User talk:NapoliRoma/Archive 2

Thicknet wasn't always vampire tap. You WERE right...
"These are the "stinger" or "vampire" type transceivers, with a spring-loaded "energy" stinger. You will have to specify whether you want version 1.0 or 2.0 transceivers, and "heartbeat" or not (I don't know which the 3Com board needs, but TCL will know). "

"I would NEVER buy one of the transceivers that requires cutting the cable for installation. We never have any problems with the vampire taps. "

You should find these by searching in Google Groups. The first thread was called "Ethernet Hardware Pricing," and dates to Febuary 18, 1985.

Also, "The AUI cables are the right choice. I'm concerned about vampire taps though because they aren't suppose to be too reliable.  Our thicknet was going to use some transceivers from cabletron.  ST-500 with LANVIEW.  Totally contained with little LEDS for xmit rcv collision power and sqe (which is selectable) And they screwed into your thicknet.  No worries about making a poor tap. Since your backbone requires only 3 of these (1 per floor) Cutting the cable to make the tap won't be that hard.  And it will improve reliability And these things were cheap. "

"We were forced to run part of our Ethernet cable through conduit, due to a very sticky fire code. The problems that we encountered included how to install a tap in a box without unduly bending the cable, getting the black marks to line up with the boxes, and having to remove terminations to get the cable pulled, and then putting them back on. If a retap is ever required in a box, we may have to punt.

"Answers:       - Measure the conduit runs between boxes carefully.        - Get the holes in the boxes placed to minimize cable bending.        - Get *big* boxes to put the tap in.        - On transciever cables, use a pin removal tool to remove          pins from the 15-pin connector shell before pulling          the cable through. Don't splice a transciever cable.        - You'll need to remove one terminator on the coax, pull it,          and then install the terrminator back on. You can splice          a coax, using two male ends and a female-female adapter.        - Beware, throughout, that Ethernet specs do not allow a bend          in the coax togo below a 8 inch radius (I believe that's the          number)."

"One solution, of course, is to use vampire taps. But the Ethernet package for a 3B2 includes a 3Com transceiver, which uses barrel connectors. So we're contemplating putting connectors every 12.5 meters or thereabouts, allowing for easy access. "


 * I do hope this proved interesting. I'm sure there's much more on the early days of Ethernet out on Usenet/Google Groups for your perusal, but these posts confirm your Thicknet memories. Which came first, if either, I'm not sure, but both seem to have been around from a really early time. Clearly, you have evidence to establish that there have been Thicknet systemms without vampire taps, at the very least. This post is unwieldy, so why not delete it and leave a summary or something once you've read.

Manimal347 (talk) 01:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Two Stockton stations
I'd suggest not merging the two Stockton station articles, since they refer to two different locations. The article you left the merge template on is for the former Southern Pacific station, used by Amtrak trains to/from Sacramento; the facility described in Stockton (Amtrak station) is the former Santa Fe depot, used by trains to/from Oakland. Unless there are any objections, I'll remove the merge template. Take care! Pitamakan (talk) 16:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Cool, thanks.
 * But this raises a new question -- after I saw your edits today, I followed the succession box links for the San Joaquins from Bakersfield back to Stockton. Modesto (Amtrak station) links back only to Stockton (Amtrak station) for both the Oakland and Sacto runs. It looks like this should be changed to show that it goes to the Stockton Amtrak station for Oakland, and the Stockton ACE station for Sacto, right?--NapoliRoma (talk) 16:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep, exactly. These skeletal station articles were probably put together back when the Amtrak service in the valley only went to Oakland, and not to Sacto as well ... so there's a fair amount of updating/clarification that could be done.  Pitamakan (talk) 16:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Melchizedek (disambiguation)
Hi

You just reverted my edit to Melchizedek (disambiguation), giving your reason as rv: good faith edits, but "tidying" in this case looks a whole lot like fixing WP:REDIRECT#NOTBROKEN. I admit I hadn't studied WP:REDIRECT#NOTBROKEN, and I'm grateful to you for drawing my attention to it. However, I've studied it now, and I think you have somewhat misinterpreted it.

WP:REDIRECT#NOTBROKEN is written on the assumption that we're talking about ordinary text in articles, rather than disambiguation pages. For example it says ''There should almost never be a reason to replace redirect with redirect. .'' I entirely agree with that, and I hadn't brokem that rule. It also says In many cases where it might seem appropriate to make this change, ... the better option is to edit the visible text. Indeed, and I had edited the visible text.

