter a nickname (it *is* directly tied to your visible-to-channel-squatters IP addr but I don't think you care about that), answer the captcha question, and load the browser-based-IRC-client.  You will see a stock helpdocs, and at the bottom of the browser-tab will be a small white textbox; click in the textbox, and type something like:
 * Hello, I'm trying to get some help with an edit to add some sources to an article about a videogame I wrote, can somebody please look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dunnet_%28video_game%29#Request_for_editing
 * (Option#2 cont'd.) You have to paste the full URL, or at least, it's considered polite, since IRC does not understand wiki-syntax.  Also, wait-time before you receive a reply might be several minutes -- 60 seconds to 300 seconds is usual, so don't worry if you get no insta-reply.  Also, it is a shared channel, party line telephony-style, so you will see other conversations going on around you, and may in fact drop right into the middle of some ongoing conversations -- don't be alarmed, just shove your question in there, and precede replies to specific people by their nicks.  Since I suspect you've prolly used MUDs and IRC before, this is all probably useless advice, but I'll type it in anyways just in case, and later re-use it for somebody that hasn't done such things.  :-)
 * Option#3. Probably the best option, besides just waiting around, is that we could start servicing the wp-coi-edit-queue ourselves.  Anybody can be a reviewer, that is neutral, and knows something about wiki-policies (you are now over-qualified for the position... and I'm probably way-WAY-too-over-qualified... I'll scare more coi-editors away than I'll approve coi-edit-requests.  Hey wait... that means I'm perfect for the job!   ;-)          I recommend we try this option, if you are willing.  I predict that nothing will make the real wp-coi-edit-reviewers show up faster, than if we start stepping on their turf, and closing out some of the low-hanging-fruit in the queue.
 * If you want to try the service-the-coi-queue-ourselves option, or the WP:Q-based post-your-request-on-IRC option, let me know, so's I can participate (or at least watch the proceedings). I'm also 100% comfy with WP:NORUSH, totally up to you.  Best, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 21:38, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I just did the Harry & David article on the queue from 7/30. Ron Schnell 00:34, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me. One critique, is make sure to keep the history-of-the-topic around, when possible.  The article-prose already had previous CEO Johnson listed as starting in 2011, but did not mention new CEO Lightman yet; you replaced Johnson with Lightman in the infobox up top, which is correct, but it's always good to update the prose with the new changes:  "Johnson has been CEO since 2011" gets changes to "Johnson was CEO 2011-2015. Lightman became CEO in 2015" or something along those lines.  When you added the "A" arg to the request, that should get it taken out of the queue.  You can also leave a "done" message on the article-talkpage, as you did, which is a nice bonus.
 * Optional, WP:CHOICE, it is above and beyond the call of wiki-duty, but when the requesting-person is an anon, I also usually leave a note at their usertalk (I did that for Harry&David) so that they have an orange-bar-notification next time they visit the pedia. I also went on a puffery-hunt through the prose, which is sometimes pretty bad for corporate-product-articles.  There was not much to prune; the upgraded article was written by 16912_Rhiannon, who I've seen before, and they are decently careful from what I've seen.  I took a stab at fixing up Talk:Greylock_Partners, which has about five open WP:COI requests, but did not close any of them yet (though I fixed 3 of 5 in mainspace), as the person was already working with a coi-reviewer. I started on CityData, which has less sources than Dunnet.  ;-)      At the moment at least.  Be aware, Supreme Court of India from Aug 8th does NOT look like low-hanging-fruit... despite being a one-byte change... the 'Registrar' of that entity *is* at the zipcode we have in mainspace (but our street looks wrong?), so the request to change to another zipcode *may* be incorrect (or correct?), but anyways, that one is not a simple 2-minute fix.  75.108.94.227 (talk) 12:03, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

not-so-arbitrary section break
Okay, time to re-evaluate our options. Ping Ron. You posted your wp-coi-edit-request on Talk:Dunnet_(video_game) back on the 14th. We waited patiently per WP:NORUSH until the 17th, and then went with option#3 aka cleaning out the stalled wp-coi-edit-queue ourselves. That was a fail: here it is the 24th, and what does the queue look like? There were 20 articles with outstanding wp-coi-edit-requests as of the 14th, making Dunnet roughly #21 in the 'real' queue of recently-active requests. So over the course of ten days, you and myself helped close Harry & David, Secret Cinema (company), and Michigan State University School of Hospitality Business. Also some progress was made on Greylock Partners, City-Data, and African Library Project, in concert with existing wp-coi-reviewers mostly. Analysis, but not yet action, happened on User:JazmineBrenna, Supreme Court of India, Sedona Sky Academy, and Herzliya Medical Center. And perhaps you worked on others as well, that I am not aware of. But in that same ten-day-timeframe, a dozen new wp-coi-edit-requests have been created. I closed one of them that was easy-peasy, but obviously the main point is that the queue is growing faster than it is closing. So, I suggest we escalate, aka option#2_A or maybe option#2_B. Not only is opt#3 of clearing the queue ourselves failing (we stepped on the turf of the real wp-coi-reviewers and yet none appeared!), moreover, the steadily-growing-queue-size suggests that opt#1 aka WP:NORUSH will *also* fail us.

