User talk:Aviators99

Welcome! (We can't say that loudly enough!) Hello, Aviators99, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:
 * Be Bold!
 * Learn from others
 * Play nicely with others
 * Contribute, Contribute, Contribute!
 * Tell us a bit about yourself

If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page. Or, please come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type   on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Please sign your name on talk pages and votes by typing &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;; our software automatically converts it to your username and the date.

We're so glad you're here! NcSchu ( Talk ) 00:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 03:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Signature
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! NcSchu ( Talk ) 15:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Virgin America Arbitration Request Filed
Hi. Please be informed that an arbitration request has been filed for Virgin America regarding the LAX focus city dispute in which you have been included as an involved party. Best Regards 45Factoid44 (talk) 02:16, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Comments on Virgin America
In order to maintain fairness in how comments are recorded, I have refactored your comment to place it below the comments heading, and added "(point 3) to it to indicate what you were commenting on. Mayalld (talk) 10:22, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

March 2009
Please do not removed reliably-sourced information like you did in this edit on Virgin America without a valid reason. Reporting by a news outlet such as the Wall Street Journal (which easily fits and probably defines the category of 'reliable source') on something as significant as investors selling their stakes in an airline is certainly encyclopedic, and your reasoning for removing this content does not fit any Wikipedia guideline and to be honest sounds like an attempt to censor the article from what could be bad press. Regards, NcSchu ( Talk ) 22:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The Wall Street Journal is certainly a 'reliable source', but they do not present this information as fact. They quote 'sources'.  In fact, the company denies it.  You actually think this to be encyclopedic?Ron Schnell 23:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The company is free to deny it. However the information is relevant, and should be included on the page. Neo16287 (talk) 04:45, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It's certainly encyclopedic, especially given the sensitivity over investors in the company. There's no policy stating that official company press releases are the only legitimate sources of this type of information. Also, sorry about tagging the edit as vandalism, that was actually a mistake when I used Twinkle to revert the edit; I did mean to put an edit comment. Regards, NcSchu ( Talk ) 06:33, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * PS - Sorry about my edit summary. I found the article you were citing. When I clicked on the cite redirect at the bottom of the page, it bumped me back up to the sentence being cited. Thus, I thought it was a loop. Nothing personal! Neo16287 (talk) 13:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The Current edit is close enough. In the first 30 seconds, although Cush says he won't comment on private matters, he does, in fact, state that "the US investors still own 76%".

File source problem with File:Sfohub.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Sfohub.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 01:12, 9 September 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ww2censor (talk) 01:12, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Dunnet
Your comment on my talk page was not deleted but moved to the bottom, where new talk page messages go. Please revert your edit. – czar   05:44, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

more Dunnet
Hi Ron, I've left you a message over at the AfD page. Several messages actually... and from hitting your userpage before coming to your usertalk, it still looks like you are having sig-related issues (sinebot will follow you around until and unless you have a bluelinked talkpage in your sig ... however note that you cannot test your sig properly on your own userpage because sinebot has been programmed to mostly ignore how you sign or fail to sign your OWN talkpages). I've given some troubleshooting pointers at the AfD page, though we should probably only discuss that sinebot-stuff further on our usertalk pages, rather than at AfD. The more serious problems are, first of all, do you have additional in-depth multi-paragraph-specifically-talking-about-Dunnet refs, whether online or off, so long as they had a publisher with some editorial oversight, or were academia-related, or government-websites, or the like? Second of all, there has been some complaining at reddit, which is a big no-no at AfD since it tends to convert a reasoned discussion into a beauty contest slash shouting match -- are/were you aware of the reddit thing, and do you understand the no-meatpuppet-rules and their applicability to an AfD discussion? I expect that Dunnet will be preserved, one way or the other, but it will help if the current variety of distractions can be kept to a minimum. I'm happy to help explain the wiki-verse to you, if you have questions about whatever, please ping my usertalk. Thanks, talk to you later. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 05:24, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Link to the page in question: Articles_for_deletion/Dunnet_(video_game).  Note how my signature above is double-bluelinked, to contribs and to usertalk.  Your sig needs to be double-bluelinked to userpage and usertalk, for sinebot to recognize you as correct, plus needs to be dated.  I believe you had it figured out when you posted over on Draft_talk:Dunnet (video game) since it looked bluelinked enough to me.  Note, however, that that draftspace article is merely a backup of the one in mainspace (which is still live at the moment pending the outcome of the AfD ongoing).  As the game-author you should not really directly edit Dunnet in mainspace, but you can edit freely in draftspace, and/or suggest edits on the Talk:Dunnet (video game) page, and/or suggest edits on my usertalk page, which I'll make if I agree and have the gumption.  That's the proper way to deal with WP:COI stuff.  There are also request-an-edit templates that ping a watchlist of helpful editors, which I've used before when getting past pagelocks and such things; more on those thinks later, though.  75.108.94.227 (talk) 05:36, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi there. To answer your implied reddit question: No.  I did not know about it until someone tweeted about it, and then I basically posted what amounts to a "thank you" for some of the kind words that some people said.  Nothing has been posted to Wikipedia on the afd page since then.  I'm not a frequent reddit user.  As far as your other question goes, I haven't really done an exhaustive search regarding published works, but have been following the stuff on the afd page and it seems like others are doing a better job than I could possibly do.  I can tell you that there is an additional book not yet published that talks about it extensively, but it will not help here (especially since I'm not permitted to discuss it).  It will be months before it comes out.  Thanks for your interest in this stuff and for helping me out with the signature stuff. Ron Schnell 19:41, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Ron, sure; thanks for the reply, and sorry to have to skirt the edges of implying naughtiness! Wikipedians are supposed to assume good faith, aka be WP:NICE to each other, but that is not always easy to achieve in practice, especially at the article-for-deletion portion of the wikiverse.  I knew that you weren't the screaming-memes person, from obvious clues in their english-patterns and their uid-chronology, but it's better to get such out cleanly, so no implications positive nor negative cloud the air.  In any case, along those same lines, it will help the AfD-closer-person, who evaluates whether keep-votes and merge-votes and delete-votes should or should not be weighted by mitigating circumstances, if you can post a one-liner at the AfD saying that you were not aware of the external thread, and that you did not initiate it, but that you did learn about it subsequently (and link to your thank-you-note).  You need not attempt to prove the negative, of course, simply stating the facts is enough.  (Never mind, I see you already did that, bravo.)
 * As for the sinebot stuff, you are welcome. It is a helpful feature, but it is also a bit of a pain, and closed source besides.  Some of the design decisions are not what I would have picked, for certain, but wikipedia is definitely better with it than without it.
 * The upcoming book actually is a helpful tidbit, as long as (1) it contains in-depth multi-paragraph stuff specifically about Dunnet, as opposed to about text adventures generally or about eLisp generally or whatnot, and (2) that it is subject to some kind of professional editorial oversight, as opposed to a self-published eBook-PDF on a blogger's website (unless in some cases that blogger happens to themselves be wiki-notable). Are you permitted to reveal the name of the publisher, and/or, the name of the author?  If so, that may improve the chances at AfD slightly.  If not, the AfD may still proceed to the outcome that myself and User:ImperfectlyInformed believe is correct, which is a keep-vote.  In the 'worst' case, Dunnet will be temporarily redirected to text_adventure, or confined to draftspace even (although that is DEFINITELY not what policy says should happen).  However, once the book is released, the WP:N can of worms can be immediately re-opened, and the mainspace article recreated.  Wikipedia is annoying, nowadays, because there is a lot of make-work spent in talkspace, which could better be spent in article-space.  At least, theoretically; the practice of gaining and proving consensus is slow and often drama-filled, but does seem to produce a pretty useful encyclopedia (or at least specific useful articles thereof) iteratively over time.  Anyways, try not to sweat this AfD stuff, is my main point; it will all work out in the end, although "the end" might not come until the book you mentioned is released.  (Actually, it occurs to me that the upcoming memoir you mention on your website and the upcoming book with Dunnet content might be one and the same -- if that is the case, then the material can be used 'with care' by an uninvolved editor like myself in the article per WP:ABOUTSELF, but the info would not count towards satisfaction of WP:N since it would be by the game-author.  That said, if your book is reviewed, and the independent reviewers cover the Dunnet portions, or even better, more videogame-press on Dunnet results as 'collateral damage' from the book-release, then in the end it is the same deal, we end up with some independent in-depth sources to firm up the case for wiki-notability.)
 * Speaking of sources, as the author of Dunnet you are more likely to have noticed in-depth sources that myself, e.g. the upcoming book. I have experience wringing WP:RS and especially WP:NOTEWORTHY out of googling around, and using archive.org / webcite / archive.is, but what I don't have access to is a university-research-class hardcopy library for pre-1998-or-so stuff.  You mentioned that the OSX zines cover Dunnet "about once a year", but if so, the internet has no memory of it, except 2005*two and 2013*threeOrFour.  It will help if you can show repeated multi-paragraph coverage of Dunnet, across the years.  It will also help if somebody published a game-review of Dunnet in the 1980s or early 1990s, when it first started shipping with emacs -- either in a publication like e.g. The Dragon (editor Gary Gygax of AD&D fame), or even in a USENET posting by Some Famous Lisp Wizard, for instance.  Do you know of anything like that?  I looked, but I'm limited by distance in time, and *amount* of time the digging takes.  If not, no problem and we'll still probably see a keep-vote, but if so, it will definitely help.  p.s. As a Dunnet-specific question, when did you change from the free-license-but-noncommercial-only, to using the GPL for dunnet.el codebase?  75.108.94.227 (talk) 20:49, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yep, they are one and the same. I don't have the specific Mac articles handy.  I know they happen because there's a spike in fanmail about once per year when it happens.  ("I read about your easter egg...").  In terms of license.  my recollection is that the Maclisp version in 1983 had a vanilla Copyright heading with no specific license terms spelled out.  Then I think when I rewrote it in Elisp and posted it to Usenet I probably had my typical language, which reads "Permission to use however you want as long as the author's name remains attached".  Then rms called about making it part of the distribution and eventually convinced me.  He had me sign some stuff and he took care of the wording.Ron Schnell 20:59, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

chronology of licensing, would like to know which month in 1993?

 * Okay, so was this in 1994, when Dunnet first started appearing in the GNU Emacs manual? I found a usenet link to when (it looks like) you first released the eLisp port of Dunnet, but at the time it was specifically called out as being "not part of Emacs", and I couldn't find the date when Dunnet officially became part of Emacs, and the date (potentially different) at which Dunnet became GPL'd.  75.108.94.227 (talk) 21:42, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

To: gnu.emacs.sources Subj: dunnet - text adventure for e-lisp (1/3) From: Ron Schnell Date: 7/28/92


 * Copyright (C) 1992 by Ron Schnell
 * (ron...@eddie.mit.edu)


 * This software is not part of GNU Emacs.


 * It is distributed in the hope that it will be fun.
 * It is without any warranty. No author or distributor
 * accepts responsibility to anyone for the consequences of using it
 * or for whether it serves any particular purpose, or works at all.


 * Everyone is granted permission to copy, modify, and redistribute
 * this software, but only so long as it is not for commercial
 * purposes.


 * This file must be distributed along with all copies, in an unmodified
 * form.
 * That looks right. I don't know exactly when dunnet.el became "distributed" as part of GNU Emacs, but I'm fairly sure it was 1993 when I had the phone call and signed the document(s) agreeing to do it.  I did not have access to the code base at the time, so I don't know how long it took to become integrated. Ron Schnell 23:03, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, if you have the paperwork somewhere accessible (or if it has been digitized), if it's not too much trouble please look up the date you signed. That is the point in time that the codebase became GPL'd.  I'm interested because Dunnet may have been one of the first games to be GPL'd, or failing that, one of the first RPG-style-games.  It sort of depends on how you classify the pre-GPL-2 licensing flavors that RMS used for the early stuff; the GNU Manifesto was out in Mar'85 with GNU Emacs publicly released that same year, then five years later Lucid Emacs was forked in 1991 ... and sometime during those intervening years, the original Emacs/Gcc license(s) evolved into the GPLv1 circa Feb'89, and then shortly thereafter GPLv2+LGPLv2 in Jun'91.  Linux came out in Aug'91/Oct'91, but was not GPLv2'd until sometime in 1992 (I think March-ish).  Anyways, I'd be interested in the changeover date for Dunnet, to see where it fits in the overall chronology.  75.108.94.227 (talk) 01:49, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * * Emacs v18.53 dated 23 Feb 1989. (this is, presumably , the version of Emacs/eLisp to which Dunnet was first ported, since it had been out for almost 3 years prior to the July 1992 code-dump to USENET.)
 * * Emacs v18.59 dated 31 Oct 1992. (at this point in Oct'92 Dunnet was neither GPL'd nor integrated with the Emacs-app-distribution-pkg, but the eLisp port of Dunnet *was* being distributed for-noncommercial-use via USENET.)
 * * Emacs v19.07 dated 22 May 1993. (by implication this is an 'unofficial' v19 release, aka v19_beta, and Dunnet *may* have been included, but may not.)
 * * Emacs v19.28 dated 01 Nov 1994. First official v19 release. multi-frame using X, font-lock mode, hexl mode, vc.el, etc.  (Dunnet was almost certainly included here, because Dunnet *is* mentioned in the 1994 GNU Emacs Manual paperback book, but it would be nice to get confirmation -- in the form of an email or a rather than just going with an assumption.)
 * Listed above are the release-dates that wikipedia believes existed, see GNU Emacs. I *think* Emacs was most commonly distributed via FTP by then, and not on 9-track-tape-reels via USPS, but don't know for sure.  I do know that not every site was using Emacs v19 in 1994, because I remember using old-school-1992-era-non-X-ized Emacs v18 that year.  Anyways, for wikipedia purposes, it would be nice to know what month Dunnet was GPL'd, and if possible, whether it shipped with v19.7 in May 1993, or with v19.28 in Nov'94, or maybe with Some Other Release (i.e. an Emacs release not documented by wikipedia yet).  These are non-crucial factoids, but I like to get them hammered out, when possible.  Plenty of wikipedia articles just say "and then such and such, and later so and so" without giving specific dates -- even when the specific dates *are* available.  Pet peeve of mine.  75.108.94.227 (talk) 00:05, 22 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Found something interesting just now :-)

From rms@gnu.ai.mit.edu Wed Jul 29 16:11:25 1992 Return-Path:  Received: from mole.gnu.ai.mit.edu by EDDIE.MIT.EDU with SMTP (5.65/25-eef) id AA20849; Wed, 29 Jul 92 16:11:12 -0400 Received: by mole.gnu.ai.mit.edu (5.65/4.0) id ; Wed, 29 Jul 92 16:10:38 -0400 Date: Wed, 29 Jul 92 16:10:38 -0400 From: rms@gnu.ai.mit.edu (Richard Stallman) Message-Id: <9207292010.AA23507@mole.gnu.ai.mit.edu> To: ronnie@eddie.mit.edu In-Reply-To: <1992Jul29.012337.19018@eddie.mit.edu> (ronnie@eddie.mit.edu) Subject: dunnet - text adventure for e-lisp (1/3) Status: R

(( temporarily removing three paragraphs here, per wiki-stickler-adherence to the most strict imaginable reading of WP:COPYVIO. )) (( though of course, the reality of the situation suggests that a 1992 email, sent by the inventor of the GFDL, would prolly be under the GFDL.... )) (( leaving machine-generated-metadata, since that is not copyrightable material .... hmmmm )) (( except, now that Oracle v Google failed to be taken up by the SCOTUS, the rfc722 API probably *is* copyripatented, by ISI/USC maybe? ))

It doesn't give the answer to the question you were asking, but it might be of use. Ron Schnell 02:33, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's cool. It gives us a tidbit for the article, about when negotiations to switch from gratis-but-non-commercial over to the GPL (though RMS doesn't use that acronym there *was* a GPL by July 1992).  So this gives us the date when RMS became interested, and asked for copyright-assignment.  And although it is an email, it is by a Famous Person, and that makes it interesting as a potential in-depth-WP:RS.  We don't technically need such any more, but it does plausibly help shore up wiki-notability.  Until now, the only published stuff we had from the Emacs folks was the two-mentions in the Emacs manual.  This shows more interest; RMS didn't play the game (yet), but he read your license and noticed the GPL incompatibility, and read enough of the codebase to see you were using crypt.el (was this before the changeover to ROT13? or is that the 'encryption' that crypt.el implemented?) and also that the code was high-enough-quality for inclusion with emacs (though he also wanted the game to be popular/fun enough as a third pre-condition).  Good find, and as a bonus, pretty cool.  :-)      And relevant to our other conversation about the MacLisp codebase, you were still getting email to your MIT-EDDIE account, on which the MacLisp port resided, in 1992... was the MacLisp code still on the system, at that point in time, when you did the port to eLisp?  If we try to find a backup-tape, getting one from 1992 will be exponentially easier than getting one from 1983, one would guess. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 03:34, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The relevant snipped portion, under the 'view history' button for this page, is found at "03:45, 5 August 2015‎".  75.108.94.227 (talk) 03:46, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I still receive e-mail at MIT-EDDIT (eddie.mit.edu). EDDIE was not a DEC-20, though.  It was a UNIX box. (See http://www.driver-aces.com/ronnie.html and the section about MIT-EDDIE vs MIT-EDIE).  Maclisp Dunnet never ran on Eddie (nor Edie).  It ran on MIT-EECS (and possibly MIT-OZ). I recall now that I originally used crypt.el, which was a "proper" encryption library; not ROT13.  I changed it to use ROT13 to make rms happy. Ron Schnell 03:59, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, and RFC722 is not an "API" under any definition. Ron Schnell 04:01, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Did just find a "fan mail" from August 26 1994 that implies that it was already in emacs. Ron Schnell 04:08, 5 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Okay, here's from emacs 19.17 CHANGELOG, dated July 19, 1993:

Changes in version 19.17. [SNIP], fair use, blah blah * Dunnet, an adventure game, is now available. [SNIP] Also, in the same file: Tue Jul 13 01:51:31 1993 Richard Stallman  (rms@mole.gnu.ai.mit.edu) [SNIP] * dunnet.el: Many functions and variables renamed. [SNIP] Fri Jul 9 00:04:12 1993  Richard Stallman  (rms@mole.gnu.ai.mit.edu) [SNIP] * dunnet.el: New file. [SNIP] Ron Schnell 04:28, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I tried to find the old changelogs, and my googling-fu was not strong enough. Nice work.  Using the quotations you provide, I found an online URL for the info (not mandatory but always makes WP:V easier for uninvolved coi-edit-reviewers).  We also have a reasonably-good picture of the ivory-tower model of software distribution:  codebase released on the interwebz mid-1992, codebase committed into central repo mid-1993, helpdocs published as a dead-tree book in late-1994.  :-)      Whereas nowadays, twenty years later, you get to "released on the interwebz" and that basically IS the entire release-cycle story.  75.108.94.227 (talk) 12:52, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * And in some cases, 'released to the interwebz' was also the whole story back in 1993... emacs-beta for WinNT was upgraded to support the v19.17 unix-features as of 3rd Dec 1993. Presumably (WP:OR) that is the date when dunnet.el was first available on msft OSes, too.  75.108.94.227 (talk) 13:31, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

explanation of Wyrmis, very in-depth and useful, but as WP:BLOGS with a non-famous author, not qualified as WP:N-proof nor as WP:RS, but useful for uncontroversial factoids

 * Is this review useful? http://www.wyrmis.com/games/if/dunnet.html Ron Schnell 21:03, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * This is WP:BLOG so it is not useful at AfD to prove wiki-notability, but it is useful for gap-filling. We cannot quote the reference-librarian-blogger as a WP:RS saying "The other big difference, and the one that greatly increased both my annoyance with and my enjoyment of the game, revolves around the two-three computer oriented scenes in the game."  It is flat-out true that he said it, but because he's not professionally edited, somebody can later delete that, because it is a non-wiki-notable-opinion-potentially-likely-to-be-challenged.  However, we *can* pull important stuff from it:  for instance, the fact that Dunnet has some "computer oriented scenes" where the player is expected to figure out how to type some UNIX CLI stuff, some DOS CLI stuff, and use a CLI-based FTP client.  Those things are non-contentious details of the gameplay/plot, which we can include in the mainspace article, using wyrmis as a 'note' via the Template:efn (as opposed to a 'cite' via the ref-tags).  See Jigsaw (video game) for an example of what I mean.  75.108.94.227 (talk) 21:42, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

BluzeAndMuse, FLOSS blog

 * Also, this article names a programming style after me (w.r.t. dunnet): http://www.bluzeandmuse.com/final_site/how_to.html . Not sure if I would consider it scholarly, though. Ron Schnell 21:12, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I have not heard of this, will check it out. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 21:42, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * This one has two problems. First, it is largely-anonymous and a blog, giving only the first name and last initial, no indication of editorial oversight, no indication of street address or similar legal entity (the idea being that a publisher who puts their reputation on the line thataway will be more careful about fact-checking).  The second problem, is that although you are mentioned by name, and a specific programming-technique is attributed to you, the article never mentions Dunnet, and never mentions anything specifically about the Dunnet.el codebase (or MacLisp or JS variants) that I could tell.  If some of the code-snippets were FROM one of the Dunnet-ports, then a case could be made (pretty well with the Schnell-namedrops) that the article *is* actually about Dunnet.  But failing that, it becomes exactly what it appears to be:  an article about python programming, and specifically programming text adventures in python, which references some programming techniques used by programmer Ron Schnell (presumably -- but the article does not so state -- in the course of his own text adventure programming efforts).  Even if it is the case that Dunnet uses negInts for non-movable in-game-objects, and pozInts for ones you can pick up, as wikipedians we are not allowed to put two and two together, but must reflect what the sources say.  Of course, that means the wiki-reliable sources, which unless I'm missing something, the BluzeAndMuse content is not.  Were it to be republished by the ACM, or by some university page (not a university homepage tho), as an academic paper... or equivalently, published by pcMagazine or Linux.com or Wired some tech-industry publication ... then magically, the very same content would become wiki-reliable.  WP:RS is important for keeping wikipedians sane; it helps us keep to a relatively-quantifiable dicussion of 'what do the mainstream-obviously-reliable sources say' rather than arguing about qualitative 'looks non-notable to me' type of stuff.  Make sense?  75.108.94.227 (talk) 22:50, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yep. Ron Schnell 23:03, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

a few more potential refs, mostly covered in other subsections of this page

 * Another *potential* reason references may be hard to find is that some people call the game "Dead end". This mistake is due to the fact that it is the description of the first "room" and people think it's the name of the game.  I'm trying to sift through the results for "dead end" -dunnet, but there's a lot there that is not relevant.  I remember that at least one of the print magazine articles made this mistake, but haven't found it yet. Ron Schnell 21:31, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, personally I always just called it 'adventure' and for many years believed that 'the emacs adventure' and the 'colossal cave adventure' were one and the same game. :-)  I don't think the emacs menu-entry ever made it clear that the game you were playing was called 'dunnet by ron schnell' although the emacs helpdocs were always very clear on both points.  My trick has been to look for the phrase "get shovel" which almost all the in-depth sources will likely include.  75.108.94.227 (talk) 21:51, 19 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Here's a Google Books reference that is multiple paragraphs: https://books.google.com/books?id=YzHnDWvrGFAC&pg=PA101&lpg=PA101&dq=%22emacs+%5C-batch+%5C-l+dunnet%22&source=bl&ots=5spAGuITwN&sig=kZnGDTXG6aJlrq2a0XY156UC3_w&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CEYQ6AEwBzgKahUKEwjBuJjSk-jGAhUPmYgKHbFBBYU#v=onepage&q=%22emacs%20%5C-batch%20%5C-l%20dunnet%22&f=false Ron Schnell 21:38, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Got it, see below. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 21:51, 19 July 2015 (UTC)


 * This is multi-paragraph. Not sure if it's already been mentioned: http://www.maclife.com/article/columns/terminal_101_4_emacs_easter_eggs Ron Schnell 21:40, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Got it, see below. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 21:51, 19 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Not sure if this one is multi-paragraph: http://www.tech.de/ratgeber/easter-eggs-im-terminal-1001702.html Ron Schnell 21:42, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Not seen this, will check it out.  75.108.94.227 (talk) 21:51, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * This one is very helpful, see long analysis below (or just skip that and see one-liner summarization I made at the AfD page). 75.108.94.227 (talk) 22:50, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Interesting. There have been a bunch of Japanese tweets about it over the years, so I wonder if there are some Japanese articles. Hopefully I can look later tonight. I had a big block of time earlier because I was on a flight with WiFi... Ron Schnell 23:03, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

komaba.sodan.ecc.u-tokyo.ac.jp in Japanese

 * Here's a Japanese article. I have no idea at all what the site is, so maybe not WP:RS.  Really hard for me to tell.  http://komaba.sodan.ecc.u-tokyo.ac.jp/2002/article/tips/leisure/ Ron Schnell 23:45, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * DotJP means japan, and dotAC means academia -- thus *.ac.jp is the equivalent of *.edu for the USA. Will have to run machine-transmushilator to see if the site is a user-homepage, or something more useful, but might well be valuable.  I'll check it out.  75.108.94.227 (talk) 01:49, 20 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Okay, from what I can gather this is not what wikipedia considers an academia-ref. Here is the homepage of the group,  The videogame review of Dunnet was written by one of the ECCS Tutors, a group of helpdesk consultants that service the library and campus, as part of the IT Center within U.Tokyo -- not professors, in other words, but mostly schoolkids hired to help the other schoolkids with their technology woes.  So like our other in-depth but-not-really-WP:RS videogame reviews, this one becomes useful only for unlikely-to-be-challenged material, such as plot and the like.


 * * date= 07-Nov-2003
 * * author= www-sodan-admin@sodan.ecc.u-tokyo.ac.jp
 * * publisher= ECCS Tutors group (Educational Campus-wide Computing System), IT Center (helpdesk), U.Tokyo campus&libraries
 * * Emacs_Game_#6 (of 9). Expedition the world a strange world.  I love role-playing game, but can not buy anything because there is no money. Dunnet is free software.
 * * Sticking only to graphics, resent recent game that essential story is not referred to the excitement. Such serious, are you in this, "dunnet" is recommended. Dunnet is non-graphical.
 * * The Mx is also good as dunnet, but seems to be better referred to as "emacs -batch -l dunnet" in a state of emacs is not running.
 * * First, You Were at the end of the road, will be explained that the three of Royal Palm lined at regular intervals are standing.
 * * Come on, you do? Even been told ... I, but it does not know Yara I what if. But, this "Do know such what I should do" of acceleration and will say that the true value of this game. Dunnet expects you to explore the game-world, and figure out what to do yourself, rather than be told what to do.
 * * Do let's show some examples. First, some can be here. Let's examine the has fallen "shovel". Please try to "examine shovel". To pick up, it is "get shovel". If you wanted to climb trees, "climb the tree".
 * * There is no confidence in English, even in people who, and if we do so per Good luck words that come up with, is what you hit pretty (in the earlier example, you can climb actually just to the climb).
 * * Other, seems to throw, drop, put, go, the operation of such is recognized. If you know of useful it is to know the state of the place, "describe", to save "save [filename]", to load "restore [filename]" What clues full of help "help".
 * * AlthoughYouWillFail2surviveManyTimes, and to challenge many times, but please enjoy the magical world to your heart's content. There are many ways to die in Dunnet. (we cannot say Dunnet is 'challenging' because the source is not WP:RS for that potentially-contentious claim.  Ditto, even strong, for 'magical world' of course.)
 * * When you do not know "what should I do" if absolutely then, let's look at the guide book. If you are a little hacker affectation, /usr/share/emacs/20.7/llisp/playあたりを探すとdunnet.el (program) might be found. It is possible to cheat at Dunnet by reading the eLisp source-code, which is distributed with copies the game.
 * * Only the flirt-person-you-want-to-know how to solve, when Google search try to "spoiler emacs dunnet", you should find is perhaps one of the few materials . Dunnet walkthrus have been published. (but this is prolly not an encyclopedic factoid -- and thus we would likely omit it, until and unless some WP:RS notes that factoid.)


 * As a bonus, we do get another wp:noteworthy mention out of this ref -- it mentions a 2002 article in a Japanese tech-zine, which is still online (albeit at a different URL nowadays) over here. This is just a name-drop, with no depth, but adds Yet Another Country to the list of places Dunnet has gotten tech-industry-press.  75.108.94.227 (talk) 00:29, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Kotaku.com.au in en_AU, checks out as useful for WP:N, dedicated article , part of a burst , but on another continent

 * Here's something Australian: http://www.kotaku.com.au/2013/04/the-secret-adventure-game-built-into-your-ma/ Ron Schnell 23:45, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * This one in another of the 2013 burst, and says it was in response to the LifeHacker ref. Has ~150 words, so pretty short but non-zero.  Compares (vaguely) Dunnet to The Hobbit (video game).  Is it WP:RS?  Is it a listicle?  Is it in-depth, or just a retread?  Answers revealed in good time. ;-)      75.108.94.227 (talk) 01:49, 20 July 2015 (UTC)