I'd like to suggest that disambiguation pages are different from main articles. In articles, we're writing in sentences, subject to the rules of grammar and style, and links are subordinate to that. Where we follow a link, we're interested in what appears when we get there, rather than in what it's called. In the case of disambiguation pages, things are different. The names of articles are stated explicitly, and that's what we're telling people. We're not just saying how to get there, we're giving the information as to what the article is called, so any use of redirection within a link is likely to be confusing, and better avoided.

Looking at the specific changes I'd made, we previously had which I changed to with everything visible. I assume the original forms were written like that either as mistakes or when the names were actually like that, having been changed since. Certainly the new names are better, since the Mormons don't like to be called Mormons, and prefer the label Latter Day Saints. In the case of the other, the term Melchizedek priesthood is only ever used within a context of Christianity, so the qualification was pointless. That's part of the reason why I changed them, but also so that people can see what the articles are in fact called. The only thing I'd do differently now is to describe it as clarification rather than tidying.
 * Melchizedek priesthood (Mormonism)
 * Melchizedek priesthood (Christianity)
 * Melchizedek priesthood
 * Melchizedek priesthood (Latter Day Saints)

Finally, I'd like to point out to you that reverting is editing. If it had been written in the first place the way I left it (with Latter Day Saints etc), and you'd edited it to Mormonism, that would be considered vandalism. My edit may have been unnecessary, but it was in no way harmful. Your undoing of it was even less necessary.SamuelTheGhost (talk) 16:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Samuel,
 * Thank you for the very well-thought-out and comprehensive reply. I agree with many of your points, but working backwards:
 * First off, beware of equating "vandalism" to "an edit I don't agree with" -- calling an ill-advised edit "vandalism" is the Wikipedia equivalent of Godwin's Law. In the particular case you cited, it's quite possible the editor wouldn't have been aware that "Mormonism" is considered a faux pas in the LDS community. "Vandalism" should be reserved to refer to malicious intent to deface an article.
 * So why did I pull the undo lever? I was reacting more to the first change, the "champagne bottle" edit, which at first glance had the earmarks of a NOTBROKEN edit, and a quick glance at the remaining bit seemed the same; I thought, "hmm, shouldn't there be a clear disambiguation between the two Melchizedek priesthood articles?"  You've laid out a good explanation as to why that was wrong -- not only are these links in a dab page, they're in its See also section, a place where having the actual article title is most appropriate.
 * So, I'll revert my undo; I appreciate the work you put into defending your edit. Cheers,NapoliRoma (talk) 17:31, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Broadcast Message Server
An editor has nominated Broadcast Message Server, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 22:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

as you requested
Victuallers (talk) 22:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Thomas King
See here, right under the heading "Columbia". Basically, I added the link because I am creating a list of BC by-elections and I am checking each name to make sure it wasn't a dab page or was taken by someone completely unrelated but with the same name. Since Thomas King (politician) definitely existed, I am going to revert your edit to Tom King. Thanks. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 04:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd also like to point out that red dablinks have a precendent; see Gary Collins. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 04:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi, the issue isn't with red links on dab pages per se, nor is the issue with whether or not Thomas King (politician) existed -- I fully trust that he did. The problem here is that the sole purpose of dab pages is to route the reader on to the page he or she is looking for.  There is no WP page to route people to for this particular Thomas King.
 * The relevant guideline for dab pages and redlinks in WP:MOSDAB is that you can have a redlink entry, but there still needs to be (exactly) one blue link for each entry on a dab page. Can you suggest an appropriate blue link for this Thomas King?  Otherwise, the entry really shouldn't be there.  Regards,NapoliRoma (talk) 05:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

At my talk page
I like to keep conversations at one location as well. I responded to your note. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 20:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

HomeLink Wireless Control System
OK, I've restored, it's up to you to save this article before it's speedied again

Jimfbleak (talk) 17:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks -- yes, I was in the process of adding to the talk page to explain why I was doing so and what I'd be doing when, I found the article had already been deleted. Will you be restoring the talk page, too?  Thanks again, NapoliRoma (talk) 17:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)


