User talk:Robert K S/Archive04

ENIAC and H-bomb
My mistake, I had forgotten the previous justification. My apologies. --TedColes (talk) 10:02, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Robert K S - (in reference to the comment you put on my talk page) - I disagree with you. I know that you are the ENIAC expert. You have 152 edits versus my 22. Also you are a more experienced Wikipedian; 14,000 edits versus my 1000. I did look at your edit. I try to carefully look at everyone's edit. My disagreement is where the bomb info belongs. I think it belongs in the lead, not in a footnote. Most everyone interested in ENIAC is interested in it as a computer - how many tubes it had and how fast it ran; buffers, flipflops, and pulse streams. I think it is also crucially important what they were doing with it. This started out as a $61,000 project to compute ballistic tables that could well have ended in failure. Then Lt. Goldstine met Dr. John von Neumann and invites him to come see their project. In exchange for making the physics calculations the test problem (not ballistic tables) funds and priorities become unlimited. ENIAC was successfully completed two years later at a cost of $500,000. You might note that I added this info to the article on July 7, 2009. Blainster then moved most of the info to the beginning of the Programming section. On January 1, 2011 TedColes changed "H bomb" to "atomic" and Witshymanski changed it back. As for my "read the reference" remark, this was a citation you yourself added to the article. The article in the Times says "the machine is being used on a problem in nuclear physics". No mention of ballistic tables. I'd appreciate it if you would put the article back the way it was. GroveGuy (talk) 05:31, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Happy 10th Anniversary of Wikipedia!
 Happy 10th anniversary of Wikipedia! Hey Bzuk  (contribs) has bought you a whisky! Sharing a whisky is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a whisky, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Enjoy!

Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding to their talk page with a friendly message. Bzuk (talk) 15:50, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Jeopardy! broadcast history for deletion
The article Jeopardy! broadcast history is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Jeopardy! broadcast history (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.  Sottolacqua  (talk) 16:23, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Anecdote
Hi, the anecdote you cited at this AfD is representative of what is also my perception of the widening gap between the increasingly deletionist view of many regular WP versus the general view of WP users. It is a while that I wanted to make some kind of poll of WP users to understand their perceptions on this issue. Do you have ideas/suggestions? Would you like to collaborate? -- Cycl o pia talk  17:05, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I would like to collaborate. At this early point, without further details, I don't have any great suggestions beyond what would be obvious to you already.  I would only say that someone who had conducted such studies in the past--or otherwise someone who knows what they are doing--a statistical person with expertise or experience in scientific data gathering--should be consulted or be involved so as to achieve results that would be unassailable.  There are typical reasons why polls and studies come out flawed and we would want to make sure that there would be no way that bias or other problematic flaws could creep into the study.  All the best, Robert K S (talk) 17:54, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I am a scientist :) so I have some experience in data gathering and analysis but yes, your suggestion is absolutely proper. What I was thinking more about is how to properly get data. An example could be submitting to people a sample of, say, 20 article subjects that went to AfD, (50% having been kept and 50% having been deleted), and ask for each one if they would have kept or deleted it, so that one can compare the readers' opinion to the consensus of WP editors. A big issue is how to find a representative sample of wikipedia readers. -- Cycl o pia talk  19:33, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a little bit different than what I thought you had in mind, and I'm not sure that sort of thing would be the most valuable survey that could be constructed. What I mean is: subject title alone isn't enough, generally, to evince notability in someone's mind.  From the WP community perspective, articles may be deleted for all sorts of reasons that extend beyond just the article title (e.g., WP:BLP); and from the casual Wikipedia user perspective, a subject title that has no ring of cachet may be too easily dismissable as useless or bogus and therefore deletable.  It would be more useful, from my perspective, to ask broader questions about the expected scope/depth of information found on Wikipedia, i.e., how much information should be included in the encyclopedia to satisfy the settled intentions and expectations of the parties (content authors and visitors). Robert K S (talk) 20:44, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You are right. I would therefore focus on articles deleted for notability clauses -that are basically the point- and probably submitting full (short) articles instead of titles. The problem with asking broader questions is that they are more difficult to interpret, and it is at risk of being vague. But I'm open to detailed suggestions. -- Cycl o pia talk  00:54, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Atanasoff
Robert,

