User talk:Atlant

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Some "talk" is archived 2 French 3 Locking LocalTalk 4 frequency conversion - conversion 5 This isn't Consumer Reports 6 Mattisse 7 External links 8 Talk:Assembly language 9 Removing unsuitable content from talk pages 10 Historical electronics stubs 11 Wang Center 12 Vibration vs Oscillation 13 Re: RT-11 14 Lenticular 15 WP:FAITH 16 Thanks 17 IOP Spam 18 Electrical safety 19 Sorry, whether or not it's mentioned there, it's a true fact. 20 Rotary transformers & VCR tape heads 21 Photoshop 22 Wire nut 23 Spam by Microsp 24 Ow 25 Fake Rolexes 26 Why are you marking my posts as spam? 27 Greetings from Paul Koning 28 George Allen 29 Greg Bear 30 Hmm... 31 Discussion on Total Recall 32 External link(s) 33 AfD Jung Super Regulator 34 Nominated for Adminship 35 Your nomination for Admin 36 Dear Atlant, 37 admin process 38 RE: My RFA 39 RfA 40 Re: Lumens/Watt: An update 41 re:RFA 42 Your RfA 43 RE: My RfA 44 RfA 45 Power supply 46 A little guidance please 47 Great response 48 Song titles 49 Congratulations 50 Re: Guidance for a new admin, please 51 Konob24 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) 52 How'd you find it? 53 Adminship 54 Congratulations 55 Footnotes out of sync on user page 56 Genie/Dan Castelleneta 57 Walter Andrew Stephenson 58 172.207.14.102 has vandalized 2 user pages 59 Thanks 60 67.22.195.6 is vandalizing again 61 Barnstar 62 Hello, new 'pedian here, looking for guidance 63 Haystacks (Monet) 64 81.117.200.37 (talk • contribs) 65 George Allen 66 Fermilab DR-11W Network Driver 67 Question on DU article 68 Apologies on Behalf of IP Address 64.39.127.245 69 Earth 70 Rolex "linkspam" 71 User block 72 vaxlove

[edit] Some "talk" is archived

• Discussions from before August, 2005 can be found at User talk:Atlant/Archive_1
• Non-current stuff from before January, 2006 can be found at User talk:Atlant/Archive_2
• The various old ACLU-related "discussion" can be found at User talk:Atlant/Archive_3
• Non-current stuff from mid-January, 2006 through mid-May, 2006 can be found at User talk:Atlant/Archive_4
• Non-current stuff from mid-May, 2006 through August 10, 2006 can be found at User talk:Atlant/Archive_5

---

[edit] French

Bonjour Atlant! I've just come across your message (from late 2005 I think) saying that you are learning French. If you need any help or have any questions, please feel free to contact me. I am very familiar with the problems of anglophones and their lexicon in the apprehension of French, that is to say, I can probably tell you how/why something is said in a particular fashion. Hope to hear from you! I am glad to see that you are not taking the Bill O'Reilly approach of hating the French. If you ask me, I think he has an inferiority complex (he has no culture). --Aquarelle 13:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

My principal problem is that I'm still somewhat afraid to actually speak French, although last fall I spent some time with a private tutor who helped me a great deal with both pronunciation and grammar. The key for me will be when I finally believe that I have enough of a critical mass of the language to not fall flat on my face as a fool. I'm getting close; among other small victories, I'm registered and have actually made one or two sensible edits in the .fr Wikipedia.

I am glad to see that you are not taking the Bill O'Reilly approach of hating the French. If you ask me, I think he has an inferiority complex (he has no culture).

An unfortunately large number of Americans seem to be "ignorant and proud of it", willfully maintaining that ignorance of the fact that there's a whole world out there and things to experience besides what they see on their TV sitcoms each night. Sadly, right now, they seem to hold sway in this country, much to our (and the world's?) long-term detriment. Speaking for myself though, I've enjoyed all of my travels around the world including my three trips to France, and my wife and I would be very happy to go there again; she's been showing me a lot of Internet travel sites in a sort of "nudge-nudge" fashion and I hope to accommodate her soon. This time, she wants to stay down nearer the Seine; last time we stayed up on Montmartre. (One of the photos in the Montmartre article is mine as are all of the photos in the .en version of Canal Saint-Martin.) We'll probably get back to Montreal before that though; it's a little close to New Hampshire than is Paris.

Thank you for writing! I've noticed your name around Wiki, so I'll keep you in mind if I ever get brave enough. ;-)

Atlant 14:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Locking LocalTalk

Nice edit on LocalTalk. But are you sure the Apple ones were locking? All the Apple connectors I saw used a miniDIN. While they didn't exactly jump out of sockets, they didn't "lock" either. Maybe it would be better to say the PhoneNET ones offered more resistence? --Steven Fisher 01:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

But are you sure the Apple ones were locking?

Pretty sure. The Mini-DIN-3 connector wasn't exactly standard. IIRC, it had a little latching tab that was automatically depressed when you pulled back on the body of the connector. I still have Apple LocalTalk boxes and cables, Farallon PhoneNet boxes, and some Belkin PhoneNet knock-offs; if I can remember, I'll shoot some pictures and add them to the article.

Atlant 12:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Pretty sure is good enough for me! --Steven Fisher 21:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] frequency conversion - conversion

I understand your impatience, but I did leave a note that the frequency conversion article was a work in progress! Perhaps on the weekend if my wife does not preempt my schedule. cmacd 15:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Someone else complained about it on the talk page, though.

A suggestion:

You can always develop a new page by creating a "/whatever" sort of page off of the old page (for example, Frequency changer/new version), and then, when the new page is complete and ready to go live, you can quickly put all the new content into the old page. Some people create the new page off of the existing article page while others create the new page off of their own user page.

Atlant 16:03, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

• 1) I don't see any posts on the talk page besides mine and your..
• 1a) There was one macro requesting "help" - reverting to OLD content that is already been moved elsewhere is not "help" There are other things to fill in on the article as I was writing it.
• 2) I have already moved the information that was in that article to the articles I have mentioned as "for ---See"
• 3) Since I am also refactoring the other article- on pentagrids, some of the information that was previously there has now been moved to the version I wrote, which your actions have HIDDEN.
• 4) The articles on "Power conversion", roptary converter and motor generator need some serious work.

cmacd 02:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I mis-spoke. It was an audit trail comment and a person adding the template:cleanup template to the article.

Meanwhile, great, when you finish the new article, put it in place, But until then, an article about "Frequency changers" that discusses mains power frequency changers is better than a half-baked article that takes about mixers. In all honesty, I'm not sure the article should be changed at all, given that you're converting it from an article about a more-common usage of the term to a far less common usage of the term, but I am certain it shouldn't be left under construction for days or weeks at a time.

Atlant 17:37, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This isn't Consumer Reports

You nuked some stuff on the Electrical generator page. Deleting the empty section was probably good, it's what I should have done. However, information on selecting a generator is important encyclopedic information. If it doesn't belong in this article, then it belongs somewhere. It's information on how generators work, and how to fix it. That's encyclopedic. The section title might have been poorly chosen, but let's fix that instead of deleting the whole thing. 65.126.124.21 23:17, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Generally speaking, Wikipedia frowns on "how-to" stuff. But I was serious in my oblique suggestion that this stuff would be appropriate in an article about Emergency backup generators or some such, and I'll bet there is (or ought to be!) a Wiki article on that specific topic. And if there isn't already an article, then this is your chance to be bold and write one!

Atlant 00:45, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mattisse

He's now gone and nominated Philip H. Farber for deletion. I'll admit its a borderline article, but I think should be kept on principle and to prevent further nominations.