So we'd better ask for help methinks, and while we do that, ask for some additional eyeballs on the wp-coi-request-queue, before it gets even more outlandishly backlogged that it already is. I've already suggested option#2_A before, which is to click this link, open an IRC client in a new tab, and then post a request for help getting your wp-coi-edit-request looked at. " Hello, I'm trying to get some help with an edit to add some sources to an article about a videogame I wrote, can somebody please look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dunnet_%28video_game%29#Request_for_editing   "  We also additionally now have option#2_B available, which is that we can ask one of the people we met on our travels whilst servicing the wp-coi-edit-queue, if they can look at Dunnet. Usually, for obvious reasons, it is better to ask one of the reviewers we helped out, rather than one of the request-making-folks we helped out. There are a couple names of reviewers I ran across, that might be receptive to usertalk requests that they take a 2-minute peek at Dunnet for us. But since IRC is practically an entire hidden wiki-continent, I suggest we go that route instead, so you have some practice at the mechanics ... and more importantly the wiki-culture ... of making requests on IRC.

And of course, we can always just keep on doing a combination of opt#3 and opt#1, I'm not biased towards a specific course of action here, whatever you like best is what we can iteratively try. And if you're really sick of waiting, we can just ask Czar, they'll help us out, but I'm curious just how dern long your Dunnet-request is gonna stay open, when following the 'normal' wiki-channels rather than short-circuiting the system by making a direct request to somebody you already knew from previous non-wp-coi-edit-request wiki-discussions. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 15:25, 24 August 2015 (UTC)


 * My concern is that if it takes this long for this one change (of many), maybe we should request more changes before we seek help? Ron Schnell 19:10, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, we should be requesting more changes, in bite-size-chunks. See my earlier suggestions about exploiting parallelism, and super-scalar CPU architectures; wp-coi-edit-request is like that, it is best thought of as a batch-style programming model, except that you can slip a new card into the deck at the last second... or even after the batch has already started processing.  The people at the Talk:African Library Project talkpage seem to understand how that is done.  So, absolutely, go ahead and start doing some additional sentence-suggestions, either on usertalk, or directly on Talk:Dunnet (new subsection for each suggested change but group related changes together using subsubsections).  But in my experience, once you get a coi-reviewer to accept your first request, and prove to them you aren't wasting time or hurting the 'pedia, they are happy to get a ping on their personal talkpage from time to time, and become the co-stewards of the article.  You do all the work, they get all the edit-count glory.  ;-)     Trouble is finding that person in the first place, and getting the working wiki-relationship started.  There is a noticeboard, but it works even less well than I remember!  You can also recruit a helper via IRC wikipedia-en-help, or via WP:TEAHOUSE, or via people that have edited the article in the past, or similar.  Anyways, I don't think it matters much whether we escalate to IRC now, with a 5-minute-request-for-neutral-eyeballs, or if we start adding more sentence-suggestions now.  Up to you, whatever you think will help more.  75.108.94.227 (talk) 13:32, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * And for an example of what NOT to do, see Talk:Greylock_Partners, where the same coi-editor repeated the exact same request five times in a row, ignoring coi-reviewer comments. ;-)      Since you once were under an angel investor in California yourself, mayhap you know something about the history of Greylock, which at one time was an MIT-centric firm in the previous millenium, and is now a Stanford-centric firm in the current millenium?  There is an open question about history-of-Greylock-and-their-investment-strategy, if you have a hankering.  75.108.94.227 (talk) 13:45, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, just noticed (via Twitter) that Jessie Frazelle, who seems to be somewhat notable in the Linux world, did a demo of "Dunnet in a container" at LinuxCon last week. I'm not sure how notable she actually is, but I thought I'd mention it.  She has a website with instructions on how to do this at https://hub.docker.com/r/jess/dunnet/~/dockerfile/ Ron Schnell 01:04, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Jessie Frazelle has not yet been judged wiki-notable by the wiki-denizens, which as you know is distinct from real-world-notable (or even Linux-real-world-notable). So the question is, did her LinuxCon presentation get published in some kind of WP:SOURCE that we can utilize in mainspace?  If yes, and if Dunnet was mentioned therein, that is WP:NOTEWORTHY and we can add a sentence-fragment to mainspace, in the article Dunnet (video game), about the event in question.  If Ron Schnell was mentioned, at said event, we can also add the event in question there, although if she only mentions you in passing it is less valuable, though it does show continued interest in your programming work o'course.  As for the subtle wp-not-promotional issues:  what sort of mention makes sense?  Well, that depends on what the WP:SOURCES have to say, kinda sorta.  And on which wikipedia article is being discussed!  Here is a legit WP:RS about the event:
 * So, there is a lot of stuff about Frazelle, in that source. A lot of stuff about Docker_(software)  No mention of Schnell, except indirect, which usually doesn't count per wiki-policies.  Brief mention of dunnet, but with the WP:NOTEWORTHY factoids that 1) it is fun according to the journalist speaking in their journalistic voice, as well as according to Jessie Frazelle which is less crucial unless she happens to be a bluelink, and 2) that dunnet is a text-based game which can be run inside EMACS.  So this is a source that can be summarized in different ways, depending on what article we are attempting to improve.  If we are attempting to improve the Docker_(software) article, the source is valid... but it is pretty promotional, not very neutral.  If we are trying to improve the container (virtualization) article, the most relevant bit is that "as of 2015 some companies are trying to promote the use of containers for desktop systems as well as for servers" (but mentioning Frazelle specifically ... or perhaps even Docker specifically ... would be overly-promotional aka spam, in the context of that generic-topic article).
