User talk:Squiggleslash/1

Hi, and welcome to my talk page. To start a new topic, please click on the "+" symbol above and enter a suitable heading. I'm having problems with editing medium-to-large amounts of text in Wikipedia from home, so please try to keep things short if you want a reply. (I have no idea why I'm having that problem, the same problem doesn't seem to affect any other website. Does Wikipedia honour the MTU thing?)

Wireless
Hi, I've noticed you have a similar interest to wireless tech to me and you seem to be well informed. I thought an interesting article to write would be "A Comparison of Wireless Standards" which basically laid out the bottom line details of all the standards in a nice concise manner, things like bandwidth, typical real world speed (a tricky one), latency (roundly ignored in almost all articles) and so on. Maybe you'd like to collaborate on this one day, but meanwhile editing on Wikipedia is like posting on Slashdot, a pernicious form of procrastination. You might like to have a look at the white papers at if you haven't already. A tad repetitive but really very informative about GSM and UTMS technicalities. Also they have a fantastic list of UTMS/HSDPA deployments. Darkov 18:01, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks :) It's a nice idea, I'll have a think about it. The one positive aspect from a procrastination PoV is you can always start something basic on WP and a few months later you'll find a bunch of people have worked on it, not to add as much as you'd like, but still more than you expected... Squiggleslash 20:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It's true, maybe that's the right way to approach the suggested article. I think it should include the mobile phone standards, WiMax, WiFi, Bluetooth, UWB and others. Darkov 14:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, I added a basic comparison template to WiMAX for mobile Internet access methods, but it's not really what you're talking about except a very basic framework that already shows some limitations of the table approach. Even when grouping very similar systems together, it's hard to compare them. 4G UMTS (as specified so far by the LTE development group) for instance specifies high data rates that are only achievable if the operator allocates a large amount of spectrum to them. (It also felt unfair adding 1xRTT to it, but that's the only TDD form of CDMA2000 from what I could gather.) Squiggleslash 13:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I've created Comparison of Wireless Data Standards and it might be a good idea to compbine your table and that article in some way. Though some one has already threatened to delete the article, so you might like to come and join the discussion. Darkov 05:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Wireless (continued)
Darkov wrote above: (Moved so I can reply to it, see reason at top of discussion)
 * I wonder if it makes sense to structure the comparison article with table templates, so that any table in the comparison article is actually a template that can inserted elsewhere. Each template would have a link back to the main article, but I don't know how we'd get rid of that in the comparison article, maybe with a template parameter. The advantage might be that the appearance of the tables will attract attention (and edits) to the comparison article. Then again it might just be better to add links in articles back to the comparison article. What's your view? Darkov 04:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

It's an idea, though at this stage I think we need to build the article and then determine, after it's put together, what might be worth splitting out into templates. Templates have to be useful for other articles and while I can see a general "This standard offers these speeds" type thing works well for inserting into WiMAX and UMTS articles, for other issues such as frequency ranges, it's more awkward.

One other thing I'm concerned about was the sudden interest in spectral efficiency in certain other articles. It sat wrong with me, and I suddenly realised why a day or two ago: spectral efficiency isn't the only measure of the efficiency of a technology. It's a useful metric if you're trying to minimize the number of towers you put up, but otherwise it's relatively poor. DECT has one of the best ratios of erlangs/mile2 you can get, and it has lousy spectral efficiency. Why do I raise it in this context? Well, because it's the kind of thing that would be inappropriate to insert into other articles for that very reason, and care has to be taken in terms of building templates that aren't just useful for other articles, but also fair and not misleading. Squiggleslash 21:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

HSOPA / HSPA+
You reverted my edit on Template:Table_Mobile_phone_standards. In this way template is incorrect. See Template_talk:Table_Mobile_phone_standards. Comments are welcome. Armando82 11:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Constant AT&T merger requests
Do you know of any way that an administrator could block merger requests? The latest merger request on the AT&T/American Telephone & Telegraph articles has been placed by an IP address. It looks as if these unknowns haven't any idea that this topic is beating a dead horse - this is the third merger request for those articles. KansasCity 18:44, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not personally aware of any, and it surprises me there isn't an (obvious) way to do it as it's the kind of proposal that's often controversial so you'd expect people on the "losing" side to frequently try to push it.

I'm also surprised people would just jump in with an immediate merge request without discussing it first on the talk pages. It's hardly a minor change. Even stuff like deleting things I see as obviously unnecessary (such as that awful "Competitors" section that the AT&T article had for several months) I'm inclined to ask about first.

Not sure where to go with this one, except perhaps a big comment at the top of the article (comment as in less-than exclaimation dash dash) warning people that merge requests are frequently asked for and rejected. --Squiggleslash 19:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

AT&T founding date controversy
Whomever continues to insist that the current AT&T was founded in 2005 gets a different IP address with each day of edits. It appears they have no knowledge of telecom history. It's almost a shame that I have to go to AT&T first before any other page because of the need to watch out for vandals (such as the current one claiming 2005 as the founding date) or those that haven't got a clue in the world about what AT&T probably even stands for. KansasCity 04:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Beyond doing a straw poll and then calling for the page to be locked against anonymous edits for a little bit, I don't really know what else we can do here. --Squiggleslash 12:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks like this guy is going to argue anything we say. I think we might want to stop giving him his bully pulpit and simply correct any edits he does. Of course, that is because we are Wiki-elitists you know. (cross posted to KansasCity)--Donovan Ravenhull 15:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

This conversation strengthens that point. No discussion, no other points of view!!