Off the topic, I see you used to work for DEC. First machine I used was a PDP-8 and I worked with PDP-11s, a DEC-10 and VAXen in my day :-) -999 (Talk) 21:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up; I generally think, given the fact that Wikipedia is nowhere near any ultimate limits on how many articles it can contain, that we can stand to keep borderline articles around. I also notice that some people seem to have definite ideas about certain classes of articles that they just must AfD or support the AfD'ing of.

With regard to DEC, be careful: that was a wonderful time in my life and I always enjoy reminiscing about it, sometimes at great length! ;-)

Atlant 22:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External links

Sadly even that is no consensus. Rich Farmbrough 06:47 22 August 2006 (GMT).

[edit] Talk:Assembly language

Thanks for the assistance, I couldn't keep up by myself. David Underdown 14:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

You're entirely welcome! They've now been blocked for 31 hours, so you can safely take a tea/coffee break! ;-)

Atlant 14:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removing unsuitable content from talk pages

This is a contentious practice. When removing unicivil words or personal attacks it is a good idea to provide a link to what was removed by placing the url to the dif in [] tags like this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AEarth&diff=71431960&oldid=71430629] which results in a button like this[1].

Also please be more careful are you also removed my valid comment when you did this. This sort of transparency is particularly important when dealing with an individual who feels maligned(rightfuly or not) and can help avoid accusations of censorship during a discussion. Thanks for keeping a cool head while someone yells at you about their religeous beliefs. HighInBC 19:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

There's some sort of bug in the Wikimedia software where it doesn't always flag edit conflicts on "talk" pages so person A's comments end up apparently replacing person B's comments. This isn't the first time this has happened to me, but if an apology will help, then: "I apologize; the removal of your comments was certainly not deliberate."

Atlant 19:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I should have suspected as much, the system has failed me in that respect once before aswell. No worries. HighInBC 20:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it's very intermittent though, which makes it hard to report as a bug; I only know of about three times that it has happened to me in probably several thousands of talk page edits. (In an ironic twist of fate, I just had an edit conflict on the Talk:Earth page reported to me; in this case, I abandoned my edit but when I looked at the talk page history, I was the most-recent editor in the page history anyway! I think there's more than one manifestation of this bug lurking.)

I should get off my butt and report it at Wikimedia, though, because even though it's very intermittent, it's a bug that always causes hard feelings when it does turn up.

Thanks for understanding!

Atlant 20:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks alot for using your position to beaurocrate Wikipaedia and silencing those with whom you disagree. I first thought it was a race related issue, since this comment of mine was removed just as I said I was South African on my user page. --Scotteh 19:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Please see above.

Atlant 19:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Historical electronics stubs

The editor that added the bit about the vibrator to the motor-generator page wrote a longer section on the vibrator page, but someone deleted it. It is a bit conversational, but it is an interesting bit of history. It might be OK on the Inverter (electrical) page but I think it is too much historical detail. There are a number of related stubs on historical electronic stuff. I can't see expanding them all to full articles but perhaps they would make sense put together. What do you think? --C J Cowie 00:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

You know, sometimes Wikipedia acts as a proof point that I've lead a sheltered life ;-). I didn't really understand your edits or your talk-posting to me, and then, about a half-hour later, I said "Oh-h-h-h-h! Is that what C J Cowie was talking about?!". And I just checked, and now I understand. I guess we've got some serious disambiguating to do in the area of vibrators, huh? Because we electronics guys along with the concrete guys seem to be getting stiffed in that article! Well, later today, I'll try to move some pages around so that we can create articles such as:

• Vibrator (power conversion)
• Vibrator (concrete compaction)
• A topic to be named later
• Any others?

Thanks for helping me understand the situation!

(Better suggestions on the sub-page titles are obviously welcome.)

Atlant 10:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that vibrators (power conversion) were used only in car radios and perhaps a few other limited situations where only DC power was available. Portable tube-type radios apparently used a variety of batteries: A battery (vacuum tubes), B battery (vacuum tubes), C battery (vacuum tubes). I can not find Wikipedia artcles covering portable tube-type radios or car radios. Since the vibrator was constructed like a tube and mounted in a tube socket perhaps their article should be Vibrator (vacuum tube). Another alternative might be to put the vibrator and A, B & C batteries in an article about portable tube-type radios or vacuum tube power supplies. --C J Cowie 16:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

See the All American Five article for some discussion about portable tube radios. Vibrators (power conversion) also turned up in car-mounted CB radios, but that's another type of radio, of course. I winder if they were also found in portable military radio gear? I'll take a look at my dad's old Navy electronics training manuals and see if they turn up there.

Atlant 16:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I have added Industrial vibrators (including cement) to the Vibrator article. I am editing the reverted section "Vibrators for early electronics" off line in preparation for restoring it to the Vibrator article as well. The material can be moved if disambiguation and sub-pages should be done. --C J Cowie 17:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I added three sections to the Vibrator article:

• Vibrators as component parts
• Industrial vibrators
• Vibrators for early electronics

I also noticed that User:Cmacd wrote a question on the talk page commenting that prior non-erotic vibrator content had been deleted. Two earlier versions containing non-erotic material are: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vibrator&oldid=71470815 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vibrator&oldid=64755807. --C J Cowie 22:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wang Center

Look at the history of the edits here. A series on non-grammatical entries keep appearing. In addition, while they reflect something that happended at the Wang Center, they are not a part of its operation on a regualr basis.

So do we list every single one of the outside organizations which rent the Center and put on shows there? I believe NOT.

I am posting this note on the TALK PAGE of the Talk:Wang Center for the Performing Arts in order to solicit other opinionsd as to whether this is kind of thing which should be a part of this article.

Please any comments there: it is the most relevant place for all to see.

Vivaverdi

See my reply on the talk page.

Atlant 23:39, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Obviously, you don't know a damned thing about grammar, proper punctuation, and how to show that the Jeopardy episodes are part of the larger whole by using quotes, italics, or whatever.

However, I've re-written that sentence to make grammatical sense. Whether it has any other value is problematical. Vivaverdi 00:35, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:CIV, WP:NPA, WP:AGF, etc.

Atlant 00:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vibration vs Oscillation

I have replied on my talk page to your post. I noted that you reverted Vibration. I will assume you are going to fix it soon? - grubber 16:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Done already! ;-)

Atlant 16:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Great job on the page. I was concerned that you had reverted to a "broken" version, rather than just creating the new page directly. But, you took care of it! Although, I am wondering if vibration can be aperiodic... would "aperiodic vibration" be more aptly called "shaking"? I'm not sure if something was vibrating aperiodically that I would ever say that it is vibrating. - grubber 16:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

As is standard practice on Wikipedia, please feel free be bold and edit my changes mercilessly! But I was trying, at least for the moment, to not go down the rather deep rathole of describing and distinguishing :

• Vibrations that are actually periodic but have a very complex frequency spectrum and so a time-domain signal that does not repeat often, versus

• Vibrations that are ruly chaotic in nature.

Both clearly can exist and we oughtto eventually extend the stub to describe these. But I thought I'd go set some of the Wikilinks back to Vibration first. ;-)

"Shaking" is clearly a close synonym for vibration; shaker tables exist to simulate just this sort of thing, usually replicating earthquakes. But I think we're getting into a region similar to that of the Eskimos, where they have many words to describe frozen precipitation that we might just call (collectively) "snow" ;-).

Atlant 16:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

You might be right on that. All-in-all tho, nice job on the page. I think it's a wonderful replacement and addition to WP. - grubber 16:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!

Atlant 16:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: RT-11

Hey, Atlant... yes, it is me...

long time no see...