 * So, there is a lot of stuff about Frazelle, in that source. A lot of stuff about Docker_(software)  No mention of Schnell, except indirect, which usually doesn't count per wiki-policies.  Brief mention of dunnet, but with the WP:NOTEWORTHY factoids that 1) it is fun according to the journalist speaking in their journalistic voice, as well as according to Jessie Frazelle which is less crucial unless she happens to be a bluelink, and 2) that dunnet is a text-based game which can be run inside EMACS.  So this is a source that can be summarized in different ways, depending on what article we are attempting to improve.  If we are attempting to improve the Docker_(software) article, the source is valid... but it is pretty promotional, not very neutral.  If we are trying to improve the container (virtualization) article, the most relevant bit is that "as of 2015 some companies are trying to promote the use of containers for desktop systems as well as for servers" (but mentioning Frazelle specifically ... or perhaps even Docker specifically ... would be overly-promotional aka spam, in the context of that generic-topic article).


 * In your case, you have basically one single recurring wiki-interest, which is improving articles that are directly or indirectly related to your own personal existence: Ron Schnell, Dunnet (video game), Segway polo, et cetera.  Oversharing!!  :-)      This type of niche focus aka WP:SPATG is not yet "wiki-illegal" of course, but it is frowned upon as being too narrow of a focus to be truly healthy for Improving The Encyclopedia.  The usual wiki-social-contract, implicit but there for those with wiki-eyes to see it, is that in return for letting you be just a wee bit self-promotional ... as long as you keep a neutral tone and stick to reflecting what the sources actually say and go through the tedious wp-coi-edit-request hoops or some equivalent multiple-sets-of-eyeballs-review-system ... that you for your part will not exclusively spend your time here preening about how cool you are.  ;-)      In other words, if you want to keep your wiki-nose clean, for every edit to make about Dunnet or about Ron Schnell or about Segway Polo or your other personal interests, you should also make a couple edits that are helpful to areas of wikipedia where you don't have a vested personal-slash-financial interest:  helping clear the COI queue, helping source other articles, and so forth.
 * In our current scenario, you've discovered a new potential preening-opportunity: Dunnet got mentioned at LinuxCon (woo!).  And it turns out, there is a WP:SOURCE which makes WP:NOTEWORTHY mention.  It does not say anything about Schnell, so the correct amount of use for this source in the Draft:Ron_Schnell article is, not to mention it at all; you weren't mentioned at LinuxCon (at least according to S.Kerner of Internetnews.com in their reporting of said event), only Dunnet was.  We've already got more-in-depth-sources that say Dunnet is a text-game.  We've already got more-in-depth-sources that say Dunnet is available within EMACS.  But we don't necessarily have WP:RS that evaluate Dunnet as a fun game, and we don't have any 2015 sources that say so.  Thus, in the 'reception' section of the Dunnet article, we can have a sentence that says Dunnet has been called "fun"[23], with footnote#23 pointing to good old S.Kerner's journalism on the subject.
 * And here's the part where your primarily-motivated-by-oversharing-self-interest, becomes valuable to wikipedia more broadly: you've already done the hard work, of finding the source, of formatting it into a proper cite_web template style, and of reading it for content.  90% of the source was about containers and Docker and such, being repurposed for use as a means of installing desktop systems, with Dunnet being WP:NOTEWORTHY as an example of such use.  So it only makes sense, that you would edit the appropriate pages, which the source in question was *mostly* about, and not just further pimp out the Dunnet article.  In this case, those pages are Jessie Frazelle, Docker_(software), and container (virtualization).  Taking them each in turn, Frazelle is a redlink.  But is she wiki-notable?  Quick bit of googling on bing.com will tell us the answer.
 * Frazelle's legit WP:N#1 is the internetnews.com 2015 dunnet-related-ref, and I also see two 2015 hits for LWN.net pieces, plus one 2015 piece by Gartner. Beyond that, not much: promotional mentioned by a co-worker, promotional mention by some conferences as a speaker,  her WP:ABOUTSELF work-homepage, and her WP:ABOUTSELF home-homepage.  So does she pass WP:42?  Technically yes, "multiple" in-depth sources.  But would she survive AfD?  Almost certainly not.  All the sources are tech-industry.  All the sources are 2015.  Most of the sources revolve around her LinuxCon talk, about making Docker fun for desktop-use.  To my wiki-eyes, this is WP:FAILN at the moment... but she's young, and thus I suspect it is a case of WP:NotJustYet.  There will be more press in 2016, and more press in 2017, at which point she'll have three distinct years of press, and likely an international-mention or two, helping demonstrate WP:N convincingly.  Right now in August 2015, she basically has a single coverage-burst, about her 2015 conf-talks as a Docker employee, and thus WP:NOTNEWS and WP:109PAPERS applies.  Her coverage is in a narrow niche, and as a *percentage* of that niche, she is almost-but-not-quite invisible.
