User talk:Spinality

Trevor Hanson 02:01, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

S/370 article
Thanks for your hard work on the article. You've obviously put in a lot of time chasing down references for others' vague recollections (including mine), and it shows. Jay Maynard 10:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * . This was a nice way to start the day, much appreciated. The S/370 editing kind of snowballed from work in progress on VM/CMS and National CSS – and some new pages on CP/CMS, CP-40, VP/CSS, Cambridge Scientific Center, Lincoln Labs, etc. The work is still in a sandbox as I pull the necessary citations together; see User:Spinality/CP/CMS if you're interested.


 * BTW after using   a little I see why its use is neither encouraged nor discouraged at Citation templates. Embedded conventional footnotes like   are relatively comprehensible in the article source, but a full    block is pretty annoying. I understand that normal Wiki style is not to use in-line citations, and instead to place them after a paragraph; but I feel that doesn't give enough precision when supporting specific facts. I still haven't made up my mind which approach is best; I'm leaning more toward using a consistent citation format in plain text, rather than using a template, for ease of maintenance. This Wikification stuff is complicated. :) Trevor Hanson 15:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, what Jay said. Nice exchange between you and Dave Tuttle over on Hypervisor too.  RossPatterson 02:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Dave added a lot of great detail. I kind of barraged him; I hope this hasn't put him off. I am still trying to pull all this material together (just got back from a week in Oregon) but hope to start getting the corpus in place. Recent category-related updates by others have reminded me that I am clueless about Wiki categories and their proper use. I think I need to go for a little remedial study. Every time I look at category use, I kind of don't get the point. Or rather, I believe I get the point, but nobody seems to use them that way. Most categories seem to be very sparse and not very useful. Anyway, a category-mashing cycle seems to be in my future. Trevor Hanson 06:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Isomorphism (biology)
Kudos on starting Isomorphism (biology) - you noticed the article was clearly missing, and created a strong stub for it. Keep up the good work! --Swpb 02:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for noticing. It's a good feeling to notice and plug a hole that lies outside one's field. Trevor Hanson 18:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

recently created mainframe articles
Congrats on landing the thoroughly cited History of CP/CMS and IBM CP-40 articles (are there others?). I have been off playing with journals & citations on WP:LOMJ/Queue, and I see you are yet to settle on a preferred format, so .. here is the raw data for you to use as you wish: John Vandenberg 04:38, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * IBM Journal of Research & Development:
 * Communications of the ACM:
 * IBM Systems Journal:  and
 * SHARE (computing):
 * SEAS Proceedings, spring meeting 1989 : end user computing:
 * Proceedings of the International Conference on Information Processing:
 * Computers and automation:
 * Click on the Middle Tennessee State University library to see this publisher details:
 * "Imprint varies: 1953-, New York, N.Y. : Edmund C. Berkeley and Associates; -1972, Newtonville, Mass. : by Berkeley Enterprises, Inc."
 * worldcat list of all related records
 * IBM Cambridge Scientific Center report:, and
 * Proceedings of the IEEE (IEEE):
 * Spring Joint Computer Conference : proceedings by AFIPS/American Federation of Information Processing Societies. '67:


 * Thanks for positive feedback. This project dragged on longer than I hoped so I am trying to get some material out there, I hope not too prematurely. ¶ Since commenting on your talk page, I have of course been seeing updates there; and this has included the many interesting recent posts about citations (which left me feeling even more ignorant and out of the loop than usual). This is a deep issue that I have been afraid to investigate. I have managed to keep disregarding this topic, continuing to create citations in whatever the hell format I liked; but clearly this libertine attitude is about to die a horrible death. Oh well, I figure that the first job is to try to get the facts and article text straightened out. ¶ My latest new material is CP/CMS. I am about to replace VM (operating system) and VM/CMS. Other recent activity has included History of IBM and IBM M44/44X. You may also note template:bibliography_CP/CMS and template:FamilyTree_TimeSharingOS. ¶ Thanks again for always-helpful input. I'm always pleased to see your footprints show up when "jayvdb is online". (Like now.) Trevor Hanson 06:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi, how do you like the format here: Charles_Darwin. John Vandenberg 03:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Very impressive. This seems to strike a good balance between readability and specificity. I can see there's still a lot of heavy lifting involved, trying to keep all the sources and refs in synch; but I don't see how that can be avoided. I will take a more careful look shortly. (Just got power back after a 30-hour outage.) Trevor Hanson 18:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Template:FamilyTree_TimeSharingOS
If you'd like to have an article you created deleted, just put at the top of the page, and an admin will delete it. That template indicates that the page's creator and sole author would like the page to be speedily deleted. I'll delete this one for you. | Mr. Darcy talk 03:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * D'oh! How logical. Thanks much. I was surprised not to find anything like that mentioned on Deletion_policy (the one linked to from the Help page). Do you think there's some reason it's not cited there? I am tempted to update the page, but my attempts to "be bold" as an editor have not thus far crossed into the policy pages. Trevor Hanson 04:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Trevor!
Hi, Trevor!