Meganbg 16:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Megan! If you wish, you can E-mail me via Wiki and it will reach me at my current place of employment. Of course, a modest guess at firstname.lastname@company.com would also reach me! ;-) I hope all is well with you and your flock of computers!

Atlant 17:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lenticular

This page had a list of vendors that included both legitimare and not-so-legitimate companies. It was listed as being "outside vendors". Linking to some of the leading sources in the industry (there are only about five in the US) seems like a quality addition to the page. What can we do to maintain a quality list and not throw the baby out with the bathwater?

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.169.102.128 (talk • contribs) .

That's an excellent question and one for which I have never come to a completely satisfactory answer. The Wiki guidelines would probably have us include no commercal links, but this is clearly unsatisfactory for a wide variety of topics. On the other hand, we've seen on many topics (possibly including Lenticular) where there's been an explosion of clearly self-serving links, inserted by people who have a commercial interest in those links. It's not uncommon; an article often exists with a reasonable number of not-too-commercial links, and suddenly a bunch of new, blatantly commercial websites, or blogs, or MySpace links pop up on the theory that "everyone else is doing it so I can do it too".

I think there ought to be a balance, but I've never found one that pleases everyone or is stable over a long period without active "monitoring" and pruning effort. I was trying to ignore Lenticular, but we clearly passed over into "commercial link overload" recently. I'm open to suggestions!

Atlant 21:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe that some commercial links add usefulness as both a source for information and of course as a source for the actual product (which many if not most people doing a search for "lenticular" are looking for). I am with World3D. We are one of maybe five dedicated lenticular producers in the U.S. and we are consistently complimented for having a site that is informative and helpful. So informative in fact, that much of what has appeared on the Wiki lenticular page was "borrowed" from our site! Lenstar is apparently a site that is sponsored by those in the trade but does not sell product. I certainly have no objection to their inclusion. But some sites like www.3dprintblog.com are pure garbage spam. I am the editor of the lenticular and holographics category at DMOZ and have been for years. I am new to this community but it seems to me that the idea remains the same: provide useful information for the reader. Our site used to be #1 in Google on a search for lenticular and has consistently been on page 1. We employ no "tricks". We simply have a helpful informative site and that has been recognized by both algorithms and humans. I hope that you will agree and I hope that we can work together to include other sites that are helpful while excluding sites that are not.

---

9/22/06 Can't understand why you removed the links as they were helpful and finally manageable. You had indicated yourself that commercial links are not necessarily spam. Please let me know your thinking on this.

I removed them all (again) because once again, the external links section of that article became a magnet for blatantly commercial links. Whichever one was last added pushed me over the edge.

Atlant 00:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I understand. It sat nicely for a few weeks but eventually, it creeps back in. I hope you will consider not throwing out the baby with the bath water. I believe that the two links there now (one is to our company) are both valuable additions and others might be as well. Most are not. I will do my best to watch it but I hope you will not just dump the good ones when the bad ones pop up. Thanks.

[edit] WP:FAITH

Wikipedia guidelines dictate that you assume good faith in dealing with other editors. Please stop being uncivil to your fellow editors, and assume that they are here to improve Wikipedia. Thank you.--RWR8189 01:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Sure, sure. You keep right on issuing fake warnings while asserting that others should bend over and WP:AGF on your behalf.

Atlant 15:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for the heads up. However, not to worry—a bit of a warning here and there doesn't faze me!—Nat Krause^(Talk!) 03:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] IOP Spam

Thanks very much for helping to despam the various optics articles hit by 193.128.223.36 (feynman.ioppublishing.com). I've been fighting that guy for a while, but I didn't know how to go about warning or blocking them. Birge 18:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome!

Atlant 16:35, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Electrical safety

Hi Atlant. Can you take a lok at the Science ref desk. THere some guy there claiming to be getting 'small' electric shocks off his computer, but he thinks that its ok. I advised him to get things checked professionally.

Can you see if you agree with my concern about this apparently dangerous practice? Any maybe add you 2c worth there? Cheers!--Light current 13:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

(I'll write this before I go read the actual posting, then we'll see if I agree with myself. :-) )

The usual phenomenon with lots of big SMPSs is that there's a big RFI filter right at the mains power input; the filter blocks both RFI coming into the supply from the line and power supply hash going back out onto the power line. This filter usually takes the form of an LC "pi" filter on both the neutral and hot lines, usually with pretty substantial capacitors to the safety ground which, of course, is then connected to the chassis of the SMPS and whatever the SMPS itself is then bolted to. If the safety ground lead isn't so hot or is outright disconnected, you find that the capacitors make a voltage divider that puts the chassis at about 50% of the line voltage, and most people can definitely feel that ;-).

At Digital Equipment Corporation, we used to put warning labels on the power cords of our equipment warning folks that the safety ground had to be connected or unsafe amounts of AC leakage current would occur.

Now I'll go read the posting and see if I called it right.

Atlant 23:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

THanks for replying to that on the ref desk. I am worried about the electrocution risk to this person from his computer.--Light current 00:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh BTW , it looks like you may have been right in your prediction! well done!--Light current 00:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome; thanks for the "heads-up"! Perhaps if enough people tell them it's a risk, they'll find an earth somewhere? I'm kind of hoping the ESD argument resonantes with them; maybe they'll value their collection of MP3s higher than they value their own personal safety?

Atlant 00:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry, whether or not it's mentioned there, it's a true fact.

(Sorry, whether or not it's mentioned there, it's a true fact. EL backlight inverter transformers are frequently audible.)

How is this sentence relevant to the section about frequencies of operation? I've heard lots of power transformers humming loudly at audio frequencies and I didn't add that to this section. I don't think it would fit. Another section describing how they make noise might be interesting. I wasn't questioning that the backlight hums. I found it surprising that there is a magnetic core in a wristwatch and the backlight article doesn't mention it so it looked like some wikifiction. I still can't find anything good on google to back this up. Don't wristwatches use some sort of piezoelectric solid state device?-Crunchy Numbers 03:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

ps, I resisted the urge to make fun of true facts.

ps, I resisted the urge to make fun of true facts.

Look, I gave you a perfectly good straight line; what you choose to do with it is your business. ;-)

Seriously, EL backlight circuits commonly use either transformers or inductors. Here's an article from EE Times Asia describing the sort of inductors that are typically used:

• http://www.eetasia.com/ART_8800426682_499491_8d2a856f200607.HTM

The transformers are similar. Transformers are typically driven using a two-transistor free-running oscillator while the inductors often use a dedicated EL or LED driver IC.

But I'll go back and read the statement in context in the transformer article and see if I still think it belongs there.

Atlant 12:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rotary transformers & VCR tape heads

Heh; small matter, hardly worth mentioning, but are you sure about your picture? I see one tape head on the left: a set of windings and a gap. There should be 6 of these assemblies spaced around the drum. Since you took the pictures, maybe you can double-check. No big deal, but it does look like only one type head. +ILike2BeAnonymous 00:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Two heads on the left, one head on the right

I'm 100% certain of the picture. While you can't see all the details, if you were holding the head drum in your hand you could circuit trace the various transformer windings to the various head windings, and this would unambiguously make the case. But even in the provided picture, if you look at the high-resolution version of it, you will see that the left "head" is actually two separate heads. Look at the brass-looking bits; see how one faces left and one faces right? In particular, compare them to the single head farther to the right; see how it consists of just one brass bit? My assumption is that the two heads on the left are the normal-mode video head and its associated Hi-Fi sound recording head (which records a much longer-wavelength signal deeper into the videotape, but on essentially exactly the same track as the video track); the head on the right is the "special effects" head for good quality playback in scan mode (when the tracking is different). The other side of the drum has, of course, a symmetrical set of three more heads.

