User talk:Maury Markowitz/Archive 3, 2005

microprocessor
I see you added the "Design concepts" section to the Microprocessor article. While I think it is well-written and belongs somewhere in the encyclopedia, I think that section would fit better in some other article.

I hope you don't mind that I moved it as a single block to CPU design. (Perhaps I should have split it into smaller pieces to go into Computer architecture, RISC, CISC, Instruction pipeline ?).

Feel free to integrate that block better into the CPU design article.

--DavidCary 13:22, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Image:Exidy sorcerer.jpg
I'm one of those tagging images – I see I'm not the first to visit here. This image appears to have come from this page. Is that correct? The author seems to indicate that that site is a collection of pictures of his own computers. If you got his permission already, could you put the appropriate copyright tag on the image's description page? Thanks. (BTW, I remember wanting one of those so badly when they were new!) -- Kbh3rd 03:48, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

More images

 * Image:Elsie macgill.gif
 * Image:Elsie macgill graduation.jpg 119 08:01, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hebern photo
Hi! I don't suppose you remember the source or know the copyright status for the Hebern photo you uploaded last year (Image:Hebern five-rotor.jpg)? Thanks! &mdash; Matt Crypto 10:37, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yet more images
If source and copyright information isn't added to the images you uploaded, they will eventually be deleted. – Quadell (talk) (help) 04:03, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)


 * Image:Bristol 198.jpg
 * Image:Bristol 223.jpg
 * Image:Bristol Brabazon.jpg

greetings
Hi. I found you by checking the history of the AltiVec article. I had a look on your userpage and I found many links to Computer-related stuff. I checked your contributions and concluded that you enjoy writing about computers and technology. I have some wikiprojects (not related to Wikipedia/Wikimedia) that may be of interest to you. So, if you like the idea of joining another wiki, just visit my userpage to find the webaddress. I will not post any more notices to your talkpage. Thanks, NSK 22:14, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Image:Me 410 with BK50.jpg
This one needs a copyright tag, too. Kbh3rd 03:26, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Also:
 * Image:Me 163 liftoff.jpg
 * Image:Me 210.jpg
 * Image:Me 262.jpg
 * Image:Me 410-A1.jpg
 * Image:Me 163A-1.jpg
 * Image:Me 163B-0.jpg

And:
 * Image:He 100D-1.jpg
 * Image:He 113.jpg

– Quadell (talk) (help) 20:57, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)

G5 howitzer
Hi, I noticed that when you created the GC-45 howitzer article you added the claim that the G5 howitzer was used by Israel in the Bek'aa Valley. I have been unable to find substantiation for this claim elsewhere, so I would appreciate it if you could give me the reference for your addition as it would help us improve the accuracy and attribution of the G5 article. Thanks, Impi 15:24, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks for the reply. After a bit more digging, it does appear that the M-72, Slammer and Rascal all use howitzers from Soltam, and I can find no mention of them using the G5. It is however possible, considering its use of ERFB ammo, that some of the tech made its way there, either direct from Bull or through SA. I'll also be emailing GlobalSecurity.org to obtain more clarity from them. Thanks again, Impi 09:09, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

SAGE tubes
Hi, you might want to look at Talk:SAGE. I've posted a question there about some data about tube reliability, which appears to somewhat contradict data in a paper on the system. Looking at the history, you appear to be the person who added the text in question. Thanks! Noel (talk) 13:06, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Serious and repeated problems with image copyrights
Maury, we gotta talk. You've uploaded around 100 images since you first found Wikipedia, and it looks like very few of them have been adequately tagged. Wikipedia simply can't use non-free images from the Web. We could get sued.

I'm a part of the Image sleuthing project, and we're try to determine the correct source and copyright info for the thousands of images that were never correctly tagged. It's a long, tough job, but we want to do this to keep wikipedia free and safe from lawsuits.

You're an admin, I see, and that comes with certain responsibilities. So far, seven different users have asked you to correctly tag your images, or delete them, but I keep finding more and more of yours that are unverified. Please go revisit all the images you uploaded and either tag them or delete them. Otherwise, I'll have to seek mediation.

Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 17:29, Feb 7, 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you for writing back, and I'm glad to hear you've been trying to tag your existing images. The one we are currently working on is Image:D.520.jpg, but there are many others:
 * Image:Boeing 733.jpg
 * Image:Bristol Brabazon.jpg
 * Image:D3A.jpg
 * Image:Do 335A-0.jpg
 * Image:Elsie macgill.gif
 * Image:Enfield EM-2.jpg
 * Image:Enfield EM-2.png
 * Image:Exidy sorcerer.jpg
 * Image:Fusor running.jpg
 * Image:Fokker D.VII.jpg
 * Image:Handley-Page Jetstream.jpg
 * Image:Hebern single-rotor.jpg
 * Image:Hebern five-rotor.jpg
 * Image:Kamal.png
 * Image:KIM-1.jpg
 * Image:Lockheed L-2000 three view.jpg
 * Image:Lockheed SST models.gif
 * Image:MBT-70.jpg
 * Image:Miles M-52.jpg
 * Image:Ontos.jpg
 * Image:Short brothers.jpg
 * Image:Sud Aviation Caravelle.jpg
 * Image:Trident three.jpg

I think that's it. Thanks, – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 18:14, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

Pudding/puddling furnace
User:Shimmin has just moved Pudding furnace to Puddling furnace. I think you created the article originally, and wondered if you could confirm that this was the right thing to do. I have to say that web searches seem to support the move, although some references mention Henry Cort together with pudding. Any comment? Noisy | Talk 00:51, Feb 11, 2005 (UTC)

Image:D.520.jpg
We were unable to find source information for Image:D.520.jpg. It is now listed on IFD. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 03:16, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)

Image tagging - an explanation and apology
Hello again Maury. You seem upset because of what I said on Image sleuthing, which then got moved to Image:D.520.jpg. I guess there are two separate issues here. One is, have you been negligent in citing source and copyright info on your images, and in keeping up with that when people ask you? I think the answer is yes. But the other question is, should I have said what I did, where I did, in the way I did? No, I shouldn't have. I was frustrated. An apology is forthcoming, but first let me explain where I'm coming from.

I obviously don't want perfectly good images deleted, and I don't want Wikipedia to get in trouble because of copyright issues. {We've already had a disappointing hard-copy release on Debian because of copyright issues, and other projects have been held up or cancelled for image copyright reason.) So I headed up the Image tagging project to get all those untagged images tagged. Then, since there were thousands of images tagged "unverified", I've been going through each one, individually, trying to give them source and copyright info. I started the Image sleuthing to figure out the hard ones. I started the Image recreation requests for recreations of maps and charts where the copyright status couldn't be determined. I've left notes on Chinese and German wikis, and looked through the laws for several different countries, to try to determine when images go into the public domain in different countries. The hardest part is usually figuring out where an image came from. I've left notes on hundreds of userpages (including yours), and I've e-mailed dozens more who have left Wikipedia. And the frustrating thing is, it usually takes only a couple seconds for the uploader to indicate where his image came from, but it takes me minutes or days to find each image source, if I can find it at all. It feels like cleaning up other people's messes. I've pored through the images by User:DW, who eventually got banned for continually uploading copyrighted photos after many warnings. I've gone through the images of User:Adam Carr, who uploaded around 200 images with no info at all, and has now said he won't answer image copyright questions at all anymore. By the time I got to yours, I was frustrated.

But regardless, you're right, I shouldn't have insulted you, and I'm sorry. I've left a correction on Image:D.520.jpg. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 22:22, Feb 12, 2005 (UTC)

Closed Railway
That was the West Clare Railway, a narrow gauge railway which ran north/northwest from Ennis before curving back around to Ennistymon, Lahinch, down the coast to Kilkee and Kilrush.

The narrow gauge trains used the platform of Ennis station nearest the current Bus car park - with the tracks actually where the bus stops/pavement are now. If you look at the road to Quin passing over the railway just near the entrance to the car park, one can see where there used to be a second space under the bridge for the narrow gauge railway.

