User talk:LeadSongDog/Archives/2011/December

Global Standards Collaboration Entry
Hello LeadSongDog, could you please explain why you removed the link that I had posted to the GSC Machine-to-Machine standardization Task Force from this entry? Not only is it a link to the legitimate home page for the GSC MSTF, but its existence is supported by this (http://www.gsc16.ca/english/documents/resolutions/Res_GSC-16_slash_30_M2M.doc), which validates why I linked to the web page in the first place. So, I find it rather inappropriate that you flagged the link that I posted as spam, especially since it is directly adding to the content in the GSC wikipedia entry. Of course, if your concern was that I was adding an external link in the body of the article rather than in a "references" section, then that is a different story altogether. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Makru (talk • contribs) 23:12, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Our endeavour here is to build an encyclopaedia. Yours seems to have been a rather different objective: find as many places as possible to put links to the TIA website. As was previously posted on your talkpage by others, that is not what Wikipedia is here for. LeadSongDog come howl!  05:22, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

TIA's accreditation by the American National Standards Institute requires us to provide outreach on our open and voluntary standards efforts to the general public. Notice that none of the links are to the general TIA website - they are linking directly to specific engineering committee or collaborative activity pages. This is because we want to make sure that all interested parties, who might be technically oriented to discuss or contribute to the development of voluntary telecommunications standards are capable of finding our committee pages. Ideally, yes we would be very pleased to have different entry pages for each committee, but our organization has published over 5,000 standards in the last 84 years and we do not have the staff bandwidth to generate that much new wikipedia content. Thus, we are linking as best we can to ensure that people are properly informed, but if we can, we would obviously like to maintain as much page content as IEEE's volunteers are doing for their wikipedia pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Makru (talk • contribs) 06:10, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you are not yet familiar with our policies on handling conflicts of interest. I strongly recommend you make yourself familiar with them to avoid common pitfalls. You'll also need to read wp:PSTS. Wikipedia is a tertiary work, based mainly on secondary sources. If we want to say something about the TIA we need to search out what published secondary works have already said about it, the paraphrase the important parts. Parroting what a group or individual says about itself is not useful because for all but the most trivial facts people cannot be relied upon to be objective about their own work. LeadSongDog come howl!  06:25, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for this information. I made sure to read through it carefully, but there is one problem. The standards which are published as TIA-XXXX documents are not actually generated by TIA. The primary sources which you are referring to, that actually generate the content, are participating companies/organizations. In most cases, the content that we post to our website is the secondary source, as it is paraphrasing what is contained in the standard and putting it in the most objective light. The American National Standards Institute requires that we retain balance in the membership of our committees, and that entails that we do not favor any specific interested parties when publishing or promoting the documents. Our goal is to create widespread adoption of industry standards, not to represent the proprietary interests of specific parties. Thus, the TIA role is one of a convener, rather than a contributor to documents and there are almost no secondary sources when it comes to content about TIA. In fact, the only secondary sources that are usually available, include press releases, which are republished versions of content that we have pushed out to media outlets. The reason why other standards organizations like ISO, ITU etc. have a significant amount of media coverage, is because those institutions are directly funded by a number of representative governmental entities, which often means that they play into national interests, and that affords them greater online coverage. Unfortunately, these are some of the challenges that a non-profit standards developer like TIA must deal with. I will do my best to abide by the policies herein and limit any external links to reference sections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Makru (talk • contribs) 04:15, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Then with all respect, we don't have grounds to consider the TIA to be what wikipedia calls "notable" (what the rest of the world would call "noted in reliable independently published works"). Further, I'd suggest that you may not be in a position to be completely objective about the reliability, relevance, or importance of works published by the TIA. As such it is best to simply avoid making edits in articles that relate to the TIA in any way. Instead, simply use the associated article talkpages to suggest links that other editors can assess for inclusion in the article and trust that most such editors will act in good faith. It is constructive to be up-front in such suggestions about your involvement. If you can facilitate making courtesy copies of the suggested sources available to editors that is also very helpful. LeadSongDog come howl!  05:28, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for the contribution about AMDASM and experiences of a "real programmer" in the med discussion, I am the 70.137 guy there, variable IP. Say, do you know where real programmers like that are hired? I only see openings for "C++ programmers" and the like but almost no "bare metal" bughunter openings, no scientific programming, no mathematically oriented openings for algorithm design etc. where are they all gone? I mean real programmers like us are by no means underqualified or outdated, somebody has to debug new hardware somewhere, but as I said must be some cult member like gurus in some catacombs, running closed shop there, almost nothing like that in the open job market. (being non-citizen makes it worse, some jobs like that are to be found at e.g. LLNL or other gov run or nasty research, or associated with defense projects etc. but closed shop "citizen only") So where does the club of real programmers hide? All exported to other countries? 70.137.138.100 (talk) 20:50, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm long out of touch, but this search would indicate the field is still pretty active. Patents could be informative, as the assignees they show are often corporations. Good luck. LeadSongDog come howl!  21:06, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes the field is active BUT...