If I had a microscope camera, I'd take a better picture for you ;-). Maybe if I have a chance tomorrow, I'll see what the old Nikon is capable of shooting when pointed at just those two heads on the left.

But there's absolutely no doubt that that picture is a picture of three flying heads.

Atlant 01:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Photoshop

Has your user page image been photoshopped in any way? --NEMT 05:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I can't say for certain (as it was my wife who produced the image) but I'm sure that if she did anything, it didn't extend beyond "auto levels" and red eye removal. Why do you ask? Do you suspect that I'm actually Katie Couric in disguise ;-)? By the way, you can see another image of me here [2].

Atlant 11:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wire nut

What would you consider a suitable citation for pre-twisting being unneccessary before installing wire-nuts? In that case, shouldn't there also be a suitable citation for the mention on Scotchlok connectors? I considered adding a citation link to one of the product pages, but that would have been an arbitrary choice of which product, and in any case the link to the product line already exists at the start of the article.

Pre-twisting has not been required for many years now, and virtually all of the products on the Ideal Industries page cited in the article (a link I added) explicitly state that they do not need pre-twisting. The products which do not make an explicit statement are for automated installation (OEM, etc), and they certainly do not need pre-twisting. Alan 15:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

A reference to an Ideal Industries page would obviously be fine; they'd know! ;-)

Atlant 15:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I just spoke to a (US) licensed electrician about this. While he agrees that twisting the wires is not required by code (all that's required is a "mechanically sound connection", and a "listed pressure connector" used by itself meets that criterion), he states that he and his associates still twist the wires and cites the following reasons:

• It makes for a more-workmanlike job.
• When there are several conductors (more than two), it makes it much easier to fit the wire nut.
• When you remove the wire nut, twisted conductors assure that the connection doesn't spring apart. While we all assume the circuit is dead, it's just as well that it not disconnect itself when you remove the wire nut.

But edit the article as you see fit.

Atlant 15:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Good points from your electrician; as an un-licensed ("amateur"?) electrician, I agree and think they should be incorporated into the article. Do I have (or need?) your permission to use your words? I'll also take a picture of one to add to the article. Alan 16:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I think permission is implicit on Wikipedia, but thanks for asking! Yes, of course you have my permission to use (and/or mercilessly edit) my words.

Atlant 17:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spam by Microsp

Hey there, I was about to delete the spam this user created, but you got the first one I went to fix. Are you getting them all? Thanks. JungleCat talk/contrib 02:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind, others are all over it. Gotta love the Spam. Cheers! JungleCat talk/contrib 03:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I was probably sleeping. (Literally.) ;-)

Atlant 12:40, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ow

[3] I was just copyediting, I'm sorry for not being that great... 192.138.214.102 16:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure you'll do better next time. ;-)

The change that probably triggered my "revert" response was "opportunistic infections". That compound term is very widely used and so I felt it should be allowed to stand as it was. I also thought "between an infected person and others" was important. Even though this is technically redundant, it heads off those folks who feel that AIDS arises spontaneously as a punishment for bad behavior.

Finally, the question of American English versus Commonwealth English spellings is touchy; generally, one shouldn't change that so don't make "favours" into "favors" or vice-versa.

Atlant 16:41, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fake Rolexes

fake rolex not only made in China, most good quailty fake rolex are made in japan, please seach "japan made rolex" in google, you can see many. And South Koera, Vietnam, thailand etc. many countries in Asia also made Fake Rolex. I don't have source?(how to find source with illegal product?) only wrote China, Hong Kong Taiwan Macau is bias.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.86.164.72 (talk • contribs) .

That's fine, but it should be possible to find a Wiki-suitable citation as to where the fakes are made.

Atlant 12:48, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why are you marking my posts as spam?

After adding some weblinks to wikipedia pages I notice that you have removed it marking as spam.

I do not understand why you are marking my links as spam because I've only added external links to useful resources from a non-commercial Website. Technick.net is a free NON-COMMERCIAL site since 1998 with the same spirit of Wikipedia. Since Internet early days, I've personally spent thousand of hours to collect useful information and write guides without getting a penny.

Consider also that the most pinouts listed on Wikipedia are probably derived from Technick.net that was the first collection of pinouts on BSS networks on early 90' and then in Internet.

Also I'm a bit surprised because I notice that you haven't removed links to Websites like "pinouts.ru" that have taken a lot of content from historical sites like www.technick.net just to make revenues from advertising.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nicolaasuni (talk • contribs) .

Well, I don't remember your links in particular, but strictly speaking, whether you're non-commercial or not has no bearing on whether or not your links are linkspam. If you're posting links that promote your own site, you're spamming Wikipedia. And if I remember correctly, I'm not the only one removing your links.

By the way, the fact that other links may also be spam doesn't excuse yours.

Atlant 19:01, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Please chek the following:

1. I've added only useful links to resources that wasn't available on wikipedia pages.

2. I think that www.technick.net must be cited as a reference on most of the wikipedia pinouts page because we have published it first. In fact our project is started in 1991, online on BBS in 1994 and on Internet in 1998. Most of the pinouts pages around the Web are started just as clones of the Technick.net content. A citation on an external links section is the minimum tribute for the efforts of this site.

5. Technick.net is a reliable source:

5.1. We have several written permissions from some hardware manufacturers to publish their pinouts and infos. I don't think that wikipedia or other sites have the same permissions.

5.2. Technick.net has been selected as a useful and trusted site by the National Science Teachers Association (http://www.scilinks.org/) and dozens of other associations.

5.3. Technick.net has received dozens of awards for it's quality and content.

5.4. Technick.net has written important pages of the Internet history and has been also positively reviewed by dozens of specialized magazines around the world.

6. Technick.net is not a commercial site.

7. Seems that you are making discrimination between links, you are not using only one measure.

But these are your links you're promoting. As I understand the Wiki policy, that is not allowed. You are spamming Wiki with your links. Shall we ask an administrator for advice?

Atlant 23:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

When you say your you are not considering that Technick.net is not a personal or commercial website but a free information website exactly as wikipedia is.

I don't think that my links are violating any wikipedia rule, in fact, as stated on WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided you may distinguish the following cases:

1. "if the subject of an article has an official website, then it should be linked to even if it contains factually inaccurate material": this is the case for the pages that list pinouts that were first written on Technick.net.

2. "A website that you own or maintain, [...] Wikipedia editors decide whether to add the link" this is the case for the links that do not fall on first point (just few links). Let me say that I have added only links to a pages that contains resources not available on wikipedia pages so, I think that an editor may decide in favor of this kind of links. Also, this rule about the ownership of a Website could be easily avoided using another account/person to make the same thing.

You have removed some links and maintained others that published a content that was clearly derived from technick.net. In this way you penalizing trusted sites like Technik.net in favour of sites that were builded freely getting our work just to make some revenues from advertising. Did you have any economical interests in this sites?

Please stop saying that I'm "spamming". I respect your opinion but you are defaming me, please be careful with your statements.

Please don't use "legal" words like "defaming"; they are also against policy: WP:LEGAL. Meanwhile, because we're not understanding each other, I'll post a pointer to this discussion over on the Administrators' Noticeboard; we'll let them help us decide.

See:

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Nicolaasuni

Atlant 13:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Greetings from Paul Koning

Hi Atlant. Thanks for the note, and in particular thanks for the pointers to Wikipedia guidelines and related material. I'm just a novice here, but I hope to contribute some over time. Translating material of interest to me into Dutch is part of what I have in mind.