 * That said, although Frazelle is probably still a bit below the line of wiki-notability, there is no reason not to create Draft:Jessie Frazelle and paste our legwork there. Moreover, she passes WP:NOTEWORTHY with flying colors, and should get a sentence in the Docker_(software) article methinks.  (Where does the Frazelle-sentence-and-sources actually *go* in the article about Docker?  Well... it is an article about the software... but it also doubles as an article about the Docker_Inc. backers of said software, where Frazelle is an employee... and there is not actually a subsection of Docker_(software) that is about Docker_(software) as yet... so we'd have to make such a subsection, and populate it with more than just Frazelle.  We don't have to be perfect, but we'd have to spend five minutes there, adding a section and giving it a first-pass-rough-draft few sentences, rather than just one minute adding the Frazelle-sentence to a pre-existing subsection.)
 * What about the container (virtualization) article? Docker is already mentioned there... do we need to have some vague mention of client-side uses for container-tech?  I think yes; the #Uses section has a couple of intro-paragraphs, and we can add a sentence at the then of para#2 there, saying that "Early work using client-side containers on desktops is ongoing as of 2015."


 * Anyways, if you'd like to tackle these ancillary greenbox tasks, go ahead. I stress once again that WP:CHOICE is one of the only mandatory wiki-policies.  As for using the source in the Dunnet article, once we have cleaned up the article a bit, and actually *have* a 'reception' subsection, then the InternetNews.com ref saying that Dunnet is "fun" will be able to get inserted.  Which brings us back to the question of, do you want to write up some more sentence-suggestions for the dunnet talkpage, or ask for help on IRC, or what?  I don't think the ordering much matters, though if we don't go to IRC for our own dunnet-related-request today, I'm still gonna ask for additional eyeballs to help clear the wp-coi-edit-queue, which is starting to be seriously backlogged.  WP:NORUSH must be balanced with WP:TIAD.  75.108.94.227 (talk) 13:32, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you may have missed a question I posted for you on my talk page. In terms of the BLP cites, where should I put the ones (Fortune and greater)?  In the section on my talk page or in the draft? Ron Schnell 02:25, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, sorry, no watchlist. ;-)      Since you were wanting to keep your usertalk from getting messy with all the editing-traffic, I went ahead and created Draft:Ron_Schnell, so we could work together there.  Per the COI rules, you should avoid editing mainspace like Dunnet (video game), but you are 100% free to edit Talk:Dunnet (video game).  In the case of draftspace, the rules are relaxed even further, and you can directly edit both Draft:Ron Schnell, as well as Draft_talk:Ron Schnell.  Thus, you are free to stick your refs (and the neutral-tone-sentences they back up) directly into the article-prose, as long as it is in draftspace.  If you prefer, for instance to get in the habit of making talk-requests in bitesized chunks, you can also just 'make suggestions' on the draft-talk, which I will then stuff into the draft-article proper.  I'm also happy to let you stuff it in yourself, and then come along behind you and be WP:MERCILESS about changes.  Make sense?  75.108.94.227 (talk) 02:38, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

You might want to check out Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics, where someone is referencing the Dunnet editing I am working on and the training you've been doing. (Adding this parenthetical, because I accidentally wasn't logged in). Ron Schnell 23:53, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * As your wiki-mentor, I urge you to rethink your lingo. As I taught you during the Dunnet AfD, if you wish to wiki-gossip about your fellow wikipedians, you must ping them, 'tis only polite.  Furthermore, if you treat wikipedia as an MMORPG, nothing good will come of it.  There is no 'them'.  There is only, another specific human, here on the 'pedia doing the best they can, frail as humans often are, imperfect and sometimes emotional and so on.  There is no 'us' either... we are wiki-friends, until my IP rotates, and then we will once again be rugged wikipedian individualists, doing our best to improve the 'pedia in our own fashion, frail as we are.  Understand?  Don't get sucked into the WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, which is always visible in the lingo being used, it will only bring you grief.  "Remember the cave" said Yoda.  Always, but especially when the editing gets hot, stay calm cool and collected.  Anyways, if you understand my message, please self revert the portion of your note to me, following the comma.  It is not wiki-honourable, and I'm tryna train ya better.  Make sense?  Best, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 00:06, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is closer, but you are still wiki-gossiping about the un-pinged "someone". It is considered wikitalk-neutral (a very different concept from wiki-neutral prose as used in mainspace! but be aware most long-haul wikipedians just say 'neutral' without specifying whether they mean WP:NPOV-neutral-sense-one or WP:CANVASSING-neutral-sense-two) to say "you might be interested in this" or even "you might wish to comment here".  It is also permissible, though just barely in my book, to be a bit more specific, and say "there is a discussion about Jacob Barnett at this" or even "your username was mentioned during a discussion about Jacob Barnett over here".  But it is a fine line.  Of course, unless you know the person well and are actively working with them, the truly wikitalk-neutral message "please look at link" which has no connotations whatsoever, is likely to be ignored!  Thus, I have actually seen people argue, that it *is* non-wikitalk-neutral to say "please look at link" to somebody you are wiki-friends with... simply because, by leaving out the details, you are trusting that your sig being on the message, will be enough motivation to prompt a peek.  Sigh.  Once again, catch 22.