I do not want to bury the lead. Inventing the computer was his greatest achievement--see references. So many want to take credit away from him and give to those who 'thought' about computers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Randeroid (talk • contribs) 01:46, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You're a bit late to the party, if you think you're the first to have contemplated this. Whether Atanasoff "invented the computer" depends on the definition of computer.  This encyclopedia operates by consensus.  "Inventor of the computer" is a controversial assignment and not one that has consensus.  The best and least controversial that can be said is that he was a witness in Honeywell v. Sperry Rand and figured in one finding of the opinion of that trial.  This isn't the right place for a debate.  If you feel you have something significant to add to the debate that might sway consensus, you can write an article for the Annals. Robert K S (talk) 04:13, 22 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Robert, Do you disagree with the findings of the references? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Randeroid (talk • contribs) 04:36, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Which references? McCartney?  Augarten?  Shurkin?  Campbell-Kelly?  Aspray?  Stern?  Rosen?  Mooers?  Martino?  Bartik? Robert K S (talk) 04:45, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

The references listed at the bottom of the page:
 * 1) Atanasoff, John V. (July–September 1984). "Advent of the Electronic Digital Computing" (PDF). IEEE Annals of the History of Computing (Washington, D.C.: IEEE Computer Society) 6 (3): 229–282. doi:10.1109/MAHC.1984.10028. ISSN 1058-6180. http://doi.ieeecomputersociety.org/10.1109/MAHC.1984.10028.
 * 2) Burks, Alice R.; Arthur W. Burks (1988). The First Electronic Computer: The Atanasoff Story. Ann Arbor, Michigan: The University of Michigan Press. ISBN 0-472-10090-4.
 * 3) Burks, Alice Rowe (2003). Who Invented The Computer?: The Legal Battle that Changed Computing History. Amherst, New York: Prometheus Books. ISBN 1-59102-034-4.
 * 4) Burks, Arthur W.; Alice R. Burks (October 1981). "The ENIAC: First General-Purpose Electronic Computer". IEEE Annals of the History of Computing (Washington, D.C.: IEEE Computer Society) 3 (4): 310–399. doi:10.1109/MAHC.1981.10043.
 * 5) Burton, Tammara (2006). World Changer. Sofia,Bulgaria: Tangra TanNakRa Publishing. pp. 271.
 * 6) Mackintosh, Allan R. (March 1987). "The First Electronic Computer". Physics Today 40: 25. doi:10.1063/1.881101.
 * 7) Mollenhoff, Clark R. (1988). Atanasoff: Forgotten Father of the Computer. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University Press. ISBN 0-8138-0032-3.
 * 8) Mooers, Calvin N. (April–June 2001). "The Computer Project at the Naval Ordnance Laboratory" (PDF). IEEE Annals of the History of Computing (Washington, D.C.: IEEE Computer Society) 23 (2): 51–67. doi:10.1109/MAHC.2001.10002. ISSN 1058-6180. http://doi.ieeecomputersociety.org/10.1109/MAHC.2001.10002.
 * 9) Smiley, Jane (2010). The Man Who Invented the Computer: The Biography of John Atanasoff, Digital Pioneer. Doubleday. ISBN 978-0385527132. OCLC 502029794.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Randeroid (talk • contribs) 17:22, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Have you read all those references? (I have.)  Have you read Mooers?  (If you had, you probably wouldn't have put it in the same list as the others.) Robert K S (talk) 21:13, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Mooers is one of the references at the bottom of the page; see above 'The references listed at the bottom of the page:.' I cut and pasted them all. Well, I am impressed that you have read all of these references. This leads back to 'The best and least controversial that can be said is that he was a witness in Honeywell v. Sperry Rand and figured in one finding of the opinion of that trial,' which suggests your answer to 'Robert, Do you disagree with the findings of the references?' Why do you disbelieve the references? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.59.8.25 (talk) 01:42, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This is not the right place for a book-length discussion of all the problems with Burks (& Burks), Mollenhoff, Tammara Burton, and Smiley. Suffice it to say, there does not exist a cut-and-dry historical consensus that John Vincent Atanasoff "invented the computer" (or the "electronic computer", or the "automatic digital computer", or however you want to phrase it).  For a realistic assessment of some of the core references you mention, I recommend Saul Rosen's article on the subject.  Cheers, Robert K S (talk) 02:28, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Robert, Do you have an answer to the question? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.59.8.25 (talk) 03:57, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * My answer is that controversy in the literature cannot be glossed over with simplistic assignments of credit, in contravention of WP:NPOV and WP:CONTROVERSY. Cheers, Robert K S (talk) 04:16, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I see your edits and I can tell that you are trying to be fair and balanced. However, Babbage, Mauchly, and Eckert are introduced as the originator or for building the first something. Atanasoff introduced a number of firsts. He has the strongest claim and yet he is introduced as a physicist and inventor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.59.8.25 (talk) 12:48, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Let's look at the examples you cite. (1) Charles Babbage "was an English mathematician, philosopher, inventor, and mechanical engineer".  That's sort of the first sentence of the lead, to which is second sentence is tacked on as a clause: He "originated the concept of a programmable computer".  As far as I am aware, this is an uncontroversial statement: the analytical engine, while unbuilt, was at least a description (or "concept") of a programmable computer, and no historian has posited that there is another that predates it.  (2) John Mauchly "was an American physicist".  Again, the lead's first sentence could stop there, and what follows might as well be a second sentence: He, "along with J. Presper Eckert, designed ENIAC, the first general purpose electronic digital computer".  Again, this is an uncontroversial statement.  Even Mauchly's most forceful detractors, the Burkses, allow that the ENIAC was the first general-purpose electronic digital computer (see their Annals article or their first book), and even the judge in Honeywell v. Sperry Rand allocated Mauchly and Eckert credit as the only inventors of the ENIAC (Finding 4).  So there should not be anything controversial here.  (3) J. Presper Eckert "was an American electrical engineer and computer pioneer."  Here, again, there is no controversy; the second sentence is similar to that for Mauchly, above.  Now for Atanasoff, if one were to call him "the inventor of the computer", one would welcome controversy and invite reversion, because not all the published authors on the subject of the history of computing agree with this characterization on the basis of the facts.  There is a valid dispute ("valid" insomuch as reasonable minds have disagreed about it, for over 40 years now) as to whether the ABC constituted a "computer" (it had no program, it could not branch, it required constant human input at every step, it could perform only one type of calculation, it did not exploit electronic speeds, etc.--in other words, it lacked the features essential to any "computer" as we understand the term today); there is a question as to whether Atansoff would've been the inventor of the machine (as opposed to a co-inventor with Clifford Berry; we have no patent application that would suggest their resolution, between the two of them, of the assignment of inventorship, but Atansoff's adoption of the machine's eventual name indicates that even he believed himself a co-inventor with Berry rather than a sole inventor); and then, of course, there is the alleged derivation linkage between ENIAC and the ABC which despite the court ruling remains controversial for numerous reasons (there is not actually any component or process in the ENIAC that was present in the ABC; many of the ingenious and enduring innovations claimed for the ABC, such as use of binary arithmetic, regenerative memory, and logical calculation, were not used in the ENIAC; Mauchly cited to more plausible inspirations for his ideas than Atanasoff, such as scaling circuits; documents not entered into evidence in the trial proved that Mauchly had conceived of the concept of automatic digital electronic computation prior to meeting Atanasoff, etc., etc.).  So for all these reasons Wikipedia can't just call Atanasoff "the inventor of the computer", dust its hands, and pretend like that's the end of the story.  To do this would only result in an endless edit war motivated on the one hand by boosterism (what Saul Rosen calls "the cult of Atanasoff"--primarily, folks from Iowa, and Bulgarian nationalists) and on the other hand by objective recognition of all the factors that I've cited (and probably some that I haven't), and perhaps on a third hand by boosters on other sides for other people with claims (Turing, von Neumann, Flowers, Zuse, Babbage, Mauchly and Eckert, and perhaps others).  If we can't call Atanasoff "the inventor of the computer", what can we call him?  We can call him an inventor of the ABC, but what's an ABC?--that takes a whole different article to explain.  Would it be just to call him a "computer pioneer" when he abandoned his invention, and, given the opportunity to continue work in computers at the NOL, abandoned that as well (see Mooers)?--I will not offer an opinion except to say that, again, it would be controversial and would result in edit warring.  So I think the best thing to be said is that which is currently said: he was declared the inventor of the computer, if not by history, by judicial fiat.  No one will ever edit war over such a statement because it is indisputable.  The 1973 decision of the patent suit Honeywell v. Sperry Rand named him the inventor of the first automatic electronic digital computer, a machine that has come to be called the Atanasoff–Berry Computer.  We can debate all day whether it was a computer or not, and what the linkages were, and who did what first, and who inspired whom, but upon the lead as it now exists, there can be no debate.  Cheers, Robert K S (talk) 16:22, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Robert, I appreciate your thoughtful response. There are some great ideas here; I will get back to you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.59.8.25 (talk) 19:20, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Robert, I like your idea to mention Atanasoff as the inventor of the ABC as the second part of the first sentence. This is ‘concensus' and I think it is more helpful to the reader. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.59.8.25 (talk) 15:28, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * But notice, as I said above, that even to call him "the inventor of the ABC" would be controversial because it would leave out Clifford Berry's role. You might be able to call Atanasoff a co-inventor of the ABC. Robert K S (talk) 16:59, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I think either of these is better: 'John Vincent Atanasoff (ataˈnasɔf; October 4, 1903 – June 15, 1995) was an American physicist and inventor who, along with Clifford Berry, built the ABC.' or 'John Vincent Atanasoff (ataˈnasɔf; October 4, 1903 – June 15, 1995) was an American physicist and inventor who designed the ABC.' These are similar to: John William Mauchly (August 30, 1907 – January 8, 1980) was an American physicist who, along with J. Presper Eckert, designed ENIAC, the first general purpose electronic digital computer, as well as EDVAC, BINAC and UNIVAC I, the first commercial computer made in the United States.