 * That's right, we've been systematically deleting every point of view you've ever written on the Talk: pages. Moohahahah! MWOAHAHAHAHAH! HAHAHAHAHAHA*coughchokecough* excuse me! --Squiggleslash 13:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

AT&T
No problem. Edit conflicts happen. And your nicely detailed edit summary made it fairly obvious that your revert had nothing to do with my edit, which is why I felt OK to just redo the edit, instead of feeling the need to discuss it or any such. - TexasAndroid 12:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I have requested full protection on the AT&T article. The semi-protection seemed to be a temporary fix; this IP user is back to edit war. KansasCity 05:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Why did MVNO ventures of Virgin Mobile in Australia and singapore fail?
Hi. I read your writting about MVNO. You wrote Virgin Mobile UK succeeded in UK and US. but They failed in OZ and Singapore.

They would go into those markets with experienced and proved strategy. However, They failed according to your writting.

Let me know the reason.

Thank you.


 * I think you must have me confused with someone else. - --Squiggleslash 16:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

1st Gen iPods
Take a look at this YouTube video, I'm pretty sure it's only 5GB. However, I haven't watched it for a while, so I could be remembering wrong. Hope this helps! aido2002talk 04:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Aah--I misunderstood you. But I found something else that clarifies: Archive.org's cache of iPod's page on the Apple website says, talking about second gen iPods, "The 10GB model has been redesigned to be even thinner." (emphasis added) So, the 10GB model was introduced before gen 2. Yup, you were right. :) aido2002talk 04:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, actually I was wrong, I was the one who was convinced the old "mechanical scroll wheel" iPod only came in 5G! But thanks anyway. Best, --Squiggleslash 12:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Chiller Channel
Oh, so you're "trying to be polite?" How, by removing my entries? Unless you're a moderator here at Wikipedia, you have no more right to edit a page than I do. Thanks.

Yendor —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yendor1152 (talk • contribs) 15:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I was trying to be polite when I previously removed your vandalism, giving you the benefit of the doubt in terms of how I worded my summary. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you will be banned. --Squiggleslash 15:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

And how, pray tell, am I vandalizing the Chiller entry? You're vandalizing my posts by removing them. Unless you're a moderator here and actually have the power to "ban" people, you're basically full of crap. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yendor1152 (talk • contribs) 21:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to assume bad faith in this case as it's been explained to you in the summary for the removal now twice, and also in the comment I left on your Talk: page. --Squiggleslash 21:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

3GPP LTE spectrum slice phrasing
I would appreciate your thoughts on my comments at Talk:3GPP_Long_Term_Evolution. Thanks! St3vo 19:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your "Priscilla Painton" edit
It is much better than what I have done! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nbahn (talk • contribs) 15:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You're welcome! I felt the "may or may not" left it ambiguous as to whether it was being claimed the story might be false or that Klein might be lying. I tidied it a little too, but it still needs some work (captions for each of the links, etc) --Squiggleslash 15:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I saw your edit regarding the phrase "in which". I think that you are correct, however I have solicited an opinion from the Help Desk so that I/we am/are on firmer ground if that anonymous editor decides to escalate this into a full-fledged edit war (Although it seems ridiculous to me to get into a war over the use of one word on grammatical grounds. Sheesh!) --Nbahn (talk) 13:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I don't mind it being changed if in which really is ungrammatical as long as the replacement sentence makes some kind of sense. The problem with the IP user's change was that it didn't. I'm hoping the IP user will do that. Still, it'll be interesting to see what the helpdesk says. --Squiggleslash (talk) 14:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Just F.Y.I.
 * Here is a response that I thought was very good indeed.
 * The sentence could be replaced by 2 sentences: "... column by Joe Klein. In this column, Klein published ...", so of course it has to be "in which" in the original. -- JackofOz (talk) 14:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * --Nbahn (talk) 15:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Priscilla Painton/"in which" discussion

I don't put much stock in those grammarians -- they can't even come to a consensus on what is grammatical (If they were having arguments over style, then I'd understand, but this is ridiculous.). --Nbahn (talk) 21:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I think most of them were happy with "in which" with only one person wanting something different, and certainly nobody wants just "which". If the IPU is listening, they'll understand the need to do more than just delete the word "in". And if they're not, well, we have legitimate grounds to block the edits. --Squiggleslash 21:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Just wanted to let you know that your latest edits in Painton and Stengel articles are appreciated. --Nbahn (talk) 16:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I can't believe I wrote "Hamster", thanks for fixing that! --Squiggleslash (talk) 16:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

A note of gratitude
Thank you for your kind words --Nbahn (talk) 14:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Bionic Woman
Bionic Woman has been cancelled, i have evidence confirm, The Daily Star newspaper also hav an article regarding the cancellation, if you are in doubt then contact NBC who will confirm it thus people are going to sign a petition to save the series. Thank you


 * Wikipedia is not the place to promote your petition. Regardless of that fact, the current evidence is that it hasn't been canceled. If you believe otherwise, you are welcome to update the page with links to articles reporting that it has been canceled. So far as I've seen though, all discussion of cancellation has been speculation - --Squiggleslash (talk) 01:47, 21 December 2007 (UTC)