 * Anyways, as a lingoist, you can probably figure out the best way to phrase things, eventually, but if I had to leave a note in your stead, I would have gone for "Hello 75.108, since you have no watchlist, I figured I would ping you, your username has been mentioned in a conversation over here".  That is a reasonably wikitalk-neutral message.  It takes no sides.  It refuses to *recognize* that there are sides, which is the correct stance; if you find yourself thinking in terms of sides-lingo, You Are Doing It Wrong, is the basic answer.  Similarly, if you think you ought to jump into the middle of a conversation, because somebody you are familiar with is already in that conversation, check your premises:  that's the wrong behavior, too.  Your best bet is to watch how it goes, from afar, and see your mentor screw up, and learn from their mistakes.  :-)      Best, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 11:13, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Defining Abortion
Hi 75.108.94.227, I hope it starts to cool down over there sometime! Would you please take a look at the proposed rework of the lede paragraph on the abortion article? It's shown in the Talk page under a heading that includes the word "Jabberwocky". Thanks!146.23.3.250 (talk) 15:56, 23 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi 75.108y, can you take yet another look at the talk page of Abortion, under defining abortion, for the change I'm proposing next? Thanks,SocraticOath (talk) 21:49, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:T. Nejat Veziroğlu has a new comment
 I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:T. Nejat Veziroğlu. Thanks!  DGG ( talk ) 21:38, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Edit-Request
Have we heard anything on our edit-request, or was I supposed to do something? All this is making my brain hurt :P Oh wait, that was my lack of coffee... 74.84.114.34 (talk) 19:17, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Here is the request -- Talk:NTA_%28company%29
 * If you click on the 'instructions' link, in that little brown-orange box there on the talkpage, you can see the queue, which I will also link to from here -- Template:Request_edit/Instructions
 * If you scroll down... quite a LONG way down... eventually you see "NTA... 2015-09-22 15:15" which is your place in the queue.
 * As of today, the 24th, you can see there are already several other people, piling up in the queue -- #92 Ketel One (23rd @21:37), #93 David M. Cote (24th @00:25), #94 Manchester Biz School (24th @11:30), #95 Fluor Corp (24th @14:22), #96 Veridian (24th @16:02).
 * More importantly, as of today the 24th, you can see there are already 96 people stuck in the queue. You are #91, congratulations.  :-)
 * The queue is serviced by volunteers. However, as you may recall from when we first met, there was recently a big scandal, and that scandal made a lot of the wikipedian regulars (myself included) extra jumpy about undisclosed paid editors.
 * So in a nutshell, nobody is helping with the queue, except for myself and a few other people. There aren't enough people to keep the queue satisfied:  too many customers, not enough helpers.  I'm personally helping half-a-dozen of the open requests in the queue, but that's only about 5% of them, so we need another twenty volunteers like me, just to break even.  Right now, the volunteer-pool is too shallow, metaphorically speaking.
 * Anyways, this is not an uncommon occurrence (being stuck in the queue for days or weeks... the current trouble where the queue is backed up by months actually *is* unusual in my experience).
 * So I tried to prep you, for the actual steps, see detailed instructions here on your userpage -- User_talk:Wscribner
 * We have followed bestPractice#1 by opening a new talkpage section, bestPractice#2 by making a short easy-to-review request, and bestPractice#3 by adding the proper edit_request magic... but we are now, stuck in the queue.
 * Thus, since we first made our edit-request on the 22nd @15:15 GMT (wikipedia is on London-time not on CDT so don't get confused), we are nearly to the 3-days-with-no-help point for that request.
 * See greenbox called "practical practices: the five real steps", which is what we are now going to switch to.
 * We've already completed practicalPracice#1 by adding edit_request, and keeping our request short with practicalPractice#2 is already accomplished. We are about to hit the 3-day-mark specified in practicalPractice#4, for the woodallsCM request.  When we do, which means sometime tonight or tomorrow, you can go ahead and implement practicalPractice#5, which in your situation, means asking User:samtar to give you a hand, since they have helped you out in the past, they might be willing to do so again.  See details at the practical practices step-five in the greenbox.
 * And yes, although I did not mention it, practicalPractice#0 is to make sure and have plenty of caffeine. ;-)      75.108.94.227 (talk) 20:18, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You pinged? What can I do to help? :) samtar (msg) 21:43, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello again, my friend, actually I would like you to pretend that I have NOT pinged you. :-)      I'm trying to explain to Wscribner how to make edit_request work.  They will probably be pinging you tomorrow, with a request for help.  Be firm but fair with them, if you have a bit of time, to help them learn the ropes of make-suggestions-on-the-talkpage-only, type of behavior.  ;-)       How are you doing?  Still enjoying your travels across the 'pedia?  75.108.94.227 (talk) 22:00, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I am indeed, how about you? samtar (msg) 11:02, 30 September 2015 (UTC)


 * p.s. However, waiting around is not the only job we have.  We want to get the tags removed, and there are two things needed,
 * some additional in-depth WP:SOURCES, and
 * some disclosure-tags from User:Dtompos (by them personally).
 * Are you still trying to work on digging up sources, see instructions at step#3?
 * That is what we need to get rid of the tag on NTA_(company), which says may-not-meet-wiki-notability. We have the South Bend Tribune, and ideally we need a couple more like that, in-depth multiparagraph 100% independent WP:SOURCES.