WP:NOTTVGUIDE

 * Note: the following message was posted by me to User talk:Cybercobra after that user's reversion of my removal of the WP:NOTTVGUIDE shortcut. Cybercobra subsequently responded on my talk page and removed the message from his talk page.  Robert K S (talk) 06:10, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

The problem I have with this shortcut is that it is being abused as a deletion rational in AfDs on articles which describe the relationships between various television shows. TV Guide, the publication, is more than just a TV programming listing; it includes articles that deal with television in a broader sense. The broadcasting history of various notable shows, how they competed with each other, what spelled their ratings demises and cancellations, etc., are valid topics for description on this encyclopedia, if they have been written about in other publications (i.e., are notable and sourceable). When an article of this sort is put up for AfD, and the nominator gives as a rationale, "WP:NOTTVGUIDE", and a half-dozen others chime in with agreeable delete "votes" which create an apparent consensus that dooms the article, we have a serious problem. So I would like to propose that if this shortcut tag is not removed, it should at least be renamed, to something like "WP:NOTPROGRAMMINGLISTING". It may be a little unwieldy, but at least it is not prejudicial and so easily abusable. Thanks for hearing out my concern. Robert K S (talk) 04:47, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I would suggest you bring up the matter via WP:RFD and/or on WT:NOT. Your concern is quite a legitimate one, but a long-used shortcut merits discussion before being deleted/retargetted. Cheers, --Cyber cobra (talk) 06:04, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. The other point I forgot to make is that Wikipedia most certainly is a "TV guide" inasmuch as it includes content like List of United States network television schedules and all its various sub-articles, which content have not been challenged, at least not successfully, under the basis of WP:NOTTVGUIDE. Robert K S (talk) 06:07, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Analytical engine
Hi, I seem to remember that I contributed considerably to that article at one point, but I don't think that I wrote all of it; the oldest history entries aren't always reliable. The strange formatting results from a software change, where the handling of new lines in source text was altered. BTW, the reconstructed early history of Wikipedia is at http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/~reagle/wp-redux/index.html. Cheers, AxelBoldt (talk) 12:54, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

February 2011
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Watson (artificial intelligence software), please cite a reliable source for the content of your edit. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. See Citing sources for how to cite sources, and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. ''While the New York Times itself is a reliable source, comments made by anonymous parties on NYT articles are not. Please provide a reliable source for your voicing assertion before you re-add it.'' A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 23:24, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Harpers Ferry
Hi,

Is there any reason that you changed Harpers Ferry to be a redirect to John Brown's raid on Harpers Ferry, rather than Harpers Ferry, West Virginia?

I'm not massively bothered, but the town seems like what most people will be looking for. If not, I guess it would make sense to have Harpers Ferry be a disambiguation page. i.e. we could move Harpers Ferry (disambiguation) to be in that location.