 * This is a dedicated article, not a listicle. It is part of a burst-of-coverage, but is not a retread.  In particular, unlike almost all the other reviews, this one gives a screenshot of the middle of gameplay, which alone makes it pretty valuable.  I also like the "crazily obtuse" quote, which is backed up by the screenshot.  ;-)       Now, it is pretty brief, and besides what can be gleaned from the text-of-the-screenshot, doesn't give many details that we don't already have from lifehacker and friends.  What it does, is give us yet another continent where the international tech-press took notice of this 'new' 'secret' 'osx' text adventure game.  But of course, only if it qualifies as WP:RS.  So here is the article.  At the bottom of the page, we see '© 2007-2015 Allure Media' hyperlinked to here.  But usually, the corporate-holding-corp is the wrong place to go, so instead click the 'about' button.  Here we see the list of editors, and the street address, and that 'retro' is a normal column, and in fact, the author of the particular piece *is* one of the editors.  So WP:RS has been prima facie satisfied, and we can add another footnote to our burst... and another continent too, which is probably more crucial in proving WP:N.  p.s.  "punch boulder"?  Heh heh.  75.108.94.227 (talk) 01:49, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

iAppMag.de in german

 * Here's another German article: http://www.iappmag.de/tutorials/dunnet/ The URL makes it *appear* like a magazine, but don't know. Ron Schnell 23:45, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The basic check is easy, just look for an about-page, see if they have editors listed by their legal names, and a street-address (or similar) for the legal publisher-slash-copyright owner. That's usually enough, for computer videogame stuff, anyways.  For political cites, especially contentious ones (and as you may know almost EVERYTHING is contentious to somebody in politics), the standards for WP:RS are somewhat higher, since the WP:BLP stakes are higher.  75.108.94.227 (talk) 01:49, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * On the Kontakt page, they use the first person: you can contact me... click here for my pgp key... sounds like WP:BLOGS.  Also, the article is filed under 'home > tutorials > dunnet' rather than news or reviews or somesuch; again, sounds like a personal homepage.  There is no author-byline (which is fine for 'staff' of the WP:RS online zine ... but if and only if the online zine is WP:RS in the first place).  Like the other german blogger below, there is an imprint aka impressum page, which gives the street address to force the blogger to legally stand behind their statements.  Do they have a bluelink?  Philipp Rackevei, Philipp Rackevei , Philipp Rackevei.  So prolly this is WP:BLOGS, and thus only useful for non-contentious material.  However, unlike many of the other blurbs, this one actually has some unique info, about a common gotcha.
 * * Error: You may save dunnet not named 'dunnet' in your home directory, otherwise you get when you dunnet want to start again in the Terminal 'symbol's function definition is void: frgd' displayed.
 * Or in the original german:
 * * Error: Du darfst dunnet nicht mit dem Namen „dunnet“ im Home Verzeichnis speichern, andernfalls bekommst du, wenn du dunnet erneut im Terminal starten willst „Symbol’s function definition is void: frgd“ angezeigt.
 * This is one of those cases where we can judiciously use the WP:BLOGS info, with care, since it is non-contentious to point this errmsg out. That said, I'm not sure I understand the conditions when Dunnet will fail to start with this errmsg.  Is he saying that you get the  void:frgd errmsg when you create a save-file named 'dunnet' in your unix/linux homedir?  Or maybe, your emacs homedir?  Or what exactly?  Ron, do you know what would cause the void:frgd errmsg? 75.108.94.227 (talk) 18:39, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

it-TechBlog.de in german

 * Y.A.G.A.: http://www.it-techblog.de/verstecktes-text-adventure-in-mac-os-x/05/2006/ - can't tell if blogger is notable. Seems more legit than most. Ron Schnell 23:49, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * This is definitely WP:BLOGS, so the question becomes, is the human author wiki-notable? He gives his name, and stands legally behind his content.  The german wikipedia is very strict about WP:N, they'll delete you unless you have dozens of in-depth refs *and* a philosophical argument (real-life-philosophy not wiki-verse-policy-based-reason) for why you ought to be given an article.  Slight exaggeration, but only slight.  Anyways, let us see whether our blogger appears:  Michael Hülskötter or Michael Hulskotter and also Michael Hülskötter or Michael Hulskotter plus just for kicks Michael Hülskötter or Michael Hulskotter.  All redlinks-or-equivalents.  Also, at 93 words, it is a brief blurb, with not much depth to speak of, and we already have other WP:RS with at least this much depth, and all these factoids.  Seems like a pass, for now at least.  75.108.94.227 (talk) 18:28, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

cnBeta.com in Chinese

 * This appears to be a legit Chinese article that also mentions the language limitation: http://www.cnbeta.com/articles/233659.htm Ron Schnell 23:52, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * This one is a special case: WP:COPYVIO, which per the DMCA we cannot link to.  They swiped the screenshot-imagefile directly from the aussie review, and they swiped the text from MacLife, more or less (including the "MUD" mistake).  Not sure if it counts as WP:RS, but am pretty sure we cannot use it either way.  75.108.94.227 (talk) 18:17, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

newsMonkey.be in Dutch

 * This appears to be a legit Dutch article, but is a very very small mention: http://newsmonkey.be/article/2331 Ron Schnell 23:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Belgium domain name, aka Benelux. None of these website-names jump out to me as being well-known, but then, not living in Belgium, we'll have to give each one a go.  To give you the practice in analyzing whether a source is in-depth WP:N + WP:RS, versus passing-mention-but-still-valid WP:NOTEWORTHY + WP:RS, versus WP:BLOGS and such that cannot be used except with extreme care in videogame articles (and should not be used in political articles whatsoever unless *extremely* non-contentious WP:ABOUTSELF from the candidate's own website), go ahead and take a shot at classifying each source.  Can be here in comments, or in your head, or whatever; this is not a written quiz, it is more open-book.  I'll post my analysis of them inside the collapse-box things, so you can have a chance to attack them in any order you wish, and the same for me.  I'll definitely start with .ac.jp though.  75.108.94.227 (talk) 01:49, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * So it is a namedrop, nothing more, not even a screenshot. "Before that [zippy the pinhead], type in emacs-batch-l dunnet."  This is the bottom-most form of passing mention.  The name is there.  It tells you how to launch the app.  But beyond telling you that this is inside emacs (like zippy and tetris and life), it doesn't even specifically say Dunnet is a *game* let alone what kind of game.  This might qualify as WP:NOTEWORTHY, but we already have the info elsewhere, so it's not much help.  And of course, the lack of depth makes it no help at AfD where we could have potentially used this source to firm up our proof WP:N.  The page might be WP:RS and might be WP:BLOGS, I didn't look deeply. It was in Jan'14 , which makes is a year after the 2013 coverage-burst (nine months anyways), so in that aspect it is mildly helpful.  Plus, it is yet another nat-lang, and yet another country, which always helps.  75.108.94.227 (talk) 18:14, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

iGuRu.gr in greek

 * Here's a very good Greek article (also mentions the fact that you have to know English): https://iguru.gr/2013/04/16/22785/adventure-%CF%80%CE%B1%CE%B9%CF%87%CE%BD%CE%AF%CE%B4%CE%B9-%CE%BA%CF%81%CF%85%CE%BC%CE%BC%CE%AD%CE%BD%CE%BF-%CF%83%CF%84%CE%BF-os-x-%CF%80%CE%BF%CF%85-%CE%BC%CE%AC%CE%BB%CE%BB%CE%BF%CE%BD-%CE%B4%CE%B5/ Ron Schnell 23:57, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * URL-encoding overload! :-)    Methinks you should be able to just paste the greek-lang-version of the URL into the wikitext (and for that matter into the browser addr-bar) and have it JustWork nowadays.  75.108.94.227 (talk) 01:49, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * That's what I did, actually. Using the techniques you described, I think this one is also WP:RS.  Would like to hear your opinion. Ron Schnell 03:37, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Nope, this ref is definitely WP:BLOGS. Here is the non-URLencoded-form == https://iguru.gr/2013/04/16/22785/adventure-παιχνίδι-κρυμμένο-στο-os-x-που-μάλλον-δε/
 * Ref-formatting, could be used as an efn , such as I did with the non-WP:RS-stuff used in Jigsaw (video game) ==

by "Giorgos", with an About the Author blurb , at bottom of article: George has several years on the Web with enough experience in programming languages, PHP and SQL. And he is stubborn like Dimitri, so you can imagine what happens with two xerokefaloys on a site. It deals a lot with Wordpress, the Web-based activism and when not making its own systems, making other systems. (not good, author only gives first name -- or maybe pseudonym -- and sounds like a blogger as opposed to newsReporter/eduProfessor/guvBureaucrat/etc) 

says at top, iGuru News (good so far)

says at bot, Copyright © 2012 - 2015 iGuRu News (would be good except no hyperlink)

blurb at bottom. iGuRu.gr: New real-time technology and Tweaks. == iGuRu.gr: Νέα τεχνολογίας σε πραγματικό χρόνο και Tweaks. Activism, and Safety news from the Internet beyond the mainstream. == Ακτιβισμός, Ασφάλεια και Νέα από το διαδίκτυο πέρα από τα καθιερωμένα. Unpainted without flags and banners. Views without silk ribbons and petting in the ears. == Αχρωμάτιστα χωρίς σημαίες και λάβαρα. Απόψεις χωρίς μεταξωτές κορδέλες και χάιδεμα στα αυτιά. (bad -- sounds like a hacktivist slash tweaker website) 

featured articles at bottom: 7 awesome tricks with a smartphone camera. 21847 == 7 απίθανα κόλπα με την κάμερα ενός smartphone. 21847 How to check if someone is using your Wi-Fi. 14493 == Πώς να ελέγξετε αν κάποιος χρησιμοποιεί το Wi-Fi σας. 14493 13 Google search tricks. 10683 == 13 κόλπα αναζήτησης του Google. 10683 (yeah... this is not bad by itself, it could write e.g. an easter-egg article, but definitely not a "news" site more of a tips-n-tricks blog)

about-button at bottom, which links to here -- https://iguru.gr/contact/about-publishing-team/ The iGuRu.gr domain was created in 2011 as a result of knowledge, engagement and presence on the Web since 2000. The iGuRu.gr website like site with technology news, started its operation in February 2012. Since then the traffic of the page has a continuous rise, from an audience that accepts and recognizes our work. New to view without silk ribbons and petting in the ears. Views, Activism, unpainted without flags and banners. Security and news from the Internet beyond the mainstream. Different news from the fields of technology, these "trivial" that make the difference, Tutorials advanced, and not. Tweaks for those who are interested in experimenting. Our goal is not to become another Internet technological journal but be close to interesting events in a timely manner. Our goal is diversity. (bad -- not an organization with an legal entity behind it, aka just a blog that cannot be bothered to fact-check because they have no skin in the game besides their $3/yr domain-name-renewal) 


 * Management 			email: [snipped]
 * Ads: 				      [snipped]

The Authoring Group. (a bit of good, the author gives their full name here... but bad, no street address, and fatal for WP:RS purposes, no editorial oversight whatsoever, just individual authors-slash-bloggers) 
 * George Trikalos 		email: [snipped] aka Γιώργος Τρίκαλος
 * Dimitris Manopoylos 	email: [snipped]
 * George Stergiopoulos	email: [snipped]
 * Theodore Moustakas	email: not provided
 * Tasos 			email: [snipped]
 * Giorgos Koliou 		email: [snipped]

Come and you: (extremely bad -- this is not merely a group blog, it is a Blog That Anyone Can Edit, even those who "do not have knowledge") (we also see from the above that not all authors provide their full name e.g. Tasos, and not all authors provide even an email e.g. Moustakas) (plus, given the nature of the site, it is reasonable to infer that nobody is verifying the names are actually connected to a real human person) 
 * Want a new way of expression?
 * You have knowledge that will be helpful to our readership?
 * You do not have knowledge but have an appetite?
 * You can join our team?

Contact us, links to -- http://iguru.gr/contact/ Contact the iGuRu.gr team Want to become an author on our site? You have something to post or you are looking for a way to contact us? Press releases, News from your sites Publications for anything you think deserves to be viewed Interested in advertising on iGuRu.gr? (bad, no street address, and fatal, "anything you think deserves to be viewed" aka there is explicitly ZERO editorial oversight whatsoever) 


 * Understood. I *think* the Czech one overcomes the issues described in the Greek below.  There is a pretty well-described set of editors, as well as physical address.  Also, no flim-flammy description.  Let me know if you agree. Ron Schnell 18:45, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Ron, in a word, yes. There is evidence of editorial oversight, and of the capaibility of being sued, both of which are the minimalist rule-of-thumb for satisfying WP:RS.  Looking deeper into the people being dubbed editors, there would be some question as to whether the Czech source would survive, were it subjected to strenuous investigation -- such as might be needed if it were being used in an article on religion or politics, as opposed to an article on videogames and programming.  Make sense?
 * So! Behold, you are now officially a good judge of WP:RS, and were already schooled in being a good judge of WP:N with some depth, versus WP:NOTEWORTHY factoids and such.  It looks like we have come to the end of our known sources, but along the way we discovered several more, and that will help firm up our position at AfD (which was already pretty decent methinks).  Are you up for proceeding to the next phase, and doing some work on the policies related to keeping your nose clean as far as WP:COI goes, and other more esoteric stuff that will be applicable in your line of work?  Ping my talkpage when you have some free time, or alternatively, we can do short async iterative bursts of discussion here on your talkpage (or over on my usertalk if you have figured out how to run a wikipedia-watchlist by now).  75.108.94.227 (talk) 04:01, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

the question of interest
So basically, the trouble is that you have been on wikipedia since 2006 or earlier, and have not been obsessively paying attention to policy-changes. Back in 2006, there was already a COI essay/guideline/something, mostly about paid editors: if some company/celeb/etc hired you to write their wikipedia page, that meant you had to be especially careful how you did things. Sometime around 2005, I believe, the idea was that you should (as a paid PR-industry wikipedian) only use talkpages, unless 'emergency' situations were involved like vandal-defacements or posting of slander-n-libel and other stuff with real world legal repercussions that had to be corrected that instant. There was also the strong encouragement, but not outright prohibition, of writing your own autobiographical pages aka Ron Schnell, and an even stronger one against writing a page about your corporation aka Quogic.

The way that WP:COI is interpreted nowadays has changed, in somewhat the same sense that wiki-notability nowadays has only the most tenuous relationship with real-life-notability. Back in 2006, wiki-COI was pretty close to real-life-COI, such as you might find in the ethics manual of a medical surgeon's association or something. Medical surgeons often invent their own techniques and treatments and therapies and sometimes even pharmaceuticals; in the real world, that often leads to patents and royalties and such. They also, as well-paid white-collar folks, often invest their money (and the hospital they work at invests their pension-fund-money) into corporations that sell medical equipment, medicines, and all sorts of stuff. For a medicinal professional, real-life-COI is pretty simple: if you find yourself prescribing drugs because you are imagining how good your royalty-cheques will look, then you are a scumbag. On the other hand, if as a medical professional, you believe that it is 100% in the patient's best interest to get this particular drug and no other, based on your extensive knowledge of medicine, then you should most certainly prescribe them the drug, even if you (1) invented the drug and also (2) will get a hefty chunk of change and (3) will become not just richer but more famous, as a result of more and more patients nigh-miraculously recovering from their serious ailments, thanks to the wonder-drug in question. Make sense?

Wikipedia in 2015 is absolutely nothing like that in any recognizable fashion. Under the current interpretation of wiki-COI, if you have any kind of 'interest' in a subject, you should not edit those pages, ever, period. Violations of this quasi-unwritten rule are treated as treason to the wikiverse, and can easily get you -- almost in a heartbeat -- banned or blocked or otherwise made unable to function productively as an editor. So please, pay attention here. You may not have realized it, but you stepped in deep doo-doo once you became a political consultant, as far as the wikiverse goes. You're getting paid to help run the tech-end, which means you don't even *think* of yourself as a 'political consultant' but rather as a 'tech consultant slash mgmt consultant' ... but please believe me, as I said before, reality and real-life-COI have little connection to the concept of wiki-COI. If you make edits to mainspace on politics, of *anything* related to politics that could be in the least way considered 'controversial' including political issues from before WWII even, not only will those edits be seen as wiki-COI, you will very likely be summarily blocked unless you immediately morally cleanse thyself. Don't be led astray by the seemingly-humane-sounding 'standard discretionary sanctions' ... it is wiki-jargon for insta-block followed by strict enforcement of every single nuance of every single sentence anywhere in the thousands of pages of WP:PAG, the least violation of which will lead to topic banning (usually "aviators99 is banned from editing/talkingAbout/lookingAt all articles on politics or subjects tangentially related thereto for a period of three years" or the close equivalent). Hopefully this is clear as a bell to you; I'm exaggerating things a bit, but really, no kidding, only a bit.

That's the political-topics problem. The other (lesser) problem is your editing of computer-related and programming-related articles, as well as airline-related and whatnot. In other words, most of your edits, not just Dunnet, but the other ones too. As a computer programmer, you have an obvious 'interest' in the fields of inquiry surrounding computers. In practice, when strictly applied, wiki-COI means that you should never edit any article, if you know anything about the topic-area. Because you are the expert, in other words, that is *why* you must not correct obvious flaws in mainspace, and instead let people who know *nothing* about the computer field mess everything up. Thankfully, WP:COI is only very rarely 'strictly applied' ... and videogames are not one of those areas. It's like the speed-limit, though. Everybody breaks the speed limit when they drive on the highway; the cops working highway patrol don't pull you over and give you a ticket for driving 57 in a 55mph zone, right? But if you run across the *wrong* police officer, you might get a ticket anyways, eh? Especially if it is near the end of the month, and they have a ticket-giving-quota to meet, and your license-plate is from out of state (so there's no political blowback the next time the sheriff elections roll around in their county). On wikipedia, the equivalent situation happens when some editor who is skilled in using wiki-policy as a weapon to get their way in mainspace, gets into a content dispute with you ("Dunnet is *too* just an easter egg, this WP:RS right here says so!") and decides to get you in trouble with the wiki-cops, as a way of 'winning' the content dispute. This is rare in computers and videogames ... not unheard of though ... and is very common in religion and politics and a large number of other topics -- almost all of which are now under insta-block-followed-by-topic-ban policing regimes, which of course, only encourages the adversarialists to keep it up. Sigh.

Anyways, I can give you more prose if you aren't clear that 1) this is wiki-serious and 2) you need to follow some behavioral rules to keep your nose clean. Here are my current recommendations, for folks like yourself:


 * First of all, you should hesitate to directly edit mainspace. By which I mean, don't even think about doing it.  (You thought wikipedia was the encyclopedia anybody could edit?  Hah!  Not anymore it ain't, bub.)
 * In particular, as a paid political consultant, you must not edit articles on your employer, articles on other candidates (of any party) in the race, or any content covering post-1932-even-tangentially-somehow-politics-related-events-or-issues that could be "perceived" (see above wiki-COI explanation) as you trying to tilt wikipedia's voice in your candidate's favor. You can use article talkpages, and via unbiased COI-free proxies like myself, you can *ask* to have changes made (e.g. via my usertalk), but don't make them yourself.  That's the only way you can keep your nose clean, nowadays, unfortunately.
 * Exception: as a grammar nazi, you are free to fix any kind of grammarz bugz, that will (almost) never get you in trouble.  Partial exception:  you are *almost* always free to add refs to articles, e.g. to fix citation-needed ... but in some cases even this *can* get you into trouble, if the ref you add is perceived as being POV aka wiki-point-of-view aka wiki-non-neutral, so I still recommend asking on talkpages for that stuff.
 * Exception #2, forgot to mention this one earlier. If somebody puts reverted see edit-history for details into mainspace, or talkspace, they are making a controversial unsourced assertion about a living human (in this case insulting your alleged lack of intellect).  Things like that *can* always be immediately removed, see WP:BLP, even if you are wiki-coi-encumbered.  Similarly, blatantly obvious vandalism, like page-blanking or like replacing large chunks of the article with nonsense-gibberish, or even 'small' edits like randomly sticking four-letter-interjections into the article, can be removed from mainspace despite wiki-coi-related prohibitions against "editing" certain articles.  Anti-vandalism-work is not considered editing, in this sense; it is considered, per WP:IAR, to be Improving The Encyclopedia.  There are cases where insulting material *must* be left in mainspace, for instance, various politicians have been called various mean things, and involved in various scandals, which generated national headlines.  Thus, when material is *cited* you should never remove it yourself; if the cite is to a blog, or to youtube, or facebook, you *might* risk removing it yourself, but you are still better off (and I definitely so advise you) to seek out some non-coi-encumbered editor to make the revert, either via IRC-aka-live-help-chat or the teahouse or some other WP:Q method.  In rare cases, even material that *has* nominally-WP:RS cites might be kept out of mainspace, on WP:BLP and/or WP:SPIP concerns -- see this recent example that I happen to know about.  Obviously, if you are wiki-coi-encumbered, you should not delete sourced material from mainspace, and especially not nominally-WP:RS cites, but the point is that, in *very* rare cases, it is sometimes done.  Actually, there are plenty of wiki-gangs who make it their goal in life to delete WP:RS material from wikipedia that they disagree with ... so the deletion of reliably sourced material from mainspace is NOT in fact rare ... but my point was that sometimes, often on the basis of WP:BLP as in the Anglin case, or on the basis of WP:SPIP as in the TradeInDetectives AfD, there are (extremely rare) correct decisions to delete reliably-sourced-material from mainspace.  Anyways, as a general rule, if it is slanderous or libelous, obviously aimed at a living human, and uncited, you can delete it as many times as needed, even if you are wik-coi-encumbered because the human in question is yourself or your boss or your candidate or whatever, and even if you breach the WP:3RR wiki-policy.  Note the 'exceptions to 3RR' listed there, and also note the WP:0RR idea, which I recommend you follow if you can stomach it, for wiki-philosophical reasons. End of newly-inserted additions.
 * Second of all, when anybody is rude to you, and suggests you are a WP:MEATPUPPET for instance (as I was forced to by circumstances... and DESPITE obvious counter-evidence!), or implies that you only edit wikipedia to insert pro-your-employer-propaganda, you must keep your cool. If you call them a moron, you just came under the 'standard discretionary sanctions' regime, and if they are one of the content-warriors, pretty soon an admin will be grilling you over pillar violations, and 100% ignoring the violations/provocations made against you.  Even if you just call a spade a spade, and say the person is pretty damn rude for asking/implying (it is almost always the latter), you are gonna get in trouble.  Don't just be 'normal', as you would in real life, acting nice to nice people, and telling rude bastards to shove off; strive instead to be WP:NICE, not the way that twisted policy-page says, but in the sense of actually being nice/kind/considerate/etc.  You must also pretend -- even when it is blatantly obvious that you are dealing with somebody who is gaming the system to get their way -- that nothing wrong is occuring.  Basically, just treat everybody as you treat me, with kindness and respect, and you'll never get in trouble.  Do not get drawn into adversarial arguments.  If unsure you are doing it right, ping my talkpage, or ask for a second opinion on the live-help-chat aka wikipedia IRC channel, and somebody with nuanced policy knowledge and admin-bits will likely lend a hand.  (But do what they say, even if they are wrong.  :-)

Those are really the only two rules; they are very painful to follow, but not so bad once you get used to them. So, to be specific, take the example of the boot filesystem. You edited the article; you inserted a factual correction, which was good for the encyclopedia. However, you had wiki-COI, and thus you technically should have suggested the change on the article talkpage, not made it yourself. There is a special template to send out a sonar-ping-request, used specifically for such cases; I'll show you the mechanics once I'm sure you've got the philosophical fundamentals down. And in that specific case, the wiki-COI guideline/policy/oneRingToRuleThemAll actually turned out to be correct: when you inserted the factual correction, you couldn't help yourself, and said that the original BFS codebase was written by Ron Schnell, author of Dunnet. Now, as an unbiased non-COI-encumbered editor with knowledge of computer programming and bootloaders, plus nuanced wiki-policy knowledge, I can say with authority that the author-of-Dunnet bit has zero to do with bootloaders, filesystems, and the article. Those three words should have been cut. So in some cases, the wiki-COI rules will 'work' and help improve the encyclopedia ... as long as we ignore the draconian adversarial atmosphere that such horribly-written regulations induce, when it comes to wiki-culture!

Now, in reality, it almost certainly would be the case that Ron Schnell would have been wikilinked in the BFS article, even after the three offending words were taken out. Since you have exercised admirable restraint, and not written you own BLP page here, that's a redlink. (Are there enough multiparagraph in-depth sources specifically about Ron Schnell -- as opposed to about Dunnet or about the consent-decree stuff -- to satisfy WP:N? If so, given your newly-tuned-up knowledge of source analysis, give me the links por favor.)  The usual case with redlinks, is that -- until and unless there are enough dedicated sources to write the dedicated article -- you usually redirect the person's name to the article which is most closely associated with their name in the reliable sources. In your case, Ron Schnell should almost certainly be a redirect to Dunnet, since that is where your name is most often dropped in the WP:RS, as of 2015 anyways. It would be more usual to redirect to Quogic, but because the startup has yet to achieve deep coverage in the news, in this case most of your notoriety in WP:RS is your videogame project. Anyways, at the end of the day, instead of the BFS article saying "code originally written in YYYY by Ron Schnell author of Dunnet" it would instead have said "code originally written in YYYY by Ron Schnell" with a hyperlink that was a redirect to Dunnet. Subtle difference, and (by 2006 wiki-behavioral-standards!) not friggin worth all the process-overhead and policy-paperwork. But in 2015, wiki-culture is all about the policy-paperwork, and strict enforcement of the bureacracy. Don't believe WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY; it lies, sadly.

So, now you know. Basically, at least until the second Tuesday in November of 2016, you are gonna have to walk on eggshells. You are a hamstrung editor, for the duration, through no fault of your own; the wiki-policies are broken, and just like getting a law "un-passed" in the federal legislature, getting a wiki-policy fixed is nigh-impossible. It will help wikipedia if (once you grok this stuff well yourself) you will communicate these concepts to the other folks on the campaign, as well. There is a lot of insta-blocking during political campaigns, but I expect the 2016 season to be the worst ever ... there is going to be a race with no clear frontrunner for the first time since the 1940s. Coupled with that real-life-pressure to control the narrative on wikipedia, the sad state of the wiki-culture (see above) and the correspondingly and not-so-coincidentally exceedingly low number of admins per editor, is going to make for A LOT of insta-banning of editors trying to make changes in the 2016 articles.

Hope this was helpful, even though I don't expect you will take it as good news -- quite frankly, it is bad news, and I'm sad to be the bearer of bad tidings, but if you don't have a firm grasp on the "secret" meaning of wiki-COI nowadays, you will be in trouble quick. Optional reading: WP:COI, WP:MEATPUPPET, WP:CANVASSING, and for an example of a content dispute in the political arena where multiple noticeboards and threats of arbcom were used, see Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive255. Don't worry if the jargon there makes your eyes glaze over; that is the intent of my pointing to it. To be clear, I found that 2014 thread by googling for keywords, and I don't have a clue of which of the named parties is at fault, if either of them, or neither of them, or both of them, or whatever. But it is a pertinent example of where you never want to find yourself: stuck in the middle of an adversarial situation, with administrators hovering all around. I can pretty confidentally predict that things when downhill from there, if not for the named parties, then for the article generally speaking. Recent edit-history here, click the 'prev' button or use the radio-button-things to see the diffs of the last month of changes, and the article is still being subtly 'corrected' even now. And, although there is no particular admin-lockdown of that page in effect anymore, it has been blackballed in the gigantic pale-orange-box at the top of the Talk:Shooting_of_Michael_Brown as being subject to 'standard discretionary sanctions' and also as WP:NOTFORUM plus WP:CIVIL finger-wagging. It seems to be relatively quite at the moment, to my eyes; but for instance, if you were to start doing a major rewrite of the article, there is little hope you would be allowed to do so, even though 1) you don't live in Missouri 2) you don't know any of the people involved in the incident and 3) you know the difference between WP:RS and non-WP:RS, because since the article was *formerly* an edit-war-zone, and since you are *currently* involved in politics in real life, any big change will be mightily resisted ... regardless of whether or not the change improves the article. Questions or comments, fire away.  75.108.94.227 (talk) 12:39, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

appliste.cz, in czech

 * Here's what appears to be a legit Czech article: http://www.appliste.cz/4-skryte-hry-v-terminalu/ Ron Schnell 00:08, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * This also appears to be WP:RS. Would like to hear your opinion. Ron Schnell 03:37, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, trying this one. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 20:09, 20 July 2015 (UTC)


 * title == 4 hidden games in the Terminal (listicle which isn't fatal but non-preferable)
 * date == Oct'13 (same as our other apr'13-maclife-originated burst of coverage, per essay WP:NSOFT is non-preferable albeit non-fatal since essays are utterly non-binding ... like all other WP:PAG are utterly nonbinding, only more so)
 * author == Luke Černohorský (full legal name, good ... but 'staff' is also valid, if the publisher is WP:RS)
 * authorBlurb == MTB biker, film fan, technology lover, iPad eBookworm, active lifestyle devotee, editor of Appliště. does not look like a professional journalist, but *does* call himself an editor which is a good sign
 * depth == 200 words specifically about dunnet, per fair use, here is the relevant snippet from the listicle, with mainspace sentences:
 * Directly in the Terminal, you can play a text adventure game. The game is called Dunnet,   Dunnet is a text adventure
 * who wrote Ron Schnell, written by Ron Schnell
 * and not part of the OS X only, but every modern version of UNIX. available for every modern UNIX flavor
 * The game is fairly abstract and the main plot revolves around the fact that the player goes through a UNIX system and not an abstraction of the real world. In the game, the player-character is exploring a simulated-reality *inside* a running UNIX system (See Tron 1982 for a similar type of sci-fi scenario.)
 * If you want to play the game, enter the following into the Terminal: Emacs-batch-l dunnet The game can be executed from inside the Emacs programmer's editor, which in turn can be launched from a command line window.
 * As soon as the game starts, finds himself at the end of a dead end dirt road. The path leads to the East. In the distance you can see that the path ends. The trees are very tall Royal Palms, which are remote from each other as well. Available you have a shovel. The first scene in the game is at western terminus of a dead-end dirt road, surrounded by Royal Palm trees; you start the game with a shovel.
 * Dunnet (DUNgeon and ArpaNET) is a simple text-based game in which you go through the world of UNIX. (the name is a backronym of DUNgeon and arpaNET)
 * Actually, Ron, this last sentence I wrote above is actually not proper/kosher for wikipedia; it is clear that dunnet's second half ought to be hyperlinked to the ARPANET article, but what about the first half? was the first half of the name referring to AD&D, or to dungeon-the-nickname-of-Collosal_Cave_Adventure, or to some other more-generic-dungeon-referent?  Sometimes it helps wikipedia to have the primary sources directly on tap, you see.  75.108.94.227 (talk) 23:25, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * If you've never played a text adventure game like Zork or the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, See also: Zork.  See also:  The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (video game) (we can put these into the see also without a cite that they are similar, but it always helps to have a cite, even for the see-also section, in modern wikipedia anyways)
 * it is very simple. Like most text-adventures, gameplay in Dunnet is straightforward.
 * All communication is text. For example, you can write the command "get lifted" to shovel a shovel or write to "east" and heading to the East. Gameplay commands are entered via the keyboard, such as typing "east" to move east down the dirt road, and typing "get shovel" to pick up the shovel laying nearby.
 * The "Help" command will display the next possible commands. Dunnet has online help.  (how many games in 1983 had this?  did Zork have online help too?)


 * at bottom, says "© 2011-2015 Appliště" (okay, but no hyperlink to corporate holding co)
 * at top, says ... Appliště: magazin s pravou jablečnou št'ávou.   == which is roughly , Apple-ista:  the magazine with the truly happy golden Apple(tm)  , or something like that (cf MacWorld , same sort of thing, it looks like)
 * okay, looking for information on editorial oversight and corporate responsibility, we see near the top a contact-us-button, and an about-the-editors button. (Contact-page has name/street/city plus EIN-equivalent for their advertisers to work with, good.)
 * and then the editors-page. (Editors-page which lists several editors, and an editor in chief, with full names plus emails -- no street address, but we got that on the other page.)

This one qualifies, at first glance. A bit of a deeper glance makes me a bit more wary. The editor-in-chief says that his day-job is designing CNG-based filling stations. About 80% of the other editors list 'student' as their occupation, aka they are probably unpaid interns. Even the business-owner has a day job, saying they are an "IT worker" rather than a "journalist". It is something of a side business, in other words, rather than a full-time corporate entity. So in my view, it would be a pretty weak addition to the WP:N argument -- it doesn't add a new continent to our list, it is a listicle that is clearly pretty derivative of the other 2013-burst-of-coverage sources, and it mostly covers ground we can already source to our other refs. That doesn't mean it is worthless; it adds Yet Another Country to our list of kinda-sorta-WP:N, and most-definitely-multiple-WP:NOTEWORTHY , sources slash refs slash cites. That's definitely good. It is just a bit borderline, though, because it seems like it might be run by students. If it was crucial to proving WP:N, then the next step would be to find a wikipedia editor *from* the Czech Republic, who either knew English or was responsive to automangled translations, and knew something about the tech industry press there, and whether Appliště was a completely unknown blog, a well-respected institution, or just an unknown quantity. (There is a particular wikipedia-noticeboard where requests like that can get handled; we can give it a whirl if you wish, just to see the process in action.) Since we don't much need the ref as a permanent support for WP:N, methinks we can skip it though, and just settle for it being WP:NOTEWORTHY if we need the info it contains, type of stance. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 23:25, 20 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Taking a break for a while. Looking forward to hearing your opinion on these new ones, User talk:75.108.94.227 Ron Schnell 00:08, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, take a break whenever you need, and expect the same on my end. Wikipedia isn't a nose-to-the-grindstone business, we won't finish it by the end of the month.  Best to take the long-term-view.  The pinging-thing only works for people with usernames -- as an anon-editor, I don't get an orange-bar when you hyperlink to me, but I do get one when you leave a note on my talkpage.  You can say 75108 for short, or if that's too long for your tastes, convert the dotted-quad to hex, and then use the first few hexdigits.  See opinions above.  Wiki-tip, when you reply to a bunch of inline-comments like we're doing here, use the quadTilde for every one, so that your comment-lines are always labelled with your uid & timestamp.  (You can have multiple quadTildes in a single click of the savebutton.)  I've manually copied your sigblock to the relevant places, so we don't get confused.  75.108.94.227 (talk) 01:49, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

japanese localization

 * Okay, one more thing tonight: Here's a guy who (frustrated with not being able to play if you can't speak English) made a Japanese version and posted it. Google translate says he says, "Please do not send to Ron Schnell Mr. questions about this program and the translation."  http://www.geocities.co.jp/roomhakase/JDUNNET/jdunnet.html .  Obviously the page is not WP:RS, but maybe the fact that this was done is useful? Ron Schnell 00:55, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * In-depth coverage is always 'useful' in some sense, but generally speaking, anything on geocities and wikia and other user-edited websites (to include seemingly-valuable and highly-supported ones like facebook and wordpress and pretty-darn-obviously valuable ones like imdb and wikipedia herself) cannot ever automatically qualify for WP:RS. That said, every rule has exceptions.  Plenty of blogs qualify, if they are written by People Notable In the Field Of Inquiry Pertaining To the Subject Of Which The Article Is About.  So for example, even if Karl Rove did not cross-publish his stuff in WSJ, you could still cite www.rove.com in most any article on republican politics, and have it count as WP:RS, despite being a blog.  The same is not true for somedudewitharandomblog.wordpress.com, not because it's wordpress but because it's SomeDude.  There is a guy on the Rand Paul campaign named Doug Wead who publishes on wordpress, and he would prolly be considered WP:RS as a source for the campaign (now that he is working on it subject to WP:ABOUTSELF), and on historical presidency factoids (since he's the noted author of several books thereon aka Field Of Inquiry).
 * One cannot rule out blogs -- or any source (in theory) -- just based on the rules of thumb of WP:RS. Remember the pillars, WP:5, those are the core of the WP:PAG of which WP:RS is just one of the labyrinthine aspects.  Wikipedia seems like it is full of rules, and rule-followers, but the correct way to approach it ... outside Contentious Fields Of Inquiry like political campaigns and UFO phenomena and history of the Middle East and such powderkeg articles ... is to simply follow pillar numbers two-neutrality and five-only-make-improvements with respect to content (plus pillars three-no-plagiarism and four-be-nice with respect to your behavior).  Plus of course, pillar one, this is an encyclopedia, nothing more and nothing less.
 * By this approach, iff the stuff at geocities is (1) actually true, and (2) can be phrased to 100% respect NPOV, and (3) will improve the encyclopedia to put it in there, then go ahead, and damn the torpedos. In your case, of course, there is the matter of WP:COI, which colors your judgement about what the meaning of 'improvement' is, and what the meaning of 'neutral' is, and what the meaning of 'true' is, and perhaps what the meaning of 'is' is, as the old joke goes.  More on that another day, since it is a longer lesson, but an important one indeed.  (I don't have COI, so it is important that somebody localized it into jp_JP, just like it is important that somebody ported it to javascript, from the perspective of indicating how active the FLOSS activity is around the codebase.  That makes the info worthy, albeit as Template:efn not as ref-tags.)  Have a good night, talk to you another day.  Feel free to ping my page if you need anything.  75.108.94.227 (talk) 02:15, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

analysis of Tech.de ref
Here, under fair-use law, is the relevant portion of the Tech.de article, German and 'Enngllishh'. The text-based adventure game Dunnet that strongly reminiscent of the early days of PC games from the 80s is slightly more demanding. To start it, open a Terminal window, and is "emacs ·-batch-l · dunnet" a. The communication must be conducted in English. Tip: With the command "inventory", you can see all the items that it carries around with them. To save the game state, entering "save". "Restore" it continues a broken game. Is also a good idea to type in "help" If you no longer know. (gif: intro page, and first few commands of dunnet.) Caption:  Dunnet is a text adventure game from the 80s. Once again all mentioned commands to copy into the Terminal: Emacs-batch-l dunnet  ... (four others) This is not nothing, is is more than WP:NOTEWORTHY passing mention, but it is only 97 words (not counting the words-in-the-screenshot and the repetitious article-ending). That's depth, but possibly not significant depth. It is a 'listicle' because the same article also covers tetris/zippy/eliza/etc, as well as other 'easter eggs' in some sense of that phrase. Look at the date, the german article came out in Aug'13, and the MacLife ref came out in Apr'13, and both of them cover mostly the same things. It is incorrect to call the CultOfMac and the LifeHacker articles in 2013 'retreads' of the MacLife article, because they are dedicated to Dunnet, and *expand* on what the MacLife one said. The German article is not an expansion of the MacLife content, or at least, not an expansion on the Dunnet-specific content, which is what matters at AfD. Here is 91 words found in MacLife: MUDs (or Multi-User Dungeon) are an old-school game play experience that allowed multiple people to play text-based role playing games over the Internet. While most of these games have died down in popularity, you can still experience a similar text-based game in emacs. Simply open Terminal, and type the following command followed by enter: emacs -batch -l dunnet. Once launched, you’ll be able to interact with the game by typing commands as you’re lead throughout the text-based world. Type “help” if you get stuck. So, they both explain that Dunnet is a text-adventure, MacLife comparing it to MUDs ("a similar text-based game") and Tech.de comparing it to Zork ("the early days of PC games from the 80s [but] slightly more demanding"). They both have launch-instructions. They both mention the help-command. They both have a screenshot of the first few commands. What do we get out of Tech.de's blurb that we don't get out of MacLife's blurb? Two things: it mentions the save & restore commands. And, fittingly, Tech.de points out that you have to play the game *in* English, since it is not internationalized/localised. Likely an artifact of MacLisp in 1983, and eLisp in 1992, both being English-only environments more or less. (If memory serves M.U.L.E. only started shipping with emacs in the late 1990s.)

