User talk:Glrx/Archive 4

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Streisand effect". Thank you. --Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 22:19, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

ABBYY Compreno

 * re Machine translation
 * re WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Replied your message here. Thanks. -- Nazar (talk) 23:19, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I see the guys at RS/N seem to have a hard time evaluating all the details of our argument. I understand it's not very comfortable for them since most refs are in Russian. I'd like to suggest you once more, as a step of good will and WP:AGF, to settle it between us. I think Francis Bond hasn't really evaluated the refs thoroughly enough, therefore he objected in the beginning. I also understand that some claims of reviewers and ABBYY officials about Compreno are rather high-fetched, so I can see where your doubts come from. I appreciate the time you've taken to review the refs (apparently using some translation of Russian sources), and I hope you've been able to see that the information I tried to insert wasn't my own invention and is notable enough, as well as backed up by a number of sources, though the claims described are somewhat revolutionary indeed.

I'd suggest you offer some neutral rendering of the info in question, the way you see it fitting. I stated in the RS/N discussion that I don't really care to advertise ABBYY or push some specific message into the article. Hope we can find a mutually acceptable solution :) -- Nazar (talk) 18:05, 23 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Ffbond and I think the material is premature for the machine translation article. I think Ffbond was on point; his comments on the talk page suggest he is knowledgeable. I have no objection to Compreno being mentioned or discussed in the ABBYY article. Certainly there are references that support ABBYY making a major investment in Compreno. Also, endowed chairs are appropriate at ABBYY -- but they have no bearing on the MT article.
 * The appropriate thing to do at MT is wait for Compreno to come out so it can get a serious evaluation of how well it performs. Right now, we just have ABBYY telling people it is great, and those people repeating the claims to others. ABBYY will be pushing press releases, presentations, and interviews. That's good marketing, but it is not independent material. But what is Compreno's real claim? With more information, machines can make better translations. I doubt that many people disagree with that claim. But WP is not the place to announce new products or repeat a manufacturer's claims.
 * WP should not use loaded but ultimately empty terms such as "Universal Semantic Hierarchy". If you look at your proposed text, it mentions but does not explain USH, makes a long digression about where and when Compreno has been covered, and then finishes with stating Compreno's goal is more accurate translations. That says nothing. Compreno certainly would not have a goal of being less accurate.
 * I could say more at the RS/N debate, but I don't see the point right now. I believe the RS/N editors there will just let the topic expire. Fifelfoo asked you to describe the six references you offered and what claims each would support, but you declined that request and instead focused on just the single conference paper with general comments about the others. When I supplied summaries for the six refs, you didn't dispute the summaries (save a final paragraph), but only claimed the sources were independent (I believe your view of independent is flawed) and that other unnamed refs support notability (contradicting your earlier statement that the proffered six were the best sources). You gave an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument that is irrelevant to the reliability of the proffered sources. The RS/N section is not a clear record. You want the RS/N editors to approve a vague paragraph supported by references that you won't clearly describe. It's also not a good candidate for an RS/N debate. The statement is too vague (Fifelfoo: "This is way, way too general an inquiry....").
 * Machine translation is an academic topic, so high quality sources are needed. See WP:NEWSORG. Press releases, interviews, and presentations are not independent sources. Independence of sources is not on point (it's about the notability of organizations), but it conveys the idea.
 * I am not opposed to material that actually covers interesting MT topics using reliable sources. I am opposed to material that merely announces upcoming products, lists alleged features, celebrates newly endowed chairs, and details the investment magnitude.
 * Glrx (talk) 20:47, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, that's fine. You've got some points there. I could say that I just don't have enough time, personal interest and experience in the subject to dedicatedly translate tons of Russian refs and engage into lengthy arguments just to prove something to someone at RS/N. But what's your problem with inserting a single line into the list of a few dozens of other MT providers in that article? I think you'll agree that given the refs we've got Compreno is better covered and sourced than at least half of them (many without any refs at all, as I said above)? It's a WP:WIP. It was just my good intention to drop in and write a few lines about interesting stuff I've read and heard about. And it does fit there. You don't have to make it an advertisement section (I've just quickly copied the few statements from the sources, therefore they might have sounded like advertising). Make it neutral. Make just one line for the start. I haven't seen much discussion about semantic trees and semantic hierarchy in MT article. And this subject was there in multiple refs I provided. The reviewers did discuss how such an approach can overcome the hurdles of current MT systems. The conference PDF is from ABBYY people, but it discusses in detail purely technological and theoretical issues, which are typical for the MT systems. This is academic, and this is relevant to the topic, isn't it? You don't have to mention Compreno and speak much of its merits (they haven't been much independently tested yet, indeed), but what about the approach? It's really a different and new one. It's not statistical, it's not rule-based conversion. So, let's just fill in something. The relative weight of this info is surely not lesser than of all those other unsourced systems in the article... -- Nazar (talk) 22:07, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