Yaris678 (talk) 21:20, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Just an experiment, the first step in the WP:BRD cycle. I think when most people say "Harpers Ferry" they mean it as a shorthand for the historical event rather than the place.  I realized there might be opposition, probably most particularly from residents of Harpers Ferry.  I don't have strong feelings about it. Robert K S (talk) 23:36, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Harpers Ferry should be redirected to the disambig page (when it is created). -  Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 09:43, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Errr... Harpers Ferry (disambiguation) exists already. Is that the page you mean?  Yaris678 (talk) 11:14, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Maintenance Templates
I'm not going to template warn you, but please don't remove maintenance templates as you did in this edit. Whether or not you personally agree with the usage of templates, their use is an accepted practice and there are warning messages related to vandalism and removal of maintenance templates.  Sottolacqua  (talk) 13:28, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem with your view is that it permits one editor to add a blighting template to an article and then enforce its presence there, indefinitely, without providing justification in the talk space. Sorry, I can't buy into that as a policy, and it should be easy to see why: it inevitably leads to a proliferation of tags at the tops of articles.  The talk space is the appropriate place for article concerns, not the article themselves.  The article is the de facto best effort at present for any article, and shouldn't be burdened with proliferating warnings at the top. Robert K S (talk) 18:26, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, whether or not you personally agree with the use of templates, they are an accepted practice per Template messages/Cleanup.  Sottolacqua  (talk) 18:39, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Nah. That's just a big list somebody created.  I'll give you that these things seem to have proliferated, and that's unfortunate.  But there has never been a serious community-wide inquiry into the propriety of template tags, a big discussion involving everyone.  Just about the entirety of the discussion on this subject is among those links on my user page.  The existence and use of these tags is controversial.  Given that there is no guideline sanctioning them, I will oppose them wherever I see them.  This means deleting the ones you throw about.  Sorry.  On balance they serve a more blighting function than a useful function, and discussing article issues is what we have talk pages for. Robert K S (talk) 05:48, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If you're so against them, start your own community-wide discussion and campaign for their elimination. Until them, they are still available to any editor and will continue to be used in articles across Wikipedia.  Ѕōŧŧōľäċqǔä  (talk) 10:51, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure they're available to be added, and they're available to be deleted. Why does the "add" side have any favor in the balance?  I'm not opposed to their existence, I'm opposed to their use in the fashion in which they tend to be used--drive-by, stay-up-forever blight that doesn't actually motivate article improvement. Robert K S (talk) 12:29, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it's time...
I think it's time we show some of those bossy Wikipedians who's the boss around here. They have no right to be deleting game show articles, especially your self-created "Jeopardy! set evolution" article that they recently deleted.--It&#39;s Senior Year! (talk) 22:36, 8 April 2011 (UTC)Chris

Jeopardy Chris Bell
We Jeopardy fans know that Chris Bell composed the current rendition of the main theme song and Think music. Do you know if Chris Bell Music & Sound Design also did the current board fill sound that started at the beginning of Jeopardy's 26th season? Please reply on my talk page. Continental738 (talk) 01:28, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Maintenance fee (patent)
By the way, I wonder why renewal fees may not be paid in advance (that's the same at the EPO). Isn't that a somewhat useless legal provision? --Edcolins (talk) 12:14, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It's so you can't essentially speculate in patent maintenance fees by paying too far ahead of time, almost like buying oil futures or what-have-you. "Maintenance fees cannot be paid in advance since 35 U.S.C. 41(f) permits maintenance fees to be adjusted every year on October 1 to reflect any fluctuations during the previous 12 months in the Consumer Price Index as determined by the Secretary of Labor." MPEP 2506. Robert K S (talk) 22:20, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It makes sense. --Edcolins (talk) 09:10, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Jeopardy! international tournaments for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jeopardy! international tournaments is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Jeopardy! international tournaments until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.  Ѕōŧŧōľäċqǔä  (talk) 15:32, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Patent Cooperation Treaty and Provisional application
Thank you for the clarification. I would be glad make the wording more careful, but I think the points I made would still be useful in a weaker form:
 * While a PCT application is more expensive than any single country patent application, it is far simpler and cheaper than filing in dozens simultaneously.
 * An international patent application does act much like a provisional application in that it
 * establishes a filing date, but
 * will not lead to grant of a patent, unless
 * followed up with a proper (full) patent application within a bounded time.
 * My understanding is that this is the primary purpose of each of these procedures. So although the details differ considerably, I think it is a valid and useful analogy.