I ran across your name while perusing the talk page on the "assembly language" article. I jast added a little story over there that you might enjoy.

I haven't yet had a chance to read the stuff you've contributed about IBM machines and operating systems, but I'll be taking a look soon. I spent about twenty years cranking out assembler code, and doing SYSGENs, and stuff like that, so I'm sure our paths will cross again. Heck, I'm so old I even remember how to write self-relocating code that can execute in BG or F1 or F2. For now I just want to say hello. STM 14,12,12(13) [90ECD00C] forever! DavidCBryant 20:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi, yourself, David. Funny story. I also have run across folks from the hand-assembly age, though nobody still doing it as recently as the hero in your story. Of course, in the early days, waiting for overnight keypunch runs and overnight compiles wasn't all THAT much different from what she had to do. I don't know if you're as old as that.


 * You will enjoy the fact that I used to have a cat named BXLE. He was cantankerous, unpredictable, and annoying, which is about how I always regarded that particular instruction -- a solution in search of a problem.


 * Cute name for the cat. I actually liked BXLE and BXH quite a lot. Some of the stuff I worked on involved very large (>100Kb -- haha -- that was large!) tables of data collected with a hashing algorithm (for efficient sorting during the data collection phase). I'd use BXLE to drive a bubble sort at an intermediate phase, prior to reporting the final results. Interestingly, that instruction actually used the full 32-bits as an address internally ... before IBM came out with extended addressing you had to be careful not to set bits 0 - 7 on in the even-numbered registers in a BXLE, or you'd get an Addressing Exception (SOC4? I did more with DOS, and less with OS). A lot of other instructions simply ignored bits 0 - 7 in 24-bit address arithmetic, but not BXLE. DavidCBryant 12:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * One of the problems we have with Wikipedia articles on these topics is that so much of the ideal reference material is not easily found today. As you know, the goal with Wikipedia articles is to have everything sourced back to something authoritative, so we're not relying on the infallible memories of old farts like us. We have seen many examples recently where one or another of us is absolutely sure that "this is how it was" – only to find out that the memory was wrong, or only partly true. So if you still have a lot of old manuals lying around, this could be a big help in nailing down specifics. (Unfortunately, I dumped a lot of my old library during a few moves over the last 15 years, so I have frequently been slapping my forehead saying "Damn, I knew I should have kept those OS/VS2 PLMs.") Go look in your garage, and see what treasures you might be able to contribute to our computer archeology efforts. Trevor Hanson 05:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll take a look. I might have a S/370 POPS manual lying around ... I know I used to have one, at least. That was the main book I relied on. DavidCBryant 12:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

History of IBM - discussion
I have tried to begin a reasonable discussion with the anonymous user who has promoted Edwin Black's agenda on the History of IBM. Please see that article's discussion page for more details, and also the user's Talk page. I invite you to join the discussion if you are so inclined; I have tried to set the tone. Paul 15:46, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * This is all rather troubling. I am not sure how best to proceed. I wish somebody had the time to tackle this article properly. For the present, disengaging (Resolving Disputes) might help to cool things down. Well, we'll see. Trevor Hanson 23:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I seem to have been more caught up in the discussion with the anonymous user than I realized, and I will leave this alone for a while. Thanks again for your help. Paul 01:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * BTW, I trust you realize that I deliberately phrased my "let's all calm down" to apply to all of us, i.e. not to single anybody out. However, I'm sure I see this in basically the same light you do. Your efforts on this article look like normal, quality WP editing. I don't think you were tromping on anybody. There clearly was some serious misunderstanding by the anon IPers about what WP is, how we develop material, and who contributes.


 * But I could see this tiff spinning out of control. It sounds like there are multiple people contributing from that IP address, and they appear to have a well-defined agenda. We don't want to precipitate a shouting match, especially if that is something they relish.


 * Ultimately, somebody needs to get a couple of strong IBM history reference books, and tidy up that entire article – verifying the events, dates, names, etc., supported by citations. We certainly don't want people to be able to say "this article is full of factual errors." But I don't currently have time to take on that work.