 * oops - done Jimfbleak (talk) 17:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You had an hour? I can restore the page to something in your userspace and you may be able to edit/perfect it there. Rudget . 18:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Probably! :) Nice assessment. Rudget . 19:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Next Computer?
I redirected Next Computer to NeXT because that's what I was looking for when I searched for it. NeXT made more than one type of computer, so Next Computer can refer to any one of them. But there was only one NeXT Computer, Inc. I believe the latter is what most people hitting the redirect will be looking for. Foobaz·o&lt; 02:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I didn't know the computer was called the "Next Computer". Maybe you're right about the redirect. Foobaz·o&lt; 22:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

SUN-3M
I am not postive about the name. I was a very early employee of Sun Microsystems and in casual converstations the original Stanford workstation was always called the "3M" machine. I never heard any other name than the generic "Stanford workstation". Shoul I rename the page to Stanford workstation? If so, how do I go about changing it?

Robert.harker (talk) 22:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The article name should be whatever name is the most commonly accepted one for the workstation (although I admit it might be difficult to determine that after almost 30 years, especially if only ten of them were ever made...). It just seemed likely to me that "SUN-3M" was not that name.


 * The SIGGRAPH paper you quote calls it the "SUN workstation" -- would that be the proper name?


 * If it's at all weighing on your mind, I wouldn't worry about the name conflicting with other Sun-related articles already on Wikipedia; I think it's more important to get the name right, and there are various ways to clear up any ambiguities and confusion if that becomes an issue.


 * As for "how" -- after your Wikipedia account has been active for four days, you'll notice that a "move" tab will now appear at the top of each article; you'd use that to do the rename (or I or any other editor could do it earlier). The only caution I'd make about moving/renaming is that although it's easy enough to do, it can leave a bit of a mess behind, so it should be done with some degree of consideration beforehand.


 * You can also have redirects to articles (think "symlinks" :-), and in fact when you move an article, a redirect from the original name to the new name gets left behind automatically.--NapoliRoma (talk) 23:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. I am checking some other sources about the 3M name, but my first result is that I have the name wrong. If I rename it though I would not like to use the name "SUN workstation" since that is a generic name for a product that sun made hundres of thousands of. Would it be better to use the name "Stanford workstation" or Stanford University Network workstation"? or do you have a better idea? Robert.harker (talk) 00:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Upon relfection I think you are right. The 3M term was a generic term, not a Stanford specific name. And in looking at many google refernces, it was known as the "SUN workstation", all uppercase SUN, lowercase w. Since I created my account today, could you move it to this name. I will adjust any other links I made. Also is it correct to use block quotes such as the one from Andy Bechtolsheim SIGGRAPH paper. Should I have attributed it with a block? Thank you for your help Robert.harker (talk) 06:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * As you've probably seen, I've done the move; I also did put the attributions in reflist format. The blockquotes seem fine to me.


 * As a side note, the "3M" edits going on are interesting to me, as a couple of decades ago I used that term quite a bit in my professional life, and have in the past made edits to both the 3M computer and workstation articles related to that.
 * The Andy Hertzfield memoir the 3M article references says "megaflop", quoting Andy van Dam, who in turn was said to be quoting a "recently published paper" (presumably Raj Reddy's).
 * The Hertzfield anecdote takes place in early '83, a couple of years after the SUN workstation came out -- at that time PCs were still only .33 MIPs, but the Sun-1 was running at 1+ MIPS, so maybe 1 megaFLOPS was the new stretch goal by that time.
 * So my memory from '84 or so when I first got involved in this area was that MegaFLOPS was the big deal, but it looks like the term as Raj Reddy coined it was referring to MIPS. Since the article quotes the Hertzfield anecdote, I think the "3M computer" article should mention that too, though.  Cheers, NapoliRoma (talk) 19:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the updates. They are a nice improvement of what I wrote. As far as the MIPS vs MegaFLOPS thing goes, in my research for the 3M_computer and the SUN_workstation the only place I saw mention of MegaFLOPS was in the 3M page. What I read about the SPICE workstation, the SUN workstation and the PERQ articles and discussions all talked about instructions per second, either CPU or Pascal (native language), not floating point instructions. I also added a long discussion on the Talk:Workstation page about the term workstation being outdated. I would be interested in your feedback. Robert.harker (talk) 01:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Asking for fact checking
Since you have been very helpful for a Wikipedia newbie I though I would ask for some advice on murky information. The Sun 1 had two generations. The original Sun 1 design with the Sun 1 boards and the Interphase disk controller and the Sun 1/100U with the Sun 2 boards and the Xylogics disk controller. These are both verifiable. What I do not know about is the transition from one to the other. I am not sure, but I suspect that there was a period where Sun 1 boards were shipped with the xylogics disk controller, specifically the Sun 1/150 server. But I do not know this for a fact. Now for the question. Can I use this in the article as an assumption and ask for a fact check? This would be my preference since more people would see it. Or is this something that is better put into the discussion section? I look forward to your helpRobert.harker (talk) 10:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