So, are you cool to finally insert something useful into that article? So far I've only seen discouraging and rather fruitless arguments, undermining the good intentions of those wishing to contribute to the project. Your actions might have been the cause to cut short Special:Contributions/OlenaUa's further contributions. And she tried it hard (including sandbox building) for her first Wiki-contribution, as it seems to me... -- Nazar (talk) 22:29, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Nikumaroro‎ edit
Not a good show! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 04:20, 8 July 2012 (UTC).

Just a question, but do you also operate under other IP or editor names? Bzuk (talk) 17:31, 12 July 2012 (UTC).


 * No. Glrx (talk) 20:14, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

change of username

 * re User:IDM Scan Manager

Hi!

Sorry...

IDM Scan Manager → AleksVoronezh1

http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%92%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%BF%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%B8%D1%8F:%D0%97%D0%B0%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%8B_%D0%BD%D0%B0_%D0%BF%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5_%D1%83%D1%87%D1%91%D1%82%D0%BD%D1%8B%D1%85_%D0%B7%D0%B0%D0%BF%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%B9 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.82.50.125 (talk) 17:48, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


 * IDM Scan Manager has been blocked. See the instructions given on your talk page. Glrx (talk) 18:00, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

your parent's basement
I understand that because you live in your parent's basement you may not get out much and are angry at the world but deleting valid references from a government entity (NIST: National Institute of Standards and Technology) has a deleterious effect on all of Wikipedia. These are taxpayer-financed papers that have been fairly inaccessible until now and NIST is making a valiant effort to increase the knowledge base on this site. If you continue to delete these edits I will take your edits to the dispute resolution board and see to it that your editing privileges are revoked.

Thanks and have a great day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.210.58.10 (talk) 15:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

QR Patent

 * re: QR code

Added additional source - please do not revert without discussing. This is highly relevant to QR usage. Cheers, Amicaveritas (talk) 10:30, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * It is not my burden to get consensus for removing material, but rather your burden to get consensus for including it. Especially when the patent is only a week old and could not have had much influence on the QR Code. See WP:BRD. Glrx (talk) 18:13, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I am familiar with polices as you should be also:

What BRD is, and is not

BRD is most useful for pages where seeking consensus would be difficult, perhaps because it is not clear which other editors are watching or sufficiently interested in the page, though there are other suitable methods. When editing articles:

BRD is not a policy. This means it is not a process that you can require other editors to follow. Note:"BRD" is commonly used to refer to the principle  that a revert should not be reverted again by the same editors until the changes have been discussed , as that could constitute edit warring, which is a policy that all editors must follow.

BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes. Don't invoke BRD as your reason for reverting someone else's work or for edit warring: instead, provide a reason that is based on policies, guidelines, or common sense.

BRD is not an excuse to revert any change more than once. If your reversion is met with another bold effort, then you should consider not reverting, but discussing. The talk page is open to all editors, not just bold ones. The first person to start a discussion is the person who is best following BRD.