The line was fully modernised and had diesel engines when CIÉ closed it.

zoney &#09827; talk 13:22, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia meetup
Everyone (except me)who RSVPed, RSVPed that they weren't coming. Well, it's a nice place and I felt like eating out anyway.Dhodges 14:56, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Parapsychology
Thoughts may be shared (telepathy) due to emotional contagion. We think we know what emotions are, but it is still unknown as to what emotions can do. What are their boundaries? See: Folie a Deux 2 Mar 2005 Charlie

PCI-Express vs. PCI Express
I just edited your entry to reflect the new title of the linked article. The new version does not have a hyphen, as it has become the accepted spelling and was thus changed. ^demon - 2:40, March 3, 2005 (UTC)

Sprites vs. Bit Blitting
Hi I'm in the process of rewriting the article Sprite (computer graphics) to cover the more modern usage of the term as well as the history. I thought you might know something about this and I'm wondering if you might look over some of the technical stuff toward the end. --Plowboylifestyle 02:01, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Fusor tubes
I'd like to move the article Farnsworth-Hirsch Fusor to something more generic, like just Fusor or Fusor tube or something, since I plan to expand on it and include all the history, like Langmuir and Elmore, and the more recent stuff by Bussard and whoever. Good idea? See Talk:Farnsworth-Hirsch_Fusor - Omegatron 13:49, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

Me 262.jpg
--Svencb 13:11, 8 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I haven't uploaded the second image, therefore I could not just upload it on the original page. ;-)
 * The picture is probably not PD, since the PD status in Germany requires 70 years post mortem auctoris, which is probably not fulfilled, since it was taken in the 1940s. It's rather 'fair use'.
 * The Template:PD-Germany is wrong, as it turned out in the discussion page. --Svencb 14:21, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Josef Kammhuber
Hello Maury, I recently translated the article about Josef Kammhuber into german (for the german wikipedia). One thing that puzzled me was the date of his death. In the article, you mention the 1st of January 1986. I found two (german) webpages where the 25th of January 1986 is given (and these pages were the only ones I found concerning his date of death). In the translation I stick to the 25th. Can you confirm the 1st of January somehow? Otherwise I will head for a local library and try to find out. Regards, --Mipani 09:25, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

--Mipani 14:34, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Hi Maury, thanks for answering. I'll fix the date as soon as I've checked it at our local library. Sometimes real books appear more reliable to me than the web ;-).

Image:D3A.jpg
Burgundavia (&#9992; take a flight?) 06:56, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

Hello,

I readded the PUI tag to this image. Could you please explain the fair use justification for using the image on the image's page? Thanks. :) kmccoy (talk) 22:50, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I thought you added the fair use tag in this edit? kmccoy (talk) 05:07, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

More German wartime images
The following images were uploaded under the inaccurate PD-Germany. They are too recent to be PD, but may well be usable under fair use. Could you consider changing the copyright tag on these images to fairuse (only the uploader can do this):

Thanks, and keep up the good work. Physchim62 10:02, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Image:Bristol 198.jpg and Image:Bristol 223.jpg
Hello. Let me ask about Image:Bristol 198.jpg and Image:Bristol 223.jpg. Did you draw them? Or, could you put sources which prove they are PD? Otherwise, please change the tags to appropriate ones. (Part of the reason I ask this is that if they are fairuse, they cannot be used in ja.wp (where they are used already) or some other wikipedias in fact) - Marsian // talk July 1, 2005 10:20 (UTC)
 * Oh, I'm sorry to bother you... I didn't look at the file history. Now I'd like to ask User:Quadell, who has put the tags. Thanks. - Marsian // talk July 1, 2005 12:07 (UTC)

IBM 1360
Hi, I responded to you at Image talk:Photostore.jpg. Regarding the sequence of events, it seems you posted your comment there after I had already deleted the image, though you say the other way round — perhaps you were still viewing a cached version? Anyway, the policy issue was discussed in a number of places, and I know that both when Jimbo announced that these were deprecated, and again when he said they could be speedily deleted, these announcements were widely posted. I regret that you might not have seen them.