Do you, with your apparent greater knowledge, disagree with either of these points? This was all a tangent that came up while researching the exact expiration date of the International Data Encryption Algorithm patent. I was confused by the description that was previously there, so in wikipedian spirit, I researched it and added the explanation that I wished was there in the first place.

I'll probably put something like this into the article, since I'm pretty sure it's not very misleading, but please feel free to edit again. (Although if you outright revert, a little more explanation would be appreciated.) Thank you! 71.41.210.146 (talk) 20:32, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Re: "While a PCT application is more expensive than any single country patent application, it is far simpler and cheaper than filing in dozens simultaneously": true, but filing a PCT application will not preclude the cost and complexity of filing those dozens of national applications (if that is the intent), and since the PCT application will not result in a patent grant, to say it is "cheaper" or "simpler" than a patent application would seem to be comparing apples to oranges, kind of like saying submitting a nonwinning $50 bid on a car at an auction is cheaper and simpler than buying a car. Re: similarities between PCTs and provisionals: yes, they have some similarities.  They also have some differences.  Provisionals last 12 months, while PCTs last a maximum of 30 months, dependent on what the earliest priority date is.  PCTs always publish (become public disclosure); U.S. provisionals never publish.  As far as examination goes, provisionals are never looked at; Chapter I PCTs are quasi-examined to provide a report and Chapter II PCTs receive more or less full examination.  Provisionals and PCTs are also treated differently legally as far as using them as prior art references goes.  And, of course, provisionals must be filed in the name of at least one inventor whereas PCTs can be filed by the assignee.  There are probably some other differences I can't think of off the top of my head.  Looking at all the similarities and differences together, I don't think it's useful to liken a PCT to a sort of international provisional.  I think it would be wiser not to confuse the two concepts (PCT and provisional) and to do everything possible in the patent articles to keep them distinct, so long as better was of explaining and describing PCTs can be found.  Cheers, Robert K S (talk) 20:53, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * H'm.... to me, those details are all important, but they're basically details. Their essences seem the same: they are both optional "stop-gap" procedures that "hold a place in line" (establish a priority date) pending a full application.  The details don't seem any larger than the differences between two countries' equivalents of a provisional application.  Just for example: assuming I have a PCT, is there any reason to file a provisional?
 * Perhaps this difference comes from different approaches. One direction of question is "I want a patent; how do I go about getting it"?  But that's not how I came at it.  It was "this annoying software patent that I wish would go away had a PCT; what does that mean?"
 * I tried to do better than the above in the article: "A PCT application is similar in effect to filing a provisional application in all contracting states simultaneously. Although more difficult to prepare than a single-country patent application (much less a provisional application), it allows the much greater expense of filing dozens of national patent applications to be deferred for some time. There are, however, numerous differences. For example, under U.S. law, a provisional application expires after 12 months and does not start the 20-year clock. A PCT application is valid for 20–30 months and does start the clock." 71.41.210.146 (talk) 13:28, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Likening PCT applications to provisional applications is a needless comparison. Why isn't it enough just to state the properties of PCT applications in the PCT article? Robert K S (talk) 15:03, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It would only be a needless comparison if there were a better comparison to use instead. The problem with simply stating the properties is that it requires more expertise and background to recognize the similarities.  Indeed, without making the comparison, it's not possible to draw attention to the differences.  Thus, we talk about the similarities between mitochondria and chloroplasts (in, e.g. organelle), even though the differences are also stark.  (Most significantly, mitochondria consume oxygen while chloroplasts produce it).  We describe the differences between religions and sects thereof, between fair use and fair dealing (there's a whole article on limitations and exceptions to copyright), between Austria and Germany (articles on Austria–Germany relations), etc. etc.
 * It's an application of WP:MTAA. How close they are may depend on our different standards of closeness, but isn't it worth contrasting something with whatever else is closest?  If there's something better to use for comparison, I'm all ears. 71.41.210.146 (talk) 15:54, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not an application of WP:MTAA. If the comparison was between PCT applications and some familiar everyday thing that a general-audience reader would have common knowledge of, something non-patent-related, then the comparison would be fruitful in aiding reader understanding.  When you're comparing one obscure type of patent filing to another obscure type of patent filing, either one of which a person would need to have some patent background to appreciate the complexities of, you're just writing to fill space.  I'm sorry to be so disparaging about your idea.  I don't fathom why you're so stubbornly clinging to it.  I suppose you feel like in your research you've made a discovery by relating these two different types of applications, and you would like others to make that discovery.  If so, a better implementation might be in a comparison graph between different types of applications that could be used in multiple articles, similar to how Early computer characteristics is used on several articles about early computers. Robert K S (talk) 17:15, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If you look at my edit history, I started out describing it as a "preliminary patent application". Or I could call it a pre-application, or an application for an application, or an application pro tempore.  I wanted some phrase like that, not PCT-specific jargon like "national phase", that conveys that essence.  Then I discovered that there is a specific term for that basic concept already in common use, so I switched to it.  Do you think I should go back?
 * The thought was, if someone knows the term, it's useful, and if they don't know the term, it's still descriptive.
 * I take your point that by using that (formally defined in law) term, I have to be more careful to emphasize that the similarity is only approximate. I tried to incorporate that.
 * If we're actually stuck on whether the comparison is illuminating or confusing, should I request a wp:third opinion on the matter? 71.41.210.146 (talk) 18:06, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * P.S. are there other significant ways to establish an earlier priority date? Many countries recognize foreign patent applications within 1 year, and some recognize non-patent publication.  And there's the whole continuing patent application mess.  Anything else?

