User talk:Cgordonbell

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! andy 19:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Are you Gordon Bell?
I noticed you've been editing articles around the topic of Gordon Bell. Are you him? If no, then you need to know that Wikipedia has policies against choosing a username that closely resembles the name of an actual person. And if you are Gordon Bell, why do you keep changing that Wikilink to a broken form?

Atlant 18:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * You've never answered the question. Wikipedia's username policy would discourage you from editing under this name unless you really are Gordon Bell.


 * Atlant 11:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I am Gordon Bell and need to spend the hour or so reading how to do what I am apparently doing wrong. Will try to avoid doing anything more serious until I learn to drive a litle better. Would you mind correcting what I screwed up, tell me what I did wrong, and look at the pointer to the timeline I am building for the computer history museum that I pointed to on my site? Thanks, gbell at microsoft dot com.


 * If you are C. Gordon Bell, you're not doing anything wrong. We just have a policy (WP:U) that would prevent someone from choosing a username that appears to impersonate a real, well-known person.


 * Atlant 11:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Conflict of interest noticeboard
Professor Bell, I am contacting you because a website notice of your upcoming Macquarie University talk came to my attention. After reading the phrase ...and even has his own page on Wikipedia! I read the history of your Wikipedia biography and noted this account had made various edits there, then saw the thread at this page where you confirm your identity.

In light of these findings I have filed a listing at Wikipedia's conflict of interest noticeboard. Site standards generally prefer that biography subjects post suggested changes to the article's talk page rather than to the article itself. It certainly has the appearance of impropriety that the university's announcement of your upcoming talk touts the existence of your biography here and your status as a professional academic scheduled to speak on public relations and marketing to a university audience is most troubling. As a Wikipedia administrator I wonder: are these deliberate tactics and do you intend to recommend them to your audience?

There appears to have been some serious misunderstanding and I hope to resolve it before your address. Feel free to contact me at my user talk page or via e-mail (which is linked from my user page at the toolbox on the left of your screen). Durova Charge! 02:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Dr. Bell, please have a look at WP:COI and then if you need any changes to your article, feel free to leave a message on the talk page, or on my user talk page. Jehochman  ☎ / ✔ 18:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Magnetic-core memory
I have just reverted a number of recent edits to this article: please do not take it personally because it is clear that you have a lot to offer this article. However I was concerned that your edits appear to introduce bias and reduce balance and accuracy as a result. I've spelled out my concerns on the article talk page and you may also wish to review Wikipedia's guidance on conflicts of interest. Crispmuncher (talk) 16:13, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. 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 halfwidth tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address 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) 09:14, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Core memory
I noticed your edits at Magnetic-core memory and the comments on the talk page. May I offer some thoughts on a couple of principles regarding editing at Wikipedia? First, please be patient and do not be offended by the rather stern reception you have received. It usually takes a couple of weeks for people to settle down (I'm referring to everyone participating), and understand the issues and each other's point of view. I have not yet had time to digest the recent changes, but I hope to catch up in a couple of days. I can sort-of grasp what the comments about a COI are about, although they seem to have been expressed too forcefully from what I currently understand of the situation. I'll need some time to follow what is being suggested, but if there is a problem it is simply a technical matter about how much consideration independent editors should apply to material you introduce (and if there were a blatant COI, which so far I cannot see, you should suggest material on the talk page, and leave it for other editors to include if they believe it warranted). Of course other editors should check everything anyway, so any COI is a technical matter concerning how things are done—it is not the big deal which some of the comments on the article talk page seem to suggest. I don't want to downplay the general importance of WP:COI—there are plenty of cases where someone edits articles in order to promote themselves or some entity with which they are associated, and of course, that kind of editing causes a strong negative reaction from others (although that's not applicable in this article).