Does this help satisfy WP:N at AfD? Not really, in strictest terms. But wikipedia policies are anything but strict. This helps a ton, not because it helps add additional content to mainspace ("Dunnet has not been localized and the user interface only understands English commands."), but because it helps prove that Dunnet is not merely an everyday run-of-the-mill videogame, but an international phenomena. :-)  Seriously, the german ref is a big win.  It shows that Dunnet has some (relatively small but non-negligible) attention in the international computer press, not just English-language press.  International recognition is almost always sufficient to pass an AfD.  I will add a comment line to the AfD, pointing out this additional foreign-language source.  Nice find.

p.s. Oh, and of course, we have to show that Tech.de is actually WP:RS, which means they need an editorial board. Here we go. Five editors, and the author of the German-language-listicle was given with their real name. Somebody can challenge whether this is REALLY satisfactory of WP:RS, of course, but prima facie it qualifies, no problemo. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 22:30, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

known Dunnet sources with depth
This is a repaste of my summary in the AfD, to avoid recovering the same ground. Feel free to edit, as usual with wikipedia, and doubly-especially since this is your talkpage. :-) 75.108.94.227 (talk) 21:49, 19 July 2015 (UTC)


 * 2005 MacWorld listicle, expanded to the 2005 also-MacWorld dedicated article. and then published as an eBook-and-maybe-an-actual-book.
 * 2007 in Special:Search/AppleMatters listicle, with ~78 words on Dunnet, quote "extremely addictive", looks WP:RS to me.
 * 2013 burst, 3 listicles on 3 continents plus 3 dedicated articles on 2 continents, MacLife listicle, expanded into two independent 2013 LifeHacker&CultOfMac dedicated articles. which was a few months later picked up by the German-language computer press (looks WP:RS to me -- ) in another brief listicle, which noted the game was English-only and not yet internationalized. Also, Australian dedicated article ~150 words, http://www.kotaku.com.au/2013/04/the-secret-adventure-game-built-into-your-ma/ . Also, quasi-WP:RS Czech listicle ~200 words, http://www.appliste.cz/4-skryte-hry-v-terminalu/.
 * 2002+2008+2008+2014 independent WP:BLOGS: 3 4 with depth, using their real names (most of them) and independent of the author&game (all of them), can be used iff necessary for gap-filling with non-contentious unlikely-to-be-challenged factoids. Some reasonable depth at this Japanese blog, by an employee in the IT department of U.Tokyo (thus not 'academia' in the usual wikipedia-meaning).
 * WP:EL: short introductory walkthru, plus explains distinction between a TUI videogame like Nethack&Rogue-likes versus an interactive-fiction-text-adventure videogame like Dunnet&ADVENT, the latter pair relying on pure text with no ascii art.
 * WP:ABOUTSELF: 3+ with depth (the author is a wikipedian so more may be definitely is, in the form of a book-length memoir, forthcoming).    Localized 2006 into Japanese by FLOSS activist.  Ported 2015 to Javascript by another FLOSS activist.

We also have these non-deep sources:


 * WP:NOTEWORTHY 2 books by RMS and ESR on Emacs and eLisp, which application-and-programming-language-distribution includes the both full source & in-game helpdocs for Dunnet, to show off the power of Emacs/eLisp (plus to provide a fun game -- tetris and a dozen lesser games are also stock).
 * WP:NOTEWORTHY 2+ computer science academia-books (plus book above by RMS also qualifies here) with scholar.google.com cites.
 * Likely-WP:NOTEWORTHY use as an 'example-app' in homework given by 2+ college profs (besides Schnell himself).
 * WP:NOTEWORTHY 4 or 5 computer-user-press as useful for retrogaming.
 * WP:NOTEWORTHY 4 or 5 computer-programming-industry-press as an easter egg. International computer press:

Another Dunnet source
While looking for the Electronic House magazine, I found an issue of MacAddict (March 2003) that is definitely RS. I have uploaded pictures in http://artspeak.quogic.com under macadict[1234].jpg -- Let me know today if you want me to do a proper scan, as opposed to photos. Ron Schnell 15:42, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Nah, digicam resolutions are fine. (Too good actually, in some ways... there was a mini-scandal back in 2013, when some journalist used their digicam to snap photos of the spreadsheet that a congressperson had open on their tablet, and published the whip-chart therein to the world, about John Boehner.)  So the stuff in your JPEGs can be wiki-converted like so, into a nice clean ref:
 * Dunnet features a large boulder in the second scene.


 * Now, the fulltext of this particular 2003 ref is *not* available online, that I could tell. But it *is* available, in the wiki-verifiable sense of WP:V -- I've linked my cite-web-url-param above, to a paywall website, which sells back-issues for twenty bucks including shipping and handling.  Somebody that was really REALLY needing to verify that Kris Fong really said two sentences about Dunnet in 2003, could in fact do so.  That is all that WP:V requires.  It's more convenient for folks if there is a link, to a copy of that stuff, but pillar three and the DMCA and friends override that desire for convenience.  Now, per fair use law, I am free to quote two sentences and eight command-sequences that Kris Fong published back in 2003, without fear; they are a small bit of his overall article on UNIX terminal tricks in OSX, and a *very* small portion of the overall MacAddict-March-2003 publication that bears the ISSN.  So in reality, the URL is not even needed, as long as the |quote= portion of the template is utilized properly.
 * Once you get the hang of it, you will be able to hammer out these Template:cite_web things almost without thinking about it, though of course, virtually-typing all the punctuation on a virtual-keyboard is murderously painful (use a full-size laptop or desktop keyboard or get one of those portable bluetooth keyboards if the laptop/netbook option is not quite portable enough). That's the second WP:RS that has made fun of the boulder (the other one I remember was trying to "punch boulder" methinks).  One mention is an author idiosyncrasy, but two mentions probably means that the seemingly-very-frustrating boulder in the game is WP:NOTEWORTHY.  :-)      Also, this is the type of flat out *error* in the WP:SOURCES that causes edit-wars.  Rather than just pretending that sources never mis-identified Dunnet, the correct wiki-procedure is to say at the start of the article "Dunnet (called Dead End by some sources[ref#2] based on the name of the first scene in the game)..." so as to clear up confusion, head off any potential for edit-warring over that source-conflict factoid, and also point out which refs are less likely to be real-world-reliable to the readership, as a bonus.  I see the same thing all the time; wrong dates, wrong spelling for names, wrong city (suburb vs urban core is common), and so on and so forth.
 * p.s. Note that your pre-existing other-message artspeak examples-page has a big link, click-here-to-see-user-generated-stuff, which is user-visible as a python app in the python subdir, which is prolly how they knew to look up the dirtree.  Anybody looking at artspeak, probably is also interested in python, and knows something about webserver dirlisting, is my guess, so prolly not the first time such dir-climbing has happened.  In any case, as long as there is no upload-your-own-filedata-button on a python-backed HTML form, the risk is relatively minor; of course, by analyzing the dotPy code, somebody could conceivably find a security flaw in your scriptfiles, and even without that advantage, see SQL injection for a common type of flaw that doesn't even require source-code access, but merely a web-form that accepts user-generated input and fails to sanitize it.  (Protocols like NET-TALK are even more risky in infosec terms of course, as you prolly know; installing a chat-feature or a file-upload feature into a subdir of your quogic webhost is NOT actually necessary for a small security risk to exist.  As the old saying goes, for perfect security, power the computer off, put it in a concrete bunker, and never let anyone touch it again.)  Infosec nerd joke, see xkcd.  Also see the corresponding wikipedia article on the topic, SQL Injection '); DROP TABLE ipblocks; --.
 * p.p.s. If you have other digicam stuff, or scanner-stuff, that needs pre-review by wiki-eyeballs, better to put it in a dunnet subdir of the sekrit location, than into a toplevel folder which requires additional URL communication via manual means.  Of course, since you cannot spell "addict" there is no need for me to break your hyperlink-directions per pillar three, since they are already broken out-of-the-box.  ;-)      As mentioned, you can also just format the ref, and use the |quote= for the key bits, rather than hauling out the old digicam, since WP:V doesn't actually require the ref to be online.    Best, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 20:26, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

fixing up Dunnet, aka mechanics of suggesting edits despite COI
So, here is a new section where we can talk about how to edit, even though you have COI, via use of sonar-ping-broadcast templates, and using article talkpages, and such. Since we're talking videogames, might as well check for specific videogame policies. WP:GAMEGUIDE has this to say: (quoth) [Wikipedia is not for] Video game guides. An article about a video game should summarize the main actions the player does to win the game. But avoid lists of gameplay weapons, items, or concepts, unless these are notable in their own right (such as the BFG9000 from the Doom series). Walk-throughs or detailed coverage of specific point values, achievements, time-limits, levels, types of enemies, character moves, character weight classes, and so on are also considered inappropriate. A concise summary is appropriate if it is essential to understanding the game or its significance in the industry. See WP:VGSCOPE. (unquoth) WP:VGSCOPE has a lot more detail, some of it pretty helpful... but it is a guideline, aka generally considered a good idea slash best practice, but NOT the same level of you-pretty-much-should-always-do-this level of a policy like WP:(doNotWriteArticlesThatAre)GAMEGUIDEs, and certainly not this-is-non-negotiable pillar like WP:5. Still, if you read the language in the guideline, it sure wants to ACT like it is not just a guideline that can be followed or not followed, as appropriate for the broader goal of improving the encyclopedia, but The Law. Here is an excerpt:

(quoth) Each video game article should include a minimum set of standard elements:


 * An infobox, completed correctly and appropriately. See the VG Templates for more instructions on how to use the different templates that are used in writing video game articles.
 * The template placed on the article's Talk page. This lets others know that the article is within the scope of WikiProject Video Games.
 * A "Development" or "History" section. Specifically for articles about games, it is essential to explain how the game was made. This information is highly useful in constructing articles on fictional aspects within a game as well.
 * A "Reception" section. This shows the impact that the subject had on the game industry: commercially, artistically, and technologically. For additional guidance see this guideline.
 * When writing about a game, be sure to categorize it by genre, platform, and year. See Wikipedia:Categorization.

If these essential pieces of information cannot be found in reliable sources, then it may be more appropriate to merge this topic into a parent article. (unquoth)

In other words, if the videogame doesn't satisfy this guideline, which the owners of wiki-project-videogames use to assert their control over articles within their field-of-inquiry turf, then delete it from the encyclopedia. Obviously, the phrasing of this guideline puts it into direct competition with WP:GNG, which is that *actual* notability policy... not to mention WP:FAILN and WP:NOTEWORTHY and WP:PRESERVE ... and of course, even further in conflict with WP:5, which is the *actual* "minimum set of standard elements" for all activity on wikipedia. Anyways, as far as editing the Dunnet article goes, we can have the infoboxen, correctly filled out (I believe), if we want to insert it. Here are the contents which are permitted, as listed at Template:infobox video game.


 * Infobox video game | collapsible = | state =  | italic title  =  | title =  | show image =  | image =  | alt =  | caption =  | developer =  | publisher =  | distributor =  | series =  | engine =  | platforms =  | released =  | genre =  | modes =  | director =  | producer =  | designer =  | programmer =  | artist =  | writer =  | composer =  | cabinet =  | arcade system =  | cpu =  | sound =  | display =.

Here is an example infoboxen, over at Jigsaw_(video_game), which repetitively lists author/author/author and then platform/platform/platform, plus has a screenshot. Arguably, of course, you don't need the infobox; the first sentence of the article on Dunnet says who the developer/publisher/distributor/director/producer/designer/programmer/artist/writer/composer of the game was (Ron Schnell), and we don't need to repeat that a half-dozen times in the infobox because they are all the same person. Similarly, engine/platform/cabinet/system are all going to be pretty repetitive. You can have a screenshot without the infoboxen, obviously. So it's a judgement call, as to whether the infoboxen is 'essential' to the article, or will just be a repetitive store of redundancy that serves little purpose for a single-author FLOSS videogame.

Next, the which-wikiproject-owns-this-article, on Talk:Dunnet (video game), which is already there.

Next, the development-slash-history section of the article, explaining programmingLanguages/platforms/dates/licensing/etc. This is something we can flesh out, here on your talkpage, or if you'd rather (might be a good idea since the AfD is ongoing) over at the Talk:Dunnet (video game) page, where we can work out what to say, before we fix up mainspace with the 'finished' prose. (Reception is pretty obvious; what did the WP:RS say about the game qua game.) 75.108.94.227 (talk) 13:18, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Old articles
I understand that this one is probably not useful, but I wanted you to read it for your interest. It's from 2008 and I had to go to archive.org to get it. Found it in an old fanmail: https://web.archive.org/web/20080319073538/http://www.npoly.com/pivot/entry.php?id=44 Ron Schnell 02:43, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I also found this one in archive.org, see the in-depth-blogs-subsection of the source listing. This is the best one we have, besides Wyrmis; both were in 2008 at similar points in time (the exact ordering is unknown because one of them is undated and the archive.org backups are too granular to say which came first).  It is useful for just-the-facts info, but needs to be separated into a Notes section away from the refs, and since it isn't WP:RS is only minimally helpful at AfD.  75.108.94.227 (talk) 17:17, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Here's a listicle that I don't think was mentioned before. Pub doesn't seem to have physical address, but does have phone number: http://www.applematters.com/article/mac-mods/ Ron Schnell 03:07, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the phys-addr-rule is just a heuristic. This one is new to me, will check it out.  Is your prediction that this is WP:RS, only lacking the street-addr, or is it a bust, do you guess?  75.108.94.227 (talk) 17:17, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I would guess that the pub itself is likely WP:RS. I don't think the author is a staff author, but I'm not positive. The list element is a single paragraph.  I think the most useful thing is that it's 2007 and not part of the burst that a lot of the others are.  Also, he references the Wikipedia article in the paragraph. Ron Schnell 17:43, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, something is wrong with the website (or my browser), I cannot see the aboutpage at present. But yes, if you use archive.org to get the older aboutpage, then we can see that 1) real legal names are being used, 2) there is an explicit editorial staff, and 3) there is a button to email-us-if-you-want-to-write-for-us, but 4) not anything about "we let anybody blog here that wants to" type of thing.  Whether the author of the piece is also an independent blogger or not, can sometimes shed light on that; if you look at Tanner's blog for 2007-02-23, you see a blogpost, but on a completely different topic.  Thus, we can reasonably presume, AppleMatters was in some kind of transfer-of-copyright-to-the-publisher arrangement with the author, and not just regurgitating every thing the author felt like penning.  It's not necessary to be "on staff" or even be paid.  From context clues, we can surmise that Tanner was some kind of student at the time, but this isn't a disqualifier for WP:RS (and neither is being unpaid).  So, AppleMatters under Hadley Stern of sternrules LLC qualifies as prima facie WP:RS, which means at minimum we have a 2007 WP:NOTEWORTHY mention.  (quoth) "Mac OS X Easter Eggs: ...#3 [of 6 total].  If you want a text game, launch Terminal and type without quotes “emacs -batch -l dunnet” and hit enter. An Emacs text game will load (note: this not exclusive to Mac OS X; if you run a UNIX based Operating System, you can also play this game). I will also note that this game is extremely addictive and was often the source of unproductive behavior in our Mac labs.  (unquoth).  78 words, a few less if you cut out the redundant stuff.  But it is a review, and it has two WP:RS factoids that we can immediately make use of:  "Dunnet runs under any UNIX-like OS."(ref)  "Dunnet has been called 'extremely addictive'."(sameRef)   In some cases, we would put "according to AppleMatters" in the latter sentence, but it appears not to be a bluelink yet. (Other wikipedia pages already cite it as WP:RS however ... that does not mean it *IS* any such thing but is usually a good sign.) Anyways, good find, this is a brief one, but a good one.  The 2007 and the 'extremely addictive' quote will be helpful to proving WP:N, to the extent it has not already been demonstrated.  75.108.94.227 (talk) 18:16, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Authored article
Thought you might be interested in this too: http://www.uscg.mil/proceedings/archive/2014/Vol71_No4_Wint2014.pdf (page 25) Ron Schnell 03:01, 22 July 2015 (UTC) Ron Schnell 03:01, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, quite. Pen-testing your own organization is not as good as hiring outside professionals methinks.  Wikipedia found that out, when they (aka one group of wikipedians) decided to pen-test another group of wikipedians (who were collaborating to patrol new articles as a team).  They picked obscure subjects, encyclopedic in nature, and inserted them into mainspace with zero references.  Then, when the AfD came along, they (the pen-testers) played dumb and acted like they believed sources existed, but had lost their library card / were on vacation / whatever.  99% of the articles were deleted.  When the facade was revealed, over half the patrollers quit in disgust, that their own wikipedians would trick them and waste their time thataway.  This led to a huge backlog of newly-created articles waiting for review, and a huge rush to get them reviewed; thus, the people that volunteered to replenish the ranks of the patrol-group tended to be shoot-from-the-hip types that would delete anything but the most-carefully-and-obviously-WP:N new articles.  So in the end, the attempt to make the patrol-group more careful about deleting things, ended up making them far less careful.
 * This 'lingoist' approach to the universe also has a big role in your new job; the typical voter will never (and I mean *never* ever) read through the issues-page on the campaign website, let alone watch several hours of speeches, and study the voting records of the candidates. Most voters, even savvy ones who participate in the primary process where all the real decisions are made, depend almost entirely on cues.  They don't look at the candidate's statements about their plans for the presidency.  They don't look at the candidate's voting record in the past.  They just listen to them, and pick up on specific linguistic cues, that indicate what kind of candidate the person is.  Many of the candidates take advantage of this phenomenon; for instance, Ted Cruz is running almost as a religious candidate like Carson and Huckabee and Santorum, despite his liberty-candidate voting record.  At the same time, Rand Paul is running his campaign to appeal to swing-voters and convertible-democrats, sending them the cues they want to hear (Paul is the #2 choice of most Chris Christie voters for instance), despite a liberty-candidate voting record barely distinguishable from Cruz.  Rubio has an extremely-tea-leaning voting record, but has been working his tail off trying to send estab-candidate cues, and it is working; he is perceived (not just by estab-candidate voters but by tea-candidate voters!) as being as estab-candidate-guy in 2016, despite his mild-tea-voting-record.  Walker is the opposite; he's sending strong tea-party-cues, despite his *actual* record of being a pretty mainstream-estab-repub-guv (per his CATO fiscal-governorship ratings and his ~15% average score from the AFL-CIO among other things).  If you look into the past, you can see how drastically the cues matter; see Hillary's change from Goldwater to McGovern to her current estab-politician persona; see her successor Gillibrand's complete-about-face from pro-gun-rural-dem to uber-liberal-NYC-dem when she ascended from usRep to usSen.  Jeb Bush is a similar case; when he first ran for guv in FL, he sent cues as a hard-right conservative to win the primary; later, he sent cues as an estab-guy.  Romney, of course, is the epic study of using cues to try and define then redefine yourself, even more than the Clintons. Besides the define-your-candidacy linguistic cues, there is also a whole universe of attack-advert linguistic cues; when Cruz was about to win the repub primary in TX for instance, his estab-repub-opponent began running a barrage of last minute adverts trying to tar Cruz as a 'trial lawyer' aka Democrat-in-repub-clothing (which is ludicrous if you have ever listened to Cruz speak or read through his website -- but most voters DON'T which is the whole point).  p.s.  DotMil addresses pretty much automagically qualify as WP:RS, so that can be used on the 'pedia.  Per WP:COI, you shouldn't stick it into the social engineering and penetration testing articles yourself, but you very much should bring it up on the talkpages thereof, and see if somebody wants to integrate that material into the article.  If nobody bites, we can try sticking in the sonar-beacon-request-for-edit-encumbered-by-coi, and see if anybody responds to the bat-signal.  75.108.94.227 (talk) 17:44, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I invented the term "lingoist" to differentiate it from "linguist" and the similar. As a lingoist, I am interested in *lingo*.  I love meeting people in new industries and learning new words that only apply to that industry.  My new role is an extremely rich source of new lingo, which is one of the main reasons I love it.  This may seem silly, but it's just one of my many quirks.  Similarly, one of the main reasons I became a pilot was to learn the lingo and use it "on the radio".  I'm also learning a bunch of new lingo from you, btw.  It so happens that understanding the lingo can be a very useful tool in social engineering. Ron Schnell 18:18, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, unfortunately wikipedia-talkpages are all about the lingo. If you are 'natural lingoists' like us, or at least, enjoy reading the jargon file, then you will have no problem here.  If we want to make wikipedia more inviting to people, however, wiki-jargon is the exact opposite of what we want.  As in all fields/professions/cliques, the wiki-jargon acts as an off-putting nigh-impenetrable barrier to participation.  (I'm particularly thinking the 'Dick and Jane' book report... but find the mass-deletion-wiki-context with terse-jargonic-reason doubly ironic too.)  That was not the original goal of wiki-policies; most of the 2004-era wiki-policies are rooted in normal english, such as 'reliable' sources and 'notable' topics and 'conflict of interest' and the like.  But since 2007/2008, those normal-english-meaning words have become increasingly wiki-jargon-ized, with meanings now DRAMATICALLY divergent from the normal english dictionary-defs ... and thus I'm careful to always say wiki-notable or WP:N as opposed to real-life-notable, and wiki-reliable or WP:RS as opposed to real-life-reliable.  When you tell someone 'your source is unreliable' it is insulting, ditto when you say 'your topic is not notable' ... especially since about 90% of new articles are BLP autobiographies and/or product&corporation placement.  Deletionists don't care that the wiki-jargon is insulting on a regular basis, and in fact are 99% of the time blind to the idea that it could *be* perceived as insulting; along the same lines, they are stickler for exact obediance to policy, and refuse to consider any logic that is not 100% backed by policy... although quite often they don't even *know* the policy itself, they just operate on WP:IDONTLIKEIT gut instincts, and the wiki-culture and wiki-technologies are geared to make that tactic successful, nine times out of ten.  Along the way, wikipedia becomes a petrifying deadly bureaucracy, and all but the most rugged individualists are driven off, or at least, stick to the safe topic-areas.  It is a real problem, with no solution as yet.
 * So yes, pay attention to the way jargon is used hereabouts. Sit in on some of then ongoing AfD threads, or look at ANI, or have a peek at TFA and GA reviews, watch the DYK process, check out ArbCom proceedings, take a gander at the wiki-politics of Project Videogames and Project Politics and the like.  Hang out on the IRC channel(s) if you want to really learn something, or look at WMF-funded mini-projects and back-end teams.  But beware, there are wiki-cultures within wiki-cultures, and some of these places are deadly to your gumption.  Almost none of them have anything to do with improving the encyclopedia, to a pessimist anyways.  But a wonderful source of jargon, if you like exploring text-based multiverses, and have a bit of the anthropologist in you.  p.s. Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions has some nice jargon, I like WP:VAGUEWAVE particularly.  You should definitely not read this, WP:DEVILSDICT, however.  75.108.94.227 (talk) 20:04, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

question on endorsements
While I have your ear, I also need help with the Rand Paul section. I know I'm missing a bunch of NH-state-reps, for instance. Can you give me some URLs here on the article-talkpage in a new subsection, something like Talk:Endorsements_for_the_Republican_Party_presidential_primaries,_2016, so that I can flesh the rest of the Rand Paul section out in mainspace? I marked that subsection as needing expansion, but nobody has followed my mandatory orders, dern it all. ;-)      And you also need not mess with this, if you'd rather not, but I'm guessing you probably already have such a list, or know who does.  If so, and it's convenient, please spill, so I can fix up the article.  As you know, per wiki-COI, best if you don't touch the mainspace article yourself.  75.108.94.227 (talk) 17:31, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't have such a thing, but when I'm done traveling I will see if I can find. Ron Schnell 23:28, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks, it's appreciated. There is no hurry, see WP:NORUSH.  75.108.94.227 (talk) 23:36, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

the koan of the usertalkpage
We've been slowly filling up your usertalk, with a bunch of stuff. Some of it is still relevant, some of it is not. You are basically in charge of your usertalk contents, in a way that you are not in charge of article-talkpage contents, and obviously, of mainspace. If you want to set up some kind of archiving-thing, you can do that. You can also just 'delete' big chunks of stuff, once the clutter gets to you, and then find them in the edit-history of your talkpage if and when you need them again. You can even delete a big chunk, and then insert a hyperlink to the particular edit-history-diff, into the portion of the talkpage from whence you just deleted it, if that makes sense, which is a kind of poor human's archiving system. Or of course, you can just leave the clutter, since after all, scrolling to the bottom isn't that hard. Lemme know if you want pointers to the archiving-apps-and-such, or just do a bit of googling for them, or look at some admin's userpage to see how they do things. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 13:56, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

the edit conflict and how to avoid it
Well, okay, maybe not *avoid* it. You cannot avoid it; basic race condition of a multi-user online shared document. Wikipedia-aka-mediawiki-software is not-too-terrible as a codebase, but it is PHP, and old-school PHP at that. Here is a quick fix I made. About an hour later, you also saved a reply you'd been working on.  Your save, undid my self-grammar-correction-bugfix. You probably (barring a bug in mediawiki) got some message about 'there has been an edit conflict' and a couple of boxes, one with my changes only, one with your changes only. Wikipedia 1999-era technology forces you to either manually cut-n-paste your edit upwards, or perhaps manually cut-n-paste my changes. But if you just do one or the other, data is "lost". (It can still be retrieved manually from the edit-history of course but is lost from the current-active-copy of whatever page is being worked on.) There is no intelligent-software-merge-facility, and the diff-facility is also pretty primitive, as you may have noticed. Anyways, I don't mind, but be aware that if you get the edit-conflict message, you have to be double-extra-especially-careful not to delete other people's changes when you save your own. After that initial blanket 'there has been an edit conflict' generic errmsg, you don't get any second warning. This is relatively rare in 2-person conversation, but with 10-person conversations that are common on political-article-talkpages, for instance, it can be really annoying. There is supposed to be this thing called WP:FLOW that 'solves' the edit-conflict troubles (but introduces many more fundamental flaws), and word was it was gonna be mandatorily deployed Real Soon Now... back in 2011 or something. :-)     75.108.94.227 (talk) 23:34, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

tidying the AfD, aka some of your comments have been hidden away in a little green box
Hi Ron, after discussions with Czar on their usertalk, I have hidden away most of my commentary at the AfD, and most of yours as well. If you believe something was collapsed that should have remained visible, or that your current current position is not properly represented, please feel free to add a new comment at the bottom (but since you've already voted 'keep' once you should not add another 'keep' at the bottom but rather a mere 'comment' to further clarify your stance). Or, if you want to do something more complex, ping my talkpage (or ask czar or imperfectlyInformed to help), if you're not sure of the wiki-syntax required to accomplish your goals. Thanks for your patience; I believe we'll get through this AfD in relatively short order now that the ball is moving along again. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 14:33, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

craig finseth at MIT
Hey, this was something I ran across, when looking for 'adventure' and 'emacs' sources that might be about Dunnet.


 * https://books.google.com/books?id=JFr6AgAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=dunnet+text+adventure&hl=en&sa=X&ei=5s2hVfD5L8fKogSRioDoAw&ved=0CEAQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=adventure&f=false
 * http://www.finseth.com/craft/#c8.5

Did you ever see the 1990/1991 book The Craft Of Text Editing by Finseth, or his 1980 thesis which contained similar stuff, or did you come up with the idea of porting from MacLisp to eLisp independently? Inquiring minds want to know. ;-)     Thanks. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 14:58, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

disambiguation of the name-referent, plus 1983 and 1977 arpanet-maps
From at least one of the sources, we know that DUNNET stands for 'dungeon + arpanet' ... but the referents of those terms aren't explained further. Here is part of what I'm working on as a potential Background section for the Dunnet article (plus partly just for fun).


 * dungeon aka the generic term for a dark underground prison. dungeon
 * Dungeons_%26_Dragons aka D&D dicegame, 1974 by Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson, published by TSR
 * dnd, 1975 by Gary Whisenhunt / Ray Wood, also ran on PLATO_(computer_system). See also List_of_Dungeons_%26_Dragons_video_games.
 * Dungeon, 1975/1976 by Don Daglow of Claremont U, available via DECUS, computerized clone of dice-rolling D&D games with a top-down-ascii-art-map, ran on PDP-10 with ~36kb ram.
 * Dungeon, 1976 by John Daleske / Gary Fritz / Jan Good / Bill Gammel / Mark Nakada, ran on PLATO_(computer_system). See also List_of_Dungeons_%26_Dragons_video_games.
 * Ultima #0 aka Akalabeth fka D&D v1 through v28b videogame, 1977/1978/1979/1980, for Apple][ and PDP-11, by Richard Garriott. Also: History_of_Western_role-playing_video_games
 * Dungeon aka DUNGEN, 1977/1978/1979/1980 by the MIT 'imps' who wrote Zork; when unfinished the game *was* a zork (allegedly, per ITS jargon file, noun: an unfinished program). When mostly-complete in 1978 the PDP-10 game was dubbed Dungeon (albeit spelled with six letters due to technological limitations of the filesystem), and it was originally sold commercially as such, until TSR the AD&D folks made noise about 'dungeon' being their trademark, after which the series was back-dubbed capitalized-Zork thereafter.
 * Multi-user Dungeon(s) 1978/1979, beginning with 60-player "2.5-D" Avatar-fka-Avathar for PLATO (computer system), "first-ever fully-functional graphical world"
 * Dungeon n Dragons, 1980, for TRS-80 Model 1, by Peter Trefonas, published by CLOAD
 * Dungeons_of_Daggorath, 1980/1981/1982, for TRS-80, by DynaMicro aka Douglas J. Morgan and Keith S. Kiyohara
 * [A]D&D Computer Fantasy Game (three videogame flavors), 1981/1982 for Intellivision by Mattel / Tom Loughry
 * Dungeons_%26_Dragons_(TV_series), 1983/1984/1985 animated cartoon, loosely based on D&D of 1974