"News" (newspaper) redlink
Are you quick. I'm working on the article now. Sorry if I created the redlink before the article, but the cart is already before the horse so I have to work it out. Thanks for the notice.--TGC55 (talk) 23:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Please help save Repo Man movie article
Howdy NapoliRoma,

This guy, Dædαlus, is in there trying to remove parts that you, I and many others contributed to the Repo Man article. Please add to the bottom of this thread on the Repo Man talk page that you think the "Notable Motifs" section should not be blanked (erased), but left as is since the Pulp Fiction article also has a "Notable Motifs" section that isn't being considered for removal at all (even by Dædαlus himself).

While I agree that the "Notable Motifs" section could use some work, it certainly won't help the article to delete the whole thing and erase all our work which consists of many multiple contributers over a course of years. I'm willing to work on it and better incorporate it into the article, he just wants to delete it all!

With consensus, we can stop this guy from deleting all our work soon!

Thanks in advance. Cowicide (talk) 02:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Whoops!
Nice catch. Incidentally, I was making that change in the lead because I'm going to nominate the list for featured list status; I'll do what I can to help out, but I just wanted to give you the heads up! -- jonny - m t  17:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

MF
I notice, however, you didn't revert it. Give your sinuses my regards. Wikilost (talk) 05:52, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Piping on disambiguation pages
Thanks, NapoliRoma, I hadn't seen that before. Boleyn (talk) 06:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

RE: Edits to PC disambiguation page
I'm sorry, I dont know what made me put my signature in such a place. Although that was the only one of the above that my edit was in contrevention of, yours. Police,Mad,Jack (talk · contribs) ☺ 17:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

template:Infobox Short story/doc
Hi, basically I was looking at the nutshell of wp:mosflag, there is not really an advantage of having flags in this template. But mainly to be consistent with Template:Infobox Book where there is no mention of flag, and where flags are only rarely used. Garion96 (talk) 14:06, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding recent edits to workstation
You've reverted my recent edit to workstation, which I don't disagree with, as you have explained your reasons why in your edit summary. However I think that the entire section in question is confusing and requires improvement becuase:

Quote: "Although both the consumer desktop and the workstation benefit from CPUs designed around the core concept (essentially, multiple processors on a chip, of which the P5 was a forbearer of this technique), workstations may use multiple processor multi-core based CPUs, error correcting memory and much higher on-chip cache memory"


 * "the core concept" should be, "the multicore concept".
 * "multiple processors on a chip" should be, "multiple processors on a die", as chip can refer to both die and package.
 * "of which the P5 was a forbearer of this technique" should be, "of which the POWER4 was a pioneer of this technique", as the POWER5 is essentially a modernized POWER4 and the word "forbearer" is not in my dictionary. It should be noted that it is a common misconception that the POWER4 places multiple single-core dies in the same package, it is in fact a single die dual-core processor. The reason for this misconception is becuase four dual-core processor dies are packaged in a single MCM. I think this is why the article mentions the POWER5 instead of POWER4.
 * "workstations may multiple processor multi-core based CPUs" makes no sense. A distinguishing feature of modern (2008) workstations is that they use, multiple multicore CPUs. It should be "modern (as of 2008) workstations use multiple multicore CPUs"
 * "much higher on-chip cache memory" should be, "much large on-die caches"