 * I do think that the whole IBM-as-Nazi-collaborator thread needs to be handled in a reasonable way. The issue is important, and I don't mean to marginalize it. But as I keep saying, it isn't the only fact of interest about IBM, even during the war years. (This is the same problem I have with the entire article: It is more an assembly of random factoids and trivia than an encyclopaedic presentation.)


 * Anyway, please don't take any of my comments as critical toward you. I don't understand why took such umbrage. But they did, and it's better to resolve the situation than try to win a petty argument with somebody – especially if they won't listen or participate in discussion.


 * JMO, as always. Trevor Hanson 05:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Trevor, you may be sure that I didn't take what you said personally. (You didn't mention me by name and your intent was clear.) The environment here is new for me in some unexpected ways but I will continue to experiment and figure it out. I'm an engineer by profession and these complex systems fascinate me. Paul 15:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

using and
I've updated the citation style on National CSS. Hopefully you dont mind it too much. 14:05, 29 January 2007 User:Jayvdb


 * Remember those  tags! :) Trevor Hanson 01:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

History of IBM
Several days ago you requested non-binding mediation for a dispute on this article with the cabal. What is the current state of the dispute? Is the conflict still in need of attention? Please respond on my talk page. --Selket Talk 00:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Ed Buhrer - family matters
Please contact [redacted] to meet/reminisce outside the auspices of Wikipedia.

"Unparliamentary language" on History of IBM
Thanks Trevor - I'm glad you found it. Wanderer57 02:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:TonyBennettCloud7Cover.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:TonyBennettCloud7Cover.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 12:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Isomorphism (computer science)
Another editor has added the  template to the article Isomorphism (computer science), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also What Wikipedia is not and Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the  template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 16:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

C-Class implementation
Hi Trevor, I see that you are a Brit living in the US - like myself! I'm in upstate NY, teaching chemistry. I noticed that you were quite active in our recent discussion on the C-Class idea, including some of the post-vote analysis, so I was wondering if you would be willing to help out in some of the implementation. Could you perhaps help with the rewrite of the class definitions, or maybe evaluate some examples? Cheers, Walkerma (talk) 01:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi, Martin. I am really not much of a Brit, having left before age three, though still much an Anglophile, Albiophile, Orcadiaphile, Hiberniaphile, etc. (My January honeymoon was spent mostly in Orkney...my second January trip to Orkney. Which should tell you something.)


 * I did indeed get caught up in the C-class discussion. It was a good forum for meta-editing discussions. These topics seem to be articles of faith with many contributors, and so I was glad for a chance to put explicit focus on methodology and priorities. You did a fine job moderating, by the way.


 * This discussion happened to coincide with a hiatus in my work, so I was able both to keep up with the discussion and make some contributions. This availability was unusual. Like you, I am busy in real life, and so may not be able to commit to specific tasks. At the least, I should be able to evaluate examples and review proposed class definitions. I may or may not be able to take on specific projects. I will think more about this in light of the to-do list. Again, nice job structuring this work. As I said in a recent comment, to satisfy the more thoughtful "oppose" voters, we really need to do a good job rationalizing the assessment framework. We don't want anybody to be able to say "I told you this was a bad idea."


 * [I might add, irrelevantly, that I have grown disillusioned with Wikipedia politics. In recent months, I have not been writing articles or tackling major editing tasks – mostly because of real life issues, but also because of a dumbing-down force that I have felt toward mediocracy and bureaucratic bike shed painting. So although I did thrust my oar into the current debate – perhaps at excessive length, as some may have felt, but this seemed an important structural decision – I am not sure how much active article editing I will be doing as we move forward. For this reason, it may be hypocritical for me to take a real stand in formulating standards and examples. In the present debate, I have been willing to carp from the sidelines, as a way to foster conversation; but editors who are currently more active might be more credible, and probably have better credentials for shaping the new assessment criteria. Based on the history of today's standards, this new framework will probably have a long life. A major complaint of the "opposers" was that we shouldn't be spending time on assessment to the exclusion of actual editing. Although this is a simplistic view (methodology work truly is helpful), I would feel embarrassed if my only active work were on the assessment framework. It would sort of prove their point.]