What is the most appropriate wiki-link for the first part of DUN+NET? Should it be DUNgeon + arpaNET? Or are the referents different, more generic, more mixed, more whatever than those wikilinks would suggest? There aren't many dragons in dunnet, I might point out, and Neuromancer by Gibson came out in 1984, which was after you wrote the MacLisp original. The Shockwave Rider came out in 1975, but it was not about living-inside-a-computer-simulation. Tron was in theaters in July 1982, and I *presume* that it was an influence on Dunnet's theme, but wikipedia cannot say so in mainspace, until and until we have some WP:ABOUTSELF answers to questions about the early development phases. When the game was still in MacLisp, was the game referred to specifically as "dunnet" in english, or was that just an artifact of the six-char-filename-limitation, and most people in the 1980s spoke of "dungeon-net" (or even "dungeon-network") perhaps? More generally, what were the influences that led to Dunnet, the name as well as the overall theme/gameplay? Thanks. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 18:52, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, ran across this 1983 copy of the hosts file, that I figured you might enjoy perusing. I count you as having usernames on six of the eight PDP-10s at MIT in those days.  :-)      There were ~16 pdp10 boxen in Boston at mit/symbolics/bbn/dec/harvard, another ~16 on the west coast at stanford/xparc/sri/sumex/lll (and kinda sandia which was "west coast lisp" in terms of their team-culture even though it was pretty far from the ocean).  The pentagon/darpa/moffett/afsc/wpafb/gunter/kestrel/nrl/etc probably had another 16 pdp10 machines.  Those were the big three super-nodes on the arpanet; after mit/stanford/nsa, there were ~8 pdp10 machines at isi/usc under Jon Postel et al, 3 at cmu, 2 at rutgers, 1 at caltech, 1 at utAustin, 1 at u.utah (of Portable Standard Lisp fame), 1 at uWash in seattle, and 1 at upenn (the repaired pdp10 that hit the bridge en route).  See also the PNG file linked via arpanet, which shows those dual CDC-6600s at NYU.  Pretty cool.  75.108.94.227 (talk) 18:52, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Let's see...From that list, in that year, I had accounts on: MIT-AI, MIT-ARTHUR, MIT-BENJI-MOUSE, MIT-CCC, MIT-DMS, MIT-EDDIE, MIT-EECS, MIT-FRANKY-MOUSE, MIT-FUSION, MIT-HTVAX, all of the MIT-LISPM-XX, MIT-MARVIN, MIT-MC, MIT-ML, MIT-MULTICS, MIT-OBERON, MIT-OZ, MIT-PLASMA, MIT-PUMA, MIT-PYGMALION, MIT-SPEECH, MIT-XX, MIT-ZAPHOD, and SRI-IU. Ron Schnell 20:10, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Heh heh. Pretty awesome.  What's your take on LispM versus MULTICS, or are you a true believer that UNIX-is-so-cool, still today as you were in the early 1980s, given 20/20 hindsight that the LispM failed (or rather had the key features absorbed one by one into MacOS/Windows3x imitations), and the commercial UNIX vendors beat out MULTICS and other mainframe-oriented stuff, whereas even later Linux overtook and then gradually eliminated those selfsame commercial UNIX workstation flavors?  75.108.94.227 (talk) 21:41, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I loved the Lisp Machines back then, but could not fathom a business case for them (I also couldn't fathom a business case for the ARPANET, so clearly I wasn't as much of a visionary as people think). I certainly liked the UNIX Operating Systems more than MULTICS, but even today I believe that MULTICS had a more robust security framework and mechanism for project management (I also think that Primos had better security than the UNIX Operating Systems). I have much to say about Linux beating out the UNIX operating systems, but it's too long to type.  Catch me in person :-) Ron Schnell 00:35, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The business-case for spending $100k bucks on a LispM with full-printed-page GUI high-rez display, multiple megs of RAM backed by 100+MB hdd swapfile/datastore, and extremely advanced software, was quite simple: with a floppy disk-based CGA/MDA 16kb-to-640kb-ram IBM PC running MS-DOS, you spent less than $5k bucks, aka the LispM was way more than 10x the price.  But in 1983, the LispM still held forth the promise of writing a computer program that could literally think for itself.  With the PC, you basically got an electronic digital version of the accounting ledger, and as a bonus you simultaneously got a cheaper generic version of a dedicated electronic-display typewriter in the same programmable device; these tools, plus custom MS BASIC scripts/apps, increased the everyday productivity of individual white-collar humans.  With a LispM, you got a meta-machine, for building multiple intelligent software agents, that could *replace* most human white-collar employees.  In theory, at least; in practice, artificial stupidity like Siri(tm) is the best we've managed, in six decades of trying.  See also, wildly-overhyped predictions of 'computerized brains' in the 1940s/1950s as part of cybernetics, and in the 1960s/1970s under John McCarthy and Marvin Minsky (e.g. Minsky assigned a couple of MIT sophomores the job of solving the computer vision problem over the summer... and McCarthy was arguably the inventor of the military drone).  The LispM was just the 1980s hardware-flavored-plot-twist, a variation on the theme of that long-running LISP-hacker-hubris.  It is truly sad (or lucky) that we never quite manage it.
 * As for the biz-case of the ARPANET, that's easy, you just need a brilliant environmental scientist like Al Gore to come along, and with some heated back-room policy negotiations, followed by the stroke of a magical political pen, voila, the *internet* is invented, way better than the stupid ARPANET, and thus a military project designed to act as a pre-emptive-nuclear-first-strike deterrent by implementing an indestructible packet-switched command-n-control network, is suddenly converted into a voter-friendly-vehicle for playing Angry Birds and then posting your high scores to FaceBook for all to see. Ah, progress; too bad you weren't visionary enough.  ;-)
 * So somewhere below, you say that you wrote Dunnet for the TOP-20 machines, as opposed to the ITS ones. That means you were developing the codebase on (all of / one of / some of) MIT-EECS, MIT-OZ, MIT-XX, and/or MIT-SPEECH, in other words the 'serious applied computer science' machines used by the LCS-folks, rather than the 'artificial intelligence classic-hacker-oriented' machines MIT-AI, MIT-ML, MIT-MC, and/or MIT-DM used by the AI-folks.  Was there a reason for this, besides desire to learn the TOPS-20-specific command-completion facilities, e.g. perhaps load-related-considerations or possibly usage-policy-flexibility?  Given that Dunnet has a storyline involving strong AI, one might have expected ITS as the original MacLisp implementation.  Did you port from TOPS-20 to ITS at some point?  What about zetalisp on the LispM-1to9+12+ 15to16+18to20+ 22to26+27akaMitAiFileComputer +29to30+Test +Marvin+Arthur+Zaphod hardware, did some of those boxes ever run Dunnet natively?  I also believe that Multics LISP was operational by ~1978 (albeit possibly only for Honeywell and not for MIT-MULTICS), and there was also *some* kind of LISP (maybe NIL?) available for the vaxen; you had BSD-based EDDIE and HTVAX plus also VMS-based OBERON and PYGMALION not to mention your west-coast SRI-IU account, did you ever attempt Dunnet on some of those systems?  As for the PDP-11s running mini-ITS (or in the case of MIT-CCC running UNIX and it looks like MIT-FUSION pdp11 was running either a stock DEC distro or perhaps a custom OS of some kind), did they even have LISP available, and if so, could Dunnet fit into their ram/cpu/etc limitations compared to the PDP-10 quasi-mainframes?  (Oh... and since you had usernames on all eight of the MIT pdp10 boxen, that means you were effectively a co-owner of ~10% of the major nodes of the internet, at the time.  Not too shabby, even though you're still not a visionary like Al Gore of course. :-)     75.108.94.227 (talk) 16:02, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I started working at MIT in the AI lab (on the Puma robot specifically, for Patrick Winston who, by the way, wrote an amazing recommendation for me for an honorary degree, which might make a good ref for any future Ron Schnell page). I think I was sort of an intern at that point.  Then I was hired by Joel Moses at EECS to be a sysadmin.  Later, I would be put in charge of all of the VAXen at both EECS and at NE43 (I think I was the youngest person ever with a key to the 8th floor at NE43 -- or was it the 9th floor?  I'm losing it.  Whichever one had all of the computers :-) )  Anyway, EECS was the department that paid me.  Our work accounts were on TOPS-20.  By that time I had already mastered ITS and was learning about TOPS-20 at the time Dunnet was written.  I never ran it on ITS because of the COMND stuff, which obviously didn't exist there. I recall someone suggesting I write it in MDL (programming language), because there was already a framework in it for Zork, but I was more interested in learning the new system (new for me). Of course the AI culture had a strong influence on me because I started at MIT in AI and still spent at least half of my time there. Ron Schnell 16:38, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I would use https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zork#Zork_and_Dungeon as the reference. Ron Schnell 20:10, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Gracias. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 21:41, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * To answer the more general question, Zork and Advent were certainly the two main influences on my text adventure writing. In fact, Zork was a main influence on my interest in computing.  Dunnet was not the first text adventure I wrote, but it *is* the first one I published.  In 1981 a friend of mine and I wrote a text adventure in a language called SETL, as a means to become more proficient at it.  There are probably some elements of that text adventure (which we call DUNGEON.STL) that influenced content of Dunnet.  I do have a partial printout of DUNGEON.STL somewhere.  The SETL dungeon did not have any of the "surreal" elements.  It was a simple text adventure/state machine with some interesting puzzles. Ron Schnell 20:15, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I should add that this friend of mine and I became addicted to another text adventure called The Pits (see http://games.wwco.com/pits/). I believe that it was the greatest text adventure ever written.  It certainly inspired us to write DUNGEON.STL. Ron Schnell 20:22, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Turns out that I cannot learn about The Pits, since there seems to be no hard information on it whatsoever.  I agree with Walt's (at the wwco link) tentative conclusion that the game is probably z-machine like Zork, rather than a-code like ADVENT v550, based on the complex parsing tech.  But beyond that, and your game-map memories, very little seems certain.  There were several games of a similar name and vintage I ran across:
 * * The_Pit_(video_game), published 1982 by Konami/Centuri, graphical-maze arcade-game.
 * * The Pit (HES), published 1983(?)(wikipedia claims HES was founded in 1984) by Home Entertainment Suppliers Pty Ltd of Australia, no screenshot or other details available so unclear if it was a graphical-game or text-game, for C64.
 * * The Pit (Interceptor Software), published 1984 by Lee Braine of Interceptor Software, graphical-maze VIC-20 game.
 * * The Pit (BBS door), first published in the late 1980s, available for instance via "Late Nite BBS", Tukwila, WA, running WWIV v3.11, active 1990-1997. "Originally started in Lake Mary, Florida in 1990 on an AT286-6MHZ then moved to Tukwila, WA in 1991. In 1992 upgraded to an AT386-25 pc. Started a message network called NWNET using WWIVnet networking through various BBS's in WA. Major feature were door games with The Pit being the major game."
 * Unfortunately, I don't think any of these were related to The Pits (video game) that you played, except via mere accidental-similarity-of-moniker. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 16:02, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks. If you can dig up the partial printout, you can upload a digicam photo of the code to your driver-aces blog, and we can reference the SETL codebase as the precursor to Dunnet via WP:ABOUTSELF.  So where does the 'net' portion come from?  How did the cyberpunk aspect get into the game, was it Tron, or an independent invention, or some other influence?  That's the most "interesting" thing about the game I believe, the theme, because most other text adventures of the early 1980s were made specifically to be easy-to-play-for-anybody-with-a-computer, whereas Dunnet expects you to know CLI for DOS and for UNIX-like systems.  Along the same lines, Dunnet has the player living inside a simulated matrix-style-universe, but the matrix movies didn't come out until 1999 or whatever.  So where did the cyberpunk aspects stem from?  Is arpanet the correct referent, for the second half of the game?  Dunnet is single-player, rather than multi-player, but the name makes some people (e.g. the macLife reviewer) incorrectly assume that Dunnet is a MUD like Avatar/Avathar, playable over the network.  p.s.  I will check out The Pits, when I have time.  75.108.94.227 (talk) 21:41, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It'll be a month before I'm next at home, so I'll look for DUNGEON.STL then. I think I know where it is.  I don't think I've talked about where the matrix-style stuff came from anywhere before.  It actually happened because someone wrote a library for MACLISP to use the COMND (sp?) "system call" on Tops-20 on Decsystem-20 (the machine on which I wrote Dunnet).  One of the cool thing about TOPS-20 was command completion.  I wanted to learn how to use it, so while I was writing Dunnet I decided to integrate command completion.  Obviously this would ruin the game because a big part of it is figuring out what you can type.  So I came up with the idea that you would login to a computer in the game and type on the console (a TOPS-20 console, at the time).  It just made sense to make it into a "meta-game" from there. Ron Schnell 00:35, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, very intriguing. So, to mention some of the other people in NE43 around the time you were there:  Guy Steele and Gerry Sussman invented the Scheme dialect in 1975, and by 1980/1981, Hal Abelson and Gerry Sussman were teaching 6.001 to budding MIT hackers-in-the-classic-sense.  They didn't publish the first hardback version of SICP until 1985, which subsequently became the textbook for 6.001 from 1985 through 2007, but I assume they taught the 1980or81-1984or85 courses with the precursor-material that ended up in their published textbook.  So, question, is it correct to presume that you knew about the metacircular evaluator portion of their class-slash-book? 75.108.94.227 (talk) 16:02, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Nope. I supported the professors and their students (as a sysadmin), and would hear the students moaning about various problem sets, etc., but was 16 years old and had little interest in homework or formal studies. Ron Schnell 16:38, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I pasted my own sig-line above ... if you reply in the middle of an existing comment, it breaks the thread-flow, and especially if there are replies-to-the-replies, and six people, can get REALLY confusing. So in general, it is Not Done, and somebody will probably complain bitterly if you do it, on article-talk or at AfD or similar.  Now, I personally could care less, and in two-person-conversation-threads on usertalk, it is no big whoop.  If it really really mattered who said what, the edit-history would show that answer, right?  Anyways, a recommendation as a matter of wikiquette, don't split anybody's comments in twain, except for (since I don't really care) mine here on our usertalk pages.  75.108.94.227 (talk) 21:47, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * "It may seem circular to think about evaluating Lisp programs using an evaluator that is itself implemented in Lisp. However, evaluation is a process, so it is appropriate to describe the evaluation process using Lisp, which, after all, is our tool for describing processes. ...the result of operating on a compound expression is determined by operating recursively on the pieces of the expression... we used data abstraction to isolate the rest of the evaluator from the detailed choice of representation, [therefore] we could change the environment representation if we wanted to ...we have in our hands a description (expressed in Lisp) of the process by which Lisp expressions are evaluated. One advantage of expressing the evaluator as a program is that we can run the program. This gives us, running within Lisp, a working model of how Lisp itself evaluates expressions ...set up a global environment that associates unique objects with the names... For convenience in running the metacircular evaluator, we provide a driver loop that models the read-eval-print loop of the underlying Lisp system. It prints a prompt, reads an input expression, evaluates this expression in the global environment, and prints the result. We precede each printed result by an output prompt so as to distinguish the value of the expression from other output that may be printed ...all we need to do to run the evaluator is to initialize the global environment and start the driver loop... In thinking about a Lisp program that evaluates Lisp expressions, an analogy might be helpful. One operational view of the meaning of a program is that a program is a description of an abstract (perhaps infinitely large) machine.  ...we can regard the evaluator as a very special machine that takes as input a description of a machine. Given this input, the evaluator configures itself to emulate the machine described.  ...From this perspective, our evaluator is seen to be a universal machine. It mimics other machines when these are described as Lisp programs.  This is striking."
 * See also, the somewhat-related discussion above about the strong AI themes in Dunnet, and the MIT people and Symbolics people who were working professionally on a similar set of underlying assumptions. How much was the LISP-hacker-culture AI-lab-culture responsible for Dunnet, if at all?  75.108.94.227 (talk) 16:02, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yep, see above. I was deeply engrossed in the AI lab culture. Ron Schnell 16:38, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Condensing all my responses down here at the bottom, since I believe we are beginning to dovetail back into a single thread of conversation. Irritatingly, the resume-ref from Winston would not count towards WP:N.  It is in depth, and it is specific to the subject of the hypothetical article, but it has no editorial oversight, i.e. was not published as an academic paper nor as an official MIT research publication, thus it does not count as WP:RS for purposes of an article on Schnell in wikipedia.  Winston is an expert on AI, so his 'unpublished' blog-posts on AI count as WP:RS, but he is not an "expert on Schnell" in the wikipedia-sense.  Winston's letter would be useful as mutual WP:ABOUTSELF verification of a sentence like "Winston recommended to Syracuse officials that Schnell be given an honorary baccalaureate, and be allowed to enter the master's program as an undergraduate sophomore" or similar.  Strangely enough, less-impeccably-famous cites like the Whiz Kid article on teaching SETL at NYU will "count" more when demonstrating wiki-notability, than 'un-published' correspondence between the famous Winston and the Syracuse profs, because despite being a not-so-famous journalist corresponding with her everyday-citizen-readership, the latter is 'published' with editorial oversight and therefore satisfies WP:RS.  Wikipedia is a strange world, sometimes, and the rules don't always make sense.
 * 9th floor aka top floor is where most of the big iron (for both AI-group and LCS-group) was housed, and 8th floor was where most AI-PhD-students worked/ate/slept, methinks. And yeah, although there was shared physical space, and many people with one foot in each group like Sussman (and like yourself), the cultures were distinct; after Project MAC split into MIT AI under Winston/Minksy and MIT LCS under Dertouzos/Moses, the distinctions were more pronounced (Multics/TOP-20 was LCS-style whereas ITS/Symbolics was AI-style), but they had existed all along.  Arguably, the mid-1980s split-point(s), when RMS wrote his manifesto, and most of the old-school-LISP-hackers left for various destinations, is more important than the early 1970s splitpoint into AI && LCS.  You left to become a teevee producer, burnt out on the vagaries of computational systems, but later got enticed back into the software world; and as time went by, you kinda maintained your one-foot-in-each-world stance, for instance five-clause-BSD'ing dunnet in 1992, then GPL'ing it in 1993/1994, whilst working from 1987-1995 on sys5r4/aix/sos/solaris.  Neat that you saw all that cool stuff, and participated in the transitions, in my book.  Anyways, I think we prolly have a pretty firm grasp on how to write the background-and-development-and-influences-section of the article now.
 * And, speaking of which, I'd like to start training you to use the WP:COI-compliant mechanisms, which is to say, working up a sentence, pruning it of pufferization, adding relevant cites and making sure that you reflect what the source(s) actually say(s), and then using some mechanism to attract the notice of an uninvolved editor, who gives your changes a look-see, and if they approve, shoves them into mainspace for you. We can do some practice runs here on your usertalk, and then once you are comfy, do a few rounds of the real thing.  Sound too much like problem sets and formal studies?  ;-)      I think it will be helpful, though, and not very painful, you're a quick study. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 21:47, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Here are some sentences, in mainspace now, that need revisions: If you are up to it, pick one of the sentence-options above (or suggest Something Completely Different if you would rather practice on topics that you didn't write the source-code for), and let's give the chosen snippet an iterative working-over here on usertalk. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 21:47, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The game enjoys certain popularity because since 1992 it is part of the default packages in many versions of Emacs.
 * 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, from our newfound bunch of sources, so we can start thataway if you'd rather. See e.g. my post about the infobox, a few sections above here.)
 * Yes, it does sound like a lot of work. I was hoping to let others do the editing from now on and completely avoid any COI issues.  As you can probably tell from the history, I had nothing to do with any of those particular lines, so in reality I would only suggest changes.  But if you think it's important I'll do it.  I'll take the first line:

Ron Schnell 00:57, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Since 1992, the game has been part of the default full installation of Emacs (ref a whole bunch of WP:RS sources).

arbitrary section break
Well, I think it's important, but the reasons for that are two-fold. First of all, if Dunnet remains a bang-keep, as I suspect it will, who's gonna take care of the article? Most of the work will fall to you, because 1) you have interest in the topic, and 2) you have expertise in the topic. I have *some* interest in the topic, since it is LISP-related, but not enough to maintain the article-text the rest of my days in this plane of existence. User:Czar has *some* interest in the generic topic of videogames overall, but relatively little in Dunnet qua Dunnet, and certainly not enough that Czar wants to maintain the article-text the rest of *their* lifetime. So in a way, even though you aren't SUPPOSED to be the main contributor to the article, you are the natural pick for the job. You know the most about the topic, and it interests you in a long-term sense. Thus, for the case of Dunnet and BFS and potentially Ron Schnell should your BLP someday get written up, I think it's good for wikipedia that you know the ropes.

Second of all, your new job as CTO is gonna involve wikipedia, if not edits by you personally, then edits by *some* people involved with the campaign, at some point. I want to train you, in wiki-policy and in wiki-mechanisms, so that you as CTO can train your campaign staffers. That will make my wiki-job a lot easier, over in the politics-articles, because instead of a lot of eager-but-clueless people trying to improve wikipedia and failing miserably, leading to articles getting semi-protected and draconianly-cleansed and other undesireable outcomes, instead I'll have a bunch of well-schooled polite contributors suggesting reliably-sourced article-talkpage edits. That's good for my sanity, and good for wikipedia too.

Zeroth of all, this is just what *I* think is important. If you don't wanna, then just say you don't wanna. I will not be offended, in the slightest. WP:MANDATORY versus WP:CHOICE, remember. You are free to contribute to wikipedia when and how and as you wish. Don't let wiki-peer-pressure get you to do stuff, that will end up making you burned out, eh?

So, assuming that you DO want to continue (stop me at any time if you wish), here's my analysis of your suggested changes. First of all, you win the gold star, for removing the WP:PUFFERY "a certain popularity". For starters, any sort of opiniated factoid like that must be backed up with some kind of WP:RS. For another thing, this is a sentence about the development of Dunnet, not about the reception of Dunnet. Later, in the reception section, we can talk about "Dunnet has been called 'extremely addictive'(ref) and 'nostalgic'(ref) and 'SomeOtherQuoteHereBalancingPositiveWithNegativeReviewsPerWpNpovAndWpUndue'.(ref)" But in the dev-and-inspiration section, talking about how fun-or-unfun Dunnet is, would quite simply be off-topic. Now, although you win the prize for getting the major thing corrected, I have some additional criticisms/upgrades of my own, as shown in the table.


 * current: The game enjoys a certain popularity because since 1992 it is  has been part of the default packages in many versions of Emacs.
 * by Ron: Since 1992, the game has been part of the default full installation of Emacs (ref a whole bunch of WP:RS sources).
 * by 75108: Since 1994,[wp:rs] the eLisp version of Dunnet (first ported in 1992[wp:aboutself#1]) has shipped with  GNU Emacs; the game also was included[wp:aboutself#2] with XEmacs.

Now, the awful tag-bombing above is an example of what NOT to do. Still, those are the problems in the original, that need fixing: slight but crucial factual inaccuracies, jargon with no explanatory wikilinks, vague in places, no cites whatsoever. Breaking these down, and filling in the WP:RS 'refs' and the WP:ABOUTSELF 'notes' with nice wiki-syntax:


 * Notes


 * References

I've left some uncorrected bugs in my reference-wiki-code, so you can see what the errmsgs look like. You can also use Template:cite web and Template:efn helpdocs, to help you figure out how to correct the errmsgs. I've also changed a few things. As you can see, the year in which Dunnet first shipped with GNU Emacs *has* to be 1994, according to mainspace, because at the moment that is what the WP:RS we know about are saying. We know that Dunnet was *ported* to eLisp in 1992, and we can use wp:aboutself source (your usenet post) to verify that factoid. However, in that self-same usenet post, you make it clear that Dunnet'92 was *not* part of Emacs, and was a separate download. Now, from our conversations here on usertalk, you and I *believe* that Dunnet may have shipped with Emacs v19.07 "beta" dated 22 May 1993, since you and RMS had that phone call sometime in 1993. But we don't KNOW for sure. Maybe the phone call was after May 22nd. Maybe the phone call was in April, but the code-freeze was already in place, so Dunnet wasn't included that go-around. Maybe who-knows-what. Point being, wikipedia mainspace must reflect what the sources say, and what the sources say is ported in 1992, included in 1994. Until more sources appear, that is what mainspace should say: ported 1992, included 1994. Make sense?

The other main revision I made, besides sourcing the dates, was to add some precision to the language: instead of just saying 'the game' shipped with 'emacs' it is more correct to say the elisp port of the game, shipped with GNU Emacs in 1994, and shipped with XEmacs at some-unknown-and-thus-tagged-date. Eventually, when we find an early usenet post by JWZ, or an earl ycopy of the XEmacs/LucidEmacs manuals, we can get a more precise date on when XEmacs started to ship with Dunnet onboard. Until then, it is fine for wikipedia mainspace to say that XEmacs also included dunnet, and we can cite the WP:BLOGS of the xemacs project-page. So at the end of the day, we used the WP:NOTEWORTHY passing-mention in one WP:RS, and supplemented it with factoids from two WP:ABOUTSELF non-WP:RS places. That's fine and dandy; the WP:RS proves that dunnet being inside emacs should be noted by wikipedia, and the WP:ABOUTSELF sources let us fill in the gaps, *without* resorting to WP:SYNTH aka putting two and two together. We don't draw any conclusions; just the facts, ma'am, as the old saw goes.

By contrast, saying that Dunnet ships with Emacs is too imprecise; we don't know how many flavors of Emacs ship-or-shipped with Dunnet, and we do know that Dunnet has at least four codebases (MacLisp'83/eLisp'92/eLispJapanese'06/Javascript'15). As a specific example of what WP:SYNTH looks like, we know that Dunnet shipped with Emacs in 1994, per the GNU Emacs manual WP:RS, and we 'know' (per wikipedia which is never itself WP:RS) that Emacs v19.28 was released 01 Nov 1994. However, we do NOT necessarily know that Dunnet first shipped with Emacs v19.28 specifically, and it would be WP:SYNTH to say that Dunnet shipped with that specific version-number of GNU Emacs. This is true, technically speaking, even if the GNU Emacs Manual were to say on page 19 that it covered Gnu Emacs 19.28, and then later say on page 314 that Dunnet was invoked via M-x dunnet. Wikipedians should not put two and two together to make four, unless it is literally that drop-dead simple, see WP:CALC for stuff that *is* allowed. Clear as a pigsty?

Last point... although it was a reasonably large amount of work, to write that sentence properly, finding the usenet post, finding the links to the RMS manuals, digging through archive.org for the XEmacs ref, and making the sentence as close to 100% true and 100% reflective of the sources as I could manage, the payback is pretty good. First of all, the sentence is a big improvement. Second of all, the sentence is now effectively bullet-proof against deletionists, or other folks that might take issue with it. Every bit that needs to be cited, is. Maybe it could use some copy editing -- omit needless words. But nobody in their right mind will want to delete it, methinks. It's a good encyclopedic sentence, and "maintainence" of the sentence will mostly consist of reverting vandalism. In other words, if you work hard on writing the sentences as best as can be managed from the get-go, you only have to write them ONCE. After that, you just coast downhill, checking the page from time to time, to make sure nobody overwrote it with 'b1ff I5 kew1' or somesuch nonsense. Along a related axis, when somebody with WPCOI encumbrance suggests an edit like this, with all their cites in a row, just the facts no puffery no promotionalism, and all the included facts clearly put forward in reasonably plain english (with wikilinks where necessary), it is almost certain to be approved for mainspace by the uninvolved editor, without any beating around the bush. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 06:43, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

SETL Artspeak
Stumbled across this neat article. SETL Artspeak might deserve a sentence or two there:  Computer_art. Your personal WP:COI with regard to Artspeak is pretty borderline (as opposed to Dunnet and CTO related wp:coi which are straightforward). If you do want to try and make some edits to computer art, for purposes of practicing the coi-mechanics, I suggest we treat it as a COI-encumbered situation anyways. Art related topics tend to be less strict about refs-for-every-word, too, which will make this mini-project a low hanging fruit of sorts. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 17:55, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you mean Artspeak, not SETL, right? There are many other (less cool) computer drawing languages (logo, etc.) that should be referenced there if we're going to be referencing languages. Ron Schnell 18:21, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Gaaah. :-)      75.108.94.227 (talk) 19:05, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Anyway, I still stand by what I said. I think there are many other languages for which even though they are less cool than Artspeak, they are also much less obscure.  I would think they should be in that article way before Artspeak. Ron Schnell 19:24, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Possibly; wikipedia is oddly divvied up, though. Sometimes there are dedicated articles on extremely narrow topics, e.g. individual software apps.  The computer art topic is not a general discussion of using computers to produce art (e.g. there is an uber-brief mention of Photoshop and GIMP -- and AutoCAD does not even merit a see-also) and is instead seemingly about the early use of computers that were specifically tasked with generating art, plus the more recent concept of the robotic-oil-painting-trick.  If so, i.e. if my grasp of what the topic-area of the article is correct, then ArtSpeak most definitely fits the article-topic, whereas a more general-purpose language like LISP ... which *could* be used for generation of computer-art but in fact was not *specific* to the production of computer art ... would not belong.  Logo is a closer fit, since it was often used for programmatically generating simple drawings, but it was primarily a learning-to-program language aimed at kids, not a use-this-to-produce-computer-art language.  For a similar niche-topic article, see computer music which is specifically about the-computer-as-the-composer, with no mention of e.g. electronic synthesizers as a form of "computer-aided music".  Anyways, I'm not saying you're wrong here -- what specific programming languages are you thinking of, that belong in computer art, and are less obscure than ArtSpeak?  75.108.94.227 (talk) 20:44, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Logo is the main one. But there are others.  In reality, Artspeak was also created as a learning-to-program language, aimed at high school kids.  The "art" you can create with it is pretty limited. Have you played with my new version? Ron Schnell 22:14, 27 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, do tell. What others?  I have some wiki-Interest in programming languages, and although I've heard of Logo and played around with it a bit, I have for obvious reasons never heard of ArtSpeak until the Dunnet discussion.  There are plenty of languages that aim to be 'simple' in some sense; Scheme, BASIC, Python, PHP, there are a lot of examples which are teaching-to-program languages to some degree.  Logo was interesting because it aimed at *really* beginning students.  Arguably even more target-oriented is the quasi-graphical-blocks-world-language Scratch (programming language), see hello-world example "code" snippet.  That said, you wouldn't call scratch a Computer-Art-lang, whereas ArtSpeak is basically a limited version of the spirograph implemented as a programmable syntax for the CDC 6600 supercomputer, and thus *is* in fact a computer-art-lang, as well as having some characteristics of a teach-youth-to-hack-lang.  I've scanned the ArtSpeak manual, and checked out the code snippets, but didn't write any snippets of my own into the online REPL thing.  I wouldn't put it on my resume yet, in other words, since I haven't even truly kicked the tires yet, but I did take a peek to see what was under the hood. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 01:06, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

book reviews/teevee/etc
Since I've got you looking for the list-of-names-that-endorsed for my work on the endorsements article (and for that I just need names & states -- I can find the WP:RS myself if I know what humanoids to search for), I would also like you to please see if somebody on the campaign can give me some help with sources for Taking_a_Stand the book which came out a couple of months ago. I know there are plenty of places where the book was mentioned on television. These are a pain to search for, so if you have somebody at the publisher or in the campaign-staff-group that is keeping a list of press-coverage-of-the-book, and can pass along their sourcing-notes to me here, it would be appreciated. Thanks, and talk to you later. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 05:26, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * In related news, hole-y rusted metal batman, I only just found out that there is a 'zeroth' nationally broadcast debate (officially a "forum" which is only quasi-sanctioned by the RNC) being held by C-SPAN et al in the St Anselm College facilities. If you know of any *additional* events like that, i.e. "forums" where a large chunk of presidential candidates will be simultaneously on stage, please add them to a new section at Talk:Republican_Party_presidential_debates,_2016 if you like.  Or skip it if you would not so like, WP:CHOICE applies as per usual. Hope you are well, talk to you later. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 11:01, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

ping
Hi Ron, I have done some cleanup of my usertalk. If you need to see some old convo, here is the edit-history link. Some people install a special "archive bot" that allows on-wiki-searching and all that stuff; if you want such a thing for your own usertalk, let me know and I'll dig up the helpdocs on the archiver-mechanisms. Best, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 15:03, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Ron, can you please modify your p-tags to contain some fragment identifiers, in particular, so that I can fix the external link to direct the reader to the relevant portion via http://www.driver-aces.com/ronnie.html#dunnet , rather than having them start at the top of the page and ctrl+f manually?


 * p.s. Alternatively, but not recommended, you could insert some of these,, see also spec-discussion, and (older) spec.  Also interesting, if incredibly too brittle and complex for my liking.   75.108.94.227 (talk) 16:30, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * This is prolly low-hanging-fruit, next time you are board. Make that bored.  Talk:Sedona_Sky_Academy  Do skim the whole talkpage though, this article was a recent wiki-battle, and still looks a wee bit touchy.  75.108.94.227 (talk) 00:03, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the touchiness from earlier should have been completely resolved and there should be no controversy there. However, the insurance provider listing for the facility does say it is for "emotionally disturbed" adolescents, so I think I won't get involved. Ron Schnell 01:00, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Key words, "should have been". Looks (from a brief wiki-glance) like it never got resolved, and has been left to fester.  I might try my hand at that one.  I also found this low-hanging-fruit, which is prolly a 15 minute job, since you have to read through a couple sources, and figure out that Tatty Devine is the desired article being discussed.  User_talk:JazmineBrenna. a nice olde-fashioned shoppe.  If you would rather spend your 15 mins on something geographical, you can try to unravel the correct street address of the supreme court of india... I've found several documents that seem to argue for *both* zipcodes, and from the pic, it looks like a gargantuan palace.  Probably would only take a few sources to unravel the mystery, though, of what the various locations are, and which one (or which ones) are the supreme court building proper.  If there are multiple addresses that need to be listed, e.g. registrar plus courthouse-chambers plus whatever, then just put "New Delhi" in the infobox and use   immediately following that city-name, to explain that the building is located in multiple zipcodes depending on what portion of the supreme court of india one is specifically talking about. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 14:58, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

lingoist red alert
Your curiosity about whether I spoke wiki-legalese in real life, was not unfounded, it seems. This person is a WP:TEAHOUSE host, one of the places where you can get insta-questions answered, and is also on the wikipedia SCOTUS. So whether you use wikipedia-jargon in real life, partly may depend on how deeply wiki-addicted you are. See WP:ADDICTED. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 22:46, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * And despite being here a long time, I still learn something new quite often. I've been grumbling about no-keyboard-shortcuts on wikipedia for years.  Somebody fixed it long ago, but forgot to tell me.  ;-)    One just has to use , or whatever.  List is here, if you also like such hotkeys. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 22:46, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:BLP
Analysis as of Aug 19th.
 * 5x WP:N == 1981 setl (strongest burst), 1982 uk (intl), 2013 segway (brief but relatively deep human-interest profile), 2015 potus (second-strongest burst), YYYY article about you&home in Electronic House home automation
 * 4x strong WP:NOTEWORTHY == 1985 mitnick, 1994+ dunnet, 2011 tc, 2004 equifax&email
 * 1+ other WP:NOTEWORTHY == 2015 FIU.edu / Nova.edu (need to dig up other dotEdu stuff -- faculty homepages and such -- to flesh out the syracuse/nova/etc jobtitles), maybe-possibly w3c proposal (depending)
 * shockingly to the uninitiated... but not to my jaded wiki-eyes... some very important stuff about you, mailcall, unix kernels&drivers, wife&kids, grandfather's cheese, 7-card stud, artspeak, etc.... doesn't even make the list. :-)

Overall, we are pretty close to where we need to be. Now, if you'll hurry up and challenge Hillary Clinton's CTO by throwing the gauntlet, then battle it out with them on Jerry Springer (but not WWE PPV that's not wiki-reliable), we'll have enough WP:RS to pass AfD with flying colors. (to avoid confusion, sig added, albeit a few hours late) 75.108.94.227 (talk) 11:43, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

So, if there are at least as many sources about Ron Schnell as there were about DUNNET (aka similar depth and breadth and timespan and such so as to satisfy WP:GNG aka WP:42) then I'm happy to take a stab at writing the BLP. Since I like you personally, that means I have to be careful about WP:NPOV, but I've got enough practice with staying neutral that I don't foresee it being a problem. I'll stick to what the sources say, and then get some AfC reviewer (and maybe Czar who also has some knowledge about this Schnell character :-)  to give my prose a once-over. But first things first: do we have the WP:SOURCES, enough to clearly demonstrate WP:N? Please list URLs here.