You surely don't need me to warn you against edit warring. I've noted your concerns. I've raised it on the talk page. But do not revert any of my edits again without discussion and a clear consensus. Thank you! Amicaveritas (talk) 17:49, 29 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm about to revert Amicaveritas based on a third opinion, so I'll recount the history here:
 * On June 14, Amicaveritas adds information about a patent granted to Ensygnia on June 13.
 * On June 17, I revert as recent, not secondary, and undue
 * On June 20, Amicaveritas reverts
 * On June 22, I revert as WP:BRD WP:UNDUE and ask for consensus on talk page
 * On June 29, Amicaveritas opens discussion on talk page
 * On July 2, I oppose addition on talk page
 * On July 3, Amicaveritas responds on talk page
 * On July 13, Amicaveritas reverts article claiming there was only one dissenting voice
 * On July 18, I ask for a third opinion on talk page
 * On July 19, Abhayakara delivers third opinion concluding "the text should be removed" until there are better sources; any reinsertion should be shorter and "less like an advertisement".
 * Consequently, I will revert the article a third time based on the third opinion.
 * Glrx (talk) 16:27, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Welding changes
Dear Girx

Thanks very much for your comments and guidance. I will look at the changes you have made accordingly. I did wonder whether my job title may cause alarm! I have an interest in presenting accurate information and/or links (which were already in existence but inaccurate for the topic) but foremost wish to contribute factual information and attribute process invention (for friction stir welding, for example) where my knowledge allows. I am a science editor by profession and have a long association (and strong family association) with welding and associated processes - TWI/The Welding Institute in particular.

With kind regards Catherine Condie Catherinecondie (talk) 07:17, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Catherinecondie (talk) 07:35, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Glrx, please can you have a look
Glrx, please can you have a look to what I wrote today 11 August there? Can you help with refs? Will you sign my RfC also, or do you have some other proposal? Kind regards, Gerhardvalentin (talk) 13:22, 11 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I'll take a look later. I'm for dividing issues into small pieces, and I'm not happy with reverts that are just because something hasn't been discussed on a talk page. I don't know what you mean by your RfC, but I support an early explanation about ignorant Monty and 1/2. I'm aware of the stalled Block/Hogbin RfC, but have not seen any text for it. Glrx (talk) 21:49, 11 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Glrx. No, it's not on reverting reverts, it's on the conflict that has already been lasting for years now, discussion totally fruitless. It's on the miserable state of the article. In the beginning, the article shows the only valid standard scenario of the paradox, but subsequently giving a damn about that standard version, concealing that almost the whole article underhand is on quite contrary versions, quite differing scenarios, and by that fobbing the readers. I asked Guy Macon to help me with a request for Comment (RfC) for a proper structure of the article, that finally should "say" what it is talking about. Gerhardvalentin (talk) 23:24, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Emitter-coupled logic
Please discuss your placement of a dubious template on the Emitter-coupled logic article at that article's talk page. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:48, 17 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Done. Glrx (talk) 18:12, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 30
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Flush toilet, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cock (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) 12:07, 30 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The wikilink to cock was intended. Glrx (talk) 21:02, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)
Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page. In this issue: Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->
 * Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
 * Research: The most recent DR data
 * Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
 * Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
 * DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
 * Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
 * Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

--The Olive Branch 19:05, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Invitation to comment at Monty Hall problem RfC
Because of your previous participation at Monty Hall problem, I am inviting you to comment on the following RfC:

Talk:Monty Hall problem

--Guy Macon (talk) 22:31, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Hantavirus Risk in Yosemite
Hi, I noticed you have been contributing to the Curry_Village,_California article. I've been having trouble adding mention of the Hantarvirus Outbreak to the main Yosemite_National_Park Page.

I have written a new one-sentence draft of this edit in one of my subpages: User:Airelor/Yosemite_National_Park.