Do you agree? Rilak (talk) 07:59, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I definitely agree in principle -- that's why I ended the summary with "more edits probably needed," which I later realized should have been "more edits definitely needed." :-)
 * I apologize for reverting your edit rather than just correcting the Pentium/POWER part, but I was (and still am) running out of brain cells for the night/morning. I do want to take a look at this later with fresh eyes; my overall impression was that the anon editor may have been taking the whole discussion down a bit of a rat hole, so I didn't know if the proper direction was a more careful edit or something even more drastic.  Cheers, NapoliRoma (talk) 08:08, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * No need to apologize, given the circumstances - the confusing wording of statement in question, the anon edits and all that. I'll make the edits now, cheers, Rilak (talk) 08:22, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

d (from the Latin denarius)...
NapoliRoma, i think it's important to give people the link to the reason it has the symbol d i.e. denier so probably if we need to keep it short the British one penny link should actually point to denier article which in turn, after explaining the derivation, has a link to the British one penny page. Agreed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.211.145 (talk) 04:09, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi -- disambiguation pages aren't for explanations. I know it's tempting to add more information, but in the end, adding commentary actually works against the purpose of such pages, which is to route the reader to the appropriate page among many of the same name.  The manual of style for disambiguation pages explains the guidelines, which includes having only one navigable link ("blue link") per entry, to avoid overloading and confusing the reader.
 * The appropriate place to go into detail, then, is the destination page for a given entry. In this case, presumably, "British penny" is the best page to send the reader, since that's what "d" represents in this case, and on that page, the derivation can be explained.  But we want to send the reader along quickly to that page, not stick around chatting with them. :-)  If we do that for every entry, the page is more cluttered, thus more difficult to navigate, plus the content becomes harder to maintain as it's located in more places.  Hope this helps, NapoliRoma (talk) 04:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I see your point about brevity on the disambiguation page, it makes sense :). I guess we may have a difference of opinion about whether the link should point to British Penny or actually the reason why it got the name "d" (i.e. denier) if people follow the link to  denier they will be given the derivation for d as it is associated with British Penny then once they are on the  denier article they can click the British Penny link if they want to find out more about the British penny. What do you think? :) 66.108.211.145 (talk) 18:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll give you another couple of weeks to come back to me, then i'll engage another wikipedian to decide on this (we may need some arbitration anyway if we can't agree) anyway i'll check back later. Take care 66.108.211.145 (talk) 14:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry I didn't reply sooner - I've been pretty wiki-lite these last few weeks.


 * The way I'd approach this is working backwards. Theoretically, the reason someone has landed on the "D" disambiguation page is that they found the letter "d" in use in a way that they weren't familiar with, and wanted to find an article about it.  So, they find that in this case, it means "British penny."  Presumably, then, they want to find out more about that penny.


 * When they follow the link to the British penny, one of the things that article should definitely tell them is why the heck the abbreviation is "d", and there should be a link there to denier.


 * Similarly, if I looked up "lb", I probably am going to want to learn about pounds, not "libra"; if I see "Pb", I'll want to go first to the article about lead, not "plumbum". I guess in general I'm saying that the first article the reader should be directed to is one about the thing, not the origin of the name of the thing.  Hope this helps....
 * Regards, NapoliRoma (talk) 20:11, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Melchizedek (disambiguation)
Hi. If you compare Melchizedek (disambiguation) with Melchizedek you'll see that there's some duplication and some entries which possibly are not worth including at all. I'm not sure which direction to take things. I've seen that you're interested in such matters, so do you fancy rationalising them? SamuelTheGhost (talk) 09:36, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * This sounded familiar, and I see why: I did address the same sort of problem with Melchizedek priesthood a while back. At the risk of becoming "the Melchizedek disambiguation guy", I'll take a look at this sometime soon in my copious free time... regards, NapoliRoma (talk) 13:48, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for your clean up of Berkeley oak grove controversy! It's much appreciated! :) --Falcorian (talk) 00:44, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: WBA
I was really lacking time when I added that in, so I can understand the poor job. WSMBC is the one piece of information in which I was unable to find - so I left it out. It could be good to look into it though. (And by the way, the cite code to use for the history section should be . As for Lincoln High School - that is something that also wasn't explicitly stated in the text - but I would think its a norcal high school. Maybe its disambig page will have some info. --haha169 (talk) 03:45, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Just a note, Lincoln High School (Stockton, California) is the only one out of the four norcal Lincoln High Schools that mention having a Marching Band program. --haha169 (talk) 03:46, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Columbia
I'm not sure if you're still interested, but the edits I recently made to the Columbia page might facilitate the kinds of changes you seemed interested in making. RandomCritic (talk) 14:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:MOSDAB one link per entry ?
Nice work maintaining FTW. I'm not saying you're making it up or anything, but I can't find where in MOSDAB it says there can only be one link per entry. Can you point me to the right section? &#x262D; &emsp; мдснєтє TALKSTUFF 13:35, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * See under Individual entries:


 * To avoid confusing the reader, each bulleted entry should, in almost every case, have only one navigable (blue) link. Do not wikilink any other words in the line, for example:


 * "Dark Star" (song), a song by the Grateful Dead
 * or "Dark Star" (song), by the Grateful Dead
 * but not: "Dark Star" (song), a song by the psychedelic rock band The Grateful Dead


 * btw, I believe that "in almost every case" shouldn't be there -- I have yet to find a case where more than one link is ever appropriate. Regards, NapoliRoma (talk) 15:25, 27 February 2009 (UTC)


 * What about this ? I think "chris rock" should be linked (the user may remember the character's name and want to know about who played him) but what about "apostle"? [[User:Machete97|   &#x262D;  &emsp;

мдснєтє]] TALKSTUFF 15:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The additional links belong in the article, not the dab page. The reader who wants to know more about Chris Rock's performance as Rufus would go to the Dogma article.
 * But, I can hear you asking, wouldn't it be super-convenient if the reader could learn more about apostles without having to go to the movie article? Or about Chris Rock? Or about the etymology of the word "forgotten"?
 * That would be mission creep. Dab pages are intended to resolve the ambiguity of all those Rufuses, in this case, and send the reader on their way to where the real information lives.
 * As a hypothetical Kevin Smith aficionado, I don't want to be distracted by additional information about Chaka Khan, or the rufus-headed towhee, I want to get right to the guy dropping out of nowhere in front of Bethany. As a dab page editor, I don't know what part of what Rufus any reader would be most interested in, so my job is to present just the info needed so the reader can find the right article, where all this stuff already should be, and otherwise stay out of their way.
 * Additionally, the more stuff that should really only be in an article is duplicated on a dab page, the more duplicate stuff has to be maintained.
 * In short: dab pages are dab pages, and have their own rules. They're not articles.  One of the dab page rules is: keep links to just the ones that send readers to actual disambiguated articles.  Hope this helps -- NapoliRoma (talk) 20:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks - I'll take out the apostle link. - [[User:Machete97|  &#x262D;  &emsp;

мдснєтє]] ТДЛКЅТЦФФ 10:11, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:27 talks to Lisa Simpson.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:27 talks to Lisa Simpson.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

SPARC64
Thanks for catching my rather embarrassing typo! :) Rilak (talk) 05:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * No problem... after all, we wouldn't want people to think it was a free process :-).--NapoliRoma (talk) 05:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * LOL! :D Rilak (talk) 05:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

GH/RB setlists and linking to albums
I can't remember where we decided it, but it would have been determined in the Guitar Hero setlists. Basically, because the game does not associate a song to an album, we can't assume a song is coming from a specific album (it may be live, and particularly with cover versions, it's sorta misleading). --M ASEM (t) 18:54, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Brand vs computer
I read it before I edited in the first place. The name "Macintosh" is a brand. Period. The brand is on a line of computers by Apple Inc. What part of that is unclear? I could make a case that the article should be named "Macintosh computer", really. - Denimadept (talk) 21:29, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * If this were an article about a brand, it would mainly consist of information about how the name came up, how it's a misspelling of the name of a type of fruit, how McIntosh Laboratory was mollified, ad campaigns surrounding the brand, market research, and so on.


 * From what I can see, most of the article seems to be about computers.--NapoliRoma (talk) 22:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't feel urgent enough about this to argue it. - Denimadept (talk) 22:35, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

re:Yeahbut
Hmmm... After 20 minutes searching the 'net, can't find his birth date. Just "23 years old amazing guy" statements like the one we currently have ;). I've taging it anyway, so we'll see what happens. Cheers - Kingpin13 (talk) 17:14, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

hotspot
Since you know the ins and out of mosdab, and are quite dedicated in maintaining FTW, this may interest you. &#x262D; &emsp;мдснєтє тдлкЅТЦФФ 15:21, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Best dab page ever!--NapoliRoma (talk) 16:17, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Rackable logo.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:Rackable logo.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 17:10, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:SGI product line logo.gif)
Thanks for uploading File:SGI product line logo.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 06:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Seeking help in writing more effectively
I write to you because of your recent edit to WP:Too long; didn't read-- here.

I'm told that I need help in improving my writing. Articles present no problem, but I don't do well enough in talk page venues. I know that this is a non-standard request. I urge you to construe it as just one step in a process of mitigating fundamental flaws in in the way I address issues like logical fallacies or unfounded complaints. Until this week, I theorized that my problems arose when I attempted persuasive writing rather than expository prose, but it's not that simple. An illustrative example of my writing is to be found at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Tang Dynasty/Proposed decision.