 * Are you about ready to walk Dtompos through the disclosure steps? Per WP:NOSHARING, they do have to login themselves, not give you their password (no sharing passwords).
 * Please have Dtompos login as themselves, and create User:Dtompos which says "Hi I'm Dtompos and I own NTA_(company)" or words to that effect.
 * Next, have User:Dtompos paste the following magic stuff, at the very top, after clicking 'edit' on the Talk:NTA_(company) article-talkpage:
 * That is what we need to get rid of the tag on NTA_(company), which says major-contributor-to-this-article-appears-to-have-a-close-connection. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 20:18, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * That is what we need to get rid of the tag on NTA_(company), which says major-contributor-to-this-article-appears-to-have-a-close-connection. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 20:18, 24 September 2015 (UTC)


 * p.p.s. Last but not least, we are trying to improve the body-prose, and fix up the referencing, for the sources we *do* already have.  We don't have to wait, until our first edit-request has been closed, to open some other additional talkpage sections, with more edit requests.  Right now, there are two things we are in the middle of, with prose-improvements:  we have a  tag on the sentence about IAS/ICC/ISO certs.  You've provided me some details, and I've tried to draft some wiki-neutral yet 100% correct-n-accurate prose, over here -- Talk:NTA_(company).  I'm waiting on you to tell me whether I screwed up, with my latest attempt.  I have an open question about the first sentence of the article, which is here -- Talk:NTA_(company).  Again, please suggest what you think is most accurate, because not being familiar with the industry, I simply don't have a clue which is the best most representative description.  Once we have gotten those knocked out, we can keep on going -- we have the entire prose of the sbTrib source, that needs to be integrated with mainspace, a few sentences at a time.
 * In other words, while we are "waiting" for our open edit-request, we need not be idle, and in fact, it is a bad idea to stay idle, because you forget what tasks were in-progress. Get yourself a little notepad, or a little spreadsheet, or something like that.  Write down a todo-list, with plenty of room for adding dates and checkmarks and such.  Here is the todo-list at the moment:
 * remember to login as Wscribner, so nobody is confused about who the "74.84.114.34" person actually is (after you click edit there is a yellow warning up top that says 'you are not logged in' ... click log_in before you click edit). This one is not really a "checklist item" but since it seems to keep happening, better add it to the top of your list, as a reminder-to-yourself.  :-)
 * woodallsCM sentence. editReq: 9/22.   usertalkReq:  TBD on 9/25, iff nobody has replied before then.  teahouseReq: TBD on 9/30, iff nobody has replied before then.
 * accreditation tag. editReq:  TBD, answer question from 75.108 first.
 * first sentence of lede. editReq:  TBD, answer question from 75.108 first.
 * remove wiki-notability tag. editReq:  TBD, first must dig up some additional in-depth multiparagraph 100% independent WP:SOURCES to help satisfy WP:42
 * remove wiki-coi tag. editReq:  TBD, first must teach User:Dtompos how to create their own userpage and add themselves as a connected_contributor to the article-talkpage
 * sbTrib sentences. editReq:  TBD, first Wscribner should read the first 5 sentences of the sbTrib source, and then Wscribner should attempt to write up a wiki-neutral edit-request summarizing those first 5 sentences of the sbTrib, after which 75.108 will critique the attempt.  As gently as possible.  :-)
 * Make sense? Once you have dug up some additional source, such as Chicago Sun-Times from 1983 or whatever, then we'll add that one to the bottom of our todo-list.  We can work on all the steps in parallel, as long as we have a nice clean checklist to keep track of what steps are at what stage, we'll be fine.  Consider it good training, for the multi-tasking you have to do at work, on your other jobs.  ;-)      75.108.94.227 (talk) 20:18, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello
Left you a note :)70.194.98.30 (talk) 16:10, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User talk:75.108.94.227/Jigsaw (video game) userfied
User talk:75.108.94.227/Jigsaw (video game) userfied, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:75.108.94.227/Jigsaw (video game) userfied and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of User talk:75.108.94.227/Jigsaw (video game) userfied during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Ricky81682 (talk) 22:00, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

advice
I will be considerably more willing to discuss your suggestions on-wiki if I know which editor you are or were. You very obviously were not a new editor on July 10, 2015. And it is also very obvious that you have important things to say here. But for what I think are obvious reasons I will not get involved in a discussion of paid editing with someone whom I can not identify; I consider it to have too great a possibility for finding myself in an untenable position, as has happened to me once or twice before. You can get in touch with me by confidence in whatever manner you please. If you can't figure out how, let me know here or on my talk page. Confidentiality is of course promised.  DGG ( talk ) 02:17, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you are correct, I am a long-term wikipedian, but I've never had an account. Well, technically, I made an account once, the first time I wanted to submit a new article (this was after anon-creation ended) which was called literally something like "User:temporaryUser25983227" or the like, but although I previewed my rough draft I never actually saved any edits from that name, since shortly after creating it I found the wizard that led to AfC.  ...and moreover, being my first article, my idea did not comply with WP:42, so I ended up not writing the hypothetical article.  :-)      I have edited under a long series of anon-IP accounts, but I purposely don't keep track of the past ones, so although I could probably dredge up one or maybe two of the more recent ones, by looking for pages where I remember editing, it is not possible to provide you with all my former user_talk pages.  In any case, since they are all IP addresses, and I have never revealed my name/employment/facebookHandle/etc on-wiki, it seems unlikely that you would consider that to be "someone whom you could identify" in any concrete fashion.  I can say that I've never been paid or otherwise compensated to edit, and have never edits wikipedia pages of any employer / family / friend of mine (with the exception of people I met via and know purely and solely from on-wiki interaction such as Harry Braun and Ron Schnell), if that makes a difference.  