Paul Koning 18:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] George Allen

No problem. I assumed it was a bug, especially since I was agreeing with you. Given that Allen seems to attact somewhat controversial comments, however, I asked to be sure. · j e r s y k o talk · 16:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Greg Bear

I've been corresponding with Greg's wife Astrid in another online forum for years, so I have an inside link there. I know that Greg is a really thoughtful and considerate person who wouldn't do anything to slant his article, but I've seen people get tripped up time and again when they edit their own articles and get frustrated because they don't know enough about Wikipedia to do it without offending some of the oldtime editors. It can turn into a really bad experience, when really all the person is trying to do is correct an error or add something they feel is important.

Anyway, I don't think I'm betraying a confidence by quoting some of Astrid's reply to me:

Boy, did that spark some interesting discussions in our household!

Yes, Greg did add some material to his article, with the goal of, well, adding more information. He didn’t take out anything, even if it was more opinion-based than fact based. In an interesting generational divide, the dear children were appalled, appalled, that Dad had touched his own Wikipedia article, even with benign intent and action. It seemed like an okay idea to me, thus clearly relegating me to the camp of “older than dirt”! Issues of who knows more about someone, themselves or other people; how groups of activists can control dissemination of information about their pet topics on Wikipedia; what the nature of history and fact is; who are all these people and why do they have so much time on their hands, were only some of things we tossed around.

Anyway, thanks for the heads up. Perhaps Wikipedia is becoming almost God-like in its character – no sparrow falling unnoticed, so to speak. A distributed God. Hmm . . .

Astrid's a darling - the daughter of the late, great Poul Anderson, and I'm a bit of a fan of Greg Bear's books, too. --Jumbo 22:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I was deliberately mild in my AN/I posting because I honestly don't have any firm opinion about folks editing their own bios; I'd imagine some could do it accurately and others would fall fatally to the temptation to "adjust reality". Me? I doubt I'll ever have to face that moral challenge — drat! In any case, I'm glad Greg is here; I'm sure he'll be an asset to Wikipedia.

Atlant 23:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hmm...

Not sure about your revert at Metropolis (film) (here). I agree that it looked suspicious, particularly with the lowercase "g" and the anon editor, but the US version is dealt with in the paragraph just after that one, and seems to be at odds with this one. I've never seen the German version, so I don't know which is right, but the Machine Man in the US version can't be both sentient and an automaton. This needs a bit more looking into. Your thoughts? Kafziel 14:11, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't sure about it either. (And I'm not sure the lower-case "g" is a useful clue; it seems common in many European languages to downcase stuff that most English speakers would upcase and I can't remember the current rules for German right now.) What triggered me, though, was the discussion above our suspicious sentence that stated that the American version of the character was an automaton. This seemed to match well with the earlier version of the dubious sentence.

But if you feel I'm wrong, please revert me.

The best way to truly resolve this would probably be to post the old and new text along with a question on the article's "talk" page.

Atlant 14:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

The question is posted. See talk:Metropolis (film)#Clarification, please!.

Atlant 14:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. Sorry for the slow reply; I've been all over Google looking for a source that could help shed some light on this but couldn't come up with anything. Then I got sidetracked, reading people's college essays and whatnot. :) Kafziel ^Talk 14:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion on Total Recall

You have ceased to discuss things on the article's talk page. Are you ok with the trimming of the article? --Improv 20:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

No, I object entirely. But I had no intention of rsiking a WP:3RR violation over this.

Atlant 20:54, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

• Let's keep talking about it then. First, 3RR is about once a day, and second, use of discussions based on policy is how wikipedia works. If you'd be ok with swinging back by the talk page.. --Improv 03:51, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Busy building a kitchen today -- see you on the talk page soon...

Atlant

[edit] External link(s)

This has come up for discussion here. Rich Farmbrough, 13:59 5 October 2006 (GMT).

Thanks!

Atlant 14:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

P.S. HP Basic, I rmemeber that! Rich Farmbrough, 14:08 5 October 2006 (GMT).

"What does it mean, this "discontiguous" string that it claims I have created?" ;-)

And thanks again for the heads-up on the "External link(s)" vote!

Atlant 14:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AfD Jung Super Regulator

When you're creating an AfD page, make sure you click the link called "pre-loaded debate" on the template, or else it messes up the AfD listing. "Have a good day now", as your compatriots say (or so I'm told)... yandman 14:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your help! As you might guess, this is the first time I've ever nominated an article for deletion. Generally, I'm an inclusionist, but this article is clearly spam for the company that makes that thing. If I'd seen it two days earlier, I'd just have speedy'd it.

Atlant 14:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nominated for Adminship

—Malber (talk • contribs) 18:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! I've accepted your offer at the subpage. Now we'll see if I'm the recipient of the WikiLove or the WikiRevenge. ;-)

Atlant 00:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. You may want to carefully consider your answer to question one. This is where you demonstrate your need for the admin tools. I mentioned WikiGnomism in my failed RfA and it was used as a reason why I didn't need the tools. I see that you've been a vandal fighter. You may want to mention that. Just some advice. —Malber (talk • contribs) 11:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Once you're satisfied with your RfA page, you'll need to post it at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship. Edit this page and add:

{{Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Atlant}} ~~~~

—Malber (talk • contribs) 12:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you -- "done" and "done".

Atlant 12:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your nomination for Admin

• Some are born great
• Some achieve greatness and
• Some have greatness thrust upon them

Im pleased to note that you are in the second category (having quietly and patiently worked for it) and you can expect my support. 8-)--Light current 00:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

What a straight line! But just this once, I'll resist the opportunity and just humbly say "Thank you!".

Atlant 00:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dear Atlant,

Hello,

The info you have added to the grapefruit article is good but it is too long. Talking about more drug interactions may be a bit too much. Drug interactions is overpowering the entire article. Please do your best to shorten your worthy contributions. Thank you so much. --GrapefruitFarmer 00:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't see the earlier text. I've vastly trimmed my contribution ;-) .

Atlant 01:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

"Thank You." In just a short period of time I completed the grapefruit article. With your help, Mission Accomplished! GrapefruitFarmer 02:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

AS long as youre grapeful thats all! 8-)--Light current 06:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Nyuk nyuk nyuk!

Atlant 09:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] admin process

Boy, has it gotten formal! A questionnaire and everything. I went through less to get hired at the Telegraph. - DavidWBrooks 01:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

 :-). As with any organization, I'm afraid.

Atlant 09:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Seems too willing to depend on IAR and SNOW - what the heck does that mean? (I often skip edit summaries, because the Rollback button doesn't allow them - I definitely wouldn't get admin-ification today). - DavidWBrooks 13:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

'Seems to me that if WP:IAR is an official policy (which it is), then as an administrator, I should damn sure depend on it. Colo[u]r me confused, I guess ;-).

Atlant 13:18, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I put the question in there, but it's part of my standards and I should be consistent in my own noms. I think you answered it well—I'm looking for if the nominee understands the spirit of IAR. It's not a bad policy, but I see far too many admins quote it when the action taken doesn't clearly help the project and the admin shows a lack of understanding of true policy. I think badlydrawnjeff has misunderstood you. I think the edit counts issue is silly; it's only become a standard for some in the past few months. I find it cumbersome to have to justify every spelling correction and comma splice fix. —Malber (talk • contribs) 14:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

No worries! Like Popeye the Sailor Man, "I Yam what I Yam", and folks will either accept that or not. I'm not here anonymously (anyone who wanted to could be on the phone to me within 1 minute of Google time) and I edit on Wikipedia with exactly the same ethical standards, consideration of my fellow editors, and general approach that I apply in the rest of my life.