ArbCom remedy
Voting is underway at WP:RfA/Tang Dynasty/Proposed decision.

Proposed ArbCom findings of fact included:
 * 3.2.2 Tenmei and dispute resolution. "... many of Tenmei's talkpage posts and submissions during this arbitration case have been very difficult for other editors to understand, to the point that experienced participants in dispute resolution have had difficulty in following them, despite what we accept as Tenmei's good-faith best efforts to assist us in resolving the case."

ArbCom remedies included:
 * 3.3.2 Tenmei and dispute resolution: "Should Tenmei become involved in any further disputes with other editors, whether concerning the content of articles (beyond ordinary day-to-day editing issues) or more formal dispute resolution procedures, he shall seek the assistance of a volunteer mentor or adviser to work with him in maximizing the value of his presentation by assisting him with formulating it in a clear and civil fashion."


 * 3.3.3 Editors advised: "Editors who encounter difficulties in communicating with others on-wiki are advised to seek help from others in presenting their thoughts clearly, particularly when disputes arise or when dispute resolution is sought."

When I initiated this ArbCom case, my intentions were quite limited, as explained best in my response to John Vandenberg here and as presented initially at WP:RfA/Tang Dynasty#Statement by Tenmei. However, the proposed decision's locus of dispute explains that "evidence in the case has expanded to include other disputes in which Tenmei has been involved."

Backstory
Caspian blue and others have determined that I am Japanese, despite the fact that I have avoided self-labeling in terms of nationality, gender, marital status, etc. I gather that Caspian blue has endured a number of caustic disputes with anonymous contributors and sockpuppets; and many of these were seen to have originated in Japan. Caspian blue is Korean; and aggrieved complaints about perceived anti-Korean bias are commonplace, not only involving those like me with perceived or actual Japanese backgrounds.

As ipso facto "evidence" of my "long-term harassment", Caspian blue alleges here that in 2008 "Tenmei ... attacked my ethnicity and taunted my ancestors ...." Inexplicably, Caspian blue's 2008 complaint at WP:AN/IncidentArchive471#User:Tenmei's abusing AfD and personal attacks did not encompass this specific claim ... which I would have thought implies that it simply didn't happen.

This one example suggests complicated subtexts affecting a broad tranche of wiki-edits. A risk aversion strategy has thus far proven inadequate; and ArbCom is correct in anticipating future difficulties.

I'm guessing that this message to you is arguably the sort of gesture ArbCom wants from me. Perhaps you will construe it as an illustrative example of WP:TLDR.

If you are willing to discuss this off-wiki, I've activated the e-mail send/receive option in my user preferences. If you can think of some other editor I might contact, I'd appreciate it.

Thank you for the time you invested in reading this. --Tenmei (talk) 23:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Please revert merge of "Fucked Company" and "Philip J. Kaplan" articles
Philip Kaplan founded Fuckedcompany.com. Later he founded AdBrite, one of the top ad networks in the world. Most recently he was in Wall Street Journal as joining Charles River Ventures, a top venture capital firm that was the first investor in Twitter, among others. Search Google News and you'll see hundreds of articles about him.





Sapporocal (talk) 23:14, 28 June 2009 (UTC)sapporocal

Thanks for reverting merge of "Philip J. Kaplan" and "Fucked Company" articles, but...
I (and others) would like to edit the "Philip J. Kaplan" article to add evidence of his current notoriety, as you suggested. However the article is "protected" and thus, I believe, can't be edited by mere morals. Correct?

Sapporocal (talk) 08:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)SapporoCal


 * I'm no more moral than the average guy... :-)
 * The article does appear to be protected, and I think that means that only "established" users can edit it. It's a pretty low hurdle: I believe "established" means no anonymous edits, and the account has been in existence for at least four days.  After that, your account is no different than, say, mine.
 * Oh, OK, looked it up: account in existence for four days, and at least 10 edits. Just so you know, "single purpose" accounts tend to stand out like a sore thumb, especially when that single purpose is editing a biography.
 * It looks like your account was created yesterday, so you've got a few days yet. When you do edit, please be aware of the usual WP guidelines, most significantly (given your email address) WP:COI and WP:AB.  Cheers, NapoliRoma (talk) 16:18, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

42
I wonder if we are reading the WP:DABRL differently :) In the very first sentence it says that "a link to a non-existent article... should only be included on a disambiguation page when an article (not just disambiguation page) also includes that red link" (emphasis mine).  A link to Gorelovo Municipal Okrug is included in the administrative divisions of Saint Petersburg article (which is referenced), so that part is fully satisfied&mdash;the red link does belong.