Anyways, as far as your offer to chat in confidence, if you would like we can open an IRC channel, and I will try to mitigate your worries about getting painted into an untenable position, which I do appreciate is a non-negligible concern; my thanks for you asking me in such a polite manner.  :-)      I am going to be in and out today doing off-wiki stuff, but I can be found as nick user75108 at the  from time to time, and will try to stay visible there today when I am available, though my computer sometimes closes the channel when it sleep-modes. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 12:48, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Ping User:DGG, which apparently I forgot to do last time. :-)      Is the suggested IRC option useful to your goal here?  I see you have other contact info posted, but since I'm already in IRC that is fastest/easiest/whatever-manner.  Let me know if that is taboo for whatever reason.  I am around for the next hour or so, and will be in and out much of today with any luck.  75.108.94.227 (talk) 13:46, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I do not use IRC. It combines the worst of all discussion media: over-rapid response, anonymous participation, and a permanent record if anyone cares to log. I'll make life simple, I usually use dgoodmanny and i use google.com. FWIW, I think I could figure out some of your other IPs--your style is as distinctive as my own.  DGG ( talk ) 00:25, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * (Talk page stalker) FWIW, I've found 75.108 to be trustworthy and a valuable contributor to Wikipedia :) samtar (msg) 17:57, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks talkstalk, appreciated. ;-)      But DGG has a whole bunch of concerns that are outside my actual contributions, mostly future-related concerns (but also a few past ones no doubt), which come with being an arb... such folks have to worry if they will be stuck recusing from arb-cases, or if they will get painted into a corner some other way.  It is a horrible job, and we are lucky that DGG is willing to do it, but DGG's caution is part and parcel of "doing the job" of arb.
 * In particular, because I work the political articles mostly (all of which are 'controversial' in the arbcom sense and some of which are controversial in every sense e.g. the top-level abortion article and the USPE, 2016 stuff I'm slowly fiddling with), and also computer-science-related stuff like Danko the neuroscience prof (not 'controversial' to arbcom presently... but per the new post-orangemoody-COI-mood on-wiki... quite likely computer-science-and-smallbiz-stuff may lead to arbcom cases in the future similar to the GMO/Monsanto case currently running), plus the BLP-articles that I run into via AfC/IRC/AfD/etc (and as of a recent arbcom thing all *those* ~1.2 million articles are under arbcom-imposed discretionary sanctions as well) ... well, quite frankly, plenty of those are wiki-minefields, and DGG just wants to make extra-sure of being on firm footing. Which I also fully appreciate.  :-)      75.108.94.227 (talk) 18:21, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Anyways, ping User:DGG....
 * Those are the reasons I use IRC.
 * Oddly enough. :-)
 * Very similar characteristics to wikipedia talkpages, actually, though the permanent record (subject to rare oversight and page-deletion and such) is o'course automagic for talkspace, and the over-rapid-response factor is somewhat missing... though there is a wiki-PAG-page about WP:EDITCONFLICT that proves even talkspace is 'over-rapid' by some definition of that phrase. I've often wondered if automagic page-throttling, where a page-specific server-side delay was inserted just prior to each comment being 'save'-inserted into said page, starting at 100 milliseconds delay for the first comment of the week, and doubling the inserted-delay-before-save, for every subsequent comment made during that week, before resetting the delay-parameter for the next week's worth of comments to that page, could make AN/I a nicer place for instance.  Naaah.
 * And, yes, my style in the past few years is distinctive, though for many years I was entirely a creature of mainspace and thus had no 'talkpage style' to speak of (albeit my edit-summary-style was the same), back before wikipedia became overburdened with wiki-bureaucracy-but-do-not-dare-call-it-that-by-that-name. I don't think we've ever interacted directly with each other before, but I'm 99.4% positive I've commented on AfD and/or AfC related discussions, where elsewhere on the same page you had also commented, beforehand or afterhand.  So mayhap you will know me, by my stylistic approach, from my pre-July-2015 usertalks, and with any luck will have your worries assuaged.  Or multiplied and confirmed, as may be the case, depending on your specific unstated worries.  :-)      In any case, whatever you decide, appreciate the work you do here, though sometimes I disagree with you on long-term best-practices strategy.  Best, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 18:21, 6 October 2015 (UTC)


 * What I am concerned about compromising myself is in giving support to somebody who turns out to be an editor with an agenda incompatible with WP, and this problem arose long before I joined arbcom DGG ( talk ) 01:07, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Which is perfectly fair. My 'agenda' is probably too strong a word for it, but my 'on-wiki goals' are pretty straightforward:  I want to see WP:GNG enforced, as written.  I want to see WP:NICE enforced, as written.  Per WP:CGTW, certainly I don't expect such wondrous things to occur in practice, but I think those are the primary goals, and compatible with pillar two and pillar four.  I'm against copyvio and in favor of libre licensing, so I'm a fan of pillar three.  I'm a big fan of WP:IAR and have a strong allergic reaction to WP:BURO.  Finally, I want to see pillar one, which is to say, I want this website to be a collaborative anyone-including-anons-can-edit source of boring dry cold hard just-the-facts material backed by the wiki-reliable sources, no wiki-gangs defending wiki-turf of any sort and as little digital one-up-(wo)man-ship as plausible, resulting in pretty decent articles with very decent refs, suitable for use by the top-decile of the readership and 'adequate' for use by all but the bottom quartile of said readership, which means as a corollary I'm in favor of a much larger editor-base than we have presently, and a much less byzantine slash draconian wiki-culture.  I think template-messages are evil, abusefilters should always be set for stun, and the WP:PAG-beyond-the-pillars are a self-imposed trap.