Re: "Then I discovered that there is a specific term for that basic concept already in common use, so I switched to it." But that's where the error is. "Provisional application" isn't a specific term for a basic concept. It's a specific term for a specific type of application. It's as if I was trying to write an article about Renata Tebaldi (whom I know nothing about) who was a famous opera singer (a subject about which I am similarly ignorant), and I was trying to describe her vocal range, and in my research I came to learn that there was another opera singer with a same or similar vocal range. So I wrote, "Renata Tebaldi is like a Maria Callas." Well, OK, great. But that's not very descriptive unless you know the properties of a Maria Callas, and it's misleading inasmuch as Maria Callas was a totally different person from Renata Tebaldi and has as many differences as similarities as Renata Tebaldi. So you might as well not even make the comparison. I don't think you should "go back" as you suggest. I think you should drop the idea of trying to "liken" a PCT application to another type of application or to give it a name that isn't already used in the art (i.e., in the profession). I think you should turn to the verifiable references to examine how PCT applications are already described and stick to those descriptions. Anything else kind of borders on original research, and presents problems of inaccuracy for the reasons I've already argued. Cheers, Robert K S (talk) 19:08, 30 May 2011 (UTC) As to your question about how to establish priority dates, within the U.S., we are on a first-to-invent system and not a first-to-file system, so priority date can be established with evidence of earlier conception and diligence in reduction to practice. The filing date is only a presumed filing date until/unless an earlier priority date is conclusively established. Within almost every other country, it's much more stringent, and priority dates can only be established by filing. Robert K S (talk) 19:17, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, the WIPO uses the term "provisional" when describing the PCT, although the term is "provisional protection".  (I agree it's a separate legal concept, since it only applies to filed full applications, and not a provisional application.)  The research has led me to an idea for a better explanation that I think will make you a lot happier.  (Not entered yet; check back tomorrow.)  Thank you for your patience.  71.41.210.146 (talk) 02:43, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Forks Over Knives/Super Size Me
Just changed the Super Size Me one-thanks! When I see things like this, I try to change them so there's no mistaking re: the file and it gets tagged for wrong license. Reading the FUR, you can see that it refers to a poster but if someone's going through FURs quickly and sees a logo one with a poster license, it could get tagged when it really shouldn't. We hope (talk) 23:30, 26 June 2011 (UTC)