The portion of WP:DABRL you cited ("red links should not be the only link in a given entry") follows and clarifies the above statement, not supercedes it. I could understand it if you added a blue link (which is something that, I admit, I missed), but I don't really understand why you removed it again. Would you, please, elaborate? Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:55, June 29, 2009 (UTC)


 * WP:DABRL is usually summarized as: "exactly one bluelink per line." You'll notice that this guideline is one of the three that appears at the top of the edit page when you edit a disambiguation page. Unfortunately, however, WP:DABRL itself is currently phrased in a way that hides that meaning somwwhat.
 * The entry in question read:
 * Municipal Okrug 42, name of Gorelovo Municipal Okrug of Krasnoselsky District of St. Petersburg, Russia, before 2008
 * So no blue link at all. I thought I did a quick search to see if the term appeared anywhere in WP before I deleted it, but it's entirely possible I did not; sorry.
 * When you restored it, there was no change from the original, so I did quickly revert with an explanation why.
 * The fix would be to change it something like
 * Municipal Okrug 42, the name of Gorelovo Municipal Okrug in Saint Petersburg, Russia prior to 2008
 * Now it has exactly one bluelink, to the article containing the same redlink.
 * Regards, NapoliRoma (talk) 19:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * My usual problem with the MOSDAB crowd is that they keep deleting entries which have no incoming links because they were added years ago with encyclopedic purposes, but now fail to meet the incoming links clause of DABRL (yet still remain encyclopedic). It often gets real frustrating to see useful information being straight out deleted (instead of re-factored, re-formatted, or moved appropriately) just because someone mindlessly enforces a minor guideline just to be consistent (and that's just a general rant not aimed at you personally, mind you :)).  The "one blue link" clause I never had a problem with, but in this particular case I admit I for some reason missed out on this requirement completely.  All in all, the version you suggested is fine by me.  If you don't have any further concerns, I'll restore it the way you suggested, or feel free to re-add it yourself.  On my part, I added Gorelovo to my forever-open-ended to-do list; hopefully the actual article will materialize in another five to ten years :) Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:22, June 29, 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I think it would be great if you added it.
 * In general, I'm an inclusionist, but in the case of dab pages I think their usefulness is severely degraded if they become a collection of "things I thought of that include the title word or something kind of like it."
 * The true specific purpose of disambiguation pages is not to be an index, or a list of terms, but to help direct readers to the proper article when there is more than one article with the same name. If there's no article, than there's no place to direct readers to.  That's why there needs to be at least one blue link.
 * (The reason why there should be exactly one blue link is subtle, but just as important: if there are multiple articles to choose from, the reader has no idea which one is the "right" one. But I digress.)
 * Regards, NapoliRoma (talk) 19:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * There is also wisdom in allowing red links on disambiguation pages (although I firmly believe that the "incoming link" restriction of DABRL is draconian). In general, for some readers it would be important to see they are on the right path (e.g., that there was at some point MO #42 in St. Petersburg and that it makes sense to continue searching, even if it's not on Wikipedia but elsewhere).  As long as the red link is easily verifiable, denying its placement on a dab page makes more harm (="readers who can't find anything on what they are looking for") than good (="MOSDAB is followed to its very last letter!").  But I, too, digress.  You wouldn't believe how many times I had this conversation in the past three or four years :)
 * I will restore the entry now, using your version. If in future you stumble upon some other district/okrug/whatever in Russia than you feel absolutely, positively does not belong on the page, please just let me know instead of removing it on sight&mdash;I'll be happy to take care of it for you (create an article, if that would be the only solution).  Thanks again; it's been a pleasure to meet you.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:53, June 29, 2009 (UTC)

Cygnus X-1 (disambiguation)
That's right - I'm just going to keep throwing suspect dab pages at you. &#x262D; &emsp;мдснєтє тдлкЅТЦФФ 15:29, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Window Washing.png
Thank you for uploading File:Window Washing.png. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NW ( Talk ) 02:40, 12 July 2009 (UTC)