 * Most of my time and effort on-wiki are spent training other wikipedians to survive the current harsh wiki-culture, and the rest is spent editing in places I think are troubled... but not so troubled as to be intractable, such as fundraising for potus'16 but not israel-palestine, and the top-level abortion article but not the planned parenthood article. I also apply the same triage-rule of troubled-but-not-yet-intractable to talkspace:  AfC/AfD are worth saving, but avoid AN/I as a general rule (and have mixed results with RfC), though the best results are invariably gained via two-way or three-way conversations on usertalk.  I avoid personal and professional COI myself, but encourage others who have it to stick around, follow the bright line rule, and become long-term wikipedians, per my larger goals above related to anyone-can-edit and helping fix the trouble-zones.
 * My main goal the past few years, on-wiki, is to STOP spending so much time training folks to survive the wiki-jungle, by making it less of a jungle, and more of a friendly place where folks help each other improve-qua-improve the encyclopedia-qua-encyclopedia, in a common sense fashion. I'm used to disappointment.  :-)
 * Now of course, my off-wiki persona necessarily is painted in bolder colors than my on-wiki cloak of neutrality and quasi-anonymity: I have favorites in the political arena, I have stances on which consumer brands are the best, I think specific cutting-edge theories in neuroscience are likely true and certain other theories are likely false, I collect cheques for my off-wiki work, I think my gramma is the best cook in the world, and so on and so forth.  But I keep that stuff off-wiki, and on-wiki strive to always keep my cool and follow the trifecta.  Anyways, I'll dig up my known history for your review, and answer what I consider to be the Obvious Questions; but to be frank, I didn't expect a discussion of what-is-the-true-nature-of-wikipedia was one of those questions, so you may have to give me some more hints.  ;-)      Best, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 03:07, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Ron Schnell has a new comment
 I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Ron Schnell. Thanks! LaMona (talk) 19:24, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: T. Nejat Veziroğlu (October 7)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by SwisterTwister was:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:T. Nejat Veziroğlu and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:T._Nejat_Veziro%C4%9Flu Articles for creation help desk] or on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SwisterTwister&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:T._Nejat_Veziro%C4%9Flu reviewer's talk page].
 * You can also get Wikipedia's Live Help real-time chat help from experienced editors.

SwisterTwister  talk  07:18, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Ping User:DGG, are you still working on this re-write of the U.Miami prof that Harry Braun passed along, or should I resubmit the draft? Apparently enough pieces remained the same, that I retain this IP-anon still.  Best, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 03:50, 11 October 2015 (UTC)


 * thanks. I'll get there tomorrow.  DGG ( talk ) 03:45, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

ping from Wscribner (talk) 18:02, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Stepping back: I was looking over some of the previous "coaching" you were giving me, and I realized you had asked what ICC-ES stands for. It is a company, and it stands for International Code Council - Evaluation Service. They are similar to us. However, it is a "subsidiary", so to speak, of the ICC (International Code Council). The ICC develops building codes for all kinds of construction in the U.S. You can read more about them at http://www.iccsafe.org/, or their evaluation service at http://www.icc-es.org/. Wscribner (talk) 18:02, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I figured out most of that stuff eventually, but ES == "Evaluation Service" was the bit I was missing. So it looks like IAS founded 1975 aka iasOnline.org is a nonprofit subsidiary of the ICC aka iccSafe.org, and ICC-ES founded-by-merger in 2003 is another nonprofit subsidiary of the ICC aka iccSafe.org -- IAS provides evidence that NTA is certified-to-certify, and ICC-ES provided competitive certify-services?  And the parent-corp ICC provides and sells the model-building-code documentation, which it all revolves around, since a large-but-unspecified-percentage of municipal building code regulations (with Chicago as a notable exception), make the ICC building codes a de jure requirement.  Interestingly, there is not ICC article, just an article about the International Building Code.  Feel like helping write the ICC article?
 * But, that said, what about my other question, right before the one about the meaning of ICC-ES, as to whether the new&improved sentence was actually an improvement? The point of my question about ICC-ES, was that we were trying to remove the vague-tag from mainspace for the accreditation-stuff, but I don't want to replace a vague-but-true sentence with a specific-albeit-inaccurately-specific sentence.  :-)      Please see my suggested new&improved sentence here, Talk:NTA_(company), and check whether it is buggy or badly phrased or otherwise needs help, before I put the new&improved sentence in mainspace.  75.108.94.227 (talk) 20:49, 13 October 2015 (UTC)