 * FUR is Fair Use Rationale and it's used for anything that has a copyright; you give your reasons why the image or file should be included in the article. The licenses are meant to match the type of image that's being uploaded: album cover for music, video cover for films, and so on.  If you aren't sure what type of license you need for a file, ask at Media copyright questions.  After you do enough uploading of files, you'll get to know all of this and it will be automatic. ;) We hope (talk) 01:10, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Forks Over Knives
I guess Bovineboy2008 was adhering to Manual_of_Style_(capital_letters). It is all very confusing. I am happy with either "over" or "Over". Well done on creating the article. Nirvana2013 (talk) 06:42, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:CSUseal.PNG
Thank you for your efforts in attempting to bring the image in compliance with WP:NFCC #10c. Unfortunately, it's still not compliant. What you change ultimately attempted is a "group rationale". Group rationales have come under discussion before (example), with conclusion that such rationales are not appropriate. WP:NFCC #10c requires a "separate, specific" rationale for each use. A group rationale fails that policy. Even if the rationale is exactly identical, there must be a separate, specific rationale for each use. I know this may seem like bureaucratic blithering, but it is necessary. I've removed the group rationale claim on the image description page, and re-removed the image from the article. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:34, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No, it's bureaucratic blithering, it's not in accord with the spirit of the policy or U.S. copyright law. The "discussion" you link to is not a substantive discussion of the issue on the merits (no specific facts are introduced and the purpose of the policy as a way to ensure compliance with the law is not examined); it is merely an assertion by you dittoed by three others, and one that unduly encourages long nearly-duplicate templates to clutter image pages.  The purpose of a "separate, specific" rationale is to prevent a general rationale that is not actually applicable to all species in the genera from being used to do just that.  Here, that is not the issue; the same rationale applies to the two mentioned species.  To needlessly multiply the amount of text on a page in furtherance of the perhaps poorly-worded language of a policy is not good practice, and, if you really believe that the wording of the policy justifies such procedure, then the wording of the policy needs to be clarified so that you and others like you cannot continue to be disruptive.  If I respectfully requested you bring this incident to the attention of a knowledgeable third party--preferably a Wikipedia administrator with whom you have not previously interacted--for an unbiased third opinion, would you agree to that? Robert K S (talk) 14:11, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you feel that way. Nevertheless, policy requires a separate, specific non-free rationale. If you want to raise this issue to the attention of an administrator for my supposed disruption, you may feel free to do so at WP:AN/I. If you would like to recommend a change to the policy, you may do so at WT:NFC. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:26, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Regarding cross-namespace redirects
I've undone your blanking of the redirect I use in edit summaries. Cross namespace redirects are commonplace and are useful especially in edit summaries. Saying "WP:10CR" is far shorter than "User:Hammersoft/NFCC 10c Removal", eliminating clutter in the edit summary and noting that edit summary lengths are restricted. There are plenty of examples of cross namespace redirects into userspace. WP:HOLES, WP:SHOCKING, WP:1THING, WP:OWB, WP:creed, WP:DUCK, WP:SPADE, WP:ATHEIST, WP:RANCH, and on and on and on. Please do not blank the WP:10CR redirect again, as this shortcut is in use on several hundred edit summaries. If you would like this redirect to be deleted, you may propose it for deletion at Redirects for discussion. Blanking it is not the proper way of going about this. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 14:26, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I have done as you have suggested. Thanks for pointing me in the right direction. Cheers, Robert K S (talk) 21:08, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you! :) --Hammersoft (talk) 21:32, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

WT:NFC thread regarding your edits
There is a thread regarding your recent edits at Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 14:40, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Jeopardy! archive
I have the April 23, 2002 episode on tape, which I noticed isn't in the J! Archive. Is there any way I can get it to you or one of the other archivists? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 02:18, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Jerome Vered
So, I've heard that you know a bit about Jeopardy. :) Could you take a quick look at the Jerome Vered article? Is is correct that he won a combined $496,602 from all of his appearances on the show? I'm asking because the numbers given in the article don't seem to add up to $496,602. Thanks! Zagal e jo^^^ 06:20, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You're right, the numbers don't add up. By my calculations Jerome's Jeopardy! grand total is $494,102: $96,801 original 5 + $7,500 ToC + $27,601 UToC Round 1 + $30,000 UToC Round 2 + $32,200 UToC Round 3 + $50,000 UToC Round 4 + $250,000 UToC Round 5.  I'll see if Jerome has an explanation before making any changes. Robert K S (talk) 12:15, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Cool, thanks for the reply. Zagal e jo^^^ 18:52, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi
Hi Robert. I see you've been around on WP a good while & made many contributions. However, may I draw your attention to the consensus to supply an Edit summary. Regards, Trafford09 (talk) 10:44, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Pending changes trial is over
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=review&user=Robert_K_S&page=Robert_Byrd

The pending changes trial is over. The next time time you see an article, even a BLP, with pending changes protection enabled, can you please tell the sysop responsible for the protection that the trial is over? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:44, 15 December 2011 (UTC)