Please take a look and suggest any other edits or make any changes as you see fit before I try to add it again to the main Yosemite_National_Park page. If you know of any administrators or Wikipedia Users you can refer this draft (or me) specifically to for advice about this matter, that would be very appreciated too. Thank you. Airelor (talk) 21:42, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The discussion belongs on the Talk:Yosemite National Park page -- that is where you need to garner consensus. Currently, there is not much support for inclusion at that page. Right now, I agree with not putting it on the YNP page. Hantavirus does not seem to be a risk to the ordinary YNP visitor. The sources tell us that YNP looked at the risk and decided against a black box warning to the public. Apparently, Curry Village is warning those who did stay. Also, relatively little is known about the victims and their activity. Did they sleep on the floor? Did they stay more than a week?
 * Disclosure: I know three people who stayed in a single-walled Curry Village tent cabin in late June.
 * Glrx (talk) 21:08, 17 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I hope that means the three people you knew who went are okay, but that you're very interested in what kind of risks they faced? But thank you for kindly explaining it to me. Airelor (talk) 17:43, 4 October 2012 (UTC)


 * They should not be in any trouble. Hantavirus piqued my curiousity a decade ago. Glrx (talk) 17:59, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for taking the time to participate in my RfA. I hope that I will be able to improve based on the feedback I received and become a better editor. AutomaticStrikeout 02:33, 17 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Same reply also at User talk:AutomaticStrikeout. Glrx (talk) 17:43, 17 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the note on my talk page. I adopt the view that being an admin is no big deal. I'd like to see more admins, and I wish the process were a little gentler. It's small consolation, but I wanted to support you. I recognized your user name, and had a good impression of it. I don't need to see tens of thousands of edits or a huge involvement in admin areas. I'll look at the number of contribs, but 3000 is usually enough for me. I'll look a the distribution; if it's not heavy on article space, then I get curious; there better be some significant talk space edits. More importantly, I need to see clear evidence that a candidate understands the duties and will exercise restraint.


 * I read Q1-Q3 not only for their content but also for their showing that the candidate understands what editors want to see in an admin. It's OK to state conclusions, but conclusions should be backed up with evidence (just like articles need references). Think about how many hours editors will spend evaluating an RfA. Q1-Q3 will give them a heads up about you. It helps if the answers show strength and allow easy verification. One or two sentence answers are not going to be sufficient. I want a highlight, but I also want an explanation with some substance. When you read somebody else's RfA, what do you want to see in those answers?


 * I put a lot of weight on the Q3 conflict question. It's sad to say it, but I like to see a candidate in a bad situation and react well to it. It's sort of a rite of passage. There are all kinds of editors out there. Even well-meaning editors can be trouble. BTW, thanks for adding more detail to your RfA Q6 answer. The technical term is an ad hominem attack, and it is a frequent problem in WP disputes. I expect admins to know about conflict and about poor responses. Getting off the proper subject is a big problem.


 * I didn't see what I wanted in Q1-Q3, but I still went looking for reasons to support.


 * Candidates should have a general idea about various admin duties, but they are not expected to have detailed knowledge. If, however, the candidate states an interest in fighting vandals, CSD, AfD, copyright, or some other specialty, then there will be additional questions about those areas, and more detailed knowledge is required. (BTW, some wrong answers, if the logic is reasonable, are OK on difficult questions; see Oppose 18.) That's where you fell down for me. An answer emphasized the importance of communication to newbies, but you weren't being very communicative. You expressed an interest in deletion, but I didn't see clarity there. Evaluating an AfD (or anything else) takes some time; while you're taking that time, be conscious of the reasons. When you voice your opinion, state the crucial problem. Don't just say an article doesn't meet WP:N; say something specific. For example, look at the elements in WP:GNG; say there is no significant coverage or source XYZ isn't reliable or that a press release is not independent. That will not only convince us that you know and understand the rules, but it will also help new editors know and understand the rules.


 * I trust you can read many of the neutral votes for what they are.


 * None of the above issues is a long term impediment. You don't appear to have any serious flaws. You haven't been blocked. The opposes were primarily about inexperience/tenure. Poor behavior in an old conflict converts to a plus. Some criticized you for the admin-of-the-day proposal, but that won't have legs.


 * Good luck next time.