 * WP:ABOUTSELF, http://www.driver-aces.com/ronnie.html (February 1994 – January 2003 ... although 1987-1995 as a consultant for att/ibm/sun -- three big names we cannot mention without WP:NOTEWORTHY backing -- is also part of this effort), also, and of course , a properly-color-coded derivative work of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Arpnet-map-march-1977.png
 * WP:DAB, Ronnie_Schell
 * WP:DBTF, pest control, deceased, karate, youtube, farmer, shipping, sorghum, lawyer, NewPlatz, probably more. Next time, please try to be Xavier Bonneville Horfenshengling Junior, m'kay?
 * WP:NOTEWORTHY, tcc, http://www.wired.com/2011/11/how-microsoft-learned-to-stop-worrying-and-almost-love-open-source/, http://www.neowin.net/news/how-bill-gates-changed-microsofts-stance-on-open-source , aboutself May 2005 – August 2011
 * WP:NOTEWORTHY, prof, https://news.fiu.edu/2015/03/engineering-student-wins-at-the-panthercage/86741
 * WP:N#1 in 1981, nyu & setl, The Whiz in unnamed newspaper circa 1981 (( see also burst, below ))
 * minimum WP:NOTEWORTHY and borderline WP:N#2 in 2015, paul'16, http://recode.net/2015/06/29/coding-for-liberty-on-the-ground-at-rand-pauls-presidential-hackathon/, http://www.politico.com/playbook/0515/playbook18244.html , http://fusion.net/story/158519/rand-pauls-24-hour-hack-a-thon , http://www.ijreview.com/2015/06/355280-heres-happens-rand-paul-hosts-24-hour-hackathon-liberty/ , http://freebeacon.com/politics/rand-paul-building-campaign-database-off-nsa-fight/ (this is spin :-)
 * probably WP:ABOUTSELF, unless Tim Berners-Lee replied directly (or similar bluelink'd personage), http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-html/1996May/0467.html (but I wish you had gotten your request into the spec)
 * minimum WP:NOTEWORTHY and borderline WP:N#3 in 2013, segway, http://www.motherjones.com/media/2013/07/segway-polo-world-cup-everything-you-imagined
 * WP:NOTEWORTHY, equifax, http://www.informationweek.com/microsoft-signs-on-for-e-mail-program/d/d-id/1024973, aboutself April 2002 – January 2005
 * WP:NOTEWORTHY or a bit more in 1985, mitnick, Cyberpunk, by Katie Hafner and John Markoff, ISBN 1-872180-94-9, pgs 77-78, fair use quote="...Kevin [Mitnick] did leave a hint or two that he was still in business. One day in early 1985, Roscoe came across the phone number of Ronnie Schnell, an old bulletin board buddy from his 8BBS days, and decided to call.  When Roscoe reminded him [Schnell] of who he was [Roscoe], Ronnie sounded surprised.  'Oh, I have Kevin Mitnick on the other line.  He wants me to get him an Arpanet account.'  Roscoe was amused, and he counted the seconds before his phone rang.  'How did you know I was calling Ronnie?' Kevin demanded when he called Roscoe ten seconds later.  It was a mite odd that four years had passed since either Kevin or Roscoe had talked to Ronnie, Kevin was on the lam, determined to keep his whereabouts secret, and suddenly Roscoe happened to be on the line at the same time.  However much Roscoe tried to tell him it was a coincidence, Kevin remained unconvinced." , cf Kevin Mitnick and Special:Search/"Lewis De Payne"(capitalization?) as well as 8BBS and of course ARPANET
 * Computers and People, 1981 (Volume 30), Berkeley Enterprises. Page #25 == Pat Wallace, Navigational Support for Oceanographic Research.  George Jones, Western Electric.  Hits for "setl" and also "ronnie schnell" on that page, so almost certainly you are mentioned, but exact text obscured in preview-mode.
 * "Steven Levy. Hackers: Heroes of the Computer Revolution - 25th Anniversary Edition."  Google search says you are in this one, but then, book-preview-search says you are not.
 * "Charlie Scott, Paul Wolfe, Mike Erwin. Virtual Private Networks"  Google search says you are in this one, but then, book-preview-search says you are not.
 * WP:DBTF, Myron Ronnie Schnell, 1975.
 * "2015-08-18 16:14 @ 666K", Oct'1982, borderline-or-a-bit-over-the-line WP:N#4 in 1982 (aboutself says 1979-1982 at this effort)
 * "2015-08-18 16:28 @ 3.8M", Oct'1981, firms up the nyu&setl stuff (Courant Institute) from "unnamed newspaper circa 1981" mentioned above the line, into a nice burst-of-coverage. Also, cool CDC 6600 console-pic.  Ditto for "2015-08-18 16:27 @ 1.0M"
 * "2015-08-18 16:15 @ 126K" and also "2015-08-18 16:22 @ 145K", not truly independent sources, but firms up the tcc burst-of-coverage above the line, and spreads it over multiple years
 * "2015-08-18 16:24 @ 541K", firms up the equifax cite above the line , and might also count towards WP:N although since it is mostly you speaking (rather than others speaking about you explicitly) it mostly helps qualitatively
 * "2015-08-18 16:26 @ 13M", WP:UNSURE , is this an interview of you, or an interview *about* you-qua-you? presumably this is tcc related again?   same category, 2015-08-18 16:31 @ 55M , 2015-08-18 16:31 @ 8.0M (latter prolly aboutself)
 * WP:ABOUTSELF, 2015-08-18 16:27 @ 13M , 2015-08-18 16:25 @ 464K , 2015-08-18 16:29 @ 843K.
 * WP:NOTEWORTHY, http://cec.nova.edu/faculty/adjlist.html (Apr'05+ per aboutself)
 * WP:NOTEWORTHY but we need a, 2007 http://eventful.com/syracuse/events/eecs-seminar-ron-schnell-/E0-001-004406362-2  (aboutself says advisor 2003-2011 specifically CASE Center aka http://case.syr.edu not to be confused with Center for Advanced Studies in Engineering).   Also as grad-student 1986 http://www.unlambda.com/lispm/lmi-source/extract/dj_full/gjcx/info-bag.text.1 , cf Transputer
 * WP:DBTF, http://library.vets.syr.edu/article/brief-overview-of-va-vr-e/
 * mutual-WP:ABOUTSELF, MailCall+VWLC, http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/854608/000110465901500205/j0223_10-ksb.htm, aboutself February 1997 – February 2002 at mailcall, and 2000 thru ~2007 (right?) as part of acquisition-deal
 * maybe-WP:ABOUTSELF, sos.com, 1991 http://www.textfiles.com/digest/TELECOMDIGEST/vol11.iss0251-0300.txt (note stuff about forged ret-addr) , also 1990 http://securitydigest.org/tcp-ip/archive/1990/12 , 1992and1994 http://old-massis.lcs.mit.edu/archives/indices/authors-subjects.1992-94 , per aboutself March 1990 – June 1991
 * maybe WP:DBTF, were you given a media-lab addr at some point? from 1993, http://cse.csusb.edu/dick/doc/FAQlik.listings.txt  , prolly skip
 * maybe mutual-WP:ABOUTSELF, Young_Presidents'_Organization, prolly skip
 * maybe mutual-WP:ABOUTSELF, Invenstar, 2012 http://www.prweb.com/releases/2012/9/prweb9890143.htm , prolly skip
 * some primary-source dotGuv regulatory-stuff exists on Intercontinental Food Importers of FL/NJ, but contains FOIA info (wikipedia tends not to link to such things per WP:BLP of the entities mentioned), prolly skip
 * some primary-source dotGuv regulatory-stuff exists on Quogic of FL, but contains FOIA info (wikipedia tends not to link to such things per WP:BLP of the entities mentioned), prolly skip
 * mutual-WP:ABOUTSELF, Extenua advisor, http://www.extenua.com/team.html, prolly skip , see WP:SPIP entry at Comparison_of_SSH_servers , which is also full of spam from other competitors , but Extenua is definitely (this is not enough) that I could find. Plenty of PR hosted by reuters & yahoo, no actual WP:RS mentions that I saw.

discussion subsection
This stuff above the line is close to WP:42, but would be improved with more depth, and in particular, with more coverage where you were named in the title. In the segway article, you got half-a-dozen sentences specifically about you, and that makes it borderline WP:N, but the article was mostly about segway polo, not about Ron Schnell the segway polo superstar, right? Anyways, if you can dig up some more stuff for me, and add it to the list above, we are already reasonably close to WP:N and a few more goodies will prolly push us over the top. Can be non-English, can be non-web-accessible, but needs to be WP:RS stuff. Best, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 16:22, 18 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I set up a page with some more. Many are RS, some N, and there are a couple of WJPZ-FM things in there, just FYI. Please don't share yet.  I just want your opinion about the various things.  It is okay to refer to the by name here, and even take quotes from it.  But don't share the documents, videos, or audio (yet).  It is at http://artspeak.quogic.com/python/75108.py Ron Schnell 21:04, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * One of the documents is mislabelled (aka the filename is not indicative of the contents), see "2015-08-18 16:14 @ 666K" which is actually from October 1982. It has a dozen sentences specifically about you, and maybe two dozen quasi-directly about you, similar to the segway cite in bulk/depth.  Also, it is an international publication, which always helps WP:N.  So it is borderline-or-over-the-line WP:N#4 of 1982.  There is an online scan of that entire issue, from a fansite which claims they got copyright-perms from the publisher, do you want the link, or is this still in the no-full-doc-sharing category for the nonce?
 * I'm still looking through the others. We can use some of the contents of "2015-08-18 16:28 @ 3.8M" to flesh out our NYU and SETL burst of coverage, at least one or two of those have full newspaper/publisher/author/page/date/etc, and are in-the-title-type sources.  Because they are in the same chronological-burst, they are not worth as much as if they were independent, but they do help solidify our 1981 WP:N#1.  75.108.94.227 (talk) 23:27, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The NYU press release is quasi-WP:N, since it is an academic institution; peer-reviewed papers are better, of course, and although you weren't the subject of such at Courant necessarily, did you write such things, that got published in something with an ISBN at some point? Conf proceedings, textbook, that sort of thing from Nova, Syracuse, the FL place whose name escapes me at the moment.  Since this is a BLP article about you, they would go into the bibliography-section, rather than in the refs-section, but getting published *does* count toward WP:N (in the same qualitative way that int'l sources are more valuable than the local newspaper articles).  75.108.94.227 (talk) 23:33, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Cool! Thanks for finding the Acorn User article.  I guessed at the year.  I was way off.  I found it, with your help (I'm sure you're not surprised).  The memoir will be the first ISBN with my name explicitly on it as author.  I wrote a bunch of stuff that is included in technical manuals, but I'm not credited, of course. (This includes the POSIX standard).  I'm also mentioned in the ISBN-ed book Cyberpunk by Katie Hafner, and It's also looking like I'll have 2 patents published "soon".  There are two more magazine articles I authored, which I could dig up: one in another flying magazine and another in a home automation magazine (plus the one about social engineering in Proceedings magazine that I think you already saw?).  There's also a multi-page article about me in Electronic House. Ron Schnell 00:00, 19 August 2015 (UTC)


 * De nada. Speaking of the article I already saw, pentest suggests that the parent-dir of 75108 python-script is set to offer a world-visible directory-index, so a crawler or a path-guessing-script-kiddie could bypass our heavy duty security system. Or maybe the dir-listing is being filtered by incoming IP just like the dotPy contents? However, figured I would mention it. Most of that stuff you mentioned in your last comment could be helpful to flesh out the WP:ABOUTSELF, but little of it will be helpful for WP:N demonstration save the Electronic House thing, assuming they qualify as WP:RS. Some kind of magazine? Electronic House Expo by the CE magazine folks? Did you author the multi-page, or somebody else? And are E.H. and friends independent of Schnell/Quogic/etc? 75.108.94.227 (talk) 00:52, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Very sad now, though. I could never remember the name of the guy who wrote the article (and with whom I worked on stuff for about a year), but now I see it at the front of the article and see that he died 8 months ago :-(  I would have loved to have reconnected.  John Coll is bluelinked, in case you didn't notice. Ron Schnell 00:38, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm still reading mind-numbing court transcripts. :-)      Which are prolly not much use as WP:RS, as 'primary documents' is generally the designation of court stuff ("unfair" but necessary on the 'pedia where too many people try to insert dirt about their unfave celebrity based on WP:SYNTH from legal docs and snie lawyerly implications therein), but the docs are interesting to me for other technology-related reasons.  Very sorry about your friend; I did kinda guess he was a bluelink, from his talk about "working [as an Acorn eep/founder/whatever] on getting transcontinental internet in the UK deployed to 10k people" and such.  But the thing that stuck out at me was his mention of acoustic couplers, which I've always thought were way cool, and the corresponding mention of the illegality of hooking up anything *electrical* to the Leased Customer Premises Equipment that the phone monopoly 'owned'.  75.108.94.227 (talk) 00:52, 19 August 2015 (UTC)


 * By the way, now that you've read about NET-TALK, you should understand that IRC was a ripoff of it. It was then written in FORTRAN in around 1980.  I re-wrote in in C and I'm pretty sure I distributed it as freeware on Usenet some time around 1984-86. Ron Schnell 00:50, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, rip-off is such a strong term. Inspired by, is more likely to induce warm fuzzy feelings.  ;-)        75.108.94.227 (talk) 00:52, 19 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Sheesh, thanks for ruining my security by obscurity setup! I fixed my apache.conf.  Did you like my .py solution for giving you access even though you refuse to make a non-anonymous connection?  Electronic House is a proper newsstand magazine...now it's online.  The first home automation article I mentioned was in there, and then the editor-in-chief did a story about me and my home a few months later.  Nothing to do with Quogic.  If you like talk about acoustic couplers, you'll love my book. Ron Schnell 04:15, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. :-)    Actually, I really like security through obscurity, on general principle, as you probably have guessed; but it ought to be done right, tut tut.  Someday we'll have a conversation about a redesign of SMTP for security-thru-obscurity.  (Bruce Schneier also likes security through obscurity, when done right, e.g. he recommends using a 150-byte-password and writing it down on a piece of paper.)  Re: Electronic House, allow me to rephrase:  what is the URL of the publisher?  All I found was www.ehxweb.com for the CE Pro publishers, and it has been offline for some time now; I cannot locate the "E.H." you are referring to, my googling-fu is weak!  ;-)      p.s.  Some CTO chitchat, I just heard about today:  75.108.94.227 (talk) 21:43, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

discussion, arbitrary section break deux

 * Ah, must be this one. http://www.electronichouse.com/magazine/ Not sure they have issues online? What date/page/etc was the profile about you&home? 75.108.94.227 (talk) 03:27, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Will be home this weekend. Will scan. Ron Schnell 05:16, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Da. Also frontmatter, por favor:  ISSN page, and table-of-contents page , and (if different from those) the page where editors and publisher-phys-addr and such are listed.  75.108.94.227 (talk) 11:43, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Anyways, presuming that the EH article has you in the title, and has some depth about you specifically and the work you specifically did on your house, we'll have gone well into the realm of WP:N methinks. ~30 sentences setl'81, ~15 sentences uk'82, 6 sentences (plus or minus two ... but whatever the sentence-count provides wiki-significant depth in terms of total-factoid-count) segway'13, and 5 sentences (plus or minus two again) for paul'15 (recode.net gives us job title / job desc / hackathon judge & emcee ; if fusion.net checks out as WP:RS another few factoids get added ; unfortunately http://www.politico.com/playbook/0515/playbook18244.html just quotes PR from your boss :-)    plus last but not least ~NN sentences in eHouse'YY. Of lesser depth, we also have ~5 sentences mitnick'85/'91, 3 sentences dunnet'94/'96/'13, 2 sentences equifax'04, ~3 sentences tc'08/'11, and probably a few EECS-prof-sentences. We can fill in the gaps with WP:ABOUTSELF. Given those kind of counts in the WP:RS, the BLP article Draft:Ron Schnell is likely to be 8-to-12 reliably-sourced sentences long, if we go forward with the sources we have today:


 * introSentence, earlyLife, nyu&setl, coll&netTalk, mitnick&mit, dunnet&rms, eecsProf&unix, equifax&spam, eHouse, dojLawyers&tc, segway&woz, hackathon&paul. (and of course pics/seeAlso/notes/refs/categories/etc)

Now, since you are still generating coverage, we can always take the WP:NORUSH approach, and wait for your memoir to come out, and for somebody to review that memoir (since the memoir is *about* you-qua-you an independent book review would pretty much count as being 'specifically about the top of the BLP in question'). Anyways, I think we should clean up our list-o-WP:RS, write some proper Template:cite web boilerplate for them (including fair use quotes), and then get somebody that doesn't know you to eyeball it. I've had a couple articles go through AfC under this 75108 name, so once we are ready, I will ask the opinion of Czar and the two AfC accepting-reviewers. However, I will note that BLP articles give pretty broad latitude to the BLP in question, when they are available to comment, and in this case you are: looking at the dozen sentences or so (above) that I will be putting into the BLP article, are you comfy with wikipedia having a biographical page about you, which neutrally covers those specific factoids in question, by summarizing the WP:RS available as of now? I realize you're an over-sharer, but give it some serious thought, before you give the green light. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 11:43, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * And, to tie this question about your own potential BLP, right back into the discussion about WPJZ-FM college radio station, which utterly fails to pass WP:N, have you figured out that article is a honey pot article in the infosec/espionage/tourism senses, designed to entice actually wiki-notable people to want to become wiki-editors, and perhaps, someday contribute to a broad array of articles? :-)       Wikipedia follows *all* the five pillars at WP:5, not just the NPOV one, and definitely not just WP:42.  Making state legislature elected officials, every public high school in the world, every school of hospitality&tourism in the world, and so on, inherently unable to get deleted at AfD, is one of the subtle WP:IAR bits of the 'pedia.  It is also, of course, a thorn in the side of true deletionists... and thus, they will expend untold energies to get not-fully-WP:42-compliant BLP articles deleted, political articles deleted, et cetera.  75.108.94.227 (talk) 11:53, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm fine with doing the BLP. Ron Schnell 16:38, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, after we clean up the refs (order by importance and convert to cite_web), I will ping some informal reviewers to eyeball our chances. Since it is a short article, one of them might even just write it up. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 20:53, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, re: the Network News interview, did you watch it? I think it's pretty clear that it's an interview about me, no? Ron Schnell 16:45, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * No, having codec issues. If it satisfies independent-third-party-non-interrelated, and has some depth, then it will be WP:N#6, unless it is tied to another burst (in which case it still 'counts' but some hardline AfC reviewers like myself will see it as less-indicative and bundle it together into an existing numeral).  But even without the video and audio, I think we're already over the line.  In any case, now that we are seriously going to put all our ducks in a row, I assume that the names/dates/etc of the sources about UPI/uk/courtdocs/etc can be inserted into the list-of-refs, with their proper authors/titles/datestamps/etc?
 * If so, then put in the MP4 author/title/datestamp/publisher/fairUseQuotes, since I'm having playback issues. WP:V just means that it is *possible* to verify the source, not that it is necessarily possible for every editor of wikipedia to personally verify the source.  Prior to going into mainspace, ideally somebody besides yourself will view the MP4, to verify the contents thereof, and neutrally summarize.  As usual, WP:NORUSH, we'll get it figured out.  But it will help demonstrate WP:N, if we have the broadcaster/anchorPerson/etc metadata.  See also WP:CONVENIENCE (essay-not-wiki-policy) and the DMCA stuff (WP:COPYVIO *is* wiki-policy and in fact wiki-pillar numero trois).  Ideally is better to find a URL that can be inserted into talkspace and mainspace without worrying about conceivable dmca-takedown-notices, and if that is not possible, just list the metadata sans URL (cf the JHTR paywall'd ref for the Michigan State University wp-coi-edit-request... we can link to the paywall, but linking to the student-uploaded-library-copy is a no-go).  75.108.94.227 (talk) 20:53, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

a.s.b. trex

 * Yes. I never had a problem with references to the name/date/author, etc.  I just didn't want to share the URLs.  For the video, you should really watch it.  I think it's the best source of the 1981 burst.  Just d/l VLC. Ron Schnell 22:57, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, so it improves our WP;N#1 burst further. (I don't want to install VLC into my hypervisor... long story ;-)      But I'm sure I'll figure out a way to watch it at some point, herculean tech-efforts not required. Interviews of the subject are always dicey; some AfC folks discount the *entire* thing as WP:ABOUTSELF, whereas to me, it's quote obvious that the content of the interview was editorially-controlled, and the selectivity of what was kept and what fell to the cutting-room-floor was *also* editorially controlled, thus the fact that 1) the interview even exists and 2) the portions of the interview that do exist were not cut, both strongly suggest WP:N status rather than WP:ABOUTSELF status.  Anyways, your mileage may vary, but I've had plenty of wikipedians tell me that "interviews are inherently not WP:RS" with a straight face.  As it happens, we have newspapers (written in the journalist's voice rather than as long quotations from the interview subject) about the same events, so either way we're covered as far as demonstrating WP:N#1 goes.  75.108.94.227 (talk) 08:40, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, is this useful? http://web.mit.edu/graphics/src/xflick/xflick.c Ron Schnell 23:24, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Possibly, though maybe a better link is since that one is hosted by Theodore T'so the ext4 hacker; is xflick a UNIX player-implementation for FLIC (file format)?  Autodesk Animator first shipped in 1989, says the notoriously-vague-and-unreliable-about-dates wikipedia.  75.108.94.227 (talk) 08:40, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "xflick.tar.Z" ascii-string embedded in this binary file at 0x002eeb, xflick content being offered from Portugal circa 1995, xflick the FLI viewer is listed. Since it was in the 'contrib' section, it may not have been supported by xfree86 and/or x.org -- did xflick "actually" ship with X, on specific Unix/Linux/Bsd distros, in the 1990s?  (Equivalently, did it ship with autodesk tools, or become downloadable from the autodesk FTP server, at some point?)  Or was it more the kind of thing that endusers could download of their own volition from usenet, if they wished?  Like the difference between Dunnet'92 the usenet download, and Dunnet'93 the ships-with-gnu-emacs-v19.17 question, in other words.  If we can figure out a platform it shipped with, we can look for helpdocs that would plausibly count as WP:RS and WP:NOTEWORTHY.  75.108.94.227 (talk) 08:59, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't call the video an "interview" as much as a feature, with one interview question that takes up a very small part of it. I've put a .txt file in our directory on Quogic with a link to a flash version for you.  Ron Schnell 10:01, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * "Flash player upgrade required; you must download and install the latest version of Adobe Flash Malware into your hypervisor baremetal operating system until and unless you unbork your F2FS guest-OS."  :-)      So at the moment, I'll just take your word, that the video is a newscast-piece related to the 1981 coverage-burst.  And please upload the metadata (newsAnchor/broadcastStation/parentNetwork/datestamp/etc) sans URL, see Template:Cite_news  Template:cite_episode .  Even though I cannot personally view it at the moment, it still counts towards WP:N.  And with the metadata, mayhap we'll find another online copy, hosted by the affiliate or the parent or whatnot, without needing to link to the WP:CONVENIENCE copy you have, since technically that social media re-post is prolly a copyvio, in the strictest sense... which for protecting-the-pedia reasons, usually means we ought not link to it.  75.108.94.227 (talk) 12:10, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * For an actual interview, see the MSNBC piece from 2015, which I believe does lend itself to the sort of provocative controversy you allude to: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6KfimMwS6M&index=2&list=FLN5SUd3R9Jg0mnlmISR2eTA Ron Schnell 10:01, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Nah, I'm talking about nude-mudwrestling-front-page-news. ;-)    So the MSNBC piece is a good ref, and because (please verify this) the Paul campaign has repost-perms from MSNBC, the yootoob posting is something wikipedia can link to, without fear of any DMCA/SOPA/etc repercussions a few years from now.  Here are the bits where you appear:
 * ten seconds of voice-over, 2 seconds of screentime == https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6KfimMwS6M#t=15s , wherein you claim this is "the first" presidential hackathon. But that's WP:ABOUTSELF.  Wikipedia, in wikipedia's voice, cannot say it was "the first" unless we have a WP:RS saying (in the journalist's voice rather than in a quotation from somebody else) that it was in fact "the first".  You see the distinction?  MSNBC is reporting, correctly, what YOU said; they are not taking a position themselves, on whether this hackathon was 'the first' historical such event, just saying that YOU said so.  And you may be right, but sans WP:RS backing your claim up, we cannot say that in mainspace.
 * fifteen seconds on-camera, ten seconds speaking == https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6KfimMwS6M#t=36s , wherein you say some things, and also wherein the journalist says (in their journalistic-voice backed up by the MSNBC fact-checking and editorial-oversight and legal-anti-libel-and-slander teams) something WP:NOTEWORTHY, namely that it is quote "unusual" for a presidential campaign to have a CTO on-staff.
 * ten seconds on-camera, five seconds speaking == https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6KfimMwS6M#t=70s, wherein the journalist says something about obama'12 , and you give your response, saying that you expect most of the 2016 campaigns to achieve that 2012-level of technology this cycle, but your goal as the CTO of the Paul'16 campaign is to go one step further and "really... geek out"   :-)      Which is cool of course.
 * three seconds, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6KfimMwS6M#t=159s , announcing the winner
 * But for wikipedia-mainspace, cool is out, boring is in, generally speaking. Those four sub-clips are 99% about the hackathon, or about the Paul'16 campaign, aka your employer and your employer-sponsored-event, rather than about you personally (the subject of the content at the soon-to-exist Draft:Ron Schnell wikipedia article-proposal).  Moreover, 99% of the factoids that we can -- improperly via WP:SYNTH -- deduce from the MSNBC video, are easier to get from the ReCode article on the hackathon:  that you are the CTO of paul'16, that you hosted and emcee'd a hackathon for paul'16, that you were a judge (only implied in the video), and such.  The main win from the MSNBC piece, w.r.t. Draft:Ron Schnell at least, is that quote about your job-title being "unusual".  So for that one word alone, which I don't believe was documented elsewhere, the MSNBC ref belongs in the article.
 * Beyond the 'unusual' quotation, the MSNBC ref helps with WP:N, but like the other pieces on the hackathon, it is still only borderline-WP:N overall, because the MSNBC interest was, in order of priority: #1) rand paul and his political stances, #2) comparing paul'16 to obama'12 and pointing out SFO is allegedly dem-turf, #3) the hackathon-qua-event, #4) the hackers, #5) ron schnell CTO, and #6) elyssa(sp) the other hackathon judge, plus finally and just barely #7) startupHouse the location (which got a half-second clip showing their logo).  The main reason the MSNBC video is helpful, is that we don't just have a bit here and a bit there, with you on teevee but the focus of the piece not about you; we actually have a full-blown nationwide-coverage-burst about the hackathon, and in most of those coverage-pieces, you play a large (albeit not starring) role as the organizer/emcee/judge/etc who ran the hackathon.  That is why the hackathon-refs, as a group, rise to the level of borderline-WP:N, because each ref repeats the same basic factoid ("Schnell was there as CTO"), but then goes on to add another distinct factoid (MSNBC's is that "Schnell's CTO position is an unusual job-title for a presidential campaign to even have in the first place"), and when you add the coverage-burst up, and sum the set of distinct factoids into a whole, you get some reasonable depth, likely suitable for helping demonstrate WP:N.  Same thing with Dunnet:  most of the listicles in 2013 were pretty sparse on details, and tended to repeat the basics, but when you put them all together, you ended up with enough meat to write the article.
 * Compare the hackathon-coverage-burst, with the coverage we have about your role on the TC, where you played a similar part, but in which coverage of you-qua-you was relatively-low-depth by WP:N standards: you are named-dropped by lawyers in 2008 and 2011, and quoted by infoweek in a paragraph, but the WP:RS we have at the moment about the TC are squarely in the WP:NOTEWORTHY category, because basically all they say is your name, rank, and serial number (the quotes by the lawyers saying you did a fantastic-awesome-job are probably not fit for mainspace because you were their employee slash colleague and thus their quotes about your job-performance are not encyclopedic by reason of not being fully independent third party speakers).  The hackathon coverage gives, when considered en masse, a more reasonable amount of depth about you-qua-you:  stuff you are, stuff you did, and the like.  They also cover stuff you said and stuff you thought, usually in your own words, which is worth less to some wikipedians that are interview-and-quotation-from-the-principles-averse.  But all in all, hackathon coverage is pretty solid.
 * p.s. All that being said... my analysis of the value of the hackathon coverage-burst above, is w.r.t. the value of it for Draft:Ron Schnell.  Worth looking at the Paul'16 article, and seeing whether *that* article ... which is the 'main topic' for all the hackathon refs ... has some sentences summarizing the hackathon-event and such.  If not, you can compose another wp-coi-edit-request, and stick it onto the talkpage of that article about the Paul'16 campaign.  75.108.94.227 (talk) 12:10, 21 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I thought that xflick was something that people found out about and downloaded, but I'm finding a lot of references to it existing in contrib subdirectories of X11 in places, so maybe it actually was part of at least some distributions. Ron Schnell 10:01, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, possible; not sure how widely-available the 'contrib' stuff was, maybe it was just a centralized FTP repo of all manner of plugins, the full spectrum from crappy-kludge all the way to awesome-nigh-mandatory-addon. If the documentation of Solaris 2.x from the early 1990s, say, mentions xflick was included, and the source-code of Solaris 2.x (which I believe is now available) shows your name was on the tin, then it is not-too-much-WP:SYNTH to give a brief mention of your work on xflick, in a sentence-fragment of Ron Schnell.  It's a bit borderline, though, per wiki-policy about making sure that a source explicitly says each factoid.  The emacs-stuff about you is not WP:SYNTH, because the emacs-manual names you explicitly (w/ ISBN), not just the emacs codebase (no ISBN).  It is not really WP:SYNTH, except in the most anti-WP:IAR sense imaginable, to pretend that 1A) your name in the acknowledgements, 2A) dunnet in the other-amusements-chapter, and 3A) your name at the top of dunnet.el, does NOT somehow satisfy WP:NOTEWORTHY.  With the case of xflick, though, I'm guessing that we'll have 1B) your name NOT mentioned in the ISBN-helpdocs, 2B) xflick mentioned in the helpdocs, and 3B) your name at the top of xflick.c -- which is a bit more of a leap.  If we lack even 2B, then prolly we have to skip mentioning it in Ron Schnell, but of course we can mention it at Talk:Ron Schnell, in case more WP:RS are someday discovered.  75.108.94.227 (talk) 12:10, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

a.s.b. 0x0000.0004

 * I'm not sure how to find the metadata on the INN clip. It was recorded off of WPIX New York in around July/August 1981.  The program was titled Independent Network News.  The reporter was Robert Miller.  I guess it would have aired at 10pm in NYC.  https://www.facebook.com/wpixarchives/videos/1689956057915559/ (potential good source for the clip) says, "INTRODUCING INN! In June 1980, a remarkable experiment in television news was launched. WPIX introduced INN, the Independent Network News, bringing network-quality news reporting and presentation to what would eventually reach more than 100 stations. INN launched just days after CNN, and survived for a decade. It's something we at WPIX Archives are still very proud of. We present an early promo for INN, featuring Steve Bosh, Pat Harper and Bill Jorgensen, and voiced by the great Bill Biery, who himself filled in as an anchor on Action News. Enjoy! [And thanks to a PIX Pal for sharing.]".  I'll try to type in my own closed-captioning.  The RPFP campaign does have permission for the MSNBC clip.  Also, it can be found at http://www.msnbc.com/jose-diaz-balart/watch/rand-paul-ramps-up-tech-savvy-campaign-473573443696. Couple things I want to make sure are clear: There are a few RS articles that state (without quoting) that the hackathon was the 1st ever presidential campaign hackathon.  I was one of the 3 judges. When I linked to the MSNBC piece on here the purpose for that was to show that I understand the very clear difference between the 1981 video and this video, which is much less clearly WP:N than the earlier... Ron Schnell 15:32, 21 August 2015 (UTC)


 * My transcription is now in our directory. Ron Schnell 16:09, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I spoke with the WPIX archives people and they are going to look for it after labor day :-) Ron Schnell 17:01, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, you mostly already found all the metadata on the INN clip: Now obviously, it is preferable if we have the title of the broadcast, but a generic title like "10 O'Clock National News" ... or possibly "10:30pm Action News Metropolitan Report" if your clip was in the local-news-segment. And it would definitely be nice to have the exact datestamp, rather than 'summer/autumn 1981'. But since we have the WP:CONVENIENCE link that proves the broadcast happened, to all but the most hardnosed wikipedians, those are somewhat minor points. Strict adherence to wp:copyvio says we prolly cannot *link* to the convenience-link, and will have to wait for the WPIX folks to locate the footage in their vault, but we have the other coverage-burst to demonstrate WP:N via the newspaper-articles, so we don't *need* a full-blown URL to actually be listed in the cite-template.

As an aside, my WP:HUNCH is that Robert Miller was prolly one of the UPI correspondents; cf the UPI newspaper-burst in October 1981. Independent_Network_News_(US) says that besides Harper/Jorgensen/Bosh as anchors, "WPIX's local reporting staff was also utilized for the program... INN also used reports from its member stations, the AP, UPI, Visnews, and later CNN to supplement its own coverage." WPIX == WPIX broadcast Action News from 1977 to 1984 in roughly the 10pm-11pm timeslot ("or sometimes half an hour"). From June 1980 to June 1990, they *also* had Independent Network News, a national newscast that was syndicated to ~40 independent stations around the country: live feed 9:30pm eastern (but about 90% of affiliates... including WPIX that I can tell?... actually aired INN at 10pm eastern), "featured the same on-air staff as channel 11's newscasts and was broadcast from the same news studio, with INN logos covering the station's own logo on various set pieces", wikipedia says. Source says initial staff was Pat Harper, Bill Jorgensen, Steve Bosh. Wikipedia prose says that those three were the INN presenters/anchors from 1980 thru 1983 at least. There was also a 'business feature', which may have used an unnamed reporter? (source doesn't say), and may also have been called "WSJ Report" (or maybe that was distinct and/or later rename... again sources don't say and wikipedia prose doesn't clarify). In their NYC broadcast, there was a 10pm replay of the national INN show (Harper/Jorgensen/Bosh) followed by a live local newscast at 10:30pm, called Action News Metropolitan Report -- so depending on whether you were on at 10:31pm eastern, or 10:29pm eastern, you might have been on INN, or you might have been on ActionNews. The format on weekends was different, e.g. Richard D. Heffner on Sunday show; any idea what day-of-week your clip was on? There were some on-air editorials thru 1995, which came after the newscast (so WP:SYNTH says 11pm... but also ~10:50pm is plausible) by Richard N. Hughes says wikipedia. (http://pix11.com/2012/11/17/the-history-of-wpix/, claims 150 stations with INN at peak -- wikipedia reports 40 which was at launch in 1980 methinks.)