Since I had no way of knowing the details of your efforts, or guessing that we might have some other justification available for keeping these images, I handled them the same way as a number of similarly tagged images. If you wish to re-upload the images with information that better explains the reasons why they should be allowed on Wikipedia, I hope you still have a copy of them available to you. --Michael Snow 4 July 2005 01:16 (UTC)


 * I would have changed the tag rather than deleting if I had seen anything to give me a clue that this was the appropriate solution. The information on the image page gave no indication about the story behind the images or why a different tag might be suitable. Now that I check the dates I realize that I missed the existence of the message on the talk page earlier, and I apologize for this oversight. I'm afraid that image talk pages are so rarely used that I normally don't expect to find anything there. --Michael Snow 4 July 2005 19:27 (UTC)

RE: Albert Johnson
The Albert Johnson article needs help, how can a guy killed in 1932 be a member of the U.S. House? This is not correct Wikiformat. It is confusing. Is it two different people? WikiDon 03:55, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

RE: Multiple entries / corruption
There was some corruption trying to enter my note on your talk page. I see this when a page becomes TOO large. You might want to create an archive for your older messages to alleviate this problem. WikiDon 04:11, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Billy Meier
Thanks. Please add some links. , --Michal Jurosz 08:21, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

William Shockley
I just removed an addition you made on July 5, 2005 to William Shockley. You added the third sentence in: The ensuing publicity generated by the "invention of the transistor" limelighted Shockley. Shockley was a popular speaker/lecturer and was often consulted by Washington (DC) and the military. Although he was careful to always give credit to Bardeen and Brattain, they were generally pushed to the side by the publicity machinery. This further infuriated and alienated Bardeen and Brattain. Shockley later blocked the two from working on the junction transistor. Bardeen eventually quit, while Brattain refused to work with him further.

I would be interested to see if you have a reliable source for this. All the other sources listed on the page give the contrary impression. I wonder if you bothered to read the article before editing it. If you did, I would expect that you would note Shockley's attempts to take the credit away from Bardeen and Brattain, e.g. telling them to their faces their names would not be on the patent, his actions to block them from making futher progress on the transistor, etc.

I can only come to the conclusion that for whatever reason, you made something up and just added it to the article. Please don't do this in the future. --C S 16:50, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Gimli Glider Photo
Hi Maury,

It's Will (recall the Gimli Glider image). I lost your e-mail so I'm not sure how to contact you. I just checked out the Gimli page and am quite happy to see my image up here. I edited a few minor details (such as the plane arriving as opposed to departing) and changed the name to "Will F." as I don't really want my last name on there.

I also noticed that it says I released this image into the public domain. What does that mean exactly? I thought I was just letting people view and use this photo for personal reasons. If a magazine, company, etc. wanted to use this photo for a commercial purpose, I wouldn't feel comfortable with that.

Would be great if you could explain that to me. E-mail me at wf_64@hotmail.com

Thanks, Will

Mauler
Sorry for reverting you, but as a rule blank pages are to be avoided. Since they appear at the top of Special:Shortpages, any page blanking is generally rapidly reverted by somebody. I agree the redirect is quite inappropriate, but rather than blank it you could, make a disambig page, write a quick stub on the missile to be expanded later, or list it on Redirects for Deletion. - SimonP 19:28, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Re: Full Impact
Hi, I left my comments on Talk:Full Impact. Sorry for the lateness; I was away for a few days and neglected to check my messages. -- Gsp 09:37, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Dien Bien Phu
I'm trying to whip Battle of Dien Bien Phu into featured article shape. I see you have written on it quite a bit before - would you care to lend a hand? &rarr;Raul654 05:16, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Crazy Canucks
Hi there, I noticed that you've completely redone the Crazy Canucks article. I've had my eye on that for ages, but never got around to whipping it into shape. Kudos for taking it where it needed to go, and thanks for giving it the treatment it deserves! -Lommer | talk 22:39, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Image source/licensing for Image:Boeing 733.jpg
This message notification has been automatically sent by NotificationBot managed and run by AllyUnion. Please leave comments regarding bot operations at AllyUnion's talk page. Please direct all comments regarding licensing information at Wikipedia talk:Images for deletion. --NotificationBot 13:08, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