So whatever happens happens. ;-)

Atlant 14:31, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RE: My RFA

Pleasure. Good luck for your RFA. --Terence Ong _{(T | C)} 13:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfA

I wouldn't bother answering any more about the IAR issue. It's a waste of time because, despite what they claim, you'll never convince the dissenters to change their minds. It doesn't hurt your case to just let the other guy get the last word. Everyone who looks at the issue will see that you've answered the question. Everyone who just jumps on the opposition bandwagon won't see that, but there's nothing you can do to stop them anyway. Kafziel ^Talk 19:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm rapidly coming to your point of view -- thank you for that counsel! This is clearly a personal hot button for some folks.

Atlant 19:18, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I'm always open to discussion of the question, and it would really help clarify matters for both of us if you'd clarify your thoughts. Best wishes, Xoloz 23:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

My point was not that you're not open to discussion (I suppose there's always that .1% of RfA voters who actually change their vote to anything but neutral), but that even after all the discussion thus far you are at square one. Arguing on an RfA never helps anyone. Since he stopped answering he's gotten four support votes and no more oppose votes. Absolutely everything constructive has already been said, and nobody else seems to have any questions about it. If it wasn't enough, there's not much more that can be done in any kind of positive and constructive way. Kafziel ^Talk 01:03, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I think you're looking at this as a wee bit of a campaign... what is to be gained is a better understanding of each other. I'd really appreciate it if Atlant would share his frank view of IAR -- outside of the RfA -- just so we could each get perspective on the other's point of view. I think your view of RfA is a bit odd, too -- I've changed "votes" at least a dozen times this year. Best wishes, Xoloz 02:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

(Just happening by) I'm inclined to agree with Kafziel and with Xoloz: you would likely do well not to engage at RfA in extended colloquies over "votes" but would surely do well to continue discussions with RfA participants outside of the RfA, perhaps at the RfA's talk page. FWIW, like Xoloz I often change my "vote" during the pendency of an RfA (or refrain from participating in the discussion until issues about which I am concerned are fully fleshed out); even if such change is facially to neutral, the concomitant comments often change substantively, which changes might well, one would hope, provide the prospective admin with more feedback from the community and provide those who partake subsequently in a given RfA something more about which to think. Notwithstanding that the value of ignoring all rules here is qualitatively different from that of ignoring all rules in government and law courts, a fellow ACLU member might remind you that IAR is essentially the spirit that underlies nearly every alibertarian decision taken by the present administration... :) Joe 04:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, if I were to view this solely as a campaign, then what I ought to do is find those positions that will garner the most votes and stick to them, recognizing that taking any actual stances will also drive away some votes. Presumably, the stated positions might not even correspond to what I actually believe, but might instead be the results of consultations with advisors, focus groups, or polls.

But I'm not going to do that. This isn't a campaign, it's more like a job interview. I have the skills and a demonstrated willingness to work that I think would be assets to the encyclopedia. So I'll simply set out those views that I actually hold. And, at the moment, the position I've taken vis-a-vis WP:IAR is not only a pretty accurate, complete-yet-still-concise representation of how I feel about IAR, but it also seems to be garnering votes.

I'm sorry for those votes that I won't get; perhaps as a result of this interviewing process I won't be "hired". But as I said, I think I've laid out my views (on the topics that I've been asked about) accurately, clearly, and concisely. If my views are not a sufficient match for the other participants in the project, then in the long run, we'll both end up happier if I'm not hired. So I'll gladly answer new questions that are posed to me, but I don't see any reason to continue arguing the IAR issue; I think those things worth saying have mostly all been said already.

Atlant 12:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Lumens/Watt: An update

Olkiedolk, thanks for the update. Izogi 03:10, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] re:RFA

No prob! Hopefully in a few months you can return the favor! :-) People Powered 13:41, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your RfA

Heh, no problem. I really believe you will make a great admin. I know that the RfA week is living hell, as people basically make positive and negative comments about you. Remember to always keep your cool, and don't let things bother you. That was the one mistake I made in my RfA, which led to a lot of sudden opposition towards the end of it. (Regardless, I finished 60/9/4) Nishkid64 01:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RE: My RfA

Sure thing! You obviously have extensive experience; you've been involved with computers longer than I've been alive, it seems :). I'm sure you'll be a great administrator and thanks for taking the time out to drop me a line! Cheers hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 13:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I second this comment! Best of luck!  :) --Merovingian ※ Talk 18:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! But why do I suddenly feel o l d . . . ? ( :-) )

Atlant 18:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfA

No problem, if anyone should be an admin here it's you, I was quite amazed that you weren't one already. In fact, it was your user page showing up on a Google search that got me interested in Wikipedia in the first place. Good luck! Archer7 09:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you!

Atlant 11:47, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Power supply

My contribution to the above article:

"The most elaborate forms are usen in schools and laboratories or by developers of electronic circuits. Their outputs are regulated, adjustable and deliver up to 5 amperes at 30 volts." could well be improved especially the spelling or perhaps it should be relocated. But I am prepared to offer as many references as you would like to support the statement. My experiences with power supplies including design, manufacture and repair are limited to about 50 years. The reason for deleting this part of my contribution "Revert a comment that probably arises from limited experience." doesn't realy apply. Cakeandicecream 10:10, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

In all honesty, I misread your statement and so missed the part about developers of electronic circuits, focusing mainly on schools (which I've never found to be all that well equipped). I'm sorry I did that but I'd definitely focus on development labs rather than schools; the high-end Agilent supplies and other similar supplies from other vendors are certainly pretty sophisticated supplies. On the other hand, "most sophisticated" is likely to be a PoV statement: the sophistication of any power supply depends on which parameters we're focusing on.

Again, I'm sorry I missed the point of your edit!

Atlant 15:14, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. As an administrator I can well imagine that you're under considerable pressure getting errors out of contributions. I've inadvertantly caused enough myself. Many courses in electronics that I have attended are so-called "Hands On" courses meaning that the students actually experiment with circuits they had just learned in theory. For such circuits we used power supplies with an adjustable voltage output and an adjustable current limiters. I had assumed that this is general practice. Of course, schools with better resources can afford better equipment, One supplier of such power supplies claimed that the ones he offered had been built in Russia and were left over from deliveries to french schools. (The circuits were quite strange, used exotic components and had no protection against false connections.) Should you still have doubts I would be quite happy to send you corresponding documents (in French and Russian) by email. That supplier is long since bankrupt, the manufacturer most probably also. I've discarded his catalog. Cakeandicecream 11:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not an administrator yet, although I hope to be by day's end Tuesday!

I understand your point. The sorts of supplies that are common in teaching environments are certainly adjustable voltage, and thankfully almost always have adjustable current-limiters (see smoke test and magic smoke :-) ). But when I think of a truly sophisticated supply, I think of one that has digital control, digital, accurate instrumentation, GPIB programming, and the ability to slew quickly from voltage to voltage. Perhaps it's even a "four-quadrant" device, able to both sink and source both positive and negative current. It's probably also quite high-powered yet still reasonably compact.

But there's nothing that makes my opinion here "special", so please be bold and re-edit the power supply article as you see fit. There are enough people who edit that article that I'm sure we'll come to an accurate description that's acceptable to everyone.

Atlant 11:44, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A little guidance please

Hello, I am a new Wikipedian and am asking for your guidance. Recently you place a 'clean up' tag on Race to the Right and I would like a little direction in what you were looking for. Thanks...and, a reply on my talk page or on the talk page in question would be highly appreciated. tony garcia 22:40, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Sure. Wiki articles have a certain "style" to them; that's what I meant by "Wikification" (in the audit trail comment). For example, the keyword(s) that appear in the very beginning of the article ought to be bolded (so Race to the RIght). (Because those words are bolded further along, it looks like maybe that first paragraph in the article was added later but no one adjusted the "markup".) Also, there are lots of words around the article that can be Wikilinked to other articles. For example, talk show.