Gave the wrong template-helpdocs to you before, cite_news is for newspapers (e.g. UPI 1981), cite_episode is for nightly newscasts (WPIX 1981). Here are some template:cite episode examples, supplemented by http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/MRC/mla.html#examplestv |title=                          |first= |last=                  |series= |season= |number=   |network= |station= |city=            |date=         |url=              |access-date= Billy Crystal, 2nd Visit         James Lipton (host)             I.t.A.S. Se#13. Ep#1307. Bravo                                  8 Oct 2007. (when available)  (at said URL) André the Giant                                                  Biography                    A&E               13 Jan 1999. Racism 101. Thomas Lennon (prod)                                        PBS. KQED, San Francisco. 5 Oct 1988. White House Prayer Breakfast. Bill Clinton (speech)                                       C-SPAN, Washington, D.C.               11 Sep 1998. Torture. Scott Pelley (narr)            Sixty Minutes. CBS. WCBS, New York. 30 Mar 2008. War Against Iraq Begins. Peter Jennings (narr)          Nightline. ABC. KGO, San Francisco,              16 Jan 1991. Car Crash on I-80. Ten O'Clock News. KNBC, Los Angeles. 16 Jan 1991. The Arsenal of Democracy. Henry Hampton (exec prod)                                   WGBH, Boston. 1 Mar 1993. Afghanistan: the Great Game. NPR, Washington, D.C.                  8 Feb 1980. Mumia Abu Jamal                  Democracy Now. KPFA-FM, Berkeley, CA. 9 Dec 1996. Trash of the Titans. Reardon(dir), F.L.(voices)     The Simpsons, Season 9. CBS. KPIX, San Francisco. 10 Sep 2006. Emerging Tigers. R.Jones (narr), J.Hawke (prod) Asian Business Report. PBS. WEFT, New York. 15 Aug 1990. Bill Clinton. Larry King (interviewer). Larry King Live. CNN. 24 Jun 2004. Bruce E. Cain                    Unnamed reporter (interviewer)  Ten O'Clock News. CBS. KPIX, San Francisco. 10 Oct 2007. Johnny Depp. James Lipton (interviewer)     Inside the Actors Studio. PBS. KQED, San Francisco. 7 Apr 2008. For example, I knew the five local financial-only affiliate-sponsors of the NH forum, and put their names into mainspace, but at the time had no WP:RS, so I just self-tagged as I inserted the factoid. Somebody deleted it for me, so I left it on the talkpage. Eventually I found the CSPAN cite which I was able to use to WP:PROVEIT, and put the sentence back into mainspace. Since then, a deletionist has come along with WP:IDONTLIKEIT wiki-policy to back them up, and deleted my reliably-sourced material from mainspace. In 2005, nobody would have deleted the uncited sentence, since it was true. In 2010, the uncited sentence would have been deleted, but the cited one would have never been deleted. In 2015, the only way to keep WP:NOTEWORTHY facts in mainspace, is to constantly watchlist the articles you want to be reliable, since people are happy to delete reliably-sourced material nowadays, if it goes against their peeves, or seems like too much factual information to bother the readership with, or otherwise violates their personal sense of wiki-decorum. This is actual wiki-policy now, that individual wikipedians (aka 'consensus') can be used to delete not merely uncited material, but ANY MATERIAL WHATSOEVER, from mainspace.
 * We should use MSNBC's clip, rather than RPFP16's clip, because per WP:SPIP we are better off linking to the newscaster rather than to your employer's page, and also, because linking to the newscaster rather than to youtube is more likely to give us cred with the AfC reviewers (and if-n-when, AfD eyeballs too). But we can still link to the youtube copy, since it is NOT a copyvio, as an archive-slash-backup.
 * Schnell was one of the 3 judges. (I knew this was the case, just pointing out that msnbc could not be used to source that factoid; another WP:RS said it, recode.net, so this factoid is WP:NOTEWORTHY and can be mainspaced with our wiki-honor fully intact.  It is also the type of boring factoid that could be sourced from WP:ABOUTSELF iff necessary, but avoid doing so when possible, is the best defensive-editing advice methinks)
 * The 1st ever presidential campaign hackathon. Now, we can actually put this into mainspace, selftagged in such a way, and sometimes I do exactly that.

Now, in this particular case, I don't think anything bad is happening, the people that deleted my self-tagged sentence, and then my reliably-sourced sentence, are not doing it in bad faith, they are just trying to improve the encyclopedia like the rest of us; there is even the policy-backed WP:SPIP reason, that such material about financial sponsors ought be added with care, since the person adding them might be financially motivated to put those names into play, and since C-SPAN (as a co-sponsor slash originating-source-broadcaster of the event, is not fully wiki-independent from the local finanical sponsors of said event). But since none of those policy-based reasons were mentioned in the edit-summary of deletion#2, not even in WP:VAGUEWAVE fashion, I think this is merely a symptom.

There is a slow but perhaps-exponentially-accelerating decline of the quality of wiki-culture: if you want to insert something, you need *incredible* effort to source and WP:PROVEIT. If you want to delete something, you need the ability to leftclick. A large percentage of the people capable of doing insertions are gone; wikipedia is ruled by deletionists now, and has been since roughly 2007, in ever-increasing proportions.

So, the moral of the story is, very likely we won't be putting "first ever presidential hackathon" into mainspace (unless you have found better refs than me... see additional bullet-points below), because we're not actually positive it is WP:THETRUTH. See also, I just went through the exercise of pointing out the four MSNBC sub-clips, and noting what type of stuff they gave us, and didn't give us, because I wanted to make sure you understood where *I* was at. And more importantly, so you understand that interview-pieces (video or textual) are NOT considered valid/valuable by some other wikipedians, not including moi, so that when you run into such a person you won't be shocked. Plus, per my ulterior motive, I'm pointing out to you that the word 'hack' is nowhere to be found on the Rand_Paul_presidential_campaign,_2016 article. Per quasi-official wiki-script, it was not deleted... it was just never inserted.
 * Billed as the first-ever presidential campaign hackathon. (which is WP:RS prima facie per list-o-editors)  Journalists are lazy; they aren't positive it's the first presidential hackathon, either, and aren't about to do any *research* to figure the actual answer out, what is this, 1975, when investigative journalism was still cool?  Our best source on your role in the hackathon is recode.net, which simply calls it the "first hackathon of the Paul'16 campaign."   ;-)
 * There are a few RS articles that state (without quoting) that the hackathon was the 1st ever presidential campaign hackathon.  (okay, URL please.  Maybe I missed them, or read them then forgot.  :-)
 * "...linked to the MSNBC piece... to show that I understand the very clear difference between the 1981 video and this [MSNBC] video..." Yeah, I know you've got the lessons down.  As I said before, you're a quick study, and you'll be a natural at this stuff.  I'm not really even teaching you anymore; like in boot camp, you've come through the trial-by-fire-stage, and are now well into the growth-into-an-independent-rugged-wiki-individualist stage, while I mostly just watch.

Why is that? Because there aren't enough content-creators. What am I trying to encourage you to do, whilst we satisfy your wiki-ego? (Yes, I honestly think that the dunnet && schnell articles will Improve The Encyclopedia, too, but I see that as a beneficial side-effect, not as the primary ROI.) My main goal is to get you to learn the ropes yourself, and then create some more content-creators. Wikipedia needs the help. Understanding wiki-policies is hard. Understanding wiki-mechanisms is hard (for non-programmers at least). Understanding wiki-culture, and learning how to get changes to stick, is VERY hard, in my not-so-humble-opinion. Cf, why you and I are doing some work on the wp-coi-queue ... rather than me or czar just approving your rewrite-suggestions.

You learning the mechanism is secondary (it is easy once you've done it once); mostly we're doing that spelunking into coi territory, so you can see how *shoddy* many areas of the pedia are, compared to how hard I'm making you work on Dunnet and Schnell-the-BLP, with impeccable sourcing and such. Now obviously, partly I'm insisting on sourcing is for my own wiki-honor, and partly it's so that dunnet && schnell-blp will be bulletproofed against a future onslaught of deletionists, but mostly it's so that you can learn to be wiki-hardcore yourself, and teach other people to be active in articles that DO HAVE huge legions of deletionists actively at work already. There is a vast differential, between the attention paid to Rand Paul and the attention paid to Ron Schnell. There is a vast differential between the attention paid to Hillary Clinton and the attention paid to Austin Barbour.

Anyways, to go meta for a moment, maybe my approach is incorrect; you've had experience in this kind of tech-management, and to some degree, in setting up human-interaction-infrastructure. What is the correct approach for wikipedia, to fight spammers/puffery/PR/copyvio and stay neutral, but simultaneously, to encourage writers/truth/refs/uploads? Using the valid fights mentioned as their excuse, wikipedia is rampant with folks that delete for an agenda, or delete for PR/COI/etc, or delete simply for WP:IDONTLIKEIT reasons. Because of the crushing bureaucracy, and the flat out *difficulty* of adding impeccably neutral impeccably sourced material (which is then constantly deleted), we have a bad trend here. Is the correct approach, to try and recruit folks like you, serendipitously hand-picked, and then encourage said folks to do the same themselves? Or is there a button we can press that will make the 'pedia perfect? :-)

Have read your hand-transcription, thanks for making it, though you didn't have to. (WP:NORUSH is hard for you too, eh?) Since we are planning to ping some other folks, and since some of them surely must have functional codecs, I was just planning on letting *them* eyeball the video-clip. Anyways, it is a good source, and gives us additional depth for our WP:N#1 coverage-burst. Rockland Community College factoid was not in the UPI newspapers that I remember, and there are some other factoids that will go into the early-life-sentence; these can be (and in most BLP articles are) simply WP:ABOUTSELF cites, but it is always better to have WP:RS when you can, and in this case we do. (If the WPIX folks come through with a URL for us, that is a bonus; we have most of what we need to flesh out the metadata already, even if they fail to post the clip online. Linking to a URL with the source is always preferable, but by no means required.)  75.108.94.227 (talk) 20:12, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * My recollection is that it was part of INN, not Action News (as shown by the out cue). Understood, about your motives. I've been doing some additional editing already and wondering if you're watching. Unfortunately, I think there's a good chance that the deterioration of the wiki space might be a necessary side effects of the model. It's tough for me to give you leadership suggestions for a necessarily "un-led" enterprise. But I will say that positive reinforcement (in the B. F. Skinner sense) might be used more advantageously than the negative reinforcement that is often employed now. Ron Schnell 20:39, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Nope, not watching, I trust you, to be WP:BOLD but not reckless, and plus, as an anon I have no watchlist.  If you feel unsure and want my wiki-eyeballs, feel free to ask, but quite seriously, you don't need my help now.  You will make mistakes, but that is expected.  Somebody will correct them, WP:NORUSH, just do your best, and follow the five pillars (especially the one about common sense).  You'll be fine methinks.  I did run into you at Michigan Biz School, but that was because we were working on the same queue, not because I'm paying attention to your edit-history.
 * Since you've watched the video and I haven't, you have a better idea than me. But from what wikipedia claims (explicitly with  right on the claims ... or at least they are uncited) the ActionNews show was the earlier format, which first aired during the 1970s, and the intro of INN in mid-1980 was a long-in-the-works idea, that got rushed into play when CNN happened (WP:OR -- okay since we are on usertalk here).  From what I grok of the wikipedia prose... which assumes it is true prose! ... the deal was, INN got *filmed* at 9:30pm EDT, and was live-streamed to affiliated-stations around the country (50 or 100 or 150 depending on what year it was).  Then, most of the affiliate-stations would broadcast the half-hour INN material from 10pm EDT through 10:30pm EDT... including WPIX itself.  After which, in the case of WPIX specifically, from 10:30pm through 11pm (or maybe 10:50pm to leave time for the Richard N. Hughes editorial-segment), there was a local newscast by the ActionNews folks.  Make sense?  From your transcript, we don't know who the anchor that spoke in the first few seconds was, is that true?  We also don't know what wall-clock-time the bit about you was aired (or the day even at the moment).  It could be either: they might have put you in the first half-hour, as a national-human-interest-story, in which case you were broadcast on a bunch of television stations, or they might have put you in the second half-hour, as a local-news-human-interest-story, in which case you were broadcast only by WPIX.  Hardly matters from the perspective of demonstrating WP:N, since the source is in-depth and wiki-reliable either way, and besides we have the UPI newspaper-burst to demonstrate WP:DIVERSE wide-not-just-local-geographic-coverage.  But knowing whether the stuff was just on WPIX, or was also on WGN/etc, may help us find an archive-URL that is not copyvio-encumbered.  Anyways, my assumption is that that 10:30pm-and-after material was presented as being 'INN' stuff, even though the ActionNews reporters were the ones writing the stories.  There is also mention that INN (and possibly ActionNews) sometimes farmed out stories to UPI/CNN/etc.  "Robert Miller" is far too common of a name for WP:GOOG efforts to turn up much that is useful.
 * Yes, wikipedia is fundamentally -- by design and on purpose -- without top-down leadership. Jimbo Wales wanted it thataway, and most of the people (although not all of them) at the WMF which collects the donations and pays for the servers... plus a bunch of really useless crapola beyond those servers && sysadmins... fully realize that wikipedia is successful and special because it is an online collaborative community with no top-down-leaders.  There is definitely a lot of room for providing positive incentives... but there are big risks there.  I have reasonable anecdotal evidence that the number of paid editors -- aka people getting money for making edits -- is going through the roof in the past few years.  This is not inherently bad, since capitalism is a Good Thing generally speaking, but it does tend to come into direct conflict with NPOV for obvious reasons; I also think it risks enticing competitors to enter the encyclopedia marketplace once again, with they idea of building the best encyclopedia that money can buy, more or less.  I suspect that you are not talking about money, here, but rather just about the idea that instead of flailing around with WP:STICKs trying to improve the quality of wikipedia, the wiki-culture will attract a lot more good-faith editors with honey, than with vinegar, as the old saying goes.  The fundamental problem there is the technological disadvantage that the honey-offerings suffer at compared to the vinegar-offerings; anybody having a bad hair day, can leftclick a few hundred editors into the pit of gumption despair, with little effort (and no repercussions).  Pouring honey on top of that cannot hurt, but the amount of honey-effort required to overcome a small amount of vinegar is asymmetrical.  Changing the wiki-infrastructure, and/or the wiki-culture, could improve those disparities, but obviously there is the chicken-and-egg problem, that many invested editors don't think there *IS* a problem with using vinegar as the normal wiki-culture, nor with having an infrastructure tuned towards deletion and skinner-negative-event-instances.  Anyways, cogitate on this if you like; I was in the camp, shortly after wikipedia started, that it could never succeed and would self-implode.  Instead, britannica and Google Knol were beaten, and wikipedia is now the major source of neutral factual info, for a large majority of the planet's population... and yet, despite her success (or because of it), wikipedia is in dire straits.  I will probably bring this up from time to time, since it irks me deeply; free feel to tell me to shut it, per WP:CHOICE, should you get bored of the topic.  :-)      Best, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 21:59, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
 * See above new Dunnet paragraph referencing my search for the Electronic House issue. It's turning out to be not exactly where I thought.  But I will find it.  If not this weekend home, the next one.  I did find the home automation article I wrote.  It was in Popular Home Automation, September 1997 (at the time, www.pophome.com).  Also, the additional flying article in Mooney Pilot Magazine, September 2003.  I didn't bother to take photos of these two, because you didn't mention whether or not magazine articles authored would be of use. Ron Schnell 15:54, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Update: Now have the EH magazine and will be scanning this afternoon. Ron Schnell 18:26, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Stuff you authored is useful for a bibliography section, if the publisher was WP:RS. In the case of peer-reviewed selectively-edited journal-publications in academia, they can also be WP:RS in and of themselves, see WP:SCHOLARSHIP, but works in general-interest magazines and your memoir are more WP:ABOUTSELF than demonstrations of WP:N, by the weird rules of the wiki-verse.  In the real-universe, o'course, convincing the publisher to publish your memoir *is* indicative of real-world-notability, but not wiki-notability.  :-)      Sigh.  Can you fill in metadata aka cite-template for EH stuff, por favor:  author, pages, year, issue-num, etc.  I'm working on a first pass cleanup of some of the other refs we have, to be inserted into a new talkpage section that other eyeballs can glance over.  75.108.94.227 (talk) 18:56, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * EH Stuff is at ( reverted link per pillar three ). Do you still need me to fill in stuff for that or do you want to get it from the scans?  Do you want metadata for Popular Home Electronics and Mooney Pilot?  How about Plane and Pilot?  Or do you already have that?  Let me know today if possible, because I don't want to shlep all of these magazines to DC. Ron Schnell 19:29, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I know how to fill in cite-web-templates, and have an open tab with many of them. Feel free to start cleaning up the refs, after I click save, but you might as well wait until I do click save.  We don't need p&p nor popHome to demonstrate WP:N, and can add them to the Draft:Ron_Schnell subsection any time, so defer them for now, I would say. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 20:39, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, I have a bunch of magazine articles and newspaper articles about Mail Call, many including quotes from me. Pubs include Fortune Magazine, Fast Company, Working Women, Sun Sentinel, American Way, etc. Ron Schnell 20:01, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, all of these are going to help demonstrate WP:N, and my googling-fu was too weak to find any such thing. So put some cite-web-things together for these refs, and then make a cold-neutral-wiki-estimate, of whether each of the sources counts as in-depth independent-third-party coverage about you-qua-you, versus WP:NOTEWORTHY mention of you.  Since there is no MailCall article, and since you were the founder and chief techie, normal wiki-process would be to make the Ron_Schnell subsection for press about the company-qua-company, so while you are doing the wiki-analysis of which of the mailcall-refs give us in-depth coverage of the topic of Schnell, also go ahead and wiki-estimate how deep the coverage is for each ref with regards to the topic of MailCall.  Make sense?  p.s.  In wiki-jargon, this watershed event, where suddenly a whole new world of WP:RS open up before one's wiki-eyes, is called the eureka-moment.   ;-)      Sounds like demonstrating WP:N will be a piece of cake, after we get this new coverage-burst cleaned up, in other words. I swear I looked for MailCall coverage, but came up dry, despite long experience ref-hunting.  Cannot beat the person with the COI, when it comes to ref-hunting, as in my experience is usually the case.  Anyways, yeah, concentrate on these mailcall-refs, they'll help immensely.  Look for depth first (multiple "background" paragraphs specifically about the topic of Schnell), and look for WP:DIVERSE and WP:GEOSCOPE next, aka coverage outside the tech-startup-press, and international coverage.  Best, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 20:39, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not (only) your Google-Fu. Part of the problem was that Mail Call was during a time when the big print magazines weren't online yet.  I took pictures of the ones I could find quickly, and will figure out how to organize and upload.  They are Fortune (annual buyer's guide), Fast Company, PC World, Family Circle (special PC World Issue), Working Women, The Herald (newspaper), The Sun Sentinel (newspaper).  Here are some links I was able to find from Google:

discussion 5_A, mailCall

 * http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/concentric-network-to-offer-service-that-delivers-e-mail-over-the-telephone-75098042.html # PR, but it's from Concentric, not ABOUTSELF  "PR Newswire"
 * MC#1
 * looks like legit WP:N trade-rag, albeit methinks it is a thinly-rehashed press release. This is not untrue of most trade-rag cites, but as long as it is not an EXACT reprint of the press release... and more to the point, as long as the publisher of the trade-rag is putting their legal neck on the line, editorially-controlling their authors, selectively publishing pieces they think will interest their readership (in this case internet/IT professionals), and fact-checking their content to a reasonable degree, it fully passes WP:RS.  Now, in practice, plenty of people -- User:Czar comes to mind -- might see this internetnews.com piece as hack-journalism, and not count it for much with respect to demonstrating WP:N, since almost certainly, Concentric and/or MailCall and/or Casio and/or all of the above, are advertising-partners with the trade-rag, or with one of the other subsidiary-trade-rags of the publisher.  Again, this is not much different from newspapers, although the interconnect is usually somewhat tighter.
 * So, this counts as WP:RS, but since it is a niche publication, that might have a somewhat-vague financial stake in the success of the product (in the form of future advertising-space-rental-revenues), it is pretty low on the scale of wiki-reliability. Not into Weekly World News territory, but not the WSJ either.  Or for that matter, Fortune Magazine, which you also mentioned, and which does *not* need advert-fees from startups like MailCall.  Point being, this trade-rag cite, by itself, is not much help, despite technically qualifying as WP:NOTEWORTHY.  It is more help than the SEC court-docs from the VWLC acquisition, and from Concentric/MSFT, of course.  It will be better-received, however, if we have the Fortune thing to back it up, along with the general-readership-newspaper stuff (Baltimore Sun and Miami Heraldd by way of the Chicago Tribune).   That gives us three publishing-niches:  IT industry rag, general readership newspapers, and financial zine.  Together, that makes a nice burst-of-coverage, and if spread across multiple years, multiple bursts.
 * The depth question is another thing, of course, so my usual questions for you to ask yourself: Is the cite wp:n full-piece on mailcall, wp:n listicle on mailcall, wp:noteworthy for mailcall, indirect for mailcall?  Is the cite wp:n full-piece on schnell, wp:n listicle on schnell, wp:noteworthy for schnell, indirect for schnell? 75.108.94.227 (talk) 00:57, 24 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Weird reference! http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:P6AcRb0r2fQJ:corporate.findlaw.com/contracts/operations/agreement-microsoft-corp-and-concentric-network-inc.html+&cd=8&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
 * original at http://corporate.findlaw.com/contracts/operations/agreement-microsoft-corp-and-concentric-network-inc.html, |quote=Appendix E, Existing agreements: 'Commercial Agreement' between Mail Call and Concentric Network Corporation dated 2/22/99. (unquoth)  Basically, these are SEC filings, or close equivalent thereof.  Court documents.  Not usually used on wikipedia, because written by lawyers, who nearly ALWAYS have a vested financial interest in being biased (aka biased towards their client's interests... whatever they are being paid to be biased towards).  Plus, it seems to be a namedrop of MailCall, but not of you, whereas the other SEC document I found listed you, and some boring details (age and job-title and stock offering and such).  This is an official government document, but by law, all companies above a certain size have to file it; that makes it at best quasi-WP:RS, and the lawyers-as-authors makes it inherently biased prose, so it can only be used with care, and doesn't impact wiki-notability much; about the same as a couple good wp:noteworthy quotes for some wikipedians, or half-a-wp:noteworthy for other wikipedians.  75.108.94.227 (talk) 00:57, 24 August 2015 (UTC)


 * http://www.thefreelibrary.com/GTE+Internet+Customers+Can+Now+Access+and+Retrieve+Their+E-mail+by...-a055170588 "BUSINESS WIRE"
 * MC#2 http://business.highbeam.com/137453/article-1G1-55255417/briefly-giving-email-voice
 * prolly legit WP:N trade-rag source, but WP:PAYWALL. do they mention Ron Schnell, by name?  Give any in-depth detailed factoids about him?  They do mention Mail Call, in the visible-gratis bit. Publisher is distinct from 'internet telephony magazine' found here methinks -- http://www.tmcnet.com/articles/itmag/0799/0799toc.htm 75.108.94.227 (talk) 00:57, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * also worth mentioning, don't pay for access yourself, unless you just really really wanna. Several wikipedians have highbeam access (and other paywall-subscriptions), and there is some wp-paywall-request-noticeboard.  I haven't used it in a long time, but as I remember, it was quicker than wp-coi-edit-request.  Speaking of which, better leave you a note about that. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 01:00, 24 August 2015 (UTC)


 * MC#3
 * legit WP:RS, re-formatted it per template. Is the cite wp:n full-piece on mailcall, wp:n listicle on mailcall, wp:noteworthy for mailcall, indirect for mailcall?  Is the cite wp:n full-piece on schnell, wp:n listicle on schnell, wp:noteworthy for schnell, indirect for schnell?  Did you know this Granwyn guy?  He seems neat, also wrote for Boing Boing, and has a book out Borg Like Me (which is really more about augmented intelligence like smartphones rather than actual Star-Trek-style-Borg-stuff methinks).  Anyways, any relationship between you and this author?  Publisher's editorial dept means that it counts as WP:RS anyways, but always helps if author is wiki-clean, too.  75.108.94.227 (talk) 00:57, 24 August 2015 (UTC)


 * MC#4
 * legit, re-formatted it per template. Is the cite wp:n full-piece on mailcall, wp:n listicle on mailcall, wp:noteworthy for mailcall, indirect for mailcall?  Is the cite wp:n full-piece on schnell, wp:n listicle on schnell, wp:noteworthy for schnell, indirect for schnell?   Also, had you relocated from California to Florida yet?  aka is this reporter your "local newspaper" of sorts, or a nominally-more disinterested reporter?  75.108.94.227 (talk) 00:57, 24 August 2015 (UTC)


 * maybe http://www.e-tactics.com/1998/September/new_page_2.htm
 * hmmmm... might be legit WP:RS ... but the name e-tactics, and the look of the site, with "Sarah Stambler's Marketing With Technology News", strongly suggests this was 1998-era SEO aka press-releases in disguise. To be frank, the Miami Herald piece is about the same, but wikipedia gives more leeway to the Miami Herald by default, because they have a physical address, a fact-checking department, and their legal necks on the line if they libel or slander somebody.  Does this Sarah Stambler of e-tactics.com have the same editorially-controlled fact-checked output, or some reasonable facsimile thereof?  If so, her site is prima facie WP:RS until proven otherwise, if not, she's WP:BLOGS and not wiki-reliable to back mainspace-sentences.  Assuming e-tactics does qualify as WP:RS, nominally at least:  Is the cite wp:n full-piece on mailcall, wp:n listicle on mailcall, wp:noteworthy for mailcall, indirect for mailcall?  Is the cite wp:n full-piece on schnell, wp:n listicle on schnell, wp:noteworthy for schnell, indirect for schnell?  75.108.94.227 (talk) 00:57, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Ron Schnell 22:12, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Casio+PhoneMate+to+Offer+Mail+Call+Service+With+New+IT-380+E-Mail...-a020793199 prolly another PR piece
 * http://www.thefreelibrary.com/IDT+and+Mail+Call+Sign+Agreement%3B+Nationwide+ISP+Offers+E-Mail+by...-a050087129 prolly another PR piece
 * http://web.net2phone.com/about/press/releases/3_24_99.asp says "press releases" in the URL, prolly not WP:RS
 * Ahem, www.PrNewsWire.com, being listed as an independent-third-party wiki-reliable source? :-)      Ditto for www.TheFreeLibrary.com , that is a upload-by-anybody website, right?  Concentric is not an independent source, they have a financial stake in promoting MailCall technology.  We don't use quotes from Bill Clinton, as a wiki-reliable source on just-the-facts cold-hard-analytical-assessment of Hillary Clinton, he's a president, but he's not independent.  Same deal, your family in the cheese business cannot be considered wiki-reliable about your wiki-notability.  WP:RS and WP:SOURCES is easy:  newspapers, books, magazines, teevee, and such.  Not blogs, self-published tracts, ezines written by family members, television advertisements paid for by partner-corporations, and so on and so forth.  Have to be independent && third-party.  Have to be editorially-controlled, and have some kind of fact-checking procedures.  Have to not be utterly non-selective, aka will publish anybody saying anything, or are like the yellow pages, and will publish anybody with cash.  IMDB is a cash-n-carry operation, for instance.  National Enquirer used to be completely non-WP:RS, but is now pretending to  working hard to clean up their editorial policy.  WP:RS is a fuzzy thing, but for sure, merely being non-WP:ABOUTSELF is not enough.
 * Truly independent disinterested journalists, truly independent disinterested professors, that is wiki-reliable coverage, indicating either WP:NOTEWORTHY-mention or WP;N-listicle or WP;N-full-piece or WP;N-book-length, depending on "depth" (which is proxy-estimated based on sentence-counts mostly... ~1, ~10, ~100, ~1000, ~10k sentences for wp:noteworthy / wp:n listicle / wp:n full-piece / wp:n book-chapter / wp:n book-length). So for instance, Baltimore Sun and Chicago Tribune are bluelinked publishers, wiki-reliable in the usual sense, also WP:SOURCES in the usual sense, and independent (morally/legally/genetically/financially/etc) from you, as long as we're talking news-journalism, not classified adverts nor PR-republication (e.g. Reuters does PR republishing-stuff).  At the end of the day, I did count several good hits here, for MailCall-the-topic albeit not necessarily for Schnell-the-topic.  75.108.94.227 (talk) 00:57, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

demonstration of WP:N, for proposed Draft:Ron Schnell

 * Body-prose sentences: introSentence, earlyLife, nyu&setl, coll&netTalk, mitnick&mit, dunnet&rms, eecsProf&unix, equifax&spam, eHouse, dojLawyers&tc, segway&woz, hackathon&paul.  (and of course pics/seeAlso/notes/refs/categories/etc)
 * 1981 setl (strongest burst), WP:N#1 in 1981, nyu & setl,
 * "2015-08-18 16:28 @ 3.8M", Oct'1981, nice burst-of-coverage. Also, cool CDC 6600 console-pic.
 * Computers and People, 1981 (Volume 30), Berkeley Enterprises. Page #25 == Pat Wallace, Navigational Support for Oceanographic Research.  George Jones, Western Electric.  Hits for "setl" and also "ronnie schnell" on that page, so almost certainly you are mentioned, but exact text obscured in preview-mode.
 * 2015 potus (second-strongest burst), minimum WP:NOTEWORTHY and borderline WP:N#2 in 2015, paul'16,
 * http://recode.net/2015/06/29/coding-for-liberty-on-the-ground-at-rand-pauls-presidential-hackathon/ ,
 * http://www.politico.com/playbook/0515/playbook18244.html ,
 * http://freebeacon.com/politics/rand-paul-building-campaign-database-off-nsa-fight/
 * http://fusion.net/story/158519/rand-pauls-24-hour-hack-a-thon ,
 * http://www.ijreview.com/2015/06/355280-heres-happens-rand-paul-hosts-24-hour-hackathon-liberty/
 * MailCall+VWLC, mutual-WP:ABOUTSELF, (aboutself February 1997 – February 2002 plus maybe thru ~2007 as consultant). Probably WP:N#6 from Fortune/etc coverage-burst, it sounds like.
 * prolly WP:N#5,
 * 2013 segway (brief but relatively deep human-interest profile), minimum WP:NOTEWORTHY and borderline WP:N#3 in 2013, segway,
 * 1985 mitnick, WP:NOTEWORTHY or a bit more in 1985, mitnick, Cyberpunk, by Katie Hafner and John Markoff, ISBN 1-872180-94-9, pgs 77-78, fair use quote="...Kevin [Mitnick] did leave a hint or two that he was still in business. One day in early 1985, Roscoe came across the phone number of Ronnie Schnell, an old bulletin board buddy from his 8BBS days, and decided to call.  When Roscoe reminded him [Schnell] of who he was [Roscoe], Ronnie sounded surprised.  'Oh, I have Kevin Mitnick on the other line.  He wants me to get him an Arpanet account.'  Roscoe was amused, and he counted the seconds before his phone rang.  'How did you know I was calling Ronnie?' Kevin demanded when he called Roscoe ten seconds later.  It was a mite odd that four years had passed since either Kevin or Roscoe had talked to Ronnie, Kevin was on the lam, determined to keep his whereabouts secret, and suddenly Roscoe happened to be on the line at the same time.  However much Roscoe tried to tell him it was a coincidence, Kevin remained unconvinced." , cf Kevin Mitnick and Special:Search/"Lewis De Payne"(capitalization?) as well as 8BBS and of course ARPANET
 * 2004 equifax&email, WP:NOTEWORTHY, equifax, http://www.informationweek.com/microsoft-signs-on-for-e-mail-program/d/d-id/1024973, aboutself April 2002 – January 2005. "2015-08-18 16:24 @ 541K" , firms up the equifax cite above the line , and might also count towards WP:N although since it is mostly you speaking (rather than others speaking about you explicitly) it mostly helps qualitatively
 * 2011 tc, WP:NOTEWORTHY, tcc, http://www.wired.com/2011/11/how-microsoft-learned-to-stop-worrying-and-almost-love-open-source/, http://www.neowin.net/news/how-bill-gates-changed-microsofts-stance-on-open-source , aboutself May 2005 – August 2011 , "2015-08-18 16:15 @ 126K" and also "2015-08-18 16:22 @ 145K" , spread over multiple years
 * 1994+ dunnet, WP:NOTEWORTHY, 2013,, named in ISBN-book-based helpdocs since 1996 at least, shipped with OSX codebase.
 * 2015 FIU.edu / Nova.edu / Syr.edu, WP:NOTEWORTHY, prof, . WP:NOTEWORTHY, http://cec.nova.edu/faculty/adjlist.html  (Apr'05+ per aboutself).  WP:NOTEWORTHY but we need a , 2007 http://eventful.com/syracuse/events/eecs-seminar-ron-schnell-/E0-001-004406362-2  (aboutself says advisor 2003-2011 specifically CASE Center aka http://case.syr.edu not to be confused with Center for Advanced Studies in Engineering).   Also as grad-student 1986 http://www.unlambda.com/lispm/lmi-source/extract/dj_full/gjcx/info-bag.text.1 , cf Transputer
 * maybe-possibly w3c proposal (depending on whether any bluelinks replied to your proposal),
 * probably skip: current startup quogic, primary dotGuv sources only (do any WP:SOURCES exist for this yet, with your name in them?)
 * probably skip: grandfather's cheese importing business, primary dotGuv sources only (do any WP:SOURCES exist for this, with your name in them?)
 * Not to be confused with: WP:DAB hatnote versus similarly-named bluelink Ronnie_Schell.  Name is fairly common, so WP:DBTF: pest control, deceased, karate, youtube, farmer, shipping, sorghum, lawyer, 1975 appellant, NewPlatz, military vet, probably more.
 * probably skip: current startup quogic, primary dotGuv sources only (do any WP:SOURCES exist for this yet, with your name in them?)
 * probably skip: grandfather's cheese importing business, primary dotGuv sources only (do any WP:SOURCES exist for this, with your name in them?)
 * Not to be confused with: WP:DAB hatnote versus similarly-named bluelink Ronnie_Schell.  Name is fairly common, so WP:DBTF: pest control, deceased, karate, youtube, farmer, shipping, sorghum, lawyer, 1975 appellant, NewPlatz, military vet, probably more.

discussion subsection 5_B

 * "Unnamed" 1981 article was NY Post, July 21, 1981. .GOV references include the Court Reports, which can be found at http://www.justice.gov/atr/case/united-states-v-microsoft-corporation-browser-and-middleware.  I'll look through the other stuff.  It's getting difficult to do this on my talk page, though. Ron Schnell 22:22, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * What page nyPost? There was a handwritten '16' on the photo.  Draft:Ron_Schnell exists now, with stub-class quality.  Technically, such things can be mainspaced immediately -- by non-anons of course -- but I like to polish a bit first, if the topic is not of wide interest.  E.g. we have not put any MailCall refs in yet, nor equifax, the TC, Mitnick, and a few other things.  Bare-refs are also not as kosher as fuller ones, though no need to go as overboard as I did with the EH piece, when quoting.