On the first page of the search (thanks!) 3 are US (AMD Sunnyvale, Univ Austin, Stanford Univ) the others are TU Graz Austria, Univ in Portugal, TU Karlsruhe Germany, and so forth, Handan college China, Royal Institute Tech Sweden, Imperial college UK, Italy Atmel Roma, INRIA France, Fraunhofer Institut Germany... This gives the appearance as if US dumbed down in the past 10 years, almost to the level of making "fish and chips" instead of "chips". Practically no domestic research here, even the contributers from domestic institutes and publications are foreign guest researchers or institutes. I suddenly see my future, "sizzle, sizzle" fish and chips, burgers, hot dogs, pancakes, hash browns... 70.137.138.100 (talk) 21:29, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for your suggestions about blanking the [|article] and starting afresh. I have made a start. I would also like you to help me understand the concept of close paraphrasing. I had posted a request for clarification on the talk page of WP:PARAPHRASE 3 days ago, followed it up with another request at help desk on 13th December, but nobody has responded. The WP:PARAPHRASE talk page is a High-impact page, and I'm sure there would be others who shall benefit if the logic behind what constitutes close paraphrasing is explained even more clearly. Also the term structure of a sentence is used frequently on this page, but is not defined anywhere. Wikitionary vaguely calls it The overall form or organization of something.. Is the structure classified as simple, complex and compound-complex (as per this source or does it mean that it "can be traced back to one of the four patterns" per this source. I understand that Wikipedia is not a place to teach English language, but at least there should be an attempt to provide genuine clarifications of doubt when there are so many widely different definitions of the finer grammatical points. Thank you. Tinpisa (talk) 10:05, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You might find this article helpful too. The concepts are applicable in every language I know of, not specific to English. A sentence can be formally parsed to reveal its structure, sometimes represented as branches of a tree. Pruning a branch or removing a clause doesn't make it a new tree. Substituting one word for another for the same cognate at the same part of the structure doesn't make a new sentence. Transforming even one sentence this way can be hard, for an entire article it is virtually impossible. Hence the need to strip it down and start fresh. I'm no formal grammarian, certainly no grammar teacher. I'd suggest your school's languages department might be a good place to start. LeadSongDog come howl!  14:37, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Henoch-schonlein purpura
Hello friend, am looking for your help to get access to these 3 articles related to Henoch–Schönlein purpura article,, , , can you do that for me?? M aen K. A. Talk  12:01, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

edit article "Cold Fusion" Refefences to Pathological Science Should Be Moved to Historical Footnotes
To improve the article:

1) Wiki needs to view it as science.

2) Wiki needs to recognize which scientific journals are utilized and sourced by scientists in this field of physics.

I predict a tremendous increase in the readability of the article.

Query to the scientific community: To the Directors of Physics Departments,

LENR - Low Energy Nuclear Reaction and Widom Larson Theory, aka Condensed Matter Nuclear or Lattice Enabled Nuclear; historically misnamed "Cold Fusion"

1) Is this science or pathological science?

2) Do you offer a class in this discipline? If so, please provide information.

3) Are you developing a curriculum of this science? If so, when will you offer it?

4) What peer review journals do you utilize or source in this field?

LeadSongDog, P>S> 1) Any suggestions or criticisms before I move forward with this? 2) Is this direction of query able to yield opinions the Wikipedia forum on Cold Fusion may value? Thank you for your time, Gregory Goble gbgoble@gmail.com (415) 724-6702--Gregory Goble (talk) 00:14, 27 December 2011 (UTC)--Gregory Goble (talk) 00:21, 27 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for asking, Gregory. What you are proposing is a project of wp:Original research, which would not be within wikipedia policy. We do not conduct or publish original research, nor should we solicit others to do so at our direction. We especially would not pose questions on tilted premises ("historically misnamed", "of this science"). We look for wp:Reliable source works that are already published (and hence are wp:Verifiable) and we reflect them. LeadSongDog  come howl!  15:46, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIX, November 2011
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:46, 27 December 2011 (UTC)