 * Glrx (talk) 17:41, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Radio atmospheric figures

 * re User talk:Bnland

Dear Glrx, I refer to my contribution to "Radio Atmospheric" where you deleted my two Figures. I can only repeat that both Figures are drawn by myself, and I do not understand where the problem with the "copyright" is. What can I do to introduce again both Figures. By the way, Figure 1 in its last presentation is not identical with the previous Figure 1. I consider both Figures as necessary to make my article readable. They are very simple drawings, and I cannot believe to disturb anybody. Bnland 09:46, 18 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bnland (talk • contribs)


 * I did not delete your images. I brought them up on Commons as obvious previously-copyrighted material that would need a copyright release; such a release was never provided, so the images were deleted by an admin on Commons. The issue was addressed in the discussions on Commons, explained by El Grafo on your talk page, and restated in my message to you. (You have apparently confronted similar problems with other images; see User talk:Bnland and User talk:Bnland.) The figures I challenged were obvious scans from a book: a binding shadow was present or the obverse is visible. I went to the University library and pulled one of the books. You have done nothing to prove that user Bnland is the author Volland. Furthermore, you stated to El Grafo that you don't know if you gave the copyright to the publisher. If you gave it to the publisher, then only the publisher can give grant permission for the image. See WP:Donating copyrighted materials stating, "If you are the original author but the rights have been assigned to your publisher, you have given up the ability to license the work to us." I believe that precludes WP:IOWN. In addition to that, the graphs have a professional appearance. Consequently, I would expect that the book's author provided the publisher with an image on graph paper, and the publisher then had a draftsman redraw the image to the publisher's house style. If that is the case, then the drafted image is the publisher's copyright as a derivative work even if the original author did not assign his copyright to the publisher.


 * I have a limited understanding of copyright. I will ask a more knowledgeable editor to provide some advice here.


 * Glrx (talk) 16:06, 18 October 2012 (UTC)


 * You can probably get some advice at Media copyright questions. Glrx (talk) 16:23, 18 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Subsequent history at User talk:Mabdul Glrx (talk) 17:40, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

dear glrx,

I refer to your page "Radio Atmospherics Figures" in which you doubt that I am the autor Volland. The simplest way to proof this is to look on my e-mail adress. Here you find my name together with the way how I have constructed my username "Bnland".

I have two other Figures very similar to those which you eliminated. The text has been written in LATEX, and the two Figures have already be included. The publisher has simply used my LATEX-file in order to print the text. He certainly did not modify anything so that I still have the "copyright". Do you agree that I use there Figures in the article "Radio Atmospherics"?

Bnland 11:42, 23 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bnland (talk • contribs)


 * Once again, thanks for working the Radio atmospherics article. WP appreciates your effort.
 * The issue is about copyright.
 * I do not doubt that you are Volland; your technical expertise supports that. The problem is that you need to prove to Wikipedia (1) that you are Volland and (2) that you control the copyright. (I'm ignorant of the procedures to do make that proof, and that is why I gave you pointers to WP articles about copyright and asked Mabdul to comment. I think WP:OTRS is opaque, but you should be able to get help at Media copyright questions. I believe there are alternatives, but I'm not a copyright expert.) From what you've said to El Grafo, you do not know whether you assigned your rights, so even if you show (1) you cannot show (2). Consequently, my take is that WP needs a release from your publisher for those images (and the release must be much more than just granting WP the right to publish it). The LaTeX argument is irrelevant if the rights were assigned. Furthermore, the LaTeX argument does not touch on the images. Moreover, you did not upload clean images to Commons; you scanned them from the published book. My arguments above suggest that you never held the rights for the professionally-appearing graphs published in your books. If you had actually made the published images, then I'd expect you could produce better quality images to upload.
 * Please seek advice at Media copyright questions.
 * Glrx (talk) 15:18, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

William Hugle

 * re: Talk:Frances Hugle

Hello,

The link you provided seemed to indicate that you would like to see a WP article about William Hugle.

(If the following comments violate WP policies regarding sourcing, please just delete them. They are offered only by way of explaining why I personally have not tackled this project; I think presenting anything close to a balanced view would be met with enormous protest, and edit wars... and would thus not be worth my time.)