I see that your first edit was in 2006, but you haven't made many edits so there are probably plenty of peculiarities about editing that you have not yet mastered. One of those is the manner in which information needs to be verified. When a single author writes a paper (not at Wikipedia), the author is personally responsible for all the content, and ultimately any claims made are supported by the evidence presented, and by the reputation of the author. In that situation, it is common for an author to source statements to personal correspondence, or to personal observations. That kind of model cannot be used at Wikipedia because whereas many people edit under their real name, there is no authenticity check, and articles are collaboratively written, so no single person is "responsible". Wikipedia has no way to distinguish between someone who is an expert and someone who claims expertise but who is essentially a crackpot. It's easy for editors to guess the extreme cases, and real experts and real crackpots are readily identified. However, the nature of Wikipedia means that writing an article here is totally different from writing a paper under one's own name. Accordingly, an article cannot make an assertion based on personal observation, correspondence, or papers. Instead, every statement must be verifiable—that means that another editor could check the statement by consulting the source provided as a reference in the article. The check need not be inexpensive or easy, but it has to be possible. Often, the library of any significant university would hold a copy of the source, or the source might only be available in a single library in the world (where it could only be accessed by a bona fide researcher). Either is acceptable, but someone's personal papers cannot be accessed by others, and so are not acceptable here. Also, WP:REDFLAG applies: if a claim can only be sourced to a reference available in a single library, mentioning the claim may not be warranted in an article at Wikipedia (this is a general encyclopedia, and not a repository of all details associated with a topic).

An expert such as yourself is in an excellent position to identify errors or major omissions in an article. However, there may not be a good way to incorporate new information that you uncover into an article here (I am particularly referring to your correspondence with Jay Forrester). It is a fundamental limitation of Wikipedia that an article cannot use content which we "know" is true—the content has to be verifiable by others. The policy on that is WP:V, and there is a good overview of the important procedures at WP:5P. However, you do not need to be concerned with all that rigmarole—other editors such as myself can point out requirements when needed. There are at least two fundamental reasons for Wikipedia's verification policy. First, while it is obvious that what you have said is correct, it is possible for very elaborate hoaxes to be perpetrated—it is even conceivable that someone's computer could be hacked in order to plant fake material that will be used as evidence. Second, it is not satisfactory for editors to choose what material is important when providing, for example, a history—instead, articles should be based on reliable secondary sources where someone independent of Wikipedia, and with appropriate credentials, has performed an analysis and written their summary. Editors, should use that summary to identify key points that belong in an article (this is to avoid original research).

Of course many articles fall short of the requirements I have mentioned, and many articles contain errors or significant omissions. Nevertheless, the text about Forrester's April 2011 statement (currently in the article) will need to be removed. If you want, I will try to further explain that point, and show why what would be excellent in an article printed in a journal or magazine is not usable here.

As I mentioned, these issues can be slowly worked through in the coming days. It's quite possible that someone will jump in and remove material from the article, and pointed comments may be made on the article talk page. Please understand that many editors don't have the time or patience to politely discuss misunderstandings, and a resolution will take some time. However, your contributions are very welcome. In general, issues related to an article should be discussed on the article's talk page, and we do not need to communicate further here. However, if you would like to discuss editing priciples or anything else, please reply by editing this section. It may take me a day or so to respond, but I should see any reply. Johnuniq (talk) 08:44, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Timeline of computing: A great way to do computing history. Some additions.
This is one of my favorite ways to understand history. I like the timeline and want to help. Olson is misspelled-- it is Ken Olsen. The quote date is unclear. Teletype is a trade name and trademarked. There are a lot of other minor errors, but this is probably the best form to do history so that every item on it will point to a Wikipedia entry.

Don't make it any smaller... make it bigger. Scrolling horizontally for more time would be nice. Scrolling vertically for more categories is also necessary.

Can I urge someone to take the entries of my timeline and add them to this one? My timeline is an excel sheet has 500 plus entries accessible here. http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/people/gbell/Computer_History_Timeline_BC-2013_Gordon_Bell.htm

Disambiguation link notification for April 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bell's law of computer classes, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Creative and Kindle (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:51, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:17, 23 November 2015 (UTC)