The article also needs some general editing. For example, karoke appears to be a misspelling of karaoke.

The cleanup tag wasn't meant to imply that there's anything radically wrong with the article; it just needs, well, "cleanup". And there's no better practice for you to become an experienced Wikipedian -- welcome, and best wishes!

Atlant 22:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Great response

Love the "but no longer" response made me laugh hysterically.--aceslead 21:03, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I try to restrain myself when reverting most vandalism, but sometimes, when it's mostly harmless, I let go. ;-)

Atlant 22:13, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Song titles

According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (text formatting), song titles should be in double quote marks, not italics. I've reverted the recent changes you've done, if you don't mind. — Tivedshambo (talk) 21:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay -- I've neve been certain about this; thanks for the citation!

Atlant 22:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Congratulations

You're now an admin, so have fun using the new tools to help make the project better. Do the best you can to take into account the spirit of the comments in your RfA to the extent that they can help you be a better editor and a greater asset to the project. As you get the hang of the new tools use them to help clear out the backlogs, but still use them conservatively, especially the punitive ones like blocking, and especially at first. Polite warnings and de-escalating the situation can go a long way instead of antagonizing. Also, re-read the policies as necessary before acting. Other than that have fun, and again, congrats. - Taxman ^Talk 12:21, October 18, 2006

Thanks! I'll certainly try to do my best, but rest assured, I'll start slowly and carefully!

Atlant 12:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations! It's good to see that the IAR issue didn't drag you down. Good luck, and I hope to see you around! Kafziel ^Talk 12:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations! I was confident you would succeed when I nominated you. —Malber (talk • contribs) 12:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)`

Congrats! Syrthiss 13:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure the new powers will not go to your head. 8-)--Light current 13:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations! You survived the RfA and now you're admin! Have fun with your new tools. If you have any questions regarding admin-related tasks, feel free to contact me. =) Nishkid64 01:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

(I'm finally getting around to replying to my talk page) No worries - glad to see it passed ;). No painting the house involved, just hanging around doing as little as possible. :D james^(talk) 11:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Guidance for a new admin, please

That's how I've seen it done, more often than not; it makes sense to me because, in the vast majority of cases, these editors will not be back—at least, not with that user name (grin). There has been the rare occasion in which an editor will make a compelling case for a block reduction; in that event, I simply revert the talk page. Hope this helps. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 20:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

That's great -- thanks!

Atlant 22:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Konob24 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log)

With apologies, I've undone your vandalism block of this user to reblock indef as yet another incarnation of Konob (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log). Feel free to write me with any comments or questions. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 14:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

No apologies needed! That (the list of the long-term serial offenders) is just one of the many ropes that I've clearly got to learn as I step into these responsibilities -- thanks for your help as I learn!

Atlant 14:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! If I can be of any help along the way (I've learned a couple of things in a few months [grin]), let me know. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 14:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How'd you find it?

RadioKirk said User talk:205.213.113.47 stopped after last, which he didn't, but since he removed it shortly thereafter, I'm curious how you found it in order to block it 16 minutes later. Gotyear 17:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I happened to have RadioKirk's userpage on my watchlist (from occasional conversations) and I had the vandal's userpage on my watchlist from having issued the first warning to the vandal. So I put 2+2 together and arrived at "time for a brief block".

Atlant 17:50, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, happenstance. I like that. Gotyear 18:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adminship

Glad all seems to be going well! Hope it continues :) ^{Well Drawn} Charlie 18:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!

Atlant 18:53, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Congratulations

Hang it, how did I miss your rfa?!--MrFish^{Go Fish} 19:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

You were just lucky, I guess ;-). You can still see the aftermath here if you're really into gore.

Atlant 19:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Footnotes out of sync on user page

I happened to notice that the footnotes on your user page are out of sync (reference 3 points to note 4). Feel free to delete this after reading. --Boson 17:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I know :-(. But the day I was trying to make it right, it just didn't seem willing to cooperate, so I figured I'd put it aside and worry about it another day. Thanks for reminding me; I'll try again later this evening.

Atlant 17:48, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Genie/Dan Castelleneta

Just so you don't think you're going insane, the reason "people" keep changing the voice of Genie is because "they" are actually sockpuppts of Woodylogan. He basically runs around and edits family movie-related articles, inserting misinformation and then editing any related articles to conceal the vandalism. Any changes by IPs caught doing this should be reverted immediately. --Wafulz 22:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I just wondered if there was some Dan C. website out there that had all these folks fired up. Clearly, they're wrong because a) there's no legitimate website out there from Disney to IMDB that suggests the Genie was anyone other than Robin Williams, and b) I know the movie and I can recognize Robin Williams, and there's no doubt in the world that the Genie is Williams.

I'll just keep reverting and (probably) issuing blocks as the evidence accumulates.

Thanks again!

Atlant 22:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

They're blocked now.

Atlant 23:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Walter Andrew Stephenson

Please see [4] BenBurch 00:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!

Atlant 13:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 172.207.14.102 has vandalized 2 user pages

Hello there, I recently saw your final warning on User talk:172.207.14.102. Well he's been persistent enough to both vandalize my user page as well as a user's called Dina. Thank you for your time. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Persian Poet Gal (talk • contribs) .

They won't be bothering you again for at least a while ;-).

Atlant 19:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Greatly appreciated, I just revert it like no tomorrow but I want to keep you people informed :P.¤~Persian Poet Gal 20:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

for the reverting of vandalism on my user page. it was some kids at school, i showed them wikis for a research project and they ruins stuff. 65.147.175.35 01:34, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome, but you seem to have become logged-out.

Atlant 01:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 67.22.195.6 is vandalizing again

You warned him two days ago and today he vandalized again here. Maybe you can stop him. Thanks, --Splette :) ^Talk 14:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I actually had the Cillium diffs open in another tab, so your message is very timely. Unfortunately, for anonymous posters (editing from an IP address rather than a username), Wiki policy tends to want a "last warning" within the last 24 hours, so I've warned the editor again. But I'll keep an eye on them for the next little while.

Atlant 14:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I understand. thanks, --Splette :) ^Talk 14:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		For your hardwork and dedication to making Wikipedia a better place. I, Sharkface217, award you this Original Barnstar. Good job! :-)Sharkface217 04:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much -- I'm honored!

Atlant 15:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hello, new 'pedian here, looking for guidance

Hello Atlant,

I was working on the Democratic_underground where you reverted some changes I made yesterday.

Here is the appearance of the page as my last edit:

[5]

I edited the "Forums" section and the "Online Community" section. Mostly, what I did to other peoples work was some reorganization. I tried to not delete anything that other people had written. I added a section on terms, and I expanded the section on the forum reorganzation.

I'm posting here to ask what I did wrong. Did you have a problem with the point of view of what I wrote, or did you consider it to be original research? Would you be so kind as to explain how I have offended?

Thank you, Gregarious Lonewolf 18:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

It's entirely possible I was mistaken, but what "pushed my button" was your edit summary: "This edit needs more cowbell."; that sort of set me up to consider your string of edits as "flippant". The article about DU is extremely contentious, often vandalized, and subject to many, many WP:POV pushers. I think I looked at the last edit of yours, (erroneously) decided it was a bogus edit, and pushed the "Rollback" button (which undid all of the edits back to the edit by whomever editted the article last before you). I should have looked at the diff which would have summarized all of your edits at once.

However, I would probably still have objected to, for example, your soft pedaling of the details about the I/P forum and the Gungeon. The fact that these topics need to be "isolated" away from public view is an important fact about the culture at DU and I think that needs to stay in the article.