 * Also, located Rockland Journal News 8/23/1981 feature, as well as an editorial on that artocle on 8/26/81. Photos taken. Ron Schnell 22:25, 23 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Grandfather's food importing business...NJ Annual Report filed with my name as President Ron Schnell 00:14, 24 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Also, can't put my hands on the full page of the NY Post to confirm page number at the moment. Ron Schnell 00:21, 24 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Misc pics (both MailCall and Ronnie Schnell) are now in subdirectory of "our" directory. Ron Schnell 00:48, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yup, looks good. I'll turn these into cite-templates: TheHerald CraigCrossman SunSentinel BethFeinsteinBartl FastCompany HeathRow PcWorld SteveBass, which is up through the FortuneMag cite.  If you want to start converting into cite-templates on Fortune-and-afterwards, that will be cool, but as usual, WP:NORUSH.  Page nums are nice, but not super-essential, especially for non-URL-available-type refs.  Since the cheese-business is somewhat ceremonial, and the refs we have a "primary sources" type stuff from dotGov type locations, I suggest we skip it for now.  There is some depth in the MailCall cites, specifically about Ron_Schnell-the-BLP, whereas unless there is a newspaper article that profiles the family business, and specifically devotes a dozen sentences to Ron Schnell details, it seems unlikely that there will be any cites related to cheese that will further demonstrate WP:N.  And in any case, we are way past the WP:N line, now that we have some MailCall refs on top of our earlier stuff.  The key one so far was BethFeinsteinBartl, that I've read; plenty of reasonable depth and details.  Local newspaper, but that local coverage is backed by the larger coverage-burst.  Anyways, lots of progress this weekend, and should be fairly straightforward to clean up the cite-templates, get confirmation we're not out of our minds about WP:N for that set-o-cites, and then write the dozen-or-so neutral sentences.  Best, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 02:56, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you want me to put these cites in here or on the draft page? Ron Schnell 01:09, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Answered elsewheres, but go ahead and say, use the draftpage for things you are relatively sure about, and if there is something utterly messy, ask about it here or on draft_talk, and I will try to answer questions. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 02:49, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

discussion 5_C
Have not done my proper sourcing-work yet, but did fix a few bugs, and then went ahead and did a bit more. Per WP:CALC and the numerals in various newspaper refs, it is possible to figure out the usual four-digit-demographic-info, but for an oversharer you seem reticent about that specific factoid. Somebody with probably put it in someday, who is familiar with the thing I cited not counting as WP:OR, but if you'd rather leave that out at least temporarily, it seems a harmless omission. Added in some sentences, and ordered chronologically, plus separated into life-n-work, then personal life. Sorry about the N children bit, but I'd forgotten the correct value of N, please repair that factoid. Now, this is usually the point at which I'd seek preliminary eyeballs, since we have the bulk of the in-depth sourcing added, and since there are still plenty of things to criticize, but not WP:N itself. Fortunately for themselves, but unfortunately for our WP:TIAD, one of the AfC reviewers I was planning to bug about peeking at Ron Schnell in draftspace is going on vacation tomorrow.

Are you wanting to spend a couple more weeks tweaking the prose, and give me time to finish my assigned ref-work, or are you more comfy giving our critics a somewhat-half-finished effort, that they can suggest revisions on? Either way is fine by me, and I expect the long-term-outcome of bangkeep will be the same either way. One advantage to bringing people in earlier rather than later, is that they sometimes end up willing to shoulder some of the workload. :-)     The downside is that sometimes they get the wrong first impression, and it takes longer to overcome that bad first impression, than it would to do some polishing ourselves prior to putting it through to mainspace.  And actually, I guess I've been assuming we were going to informally mainspace this particular BLP draft, aka once given a blessing or two by uninvolved reviewers, perform the WP:BOLD move from draftspace to mainspace.  However, there is always the alternative of putting on the appropriate Template:afc_submission magic curlycurly stuff, which actually is subst:submit, and going through the usual channels that anons go through during article-creation, and also that editors-with-COI go through during creation.

If we are going to add ourselves to the AfC queue, I suggest we do so post-haste, since that pretty invariably takes ten days from submission until first rejection. I also note that the AfC reviewers tend to want polishing, more than a demonstration of WP:N, and will not likely accept the article in the current state. We can always resubmit, of course, so basically this is a question about your inner fuzzy feelings: do you want some informal reviewers to see the current somewhat-messy state of the article? Do you want to go through the AfC queue, as a means of completely keeping your nose clean, and perhaps learning some new wiki-lingo along the way? Are you going to be hurt if the informal reviewers and/or the AfC reviewers don't express amazement at our polished awesome prose and expertly-formatted-refs, on the first exposure? Because as you may have gathered, I have little care for the initial assessment, as long as the final result is bullet-proof bangkeep. So cogitate a bit, on what pathway you wish to follow here, and then let me know. Best, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 02:49, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

august
Is your signature fully tested now? ;-)     If so then you can do a bit of cleanup work at User:Aviators99, so that it doesn't have the just-testing-bits.  Or leave it old-school, if you prefer the rough but functional under-construction look -- reminds me of that Pompidou Center where all the piping is purposely on the outside of the building, very avant garde.  75.108.94.227 (talk) 16:42, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is intentional. Ron Schnell 17:03, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Having read further upon the wiki-policies, see WikiSpeak, p'raps 'tis best if you add "author of DUNNET and CTO of Paul'16" unto your userpage. Plus of course, hyperlink your name "Ron Schnell" thereon, to Draft:Ron_Schnell, per WP:DBTF and WP:IMPERSONATE... but o'course that former one is just an essay.  Once the draft is mainspaced, it will automagically redirect all wikilinks of Draft:Ron_Schnell properly to Ron Schnell, but double-redirects are considered uncouth so prolly you should update your userpage at that point.  Though of course, technically a wikilink to a redirect isn't a double-redirect.  :-)      Or you can skip it, I don't think that stuff is required now that you're OTRS-confirmed, as long as you disclose on the relevant talkpages themselves, which has already been done long ago.  However, for completeness, we should prolly add the connected_contributor tag to Dunnet, although of course, you already disclosed your COI on *that* talkpage back in August 2006 (at a time when the stupid template didn't yet exist), coming up on ten years ago now, how time flies when you're having cupcakes.  Err, fun, make that having fun.  Let them eat cake, is *not* the lingo I'm going for here.  In other news, I have filed a request about whether vocativ counts as wiki-reliable, though I suspect it does, and an informal one about TYT.  Best, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 01:04, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

fyi, beating around the bush hath commenced


Oh, how naive. ;-)     I've been beating around the bush, a little bit, the past couple of days.  Don't know if that will jumpstart the wp-coi-edit-request queue or not.  Are you wanting to start working on additional sentence-rewrites, whilst we wait for our disinterested eyeballs to arrive, or are you comfy with doing BLP work, and then adding more dunnet-upgrades to the rewrite-queue once we see how well the first one goes over?  75.108.94.227 (talk) 14:41, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, should prolly mention, my bush-beating was at WP:COIN, which is an admin-and-friends-noticeboard for reporting spammers that are persistently inserting stuff about their garage band into mainspace, and thus not 'really' the right location to escalate, plus also at WP:BLPN (another admin-and-friends gathering-spot) which is *REALLY* not the correct location, although it is true that at least a third of the articles in the wp-coi-edit-queue are BLP-articles and very likely that more than half of the requests in the queue have some BLP concerns intertwined e.g. the city-data person was primarily registering to get the legal names and city-of-residence for their employees removed from mainspace which is a BLP-type issue. In any case, I only went to these places after having already mentioned my request-for-eyes at WP:TEAHOUSE, which is the 'usual' place for such things to be mentioned.  I don't recommend you (or anyone for that matter) personally make requests at WP:COIN nor at WP:BLPN, since the reception is likely to be colder than what I got even.  If a couple years from now, you are trying to make an edit-request, and you see the queue stuffed up, the correct ordering is to 1) make talkpage request 2) wait three days 3) ask at WP:TEAHOUSE for someone to peek at your request 4) wait one day 5) ask on #wikipedia-en-help IRC for someone to peek 6) wait one day 7) ask a randomly-chosen WP:ADMIN on their usertalk to peek at your request, and if all else fails, 8) leave another note on the article-talkpage that says, hearing no objections, you will go ahead with the one-way consensus to edit, and then 9) after waiting another week for somebody to respond to your four outstanding requests and getting no feedback, go ahead and 10) insert it into mainspace yourself, noting (with a talkpage connected_contributor and/or directly in the edit-summary) that you have COI but that you've tried to keep your prose neutral and wiki-reliably-sourced.  Then you might have step #11) if you get reverted don't edit-war and #12) start over at step#1 with a revised edit-request.  All of which is a pain, but these are the wiki-hoops, that are officially wiki-kosher.  99% of the time, once you get somebody interested in helping you, but disinterested on the particular topic at hand, you can just use step#0 iteratively, which is to ping them on their usertalk directly, saying that you have another edit-request for ArticleAboutTopicXyz, and thus skip all the hoops.  I'm purposely making you hop through the hoops a few times, so that you know there ARE hoops, and know some of the ways to beat around the bush, as ongoing wiki-steward of the articles you are concerned with keeping wiki-proper.  Best, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 15:08, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I understand. I've been doing some work on the BLP so am more focused on that at the moment, hoping you'll join in at some point (WP:NORUSH) ;-)  There are some problems with your "ref"s, btw, and they have spread to my refs... Ron Schnell 15:46, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Quite frankly, your anon is often too lazy to perform tedious ref-work. For many years, this was my cite-style.  Or the equivalent, where the search-terms would pop up some evidence in the top ten hits.  Nowadays I'm ever so slightly less lazy, but mostly only because the deletionists will revert my original style, without blinking, not even bothering with "citation needed" nor the more-appropriate tag  nowadays, and of course rather than actually lift a finger to add anything to mainspace (as opposed to repeatedly rifle-clicking that finger to remove).  So typically, nowadays I give a direct ref, in the impolite bare-URL style.  That puts the URL down into the ref-section, rather than floating all alone in the body-prose, and more importantly, puts the URL inside some HTML-esque ref-tags.  There are a bunch of wikitools, the newfangled one is called WP:REFILL, which will automagically search for, and mostly-automagically *correct* with |date= and |author= and such, exactly that sort of impolite bare-ref, as long as is has the surround ref-tags.  So in other words, although it is considered impolite, plenty of people that work the Ref-Fill queue, are depending on lazy people exactly like me, to give them those bare-URL-refs, that they can then magically fill.  :-)
 * Anyways, here is the nice clean set of beginner-helpdocs that I just found this month, and edited myself a wee bit. User:Yunshui/References_for_beginners  You can also see WP:REFBEGIN which is the 'official' helpdocs.  And of course, as with any curlycurly template magic, you can read the raw helpdocs by looking at Template:cite_web and also Template:cite_news and so on.  They don't all support all the same arglists, which is annoying, but for the most part I just use cite-web for EVERYTHING and let the ref-fill wizards sort out my screwups.  I don't recommend you be lazy like me, I recommend you learn to write proper refs, but that's WP:CHOICE.  Like with your under-construction userpage, being lazy about the small stuff might even conceivably help your case.  Having some busted refs, is an opportunity for some other editor to help out by making low-hanging-fruit-improvements.  That said, as long as they are just wiki-syntax busted, you will potentially attract some helping hands-and-eyes, whereas, blatant misrepresentations of what the WP:SOURCE actually says will not be taken well to say the least (a particularly heinous wiki-crime... but one I've actually seen... in a case where an ESL editor was helpfully adding English-language refs from books.google.com, but was not able to really understand what the books were saying... fooled a bunch of people into thinking that they were adding reliably-sourced material, but there was a big disconnect between the sentences they were writing, and what the wiki-reliable source was actually saying).  Best, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 22:53, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Can you guys give me a good reason not to bring this up at COIN? In concert with the secret to-do blackboard, it doesn't look good. Aviators99, are you "the" Ron Schnell as it says on your userpage? If you were planning to cough up a COI declaration, now's the time. — Brianhe (talk) 05:41, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Um, you can bring it up if you like, but if you are under the misimpression that draftspace is somehow off-limits to coi-encumbered-editors, you are vastly mistaken. That's one of the main *points* of AfC and draftspace.  As I just posted on your usertalk, actually, the WP:COI of this User:Aviators99-aka-Ron-Schnell (per userpage and now also per OTRS wiki-cops), is already long-declared at the correct location, Draft_talk:Ron_Schnell.  There's nothing secret about discussing articles on usertalk, either, what are you talking about?  Insert other expressions of disbelief here, holy moly.  75.108.94.227 (talk) 16:12, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Ron, have added a few more bits, and submitted -- not having much luck with informal reviewers with spare cycles, so we're in the official afc queue now (I will leave my informal requests open in case they want to comment along the way). If you can add the plane-article from 2001ish to the bibliography, the same way I added the USCG using Template:efn, that will help --  "Personal Life:  In YYYY,(efn:aboutselfForTheExactYear) Schnell became licensed as a  private pilot.(efn:planeMagazine2001cite)."  Also, if you wish, please create id=unix for the "What is your professional background?" subsection of driverAces.  The main things 'missing' from the draft right now are the hyphenated-author-newspaper-piece about the founders of mailcall, and the book-ref about the call between you and the other person that knew mitnick, which you can add the cite-templates if you have time (plus an 8-word-or-so sentence which summarized the mitnick events), that would firm up WP:N slightly further.  Feel free to ping or fastping if you have questions, I will try to mess with nettalk tomorrow iff I can, but as you prolly know, compilation of code requires a code-review, at least the informal type.  Best, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 17:55, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * There are two flying articles written by me. The Plane & Pilot one (which is in the directory and is from 2001), and The Mooney Pilot one (which is from 2003, and was not in the directory, but is now - called blackout.pdf).  I assume you want references for both?  There are quotes in both that require me to be Instrument Rated, so I would prefer being called an "instrument rated pilot" to a "private pilot".  id=unix is done. Ron Schnell 05:06, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * 75.108.94.227 (talk) 19:30, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, like Unix kernel programmer (but not UNIX kernel programmer), it is fine to say instrument-rated. But that's flyer-lingo, so make sure you wikilink to the appropriate place.  And in fact, better wikilink the 'kernel' to an appropriate place, while you are at it, since that's programmer-lingo, which the average readership might not understand without some click-here-for-the-definition-type-help.  And yes please, add p&p'01 as the quasi-aboutself-ref to the end of the sentence, about you being a pilot (not just private -- which is hardly a description of your modus operandi -- but instrument-rated ;-)
 * Plane & Pilot is surprisingly not a bluelink, though we have about 100 uses as a de facto wiki-reliable source. Feel free to start that Plane & Pilot article, if you like, see Air_Transport_World for an example of what a trade-mag-stub looks like (more at ).  Even stubs need to make a claim of wiki-notability, which means, list the parent-corp of p&p (should be a bluelink), and list the approximate circulation/readership figure, and list the timespan (years in print).  Ideally, list some refs (can just asterisk-bullet-list the bare URLs for a stub), which are specifically about the magazine-as-a-business, which show employees of the magazine getting quoted as experts/pundits in other WP:RS, and ideally the magazine getting specific mention in scholarly material, like this one which has 27 cites on scholar.google.com --
 * By contrast, The Mooney Pilot is also a redlink, but not a name I've heard before "on the wiki-street" as it were (plus has zero hits on-wiki whereas p&p had triple-digits), so unless you are *quite* sure that MooneyPilot is fully independent editorially-controlled-oversight-with-a-reputation-for-fact-checking aka WP:RS, might defer adding that to the draft, until I can check the PDF. Is it a company-newsletter-type-thing published by Mooney_Aviation_Company, and are you a customer/stockholder/consultant/whatever for the firm or the people connected thereto?  You are a citizen of the USA, so in theory there might be some COI when you write for the USCG folks, but in practice that hypothetical quasi-coi rarely is mentioned with seriousness.  ;-)      For a small airplane-manufacturer, though, customer-testimonial published in their company-newspaper probably would fall below the keeping-your-wikinose-100%-clean-threshold.  Of course, just because wikipedia doesn't currently mention the MooneyPilot zine, does not actually have any impact on whether wikipedia ought to mention said publication, this is just an off the cuff guesstimation-slash-hunchfest.  What is online URL of MooneyPilot, if any, is it the same thing as http://mooneypilots.com/mapalogsample.htm MAPA Log? 75.108.94.227 (talk) 19:26, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * MAPA Log is for club members of the Mooney Aircraft Pilots Association, so its readership was more limited than Mooney Pilot. Mooney Pilot *was* definitely a legit WP:RS magazine.  It hasn't existed in a long time, though.  It never had an online presence, AFAIK.  But if I can find the hardcopy while I'm home this week I'll get the front matter for you... Ron Schnell 20:18, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm still *pretty* sure that it is WP:RS, but a little Googling shows that it was also "run" by an owner's group. But it definitely had all of the editorial requirements...  Incidentally, Plane & Pilot paid me to write the article. Ron Schnell 20:30, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the sentence we're discussing here is pretty purely wp:aboutself type material, which needs to be backed up in SOME fashion, but is not super-crucial that it be fully independent: "Personal life: Schnell is a pilot". We are not claiming you work for Delta Airlines, we aren't claiming you are a naval aviator rated to fly the helicopter gunships, we're not claiming you broke any type of record, we're not claiming you have done anything outlandish, it's a fairly non-extraordinary claim that is nonetheless an interesting BLP-relevant factoid.  We can back it up, rather easily, because not only are you a pilot, but one of the retail-pilot-mags gave you some space to write an article (and even paid you for it although that's immaterial in terms of the factual nature of the claim... does impact the independence of the publisher however and so we must stay with the basic level of claims).
 * So in a way, the question of whether MooneyPilot (or even p&p) count as wiki-reliable, is just an exercise in your wiki-training efforts. I'm still planning on putting them into the 'Notes' group rather than the 'References' group, because as they are authored by yourself, and in the case of p&p are published by your "employer" (since they paid for your wordsmithing at least nominally), plus in the case of MooneyPilot might be a quasi-WP:RS that is run by the firm building the aircraft of that same name, it is almost certainly the case that these pieces would not qualify as wiki-reliable-about-Ron_Schnell-the-BLP-article.  Make sense?  The p&p one does contribute slightly to wiki-notability, or at least, to about 70% of long-haul wikipedians it does.  Of course, due to self-selection bias, only about 20% of the people that are regulars at AfD would count it towards wiki-notability.  :-)
 * So in a sense, it does not much matter if the publishers are WP:RS or not, we could just cite some government website documenting your instrument-rating, or your pilot-license-renewal, or whatever. But the point of adding the pieces is that they are a kind of "further reading" about the topic Ron Schnell, as your bibliography; or at least, adding the p&p one if not the MooneyPilot one (will depend on what frontmatter says mostly and to some extent on whether it looks like MooneyPilot was an advertorial-and-testimonial-vehicle or was more of a news-and-safety-and-technology-tips-magazine).  In some cases, the bibliography is a subsection of the body-prose, but at present yours is down in the 'Notes' section; there is a question of how many scholar.google.com cites you need to have, per paper, to list publications in the body-prose.  Of course, direct reviews are better than paper-cites, and of course whole *books* about specific published works (e.g. Origin of Species was a specific work about which 'a few' secondary sources have appeared) are best of all.  In cases like that, you get dedicated articles about the work itself, and depending on how well your memoir does, it might someday become a bluelink, or at least, if it gets a few legit-WP:RS-fully-independent reviews, belong in the body-prose as a standalone sentence.
 * Point being, don't stress out to much about getting the frontmatter and all that, it is more of a theoretical exercise than not; my main goal is for you to be aware, of the fine line between adding boring cold hard dry just-the-facts material, and straying into WP:SPIP territory. There is a guy on the dramah-boards right now, who is a legit professor at Max Plank Institute (including a couple papers as lead-author with 50+ cites and one paper as second-author with 500+ cites), but is also spamming his name into every article he can, and creating neologism-articles about his latest research-paper.  Plus possibly bringing in other off-wiki folks, too, if my wiki-spidey-senses are worth anything.  You don't have that problem, you've never tried to stuff your papers into articles about planes, or articles about infosec, but even though this is nominally an article about *you* and about things you've *done* it is still a touchy area, as to whether papers you've written can be in the body-prose.
 * So, although this is *mostly* an exercise, aka a drill, and not a real issue for the actual changes we're planning on introducing, I go ahead and give you the wider wiki-picture, so you're aware if you edit elsewhere later, or if you need to add future papers/books/publishedWriting/etc to the BLP-article as you steward it going forward. Make sense?  If the p&p turns out to be WP:RS, then there is no question that we can add it to the *notes* section.  But unless it gets at least a couple cites/reviews/somethings, in some kind of WP:NOTEWORTHY fashion, then it prolly does not belong in body-prose.  Similarly, if the MooneyPilot turns out to be quasi-WP:RS, might be best to put it into a hidden-HTML-comment, like we did with that "Computers And Something" 1981 cite that needs some WP:V prior to being made visible.  The key to whether MooneyPilot counts as WP:RS, is whether they have a reputation-for-fact-checking-and-editorial-oversight, which is usually prima facie made by looking for their full legal name and physical address of the owners/managers, plus the full legal name and job-title of the editorial-staffers, in the frontmatter.  That's a necessary but not quite sufficient condition, though I doubt anybody would care much for a 'Notes' field, and a sentence that is already backed up by another almost-certainly-WP:RS-publication.  Best, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 01:53, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, makes sense. But just for completeness/correctness, Mooney Pilot was not published by the manufacturer, but by a non-profit entity in support of owners and enthusiasts. Ron Schnell 02:00, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, caught that... but who was footing the bills? (I.e. what percentage of the donations to the nonprof were from MooneyHQ and/or from MooneyEmployees/Founders/Unions/etc.)  And most especially, what was the editorial oversight like?  Hypothetical:  nonprof, but 90% of the donations to the nonprof are from the corporation.  Hypothetical#2:  nonprof, but 90% of the 'volunteer' staffers are also working dayjobs as paid employees of the corp.  Hypothetical#3:  nonprof, and members are owners-and-brand-enthusiasts, but there is some financial linkage, aka become a member of the nonprof and you get 10% off your MooneyAirplane purchase (or similar).  Hypothetical#4:  no special connection, the nonprof is really a nonprof, members pay dues or hold bake-sales or whatever to have the meeting and pay the editing/printing/distribution fees, corporation exerts no editorial control over printing, and exerts no financial control/influence over membership-selection nor membership-position, and does not employ or otherwise perk-i-fy the members above the general population... nonprof is thus effectively independent of the corp, but might still fail WP:RS, if there is little editorial oversight, no formal fact-checking, no distinguishing between opinion-pieces and news-journalism, et cetera.
 * Even in the case where the nonprof *is* very much self-sufficient, often publishers are dependent on advertising-fees to make ends meet (and pay editors/etc), so there is an inherent difficulty with the firms that buy the adverts... presumably including Mooney corp... having an indirect sort of control over what kind of selectivity and what level of fact-checking the nominally-independent publication actually undergoes. Anyways, none of these hypotheticals have much to do with MooneyPilot; it will be tough-bordering-on-impossible to answer the majority of the questions that they hypotheticals raise, so we'll just have to take a gander at the frontmatter, do a bit of digging on the interwebs, and then make a WP:IAR decision on whether to bangkeep the MooneyPilot source in visibly in the 'Notes' section, or alternatively to make it a hidden-HTML-comment for the moment.  If you ever work any of the band-articles, or movie-articles, or for that matter videogame-articles, the key to determining WP:RS in the specific-field-of-inquiry-under-discussion, usually boils down to a domain-expert making a judgement call.  I'm no domain-expert, and although you might be one, you have COI.  :-)      Catch-22, as usual.  75.108.94.227 (talk) 13:29, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * p.s.    *That* made me laugh.  So you were IFR in 1986, says WP:CALC?  75.108.94.227 (talk) 13:29, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The magazine had only one sponsor. It was a factory authorized but independent service and custom mod center.  It was their idea.  Their competition was MAPA Log, which you found, but the owner of Mooney Mart decided it would be a good business idea to create a more "proper" magazine, so he created the non-profit.  It was not a 501(c), so I have/had no idea of percentages.  My experience was that it was similar to the P&P editorial oversight. And yes, I got my private on 10/12/86 and my Instrument on 12/10/86.  Ron Schnell 14:10, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, so the zine was published by an 'independent' (legally speaking) franchise-slash-repair business, aka factory-authorized-service-center. And because their business was fixing and upgrading Mooney vehicles, they offered a flying competition, and a flying magazine, and so on.  Because the MooneyMart folks were indirectly profiting from the magazine about the product they serviced, and were indirectly linked to the manufacturer of said product (hence the use of 'Mooney' in the title of the service-center and the title of the magazine), this is definitely a case where the material would not be considered independent w.r.t. the Mooney_Aviation_Company, the financial linkage is too close, it would be WP:ABOUTSELF there.  That said, w.r.t. the Ron Schnell article, I will reserve my wiki-judgement until peeking at frontmatter, but as long as you were "just" a customer of Mooney vehicles and services, as opposed to a financial investor in the MooneyMart and/or MooneyAviationCompany and/or the affiliated legal entities, it might be okay to mention it as a part of the bibliography.  I'm leaning towards hidden-HTML-comment at this point, though I might change my mind depending on how good a job the MooneyMart owner did when they attempted to achieve a proper zine.  When you get your hands on the paper version, I'd like to see the table-of-contents stuff, and the index (or advertiser-reply-card that people used to be able to "mail" into the company after circling with a "pencil" the various products and manufacturers they found interesting ... this was an obsolete precursor to the clickable banner advertisement we modern folks use to spy on consumer preferences ... ah the good olde days :-)      75.108.94.227 (talk) 09:38, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The magazine had only one sponsor. It was a factory authorized but independent service and custom mod center.  It was their idea.  Their competition was MAPA Log, which you found, but the owner of Mooney Mart decided it would be a good business idea to create a more "proper" magazine, so he created the non-profit.  It was not a 501(c), so I have/had no idea of percentages.  My experience was that it was similar to the P&P editorial oversight. And yes, I got my private on 10/12/86 and my Instrument on 12/10/86.  Ron Schnell 14:10, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, so the zine was published by an 'independent' (legally speaking) franchise-slash-repair business, aka factory-authorized-service-center. And because their business was fixing and upgrading Mooney vehicles, they offered a flying competition, and a flying magazine, and so on.  Because the MooneyMart folks were indirectly profiting from the magazine about the product they serviced, and were indirectly linked to the manufacturer of said product (hence the use of 'Mooney' in the title of the service-center and the title of the magazine), this is definitely a case where the material would not be considered independent w.r.t. the Mooney_Aviation_Company, the financial linkage is too close, it would be WP:ABOUTSELF there.  That said, w.r.t. the Ron Schnell article, I will reserve my wiki-judgement until peeking at frontmatter, but as long as you were "just" a customer of Mooney vehicles and services, as opposed to a financial investor in the MooneyMart and/or MooneyAviationCompany and/or the affiliated legal entities, it might be okay to mention it as a part of the bibliography.  I'm leaning towards hidden-HTML-comment at this point, though I might change my mind depending on how good a job the MooneyMart owner did when they attempted to achieve a proper zine.  When you get your hands on the paper version, I'd like to see the table-of-contents stuff, and the index (or advertiser-reply-card that people used to be able to "mail" into the company after circling with a "pencil" the various products and manufacturers they found interesting ... this was an obsolete precursor to the clickable banner advertisement we modern folks use to spy on consumer preferences ... ah the good olde days :-)      75.108.94.227 (talk) 09:38, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Btw, are the AfC discussions private or public? Ron Schnell 14:14, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It is a complicated answer. This time the long reply is not my fault!  :-)      Everything on-wiki is "public" in some sense, but they get moved to different places at different times, and not all are search-engine-indexed:
 * Draft:Ron Schnell is not in google/etc just yet
 * once mainspaced, the contents of Draft:Ron Schnell will be pagemoved (including edit-history) to Ron Schnell, at which point the *then-current* body-prose will be bing-visible. As more body-prose changes are added, places like archive.org will keep backup copies of "old" versions, and search engines will periodically re-crawl the "new" versions of the mainspaced-body-prose.
 * prior to mainspacing, all the stuff inside afc_comment and afc_submission will be removed, so it will remain 'private' aka not part of the search-engine and off-wiki-archive crawlspace. Of course, everything on-wiki is still web-visible, including that stuff, via edit-history and sometimes other mechanisms.  I don't know if the AfC folks have some backup-location where they do case-reviews, or what exactly happens, but my guess is that they just click a button when doing the pagemove-to-mainspace, and their AFCH tool simply deletes the afc-related templates, then pagemoves the stripped versions.
 * Draft_talk:Ron Schnell is not in yahoo.com/etc just yet either, at the moment, similar to the situation with Draft:Ron Schnell
 * once the article is mainspaced, the article-talkpage will also be mainspaced, and thus the contents of Draft_talk:Ron Schnell will be pagemoved (including edit-history) to Talk:Ron Schnell, at which point the *then-current* body-prose of the article-talkpage will be altavista-visible. Not all the search-engines and archive-services mess with article-talkpages, but some of them do.
 * discussions on usertalk, like this one we're having now, are supposed to be non-search-engine-indexed. Actually, until this very moment, I never wondered if usertalk might be in archive.org and similar services -- your own usertalkpage does not appear to have been crawled by archive.org, at least, so presumably most archive-services follow their lead and ignore userspace (though of course wikipedia edit-history maintains all such material in a web-visible fashion).
 * Make sense? Because there is a high probability of spam/copyvio/libel/etc getting put into draftspace (of which the AfC queue is a strict subset defined by the use of afc-related templates), wikipedia has a gentlewoman's agreement with altavista/yahoo/bing/google/etc as well as archive.org/webcitation.org/archive.is/archive.today/etc services, to NOT mirror that sort of content.  It is obviously not private, in any strict sense, since it is still web-visible material to any human with internet access that knows where to look, but it is security-through-obscurity, in that most humans do NOT have enough familiarity with wikipedia innards to know where to look.  If you want something blasted, in particular personally-identifiable-information is such a thing, there is a thing called revdel and a few even-more-powerful-things that work similarly, see WP:OVERSIGHT which has an email-address where you can speak privately with one of the people that have the oversighter-bit.  Lemme know if you have some specific concern, and I'll try to answer more briefly.  ;-)      75.108.94.227 (talk) 09:38, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Is having IFR rating at 20 something unusual, aka is it a extraordinary claim (aka is saying "Schnell was instrument-rated in 1986" functionally equivalent to saying "Schnell is one of only 83 people in history to achieve IFR shortly after leaving his teenage years" is my question). I've known a bunch of people who were teenage-pilots, and even upchucked in one of their aircraft (sigh :-) at one point, so I don't think private pilot is a stretch, but whether instrument-rated is typical for youngsters, is the thing I don't know about.

Also, same year different topic, there is a tag in the article about 1986, as being the year you started doing consulting work, because I thought you were still at Syracuse that year. So second question, please fill me in on the timeline of 1986/1987/1988 w.r.t. when you were a grad student, when you were an intern (paid or unpaid), when you left grad school for ATT, and what your functional job-roles were in the early days. Regale me with a tale of the 1980s if you like, or just give me the ten-word version. Usually, although of course it is not impossible to be both simultaneously, wikipedia articles simplify the historical record, and say things like "Schell was mainly a college-student from 1981 through 198x at uni#1(ref) and uni#2(ref) and uni#3(ref)" and then in the next sentence say "Schnell was mainly a genericized-term-Unix consultant from 198x through 199x".

Because we haven't been able to dig up the mutually-aboutself confirmation of att/ibm/sun, we are leaving out the "at corp#1 and corp#2 and corp#3" portion of the latter sentence. Now, this is a double-standard, for pragmatic reasons: most people don't have WP:RS about where they went to high school and where they got their undergrad degree and so on, thus wiki-tradition in the BLP-articles is to permit listing of the alma mater(s) without demanding more than WP:ABOUTSELF. See Michael Kearney for a counterexample, where his undergrad degree was at age ten, which is an extraordinary claim and thus demands WP:RS.