There are certainly many more references for him. And, he was an excellent self-promoter. In the '100 Most Powerful Men of Silicon Valley' chart, he is named (one of 3) in a section called 'Barkers', those who could exceptionally promote; themselves, a technology, a new venture.

He was a close drinking buddy of Don Hoefler (whose family moved into the house where the Hugles lived up until the time of Frances' death) and many other powerful people of the valley including other journalists. He even managed to get free advertising (an article) out of Playboy for one of his products, a digital clock, that was being built at Hugle International, a company he founded shortly after his first wife, Frances died. (He was a firm believer in press releases.)

William Hugle was a man with a very checkered reputation. His name, face, life story was plastered all over the media in 1983 for allegedly masterminding a plot to sell US defense technology to the USSR. He was apparently acquitted after taking the 5th when he appeared before the Grand Jury. This was not the first such incident. He was also accused in the early seventies of trying to smuggle equipment behind the iron curtain (the apparent real function of Hugle International). I am sure the story I was told about how he escaped prosecution would not be appropriate to share here.

Early in his career (1940's), William (and Fran) became associated with John Broady, a rather infamous industrial and political spy who had early clients such as Bell Labs and Clenidan Ryan and later clients such as Ronald Reagan. William's association with Broady continued through at least the early eighties when, according to Broady, both William and his third wife worked for him.

William was sent to India to lay some groundwork for launching the electronics industry there in 1970. I was there. He also made liason trips to other parts of Asia, Taiwan and Japan. He was a networking genius. He was also an alchoholic and this condition became extreme not too many years after the death of Frances.

Athough quite capable of engaging in technical discussions, his role, as far as I personally saw (and I also co-founded a technical venture with him) was to hire top notch researchers to solve technical problems.

There is a great deal about both Frances and William that cannot be told in WP articles because as you have already mentioned, there is just not enough of the story covered in the press.

I personally believe that his early role in opening up the tech industry in Asia and his role in founding SEMI are his most lasting contributions. Since I was a bit close to the industry, I am fairly certain that he accompanied Frances and not the other way around. This was confirmed by the man who initially hired them at Baldwin, Vice Chairman John Jordan, and many others I met in the industry. Or as one person said (and many paraphrased), "Frances was everything, your father was nothing!"

All to say, though William is included on Fran's early patents, I doubt his role was anything more than lending an intelligent ear. Furthermore, I seriously doubt those patents that give him first position are accurate. My suspicion is that he raised the capital for the work to go forward... and, provided a market incentive.

Cheryl Hugle (talk) 07:42, 21 October 2012 (UTC) Cheryl Hugle


 * I'd never heard about the Hugles until coming across your article. William sounds like an interesting character, I'd encourage you to write an article on him, too. I would not be too worried about an edit war -- you are probably all too familiar with WP sourcing requirements now. Do not take any criticism personally; other editors are just trying to make sure that articles are solid. Refer to sources; you cannot use statements such as "Frances was everything, your father was nothing!" unless there is a published source. Since you have a COI, it would be best if you used AfC. Glrx (talk) 17:20, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice. I'll try to get something properly sourced ready for an AfC submission.

Cheryl Hugle (talk) 17:38, 22 October 2012 (UTC) Cheryl Hugle

Visual QR Codes
Hi Glrx, Thanks for your review on my Visual QR Codes article. You have mentioned that this information can be included under the Variants section of the QR code article. Visual QR Codes is a different technology than handmade Custom QR Codes. Would you recommend me to write an entry for Visual QR Codes under the QR code article instead of opening a new article for this topic?, Thanks, Uriel — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uriel Peled (talk • contribs) 06:45, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The current situation is difficult and complicated. WP does not want to discourage new editors from contributing to the encyclopedia. You may have much to contribute about QR codes and other subjects, and WP wants your help. Neither does WP want to turn into a place where new companies come to advertise or showcase their products, goods, and services. WP is an encyclopedia; it is not an advertising directory; it is not a marketing guide; it is not a repository of all knowledge no matter how insignificant. WP does not intend to cover new developments (it is not a newspaper or a journal) but rather material that has been around for a while and has made it into secondary sources such as books. WP does not want experts contributing their own original research; WP wants sources that evaluate other sources.