NRAM
Maury, I see you've spent a lot of time editing the NRAM page to talk about a nanotube RAM project by a specific company, Nantero. If you are in any way affiliated with this company, most of this information needs to be removed-- it is little more than a plug for their proposed technology. Nantero is a small company that is attempting to develop their so called NRAM; this is many many years from fruition and in fact is considered impossible by many in the nanotube community (I don't see them or anyone coming close for at least a decade). It is therefore very misleading to compare it to SRAM, DRAM, Flash, and other forms of memory that are in production. There are scores of proposed memory devices, and 'NRAM' is just one of them. In the field, NRAM is normally used to describe non-volatile RAM. The post that initiated the discussion of Nantero's NRAM was likley made by an employee of the company. Wikipedia is not the place to describe the proprietary ideas of companies in this fashion; as interesting as they might be, they are just ideas and do not carry the credibility of academic research, and should be treated as ideas rather than established technology.

NRAM cont'd
Listen, I considered removing everything referring to Nantero's NRAM except a couple sentences and a link, but I did my best to replace statements like NRAM 'will' have higher density than DRAM with NRAM 'may' have. Actual NRAM devices that can be used in computers may never exist. NRAM is a plan, like NASA's plan to go to Mars. It is perfectly acceptable to write about this plan, as long as people aren't made to believe NASA is already in the process of going to Mars or will go there tomorrow. To those of us in the nanotube community, this stuff is very serious: there is a lot of very bad nanotube science being published, and unfortunately there is a culture being formed where funding and publications are going to scientists who have little evidence to back up their sexy claims. It would be naive to think that many of the posts on Wikipedia are not plugs written by companies. Indeed many of the anonymous IP addresses are, and Wikipedia warns that this may happen. I asked because you never know who is an investor. Feel free to edit my grammar and syntax as much as you please, I admittedly write very quickly and don't proofread meticulously.

Sidhu, AOCE
Hi, Maury! Thanks for your message. However, if you look at the diff of what I changed you'll notice that it was only to disambiguate network. I didn't make any context changes such as that which you noted. Please let me know if I can be of further assistance. Best regards, >: Roby Wayne Talk 19:08, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

isospin
I re-wrote the isospin article from scratch; perhaps now it is more understandable. Let me know what you think. linas 05:53, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Sources for List of the largest artificial non-nuclear explosions
Hello, good work on List of the largest artificial non-nuclear explosions, and thanks for the contribution. However, you did not provide any references or sources in the article. Keeping Wikipedia accurate and verifiable is very important, and as you might be aware there is currently a push to encourage editors to cite the sources they used when adding content. Can you list in the article any websites, books, or other sources that will allow people to verify the content in List of the largest artificial non-nuclear explosions? You can simply add links, preferably as the inline citations, or see citation templates for different citation methods. Thanks! Lupin|talk|popups 00:36, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Berkeley RISC article
Hi there

I just stumbled on your Berkeley RISC article and I have to say that it looks very promissing. Nice work there, Maury. But I'm sending you this message because I found that the article wasn't inserted in any category, which isn't a good thing. If an article is inserted in related categories, the reader is presented with a more related information, which gives the reader a better wikipedia experience. Based on that, it would be nice if in the next time you create/edit an article that you would contribute a bit more and take the time to insert the article on it's related categories. The readers will thank you for that.

Take care and keep up the good work --Mecanismo | Talk 20:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Degaussing
Please see Talk:Second Battle of the Atlantic Thanks! Msoos 10:43, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Area rule
Hi, I notice that you added a lot of content to the Area rule article back in the "old days". There have been some recent contributions that suggest the original area rule was discovered in a German patent (see the article) - which appear to be valid. Would you care to review the recent changes - thanks. Megapixie 02:24, 28 December 2005 (UTC)