Compare with getting IFR at age 20, which might or might not be an extraordinary claim; it's an achievement of course, but if thousands of twenty-year-olds-and-younger have done it, then it is not extraordinary. If so, we can use WP:ABOUTSELF to list a boring factoid, whereas if it is extraordinary in some way then WP:NOTEWORTHY mention in some WP:RS is better. See also WP:PROVEIT which says 'challenged or likely to be challenged' for whether being a "kernel" consultant and being an "IFR" private pilot is just fine no problemo to say in wikipedia's voice, or whether it is 'likely to be challenged'. It is an achievement to be a Unix kernel hacker, but there are plenty of LKML kernel hackers nowadays, and even in the 1980s there were plenty of 4BSD kernel hackers (plus at least a dozen proprietary Unix companies), so it doesn't seem to be an extraordinary claim to my wiki-ears. Of course, the acid test is whether one of the AfC reviewers or the informal reviewers challenges the specific factoids, about IFR or kernel or education or whatever. See also WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, in some cases even when there *is* a wiki-reliable source for a factoid, the claim might be so extraordinary (or so inherently opinion-based) that it must be quotation-attributed, rather than stated in wikipedia's voice. Best, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 09:38, 22 September 2015 (UTC)


 * It's a bit complicated, but it's not contradictory. I got my private in Syracuse, while going to grad school.  I got my instrument while working at AT&T.  It was not extraordinary to get the instrument at 20.  It was extraordinary to get it less than two months after the private.  It would not be possible today, due to changes in the rules.  The academic thing is indeed a long story, but I'll try to give you a shorter version, which maybe could some day be reduced to 10 words: I was offered to skip high school and go to NYU at 14.  I declined.  I went to Syracuse as an undergrad at the normal age (17).  After freshman year they moved me up to graduate school.  I have a Master's and no Bachelors. Ron Schnell 15:18, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

asb 0xE

 * My question is simpler: when did you start working for AT&T fulltime?  Because from my memory... not as wiki-reliable as the WP:SOURCES unfortunately ;-)  ...that happened in 1988, or 1987 maybe.  But somebody, either me or you, wrote '1986-1994 unix kernel consultant'.  So my question is about when you started consulting (as an intern or as a part-timer or whatever), and when you left academia to be a fulltime programmer.  When were you last at Syracuse, basically, when did you stop being a student full-time?  And at what point did you first become (even part-time), a Unix kernel consultant?  I realize you were already a sysadmin at MIT circa 1982, and bringing up Vaxen in them thar days was effectively a kernel-hacker-job.  So this is a bit of a spectrum-thing.  But in 1982 you were still a student in academia, and by 1992 you were definitely a computer consultant.  So the question is, where is the breakpoint, where you stopped being a student and started being a professional programmer?  I realize this is fuzzy, so this is a simple-as-possible-but-no-simpler type of question.  75.108.94.227 (talk) 01:31, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The answer is some time between 10/12/86 and 12/10/86. Ron Schnell 01:46, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * 'K. And thus the is-this-really-correct thing can be yoinked from the draft, since you were officially a professional kernel hacker as of the '86, albeit not yet on x86.  On a different subject, you sayeth'd thusly... "They were suspicious that I might be "meat-puppetting" and asked me some questions on my talk page."  But in point of fact, I was not the least bit suspicious, I had already checked the creation-dates and the 'lingo' tells being used by the off-wiki editor that was popularizing the AfD, and could tell with 99.4% probability that it was not in fact Ron Schnell behind the reddit thread.  The reason I asked you the questions, was so that *I* would be the one asking you the questions, not a dyed-in-the-wool wiki-cop looking to catch you out.  Sometimes life is funny thataway.  :-)      Anyways, sorry, you don't strike me as the evil genius type, I've played your text adventure and seen your homepage.  ;-)      And getting back to the subject here, of this increasing long talkpage subsection, is the time when you stopped being a Unix/UNIX kernel consultant, which the draft lists as 1994.  But that assumes, that your Sly startup was not as a Unix programmer?  Or at least, not as a Unix kernel programmer?  Or what, exactly?  Give me the few sentences that explain 1994 through the point when MailCall got big.  You were married, you had a startup with an angel investor, you were a seven-card-stud player, you moved from California to Florida, a bunch of stuff happened in real life, almost none of which is in the wp:sources.  So if you don't mind broadcasting such details on wiki, please clear up the fuzzies for me, just so that I have a firm grip in my own mind of all the whipsaws that happened in that timespan.  Also, sometime between 1986 and 1994 you went from east to west; or maybe you were using your IFR to go back and forth, as need arose?  75.108.94.227 (talk) 02:24, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, the Stallone-angel business was 1990-1991. It was a kernel-mod product, and I did some programming.  1991-1995 I was a kernel programming consultant, but started my own kernel programming company (Driver Aces) in 1994, and ran it until 2003.  There were, of course, notable overlaps.  I was at Sun (programming kernel) from 1992-1995.  I did Mail Call from 1997-2002.  I was VP at Equifax from 2002-2005.  So I continued to program kernel until 2003.  In terms of where I lived, I was back and forth between the Miami area and California (mostly LA) between 1991-1995.  From 1995-2005 I pretty much stayed stayed in Florida (then Seattle for the Microsoft-related work for 6.5 years, and now DC for what I'm doing now). Ron Schnell 02:48, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, that was my confusion, sorry. (I got crosswired some time ago, and have been putting SOS.com in the 1994-timeframe, overwriting DriverAces which is *actually* the 1994-startup, because I think there were some mid-1990s emails you sent from that email-address to maillists... probably you were just holding onto those for old-time's-sake.)  So okay.  You were a kernel programmer at Ma Bell starting in late 1986, and arguably, were one before that (just not yet fulltime-professional).  And although you were still a Unix kernel consultant as late as 2003, a couple years after MailCall was acquired, what should wikipedia say about the *end* of your job as a Unix kernel consultant?  Did you do programming stuff as part of DriverAces 1994-1997?  What about 1997-2000?  What about 2000-2003?  By the time you started working as a veep for experian, and had mailcall ROI in your pocket, it seems safe to say your *primary* job was no longer kernel hacker, but serial-entrepreneur-slash-manager.  So is this basically correct:  college student 1981-ish through 1986 (plus teaching assistant), Unix kernel consultant late-1986 through 1997 (plus semi-pro poker player), successful startup president 1997-2002-ish (plus still doing consulting and also home automation tinkering), engineering manager 2003-ish to present (plus more time for pilot stuff), and now transitioning from engineering-manager into EECS professor?  Or do you consider EECS professor to be your main role, and engineering-manager to be your secondary-role, at least, outside the current CTO work which is sucking up the majority of your time?  75.108.94.227 (talk) 21:54, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't think there should be any sos.com stuff from me after 1990/1991. I wish I had held onto it. College student, 1984-1986 (including gradiate assistant). Unix kernel consultant 1986-2003? While doing Driver Aces, I always did most of the coding, and it was all kernel. It just wasn't full-time as of 1997. Successful startup president 1997-2002, technology executive 2003-ish to present, court-ordered monitor 2005-2011, expert witness 2011-2015 (primary), adjunct professor 2013-present (secondary), CTO RPFP 2015-present (primary). Make sense? Ron Schnell 22:04, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Found WP:NOTEWORTHY mention of SOS, in most recent re-digging attempt.
 * So your first startup did get some press-coverage, albeit tangentially. Best, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 13:00, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * So your first startup did get some press-coverage, albeit tangentially. Best, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 13:00, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

uscg
Also ran across this, which may help you figure out whether USCG is a 'referee' slash 'peer-reviewed' paper as opposed to "merely" an 'edited' piece of journalism ... or maybe somewhere in between and is 'reviewed' by USCG with rank of captain and a technological speciality but not necessarily to the fuzzy standard of 'peer review'. Best, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 13:00, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Hmm...Is the Proceedings link the one you meant to link? I don't see anything there about "review" or "captain", etc. Ron Schnell 15:49, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The one I linked to immediately above was this stuff:
 * http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=ADA618312
 * Which is slightly 'more' info, than the frontmatter of the article PDF itself.
 * http://www.uscg.mil/proceedings/archive/2014/Vol71_No4_Wint2014.pdf
 * For the USCG-captain-bit, see PDF page five, Champion's Point of View, by USCG Capt Michael Dickey, who specifically name-drops you. That, which I picked up from reading the PDF, with a little bit of plausible WP:SYNTH tossed in, but most especially coupled with your statement on my usertalk that...
 * So to my spidey-senses, although it is still unclear how many champion(s) and/or their staffers would do the 'peer'-review-work, at least one of the Champion-USCG folks knew your name well enough to namedrop you. And your description is exactly how academic-journal-peer-review-works (only 'accepted' papers go to the 'editorial staff' and the pre-editing-phase is a review of the work by some kind of expert-slash-peer in the field of inquiry the paper is about).  Anyways, I still recommend what I recommended earlier, just call the number of the editorial-contact on the same page as the Champion's View piece, explain you are trying to figure out for expert-witness-disclosure purposes whether your submission counts as quoth peer-reviewed unquoth, or not.
 * To be safe, though, or if they give you a non-answer, I would personally probably consider this to be 'peer-review' prima facie, by a person who specializes in cyberwarfare-as-a-subdiscipline-of-computer-security, whereas you are more of a computer-security-generalist-entrepreneur. But since I only play a lawyer on teevee, and at least some of the people at the the United_States_Coast_Guard_Legal_Division are directly part of the uscg-proceedings-publication-chain-of-command (the PDF lists Rear Admiral Steven D. Poulin -- who you prolly will not be speaking to personally! -- as the operational Judge Advocate General for the Marine Safety & Security Council at the time the winter 2014 proceedings was published), and thus most likely they can tell you your answer over the phone, maybe after transferring you a few times.  My hunch is that it will 'count' as peer-reviewed-close-enough for the purposes of being an expert witness (as seen through the eyes of judges and plaintiff and defendendant legal teams), but my further hunch is that it will 'not' count as fully-proper-"peer"-reviewed-by-other-EECS-professors for the purposes of academia (as seen through the eyes of nova.edu deans and administrative staffers and department heads and such).  In short:  sucks to be you.  ;-)      There are some wikipedia people I've run across who *are* actual laywers, and they might even be open to some pro-bono advice on usertalk, but since this is a pure-chitchat question rather than a matters-for-mainspace-question (it makes no difference whther the champion's office counts as peer-review for the Ron Schnell work and the piece does not yet have enough cites to be useful in the social engineering wikipedia articles), seems unwise to bother the wikipedians who happen to be lawyers ... they are often arbcom members and other such types, which is to say, they are already in enough hot water without giving out quasi-official legal advice, which wikipedia (myself included) Doth Never Do-eth.  Insert broad humour-disclaimer here, that I am completely speaking in jest, during this entire comment.  Actually, you can go ahead and assume that I am completely speaking in jest in all my future comments, on any issues whatsoever, here on-wiki come to think of it.  ;-)      Best, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 13:24, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * To be safe, though, or if they give you a non-answer, I would personally probably consider this to be 'peer-review' prima facie, by a person who specializes in cyberwarfare-as-a-subdiscipline-of-computer-security, whereas you are more of a computer-security-generalist-entrepreneur. But since I only play a lawyer on teevee, and at least some of the people at the the United_States_Coast_Guard_Legal_Division are directly part of the uscg-proceedings-publication-chain-of-command (the PDF lists Rear Admiral Steven D. Poulin -- who you prolly will not be speaking to personally! -- as the operational Judge Advocate General for the Marine Safety & Security Council at the time the winter 2014 proceedings was published), and thus most likely they can tell you your answer over the phone, maybe after transferring you a few times.  My hunch is that it will 'count' as peer-reviewed-close-enough for the purposes of being an expert witness (as seen through the eyes of judges and plaintiff and defendendant legal teams), but my further hunch is that it will 'not' count as fully-proper-"peer"-reviewed-by-other-EECS-professors for the purposes of academia (as seen through the eyes of nova.edu deans and administrative staffers and department heads and such).  In short:  sucks to be you.  ;-)      There are some wikipedia people I've run across who *are* actual laywers, and they might even be open to some pro-bono advice on usertalk, but since this is a pure-chitchat question rather than a matters-for-mainspace-question (it makes no difference whther the champion's office counts as peer-review for the Ron Schnell work and the piece does not yet have enough cites to be useful in the social engineering wikipedia articles), seems unwise to bother the wikipedians who happen to be lawyers ... they are often arbcom members and other such types, which is to say, they are already in enough hot water without giving out quasi-official legal advice, which wikipedia (myself included) Doth Never Do-eth.  Insert broad humour-disclaimer here, that I am completely speaking in jest, during this entire comment.  Actually, you can go ahead and assume that I am completely speaking in jest in all my future comments, on any issues whatsoever, here on-wiki come to think of it.  ;-)      Best, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 13:24, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

You have been temporarily blocked from editing
Hi. I have blocked your account from editing per WP:IMPERSONATE as you claim to be the CTO of Rand Paul's 2016 presidential campaign. Please email info-en@wikimedia.org with information to confirm that this is the case and you will be unblocked. Once that's taken care of, please do not continue to create an autobiography per WP:AUTO and WP:COI. Thank you SmartSE (talk) 13:00, 3 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I sent the e-mail as requested, though this has been completely unnecessary. I did not create the DRAFT:BLP you reference.  I have been helping with it (as requested OF me).  It is a DRAFT, and COI would have been declared in the article itself (for my edits).  In any case, please remove this block.  I COI has been placed on the draft page. Ron Schnell 13:08, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, since I can't edit your page, here's a ping: User:Smartse Ron Schnell 13:19, 3 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Confirming identity per . Unblocking. Thank you! (ESkog)(Talk) 13:48, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * COI was already 'officially' declared, please see Draft_talk:Ron_Schnell. Sorry about that Ron... assuming that is your real name, sheesh... looks like you got goosed by the wiki-police.  :-)      75.108.94.227 (talk) 16:06, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

speed pong

 * click:
 * then:  (or click 'save')

A bit faster, if it and it works. Give it a try please, to test it out. Best, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 16:40, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, works as advertised. Feel free to copy the magic bit onto your userpage (easily visible from the bluelink in your own sig after you click save for instance), or where-so-ever you think it may help speed things up.  75.108.94.227 (talk) 18:15, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * p.s. Enjoy 'sanctioned' debate deux? 75.108.94.227 (talk) 16:40, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

BLP progress
Had never heard of the pure-footer-syntax for the reflist. Instead of this: Now I finally learned to do this: Thanks to the |refs= trick, *all* the metadata is at the bottom of the edit-textarea. Even better, there is not any restriction on the physical order of the stuff in the |refs= section, so the most in-depth WP:42-helpful refs can be up top, and whitespace is ignored so there is no problem with adding newlines and HTML-comments to annotate the |refs= section either. Wish I'd known about this the whole time. Better late than never.
 * Sentence goes here.
 * Sentence goes here.

We are at the 12-day-point, which is long but not that long for AfC. Very likely, somebody came by, and saw that many of the refs were non-online, and just passed by without commenting. Here is the queue for AfC, which is implemented as categories rather than as a single generated-HTML-page-thing like the wp-coi-edit-request-queue:


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:AfC_pending_submissions_by_age

For future reference, here is the size-and-age profile of the queue, as of today:


 * AfC pending submissions by age/00 days ago‎, 109 articles, xxxxxxxxxxx
 * AfC pending submissions by age/01 days ago‎, 045 articles, xxxxx
 * AfC pending submissions by age/02 days ago‎, 042 articles, xxxxx
 * AfC pending submissions by age/03 days ago‎, 026 articles, xxx
 * AfC pending submissions by age/04 days ago‎, 004 articles, x
 * AfC pending submissions by age/05 days ago‎, 037 articles, xxxx
 * AfC pending submissions by age/06 days ago‎, 036 articles, xxxx
 * AfC pending submissions by age/07 days ago‎, 026 articles, xxx    ...the 'knee-bend' is roughly one week in AfC waiting-time
 * AfC pending submissions by age/08 days ago‎, 019 articles, xx
 * AfC pending submissions by age/09 days ago‎, 020 articles, xx
 * AfC pending submissions by age/10 days ago‎, 010 articles, x
 * AfC pending submissions by age/11 days ago‎, 012 articles, xx
 * AfC pending submissions by age/12 days ago‎, 016 articles, xx    ...current location of Draft:Ron_Schnell as of now
 * AfC pending submissions by age/13 days ago‎, 016 articles, xx
 * AfC pending submissions by age/14 days ago‎, 016 articles, xx
 * AfC pending submissions by age/15 days ago‎, 020 articles, xx
 * AfC pending submissions by age/16 days ago‎, 009 articles, x
 * AfC pending submissions by age/17 days ago‎, 011 articles, xx
 * AfC pending submissions by age/18 days ago‎, 008 articles, x
 * AfC pending submissions by age/19 days ago‎, 013 articles, xx
 * AfC pending submissions by age/20 days ago‎, 007 articles, x     ...if you have been stuck in the AfC queue for 21+ days, you are STUCK and may need to seek help via WP:TEAHOUSE or via
 * AfC pending submissions by age/3 weeks ago‎, 002 articles, x
 * AfC pending submissions by age/4 weeks ago‎, 000 articles,.

Tasks that need working on: mitnick sentence byacked by mitnick book-ref, IFR sentence backed by p&p ref, figure out of wpix ever uploaded a non-WP:CONVENIENCE hyperlink to their vault, flesh out the bare-refs. Do you have any libre CCBYSA/GFDL-compatible photos that can be uploaded, of you? Need permission from the original photographer, as well as from the subject(s) of the photo, and preferably no copyrighted nor trademarked objects in the frame. On my plate is figuring out syntax to deal with the humongo-quotes, and saving the extra mail-call refs. Probably I've forgotten a few loose ends, but we are getting close to a decent thing now. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 21:44, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

edit request
Please change this: To: And this: To: Best, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 22:16, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Did you go to college when you were 14?
 *  Did you go to college when you were 14?


 * Done. I have a couple of "headshots" that I paid to have done.  Since I paid for them, do I own the copyright implicitly? Ron Schnell 03:19, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Nope, all you bought was the photo-paper, the redistribution-copyright still belongs to the photograper in most cases, technically. :-)      But as usual, WP:JUSTCALLMOM applies, since she probably took some photos of you at some point personally, which you can scan when you get a chance, and with her permission (an off-wiki signed agreement transferring copyright over the artistic work embodied in the physical photos), you will be able to upload then under a libre license.  Same for if you take a selfie ... but not a v-selfie with your boss that would violate WP:NOTPROMOTION methinks :-)      That said, it depends on your worry that somebody will take your libre-photo, and photoshop a handlebar-mustache onto your face, and the flag of some hated dictatorship photoshopped into the background, and a big "Microsoft RULZ" logo on your photoshopped T-shirt.  In other words, you might want to consider uploading a non-libre photograph (aka copyright license not released), which is 'permitted' for articles on enWiki, but frowned on generally as being Not The Right Thing.  Anyways, think over a bit as to whether you are a-feared about the consequences and/or unintended future side-effects of a libre-photo-upload, and if you are not phased by the thought of adversaries mis-using your generous CCBYSA/GFDL photo-upload, then get busy acquiring the copyright properly, to a photo of yourself in 2015, and if possible, to a photo of yourself as a teenager -- feet propped up on the sysop console of a supercomputer optional o'course.  75.108.94.227 (talk) 13:35, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Or did I mean fazed? 75.108.94.227 (talk) 13:56, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Here's one that my wife took with my camera (I have her permission to do whatever I want with it): http://artspeak.quogic.com/NY2011.jpg Ron Schnell 15:47, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, that will work for the moment. Crop it so that the store-signs on the left are not visible (some of them might be trademarked) and so that the USPS logo on the right is also out of the frame, same reason.  After that stuff is taken care of, do some 'aesthetic cropping' to make the overall aspect ratio roughly ~8:10 or ~4:6 or similar.  Don't downsize the resolution, though, that can be done post-upload.  Then, decide what kind of license you want, and follow instructions at User:Yunshui/Images_for_beginners.  Keep a close wiki-eye on your imagefile-upload for the first couple weeks, because deletion for copyvio (including suspected copyvio) tends to be extremely quick-on-the-draw.  Just respond to all queries/templates, keep cool and polite as usual, and in the worst case, we can always just get another imagefile if this one has whatever-hypothetical-problem-it-may-have.  Best, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 21:07, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay - (removed old image) 21:24, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks pretty good. You can mess with these details now, or just leave them as 'close enough'.
 * Niggly Complaint #1 == instead of NY2011-8-10.jpg, better to use a filename that indicates the encyclopedic nature of the subject, which in this case is Ron_Schnell__in_New_York_2011-08-10_cropped.jpg
 * Niggly Complaint #2 == instead of 'own work' the better explanation is 'I am the copyright holder' since the extra-savvy copyvio wik-cop will notice the photo was likely taken by another person (in this case your wife). You are also free to give her credit as the photographer, if she wants her name there o'course, but
 * Niggly Complaint #3 == images that are uploaded, but not utilized in articles, tend to get insta-deleted upon review ... so best be WP:BOLD and put it into the article, right-aligned and up top, with a caption like "Ron Schnell in 2011" or somesuch
 * Not-a-complaint, this is not the ideal photo, since you are wearing sunglasses and not facing the camera directly and such, but wikipedia articles tend to prefer libre-licensed material (in this case CCBYSA4... and not dual-GFDL anymore for some reason?) when they are available, even if alternatives that are non-libre-but-more-aesthetically-pleasing may exist. So this is an improvement to the article, which currently has no photo of the subject-matter Ron Schnell, and per pillar-three, will *remain* an improvement over *any* non-libre-photo-uploads (such as the professional-photographer-headshot of you in the 2004 infoweek piece).  75.108.94.227 (talk) 14:09, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, I made some of the changes and installed it as an infobox, since it seemed like that's the way it was for others (I used rms as an example) Ron Schnell 19:10, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Fiddled with infobox a little. Need to remember WP:UNDUE, the infobox is like the lede-sentence-or-paragraph, it is supposed to summarize the sentences (all backed by wp:sources ideally) in the body-text of the article.  You listed artspeak in the list, but in fact no wp:rs mention it and you together (some mention it and some mention you but WP:SYNTH prevents putting two and two together as wikipedians).  As with wiki-reliable and wiki-notable and wiki-coi and a bunch of other things, wiki-known-for is only tenuously related to what you are actually known for.  More subtle is the case with dunnet, because although there are plenty of sources about *dunnet* (enough for a dedicated article) the vast majority of them are only about dunnet, and if you get mentioned by the dunnet-related-sources, it is just in passing.  So I yoinked that from the infobox as well, although it is a borderline case.  The things we have the most sources-with-ink-spilled about, are your time at NYU, mailcall startup, and rpfp.  So those are the things in the lede, and in the infobox.  Other tweaks I made are more obvious, but as always, ask if something doesn't strike you right, or needs further verbosity.
 * p.s. Be aware that the infoboxen is automagically scrounged by msftChina and by goog, see note above, whereas a similar bit of data which is *not* using the infoboxen templates is not, in case you care one way or the other... and also, be aware that some wikipedians are VERY SENSITIVE when it comes to whether adding an infobox (or removing one) is done in 'their' articles, and in fact there have been several WP:ARBCOM incidents related to the dreaded infoboxen -- perfectly fine for you to add one (or remove one) in this BLP-article in draftspace, and indeed to add or remove one elsewhere on the project, but if somebody reacts violently to such a move, be careful because you may be treading on sensitive wiki-toes of either the pro-infobox or the anti-infobox factions.  Best, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 02:43, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Hmm... If the infobox is going to stay, I would prefer it have Dunnet, especially if it is picked up externally. I would be fine removing the whole infobox and just having the picture, especially if it is sensitive. Ron Schnell 05:26, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Having exhaustively combed the dunnet refs, the author (and the development-process taken by the author) is invariably missing. There are a few namedrops of Schnell in the long series of Dunnet refs, but nothing that could be called in-depth-coverage of Schnell-qua-Schnell.  Although it is WP:THETRUTH that you have "a certain popularity" (to pull-quote from the dunnet article that is STILL waiting for help but WP:NORUSH is my mantra and I stick by it until the end), there is not enough support in the WP:RS for that being a 'major' infobox-level portion of your life, unless somebody is willing to pull some WP:IAR for you.  Check with the AfC reviewer when they coma along, or better yet, open a new Draft_talk:Ron_Schnell section, call it something obvious like "can we include 'author of DUNNET in the known-for portion of the infobox?", disclose that you are 'the' Ron Schnell and provide your OTRS proof-of-identity and upload your cheek-swab (sigh), and then see what they say.  But nope, to my wiki-eyes almost all the dunnet-refs speak of the "osx easter egg" or sometimes the "emacs easter egg" and you as the actual inventor get no credit.  Most of the dunnet-refs actually don't even go that far, they just speak of the game, how to start it, a couple hints about gameplay, and the end:  focus is entirely on the game-qua-game, with little WP:NOTEWORTHY mention that somebody actually had to toil and make the game.  Such is life for a GPL3 text-adventure, methinks.  ;-)      Best, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 18:15, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

October 2015
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=685489711 your edit] to Coen brothers may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 04:05, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Charman]]. The film, directed by Steven Spielberg, will be released on February 5, 2016. cite web|url=http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/coen-brothers-hail-caesar-gets-744919|accessdate=
 * One of the least annoying bots. ;-)      And you figured out what it was yammering about, too.  Of course, if you were editing wikipedia via an Emacs major mode, then you would already have been alerted to the missing close-curlycurly by your eLisp-driven locally-controlled wiki-syntax compiler.... and of course, if wikipedia edit-filters were more tuned towards helping contributors, than towards stinging the increasingly-hypothetical badguys, you might have gotten a regex-driven AJAX-based popup-warning before saving, which would have improved the 'pedia.  Still, I suppose Shakespeare applies.  75.108.94.227 (talk) 13:03, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yep. It worked, as designed. Glad to see you retained your IP.  Ron Schnell 13:21, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Almost every piece of hardware was changed out, so I suspect it is a new ISP policy to keep the inet addr sync'd with the billing addr. Or could just be dumb luck.  ;-)       Suggest you pay a visit to this person, they were just making a drive-by gnoming-edit, but p'raps you can get some pity for your poor ancient coi-edit-request on the dunnet page.
 * (cur | prev) 18:41, 19 September 2015‎ User:The1337gamer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (14,170 bytes) (+14)‎ . . (Assessment: Video games: class=Stub, importance=Low, needs-infobox=y (assisted)) (undo)
 * You can even promise to add the infobox, eventually, as they requested, if you can just start getting your edit-requests approved. :-)
 * As for 'your' AfC submission, Schnell BLP is now officially in the three oldest active submissions (and the oldest with no declines), see Template:AFC_statistics. Somebody commented on my humongo-quotes, which I'm still trying to figure out the template-syntax to make nice-looking, but with luck they will comment further.  You are still on the hook for adding p&p sentence and cite, methinks.  I need to just give up finding where I stashed my previous work, and add the FlSunSentinelHyphenatedJournalist thing, since it is helpful to WP:N about Schnell-qua-Schnell.  75.108.94.227 (talk) 13:54, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Heh heh. After stalking the edits of User:1Wiki8, serendipitously learned that SETL might soon get a disambig-page, once it is joined by Draft:SETL_%28company%29.  75.108.94.227 (talk) 15:41, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * That makes me sad! 15:45, 13 October 2015‎ Aviators99
 * Well, you can be sad about Ronnie Schell too, then. ;-)      Typically, in cases where one name is older, and another is newer and of unknown long-term importance, the procedure is to let the extant name retain SETL, and simply put a note at the top using confuse or similar, which says "this article is about the programming lang, if you wanted the bitcoin corp see SETL_(company) instead".  And that's prolly what will happen.  In five years, if the company is as famous as Microsoft, then there will first be a disambig-page, aka there will be a pagemove from SETL to SETL_(programming_language) and then the contents of SETL will be rewritten to have pointers to the corp and the lang.  In rare cases, there is a thing called a top-level-summary-article, where the word *itself* is discussed, e.g. at abortion, and then pointers to subsidiary-spinoff articles are given.  75.108.94.227 (talk) 15:56, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

User:czar to the rescue
They suggested splitting up into multiple sentences. I have an unfortunate tendency to "prefer" density (I write thataway and tend not to catch myself), but Czar is 100% correct, mainspace prose should aim for readability.


 * new: Since 1994,[1][2] the eLisp version of Dunnet (first ported in 1992[a]) has shipped with GNU Emacs; the game also[when?] was included[b] with XEmacs.
 * newnew: Dunnet was ported to eLisp in 1992.[a]  Since 1994, that port has shipped with GNU Emacs.[1][2]  The game also[when?] was included with XEmacs.[b]

Or something like that, you can probably make it cleaner/clearer than that. Make a revised sentence-group that satisfies you, then post the updated request back in the same section of talk-dunnet (Czar left the coi-thing 'open'), and then ping Czar again. If they approve of your revised work, either they will mainspace it themselves, or they will okay you to mainspace it. One or the other of you will close the edit-request as fulfilled. Then, success.

After that one is finalized, your future edit-requests (each in a new talkpage-section) can start iteratively rumbling, and then if nobody shows up in three days or so (per edit-request), leave a 'manual' request for assistance at the WT:VG wikiproject-talkpage, which Czar says is reasonably high-traffic. Sooner or later, you will probably make some additional wiki-friends who can help you steward in the improvements. Make sense? 75.108.94.227 (talk) 23:26, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

expert witness topology-ontology, e.g. forensic science
"The expert's testimony must be based on facts in evidence, and should offer opinion about the causation (or correlation) to the evidence in drawing a conclusion."


 * Frye test
 * Daubert test
 * CSI effect


 * forensic criminalysis, cf crime scene , Law enforcement personnel including specialist crime scene investigators , as well as (usually off-site and/or in the courtroom) forensic scientists and expert witnesses
 * person-identification: body identification / DNA fingerprinting / DNA profiling / DNA phenotyping / Vein matching
 * proof-of-presence: fingerprint analysis / palm print / glove prints / forensic footwear evidence / forensic tire tread evidence
 * violence: ballistics and ballistic fingerprinting (determination of calibre, and often rifle-barrel match, in shootings), plus bloodstain pattern analysis
 * counterfeiting/forgery/fraud: questioned document examination
 * crashes/sabotage: accident analysis and forensic engineers/mechanics such as forensic materials engineering && forensic polymer engineering (e.g. cause of failure in a vehicle, vehicular accident reconstruction)
 * audio/video: electronic expert witnesses, partly covered at electronic evidence and expert witness  (authentication && details of:  CCTV footage, vmail recordings, wearing-a-wire recordings, etc)
 * voice analysis: forensic linguistics (e.g. identification of the person speaking, or interpretation of what was being said on a distorted audio recording)
 * phone/PC: digital forensics (mobile device forensics / computer forensics / network forensics / database forensics) ... sometimes included here is forensic data analysis used in detecting securities fraud and book-cooking fraud
 * substances: forensic chemistry (e.g. identification of the exact composition of clothing-fibers or specific explosives)
 * arson: fire investigation / Detection of fire accelerants
 * toxins: forensic toxicology (e.g. poison-identification and cause-of-death, plus sometimes body-identification)


 * forensic biology (umbrella-category)
 * humans: forensic medicine (e.g. severity of injury)
 * cause: forensic pathology (cause of death)
 * motive: forensic psychology/psychiatry (e.g. degree of sanity)
 * bones: forensic anthropology (e.g. skeleton analysis)
 * teeth: forensic odontology-fka-dentistry (e.g. body identification from dental records)
 * plants: forensic botany (e.g. plant-identification such as pollen/seeds/leaves to provide evidence about timeframes and body-disposal/body-movement at crime-scenes)
 * bugs: forensic entomology (e.g. insect-identification for similar purposes to the plant-identification), cf Use of DNA in forensic entomology   :-)
 * birds: forensic ornithology as covered at forensic_biology (e.g. identification in bird strike accidents in aircraft-turbines and wind farms, identification of endangered species in trafficking crimes)


 * other/uncategorized
 * forensic accountants (e.g. damages such as loss of earnings and costs caused by e.g. medical negligence or property destruction)
 * intellectual property expert / authorship expert / composition expert / electrical engineering expert (e.g. copyright and patent cases, or industrial espionage cases)
 * forensic arts (facial composite from verbal description / postmortem facial reconstruction / courtroom drawing when cameras are disallowed / crime scene sketching)
 * forensic statistics

Also ping User:Stabila711, who is working on one of this articles. Ron, are you analog A/V forensics, or digital fon/PC forensics, or some mixture? 75.108.94.227 (talk) 14:07, 25 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Although I have done quite a bit of expert witness work, it is only a fraction that has involved forensics, but I believe it was all digital. Ron Schnell 16:04, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I am planning on working on almost all of those articles (ultimate plan is a good/featured topic). I work in the DNA analysis field. Are you trying to group the forensic disciplines into umbrella groups? If so, I see a few issues with your groupings.
 * 1) Forensic arts would go under person-identification.
 * 2) You need a trace evidence section.
 * 3) Fire investigation would go under said trace evidence section not the forensic chemistry section.
 * 4) There really is no such thing as vein matching in forensics (at least not that I am aware of).
 * 5) Your criminalistics header should only contain things that do not fall under other appropriate headers. Digital forensics is an umbrella term and should be treated as such.
 * 6) There really is no such thing as forensic ornithology either. While any topic could technically be "forensic" since all that really means is that it is used as part of the law, if it is not recognized by at least some national or international organization and it hasn't passed Frye or Daubert it can't really be called a forensic discipline.

If you want to continue to talk about this we can do so on my talk page or yours. No need to clog up another editor's page unless they wish to be involved. --Stabila711 (talk) 21:05, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I have no master-plan for these articles, Stabila711; mostly I just noticed your GA stuff with the chemistry-article, and looked over our existing offerings (most of which I know little about hence my attempt at groupings), trying to see where Aviators99 would fit into the picture. He's a computer-programmer-type of person, but also an analog-audio-video-type of person, so I was curious what his specific expert-witness niche was.  Now, although Stabila711 is correct about the vein-matching thing not really being "forensics" in the normal sense (though it does get listed in the infobox... along with my favorite Use of DNA in forensic entomology!)... but Aviators99 might well be interested in the "vein matching" article which is really more of an espionage-technology at the moment, but as domestic surveillance camera resolution improves, could become a thing worth noting for infosec reasons (cf Gait_analysis).  There are some prototype-payment-systems that do vein-matching, as well.  Anyways, as for the rest of your points, User:Stabila711, I will shift them over to my own usertalk, so I get the orange-bar-notification.  My main point in commenting here first, was to ask my curiosity-related question of our host, and also, informally introduce you two, in case either of you felt like working on some of the digital forensics articles separately/together/musketeeresque (since towards said articles I also have some gumption).  Best, 75.108.94.227 (talk) 21:56, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:34, 29 November 2022 (UTC)