 * So...I will continue to follow the main threads, and please do feel free to contact me regarding specific needs and progress, as you see fit. In the meantime, I will think further about how active a role I can and should take in forging the new framework, examples, templates, etc. (Though this all may become moot as of next week, when real life is likely going to return with a vengeance.) Spinality (talk) 06:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I fully understand, real life does get in the way somewhat! I have a conference coming up in a week's time.  Please don't get too put off by bureaucracy - WP is still a place where good people can make a big difference.  I've avoided becoming an admin in order to avoid some of the bureaucracy, but unfortunately the WP1.0 project does occasionally involve some.  Walkerma (talk) 02:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * [Feel free to ignore these gratuitous comments but you caught me in a conversational moment.] My describing an objection to "bureaucracy" was actually a misnomer. I have always been an iconoclast, a foe of collective judgment. I hate the products of committees. I love the consistent voice of a single author, even when flawed. This makes me a bad Wikian, by definition. Rather than reading a finely-researched 21st century historical analysis of some 17th century event, I would always rather read a biased first-person narrative from the period. This is why I'd rather have a 9th or 11th edition Britannica, with articles that really bear the stamp of their illustrious authors, than a more recent one. (Curiously, professionally I have also tended to be a mediator and collaborator, a bridge-builder rather than a wall-builder; so you can view this personal conflict as a character flaw. Nevertheless I often find myself shaking my head in exasperation after a few days of strife over some trivial Wikipedia issue. I guess, at the end of the day, after a career spent larger as a writer, I find that writing is a solitary activity, and have been disappointed with the majority of group writing efforts.) Spinality (talk) 07:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input in the discussion - it helped to turn a vote into a discussion, which was a good thing. Walkerma (talk) 02:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that this issue seemed to balance on a knife-edge between constructive discussion and flame war. The positions were highly polarized, more than I would have expected. Initially, I thought the addition of C-class was a total no-brainer (because Start-to-B had always struck me as a huge leap). Spinality (talk) 07:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If you could spare an hour or so off-wiki to comparatively evaluate 15 articles (you need Microsoft Excel and some moderate ability at article assessment), please let me know and I'll email you the file. I want to get a bunch of people all to rank the same articles using a professional approach, so we can use these as a really well-defined example set.  Thanks, Walkerma (talk) 02:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, this would be no problem. Not sure about my assessment abilities, but a commitment of hours is possible, though days would be a problem. You can send email to me via acm.org at the user name trevor dot hanson. (Hope that anti-spam locution is clear.) Spinality (talk) 07:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Robert Creasy
Someone closely related to him (I think) wrote his biography here. It claims that he personally invented the concept of virtual machine, which seems a little exaggerated. Since you wrote the IBM M44/44X article and read the bibliography, perhaps you could take a look? Thanks, Pcap ping  16:37, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Varian p. 10 seem to contradict that claim saying that Dave Sayre first used that terminology to describe the M44, and also "idea of a virtual machine system had been bruited about a bit before then, but it had never really been implemented". Pcap ping  16:53, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:ChuckWayneJazzGuitaristCover.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:ChuckWayneJazzGuitaristCover.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ww2censor (talk) 22:52, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Four Green Fields
Trevor, I have a link to a video ( a sort of retrospective of Tommy Makem), with Tommy telling that very story of his emmigration to America. It also has a great interview with Liam Clancy. I believe it was filmed shortly before Makem's death in 2007. I can provide the link if you are interested.

Tim1890 (talk) 19:08, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Computer software?
Hallo, you say you are highly into Computer software? would you not or get a group of delevopers, to design a competitor to facebook? I have ideas!! (I'll check back for an answer). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.52.136.219 (talk) 23:39, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

History of CP/CMS
I just came in here to give you props for the excellent work on the History of CP/CMS article. Although it seems you wrote it a while ago, I just stumbled on it today. In-depth articles like that, IMO, are what make Wikipedia great. I'm glad to see that your work seems to have been retained. Cheers! -Kadin2048 (talk) 15:01, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:FamilyTree CP/CMS
Template:FamilyTree CP/CMS has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:49, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Request price quotation


The article Request price quotation has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * No references, uncertain notability.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on |the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. H.dryad (talk) 16:44, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Isomorphism (biology)


The article Isomorphism (biology) has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern:
 * This article is an orphan, which does not contains anything else than a dictionary definition. Thus the link to Wiktionary given in Isomorphism (disambiguation) should suffices. The recent discussion in the talk page seems to be compatible with this analysis.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. D.Lazard (talk) 13:51, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Spinality07312006.jpg


The file File:Spinality07312006.jpg has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern:
 * Unused personal photo - out of project scope.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. XXN, 10:20, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:HansonBearcat240.jpg


The file File:HansonBearcat240.jpg has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "unused, low-res, no obvious use"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

File:HansonBearcat1200.jpg listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:HansonBearcat1200.jpg, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

File:HansonBearcat1200.jpg listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:HansonBearcat1200.jpg, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 1 September 2020 (UTC)