 * You are presenting as a new editor with a conflict of interest whose mission is to describe his company's product. Generally, those editors will have a bad experience editing on WP. They are just learning about WP's rules, and they are too close to the subject matter. Consequently, they have a skewed sense of their subject's importance, and they will run into conflicts with other editors. At your Article for creation, I disagreed with another reviewer's rigid notion of WP's incompatibility with conflicted editors. Editors with a WP:COI may edit articles in their area, but they must be careful about their conflict of interest. Editors are expected to contribute to WP and not their own interests. Although I disagree with the other reviewer's blanket statement, I tend to agree with the other reviewer that you should stay away from editing WP content about visual QR codes. At least until you've gained some experience editing other topics and have a better appreciation of what WP wants in its articles. It's small consolation, but I don't like saying that.


 * I just looked at your recent additions to your AfC intended for the QR code article ("Visual QR Codes entry for the QR code article"). You should ask yourself why you made the visual QR codes more prominent than the artistic QR codes. Why did you add six visual QR symbols when custom QR codes have only 5 symbols? Do you think an article with 11 custom/artistic/visual QR symbols is well-balanced when there are so few other examples of QR codes and variants? Which is more important: Micro QR codes or visual QR codes? How much ink / how many images should each topic get? You emphasize that visual QR codes are made automatically, but is that a significant distinction to the WP reader? Or is it a selling point about your service? WP wants independent and reliable sources that make that assessment; if the sources don't exist, then WP's view is that coverage is not appropriate at this time. WP editors do not provide their own opinions or judgments; editors report the opinions and judgments of reliable sources.


 * Editors with a conflict of interest must be extremely careful. Your modification has problems. It uses a primary/non-independent source (visualead.com), and it runs afoul of WP:UNDUE. Where are the independent sources that prove to WP that visual QR symbols are being used, have had an impact/effect on the public, and merit any coverage in an encyclopedia? It appears the symbols are made up examples and are not in actual circulation. Have secondary publications taken any notice of these symbols? Press releases and interviews do not count.


 * A similar criticism can be leveled at the custom QR code coverage in the QR code article. As I recall, there was a lot of opposition to the custom QR code. See Talk:Custom qr code, and Designer qr code. Furthermore, that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS does not justify adding similar material to an article. My view is that custom QR codes have too much coverage in the QR code article. Moreover, there are no independent sources about the public's reaction to such modified symbols.


 * I don't want to discourage you from editing WP, but I don't think it is a good idea for you to write about visual QR codes at this time. I think your current editing goals are different from WP's.


 * Glrx (talk) 21:36, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Glrx, Again, thanks a lot for the thorough input. Indeed contributing to WP was much harder than i expected which on one hand is really frustrating but on the other i can easily see how it helps to keep the WP content in the highest quality. I agree with all you wrote above. I guess i thought my editing should be at list as important as the ones about different variants of QR Codes. I will take your advice and work to get more familiar and experienced with WP and also wait until Visual QR Codes get to the level of significant impact and importance before adding this new technology to WP. Thanks a lot!, yours and other contributors assistant and feedback really improve the whole WP experience, Uriel — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uriel Peled (talk • contribs) 07:19, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 8
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Proximity fuze, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Receiver (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) 11:11, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Glrx (talk) 16:56, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Group FMG

