User talk:Jimsharp2006

Welcome!

Hello, Jimsharp2006, 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 messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! Deconstructhis (talk) 05:39, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

September 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article KRIV, please cite a reliable source for the content of your edit. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. Take a look at Citing sources for information about how to cite sources and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Deconstructhis (talk) 05:39, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

October 2010
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Before saving your changes to an article, please provide an edit summary, which you forgot to do before saving your recent edit to Project 25. Doing so helps everyone to understand the intention of your edit (and prevents legitimate edits from being mistaken for vandalism). It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. ''I stated a reason why I deleted that line. Please explain what it adds to the content already there'' Muhandes (talk) 17:47, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Project 25
You are working hard to dismiss a myth which does not exist. Show me where in the article does it say that P16 spawned P25. Well, it didn't, but with your addition "Many seem to think that Project 25 is an outgrowth of P16". Unsourced, and only causing confusion. All it says in the article is that P16 preceded P25, and was not well accepted. This is relevant history. If you feel there is a possible misunderstanding add a short sentence, which helps avoiding the confusing. Your two PARAGRAPHS full of CAPITAL words, are only CAUSING confusing where THERE is none. --Muhandes (talk) 18:08, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I added a clarifying sentence after the relevant paragraph, which I believe is all that is needed to avoid confusion. Please add a relevant source. --Muhandes (talk) 18:17, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I can only surmise that you are a bit daft. Do you have any experience with the technology? I have taken part in a number of conversations as of late where people are confused due to the wiki page and the information contained there. P16 to p25 is comparing apples to oranges - and I see the confusion often in my days as an electrical engineer dealing with P25.


 * Thanks for the compliment, care to go more ad hominem? Or maybe you'd prefer a personal attack at my intelligence? It really adds to the discussion, even more than using ALLCAPS to emphasize a point. But I would rather stick with the matter discussed rather than the person. I never compared P16 to P25 and neither did the article. All the article says is that P16 precedes P25, which is historically true. That's the purpose of a "History" section, to give a broader view on the subject. All the facts you mentioned about the limitedness and poor acceptance of P16 are already there, and if you think there is more to add, provide a reliable source and add it, preferably concisely, since P16 is not the subject the article, just an historical footnote. If there is a source for confusion, then an explanatory note should be added, which is what I did, again, concisely, since P16 is not the subject. I asked you for your help with a reference, since you are an expert on the subject, but instead you reverted my edit, without giving an edit summary explaining what was wrong with it. At this point it is I who is trying to make the article clear and trying to avoid confusion, and you who are reverting my edits, adding to the confusion.


 * I'd still appreciate your help, but please lets do this in a civil manner. It seems that you are an expert on the subject, but inexperienced with editing Wikipedia. I am not as familiar as you are with the exact subject, but am slightly more experienced with editing. Let me know what you think is missing, provide a source, and I'll be happy to add it in a proper way. Or continue the way it was before and hope the article comes out right anyway. Your choice. I say, lets work together and fix what's needs fixing with this article. --Muhandes (talk) 07:46, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

In 1932 Paul Galvin, the founder of Motorola published a "white paper" on public safety use of radio, in effect a defacto standard for two way radio to come. This was a predecessor to P25, so should we include it in the P25 wiki? I think not, as it has nothing to do with the standard. Same situation with P16 - it has nothing to do with P25. It is hard to find a cite for common sense, but common says you don't bring apples into a discussion about oranges.

APCO has many different projects before P25, including P1, P2, P3, P4, P5, P6, P11, P13, P14, P16 and P17. Should we list all these projects, and further confuse dear reader? http://www.apco911.org/new/membership/past_projects.php

Should we also name the projects since P25?


 * The relevancy of P16 does not come from it being another APCO project, it comes from it being a failed APCO attempt at a family of protocols, "the intention was to create a system concept that would satisfy the minimum needs of all potential users and permit the inclusion of more complex requirements needed by some communities then or in the future". If there are important differences, by all means, they can be emphasized. However, "a study of police communications in the metropolitan Chicago area" (P3) or "a course based on APCO's Public Safety Standard Operating Procedures Manual" (P11) are irrelevant. A white paper from 1932 will not be very relevant, unless on very specific circumstances. Surely you can see the difference. Projects since P25 don't belong in the History section, but if they are relevant they can be added on another section. Other attempts by other organizations at about the same time are also relevant, if you have sources on any. I think you are trying to use Wikipedia as a manual or a guidebook, including only subjects relevant to someone wanting to learn the subject. But Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook or textbook, so other things are expected, like covering relevant history. Why don't you say what exactly is confusing with the current text, and how you think this can be remedied? (also, signing your posts on talk pages, is a good practice) --Muhandes (talk) 20:11, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

P16 was NEVER intended to be a Suite of standards, rather a "system concept" http://www.apco911.org/new/membership/past_projects.php

P25 IS a suite of standards. The system concept of P16 is not related to P25 in any way except the numbering scheme of the Apco projects!

I have said exactly what is confusing people, the mere mention of a project that has nothing to do with P25! How do we fix it? We delete any reference to a project that has nothing to do with P25!

I am not sure why you don't care to understand.


 * It's not that I don't understand, I just don't agree P16 is irrelevant, and the original editor didn't think so either. On the other hand, I don't care that much, so have it your way. Oh wait, you already did. How civil of you, to completely ignore the discussion. Best regards. --Muhandes (talk) 18:49, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

And best regards to you also. Have a wonderful day. Jimsharp2006 (talk) 23:27, 17 October 2010 (UTC)