 * re: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Group FMG

You declined saying: Group FMG is not mentioned at Webby Nominees page; Pod 1 is mentioned; it is not a winner, just a nominee. Group is not in the list of 50 top agencies; Pod 1 is. The list is not ranked; it is just alphabetical. And there is no reason to assign any special significance to the list; the list includes links to 3 other top 50 lists. The article describes what Group does, how it's organized, but it doesn't say why Group FMG is notable. Many sources are not independent; acquiring companies and employees does not indicate notability; notability is not inherited. Article needs independent sources that take notice of Group FMG. Glrx (talk) 21:41, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I took your previous advice and edited the copy so it does not say Group FMG is a Webby or Top 50 agency. These are simply references to Pod1. As for notability Group FMG has recently won several awards. I will resubmit with the correct references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tgrbengal (talk • contribs) 10:51, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The Group FMG article has been declined by many reviewers over the past 8 months. The article has been declined for sounding like an advertisement and for not describing why the Group FMG is notable. WP does not intend to be an advertising venue; see WP:COMPANY. WP is not a directory of companies, and WP does not intend to have an article about every company in every field. It's OK for the article to include other information, but it must show why Group FMG is notable. Please study the criteria at WP:CORP. Consider footnote 2 at WP:CORPDEPTH: "Inclusion in "best of", "top 100", and similar lists generally does not count towards notability, unless the list itself is so notable that each entry can be presumed notable." The independence of sources is also an issue; sources that rework press releases or quote company executives are generally not independent. Good luck. Glrx (talk) 16:09, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 15
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited H. J. Round, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Marconi (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) 11:31, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * fixed in the current release... Glrx (talk) 16:42, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

reporting -vs- discussing usernames
Thanks for your recent report at WP:UAA. If you see a name that is a slam-dunk violation of WP:ORGNAME it is usually best to just report it, as opposed to warning the user and then reporting it. That way we don't send a mixed message to the user, first implying it may be a violation, then coming back a few minutes or hours later and saying it is one and is now blocked. If it is not a clear violation the patrolling admins at UAA will open a discussion. Not a huge deal, not an actual rule or anything, just what I find to be a more straightforward approach to clearly promotional usernames. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:38, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Binary_search_algorithm
Hi, you keep undo my edits. I was wondering if you've tested the code yourself. Anyhow, here's the Python script that works for me, in which adding check of "low" with the length of array is necessary otherwise it throws "out of range" error:


 * Your code is confused in many ways. binarySearchRec is not a clean recursive statement; in a recursive call, the array being searched is smaller than the whole array, so a comparison with the global array bounds is inappropriate. The algorithm is not binary search. The complicated exit condition makes little sense. The only way binarySearchRec can return KEY_NOT_FOUND is if low or high is out of bounds -- but the routine should be able to determine KEY_NOT_FOUND when it is somewhere in the middle of the array and runs out of indices to search. In the article, the indices are inclusive. Let array be {10, 20, 30, 40}. Call binarySearchRec(25, array, 0, 3); mid is 1; 25 is greater than 20, so search goes to (...2,3); mid is 2; 25 < 30; search goes to (...3,3); mid is 3; <; search goes to (...3,2) [and low > high so set is empty; search should terminate here; your alg keeps going]; mid is 2; <; s(...3,1); mid 2; <; s(...3,0); mid 1; > s(...4,0); that finally forces a termination. binarySearchRec only terminates because either low or high must change at each iteration and that forces an index out of range eventually. That's O(n) to return KEY_NOT_FOUND.


 * Why does binarySearchIter need an asymmetric while condition? If there is a low < len(array) test, then why isn't there a high > -1 test? With inclusive bounds, we know that any index that satisfies low <= index <= high will be within bounds; that's the procedure's contract. Low only increases, and high only decreases, so they continue to be faithful lower and upper bounds; it's just that at some point the lower and upper bounds cross and no valid indices remain.


 * I think many of the issues trace back to not using inclusive bounds, getting access violations, and then adding hacks to workaround those violations. That explains why you are trying to include = in the recursive version and test for low < len array. The typical indices for an inclusive search are (0, len(array)-1) -- not (0, len(array)).


 * sizeof is not len. It is a compile time operation rather than a run time operation.


 * Glrx (talk) 17:08, 6 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the explanation. I did use inclusive bounds which caused overflow.
 * IRockStone (talk) 17:48, 6 February 2013 (UTC)