Regardless, my opinion is just one among a million or so Wikipedians, so don't take me too seriously; I certainly didn't feel strongly enough about your edits to consider them vandalism so feel free to re-apply them. I won't intervene in this particular edit again.

Thanks for writing!

Atlant 18:51, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Atlant, thanks for the reply. You are right that my last comment was flippant. One lesson I might take from this is not to make pithy statements in the Edit Summary. :)

I'll take your advice about soft-pedalling the Gun Dungeon and the Israeli/Palestinian conflict forums. I didn't mean to tuck those forums in a closet, and looking at what I wrote after a night's sleep I can see your point. When I start putting my edits back in, I'll keep that in mind.

Cheers! Gregarious Lonewolf 21:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Haystacks (Monet)

I am just starting a new page. You seem to be knowledgeable on art of the late 19th century based on your contributions to the Monet page. You are welcome to make any revisions on my Haystacks (Monet) page. I have a long way to go. I was wondering if there is a category for Series Paintings. This is my second Series (Campbell's Soup Cans). I am also wondering if the term series is a serious enough art term to deserve mention on the Series dab page. I am an art hack who has never studied formally. I have never painted. I attend about 3-5 exhibits a year though. P.S. Please reply to my discussion page because I am asking several people for their opinions TonyTheTiger 18:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be knowledgeable on art of the late 19th century based on your contributions to the Monet page.

Oh man, I wish! My big claim to fame is that I can probably tell a Monet from a Manet! I'll certainly look at the page, but please don't be surprised if I have nothing to add to your work.

Atlant 18:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 81.117.200.37 (talk • contribs)

81.117.200.37 is multiply evading your block (after turning off his modem, I assume) through socks including Z Lopez (talk • contribs) (blocked indef), and T Gholson (talk • contribs), as of yet unlocked. FYI. JBKramer 16:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I would highly suggest you run a CheckUser on 81.117.200.37 (not me), Z Lopez (not me), and me (T Gholson) and it will show that I'm not related to any of those. This is wishful thinking on JBKramer's part. Someone please suggest a CheckUser, before I suggest one myself, but I have no idea how. T Gholson 16:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] George Allen

Actually, my comment was in reference to Eixo. Eixo's contributions appear to be good (barnstars, even), making the vandalism to the Allen article perplexing. The order of the edits to the article were confusing, and I should have been more clear in my edit summary. · j e r s y k o talk · 00:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, more from Eixo here. Perhaps you should block until we can figure out if the account is compromised (just a suggestion, I'm not trying to tell you what to do with your mop ;) ). · j e r s y k o talk · 00:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind, he was blocked. · j e r s y k o talk · 04:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fermilab DR-11W Network Driver

Hey! Did you ever see the networking driver that Fermilab put out for VAX, RT-11, and RSX-11M? I was the architect of that one! BenBurch 17:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so; did it implement some sort of point-to-point DR-to-DR link? What higher-level protocols did it support?

Mostly I saw home-grown drivers. Because the DR11-W had those cool (where's the sarcasm tag?) "Write-zero-to-clear" status bits in the main Control and Status Register, I ended up talking to nearly everyone who ever wrote a driver, explaining how to not lose interrupts by accidentally clearing those bits. Well, I talked to everyone until I eventually re-wrote the User's Guide and made it very clear where the traps were.

I never got to Fermilab, either, even though I would very much have liked to. I did get to go to Vandenberg Air Force Base, where the DR11-W was the interface to the missile auto-destruct system, though. That was cool.

Atlant 17:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

It implemented sockets, though at the time we had never heard of the unix/Arpa socket architecture, we re-invented it. A task could declare its affinity for a particular packet type code, and then when a packet appeared on the link would either get an AST to alert it to place a read, or would have a pending read for that type satisfied. We did not buffer the data as DECNET did, but instead DMA-ed from one task's core to another's. It was very fast! [6] [7]

Kewl! Yes, the DR11-W provided about the fastest inter-computer communications that one could manage back in those days.

Atlant 17:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

We broke all of the RSX rules and had a protocol in a driver rather than an ACP. And made it work. It was bulletproof. Vicky White (Still at Fermi) taught me the basics of how a proper state machine operates, and I have used her wisdom throughout my subsequent career. The driver as I originally wrote it was a mess, but she and I re-wrote it as a state machine and it was great! This was the first device driver I ever wrote. BenBurch 18:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question on DU article

Should I recuse myself there. I am trying to be objective, but nobody will grant me an assumption of good faith there. I stepped into this because I saw an IP user being treated uncivilly, but it has mushroomed into something dangerously close to WP:POINT. BenBurch 21:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

The DU article is a classic Wiki battleground; clearly it draws partisans from both sides and true WP:NPOV may never be achieved, at least for very long. And specifically for you, I think you're in a difficult position, being both an editor and a sometimes subject of the article. I think I'd agree with you that taking a step back is probably a good idea. It's a shame we can't convince some of the other editors to do the same for a while.

Atlant 01:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I made my exit. Let's see if they can obey Wikipedia policy just this once. I really doubt it! I am just as happy to not "defend" DU whose Admin's I am rather upset with. BenBurch 03:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Apologies on Behalf of IP Address 64.39.127.245

I'd like to apologize for IP Address 64.39.127.245 which, unfortunately, committed acts of vandalism on Jew (disambiguation). The attack was unfortunate and irresponsible. I tell you this because I've used the IP Address although I did not in fact make the edit.

However, I'd also like to regretfully inform you that the address is widely used because it is a school IP Address. Therefore, it is almost impossible to tell who is using it irresponsibly just by the address. In spite of this however I would hardly blame you if you banned the address from editing Wikipedia. If you did so it would become necessary for any school users of Wikipedia to simply acquire acounts, which they should do anyway.

I'm sorry that users of this address have caused Wikipedia problems and apologize wholeheartedly on behalf of the entire community. Nivenus 17:49, November 13 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you wrote to me; I don't think I've intervened in the affairs of User:64.39.127.245 yet. Are you sure you typed the correct IP address? But I would encourage you to add a note to the User talk:64.39.127.245 page (or the appropriate user page(s)) explaining that this is a shared IP, operated by the (Whatever) School District. Generally, admins are careful about banning a shared IP, although I can say that, for me, it depends a lot on ratio of good edits to vandalistic edits coming from that IP. And, as you noted, anyone can create a personal account and avoid getting caught up in most of the mess surrounding an anonymous IP.

Thanks for writing, and thanks for anything you can do proactively from your end to help keep Wikipedia improving!

Atlant 18:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Earth

Thanks for catching my error... I set out to revert the previous bit of vandalism (something about cheese, I think) so I opened the history in a new tab - but forgot to double-check that nothing had been done in the interim. Cheers. --Ckatz^chat_spy 22:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

No worries! I appreciate all attempts to help -- Thanks!

Atlant 23:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rolex "linkspam"

Hi Atlant, I posted a heading on the Rolex discussion page regarding external links and those that are linkspam. I'd appreciate your feedback there. Cheers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.92.0.17 (talk • contribs) .

Thanks -- I'll head over there...

Atlant 20:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User block

Hi, I reported the IP (193.61.101.9) that you have blocked for vandalism, but I strongly suspect that the user Cascader operates from the same IP. Would you be able to investigate and see whether Cascader also deserves a block.

Thanks

LittleOldMe 13:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Cascader hasn't edited in quite a while (since 23 August 2006) and doesn't have very many edits anyway. Are you sure you have the right user in mind?

Atlant 13:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Cascader created the hoax page Ryan Talbot that has now been deleted. All his edit history for today were deleted along with the article.

LittleOldMe 13:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Ahh, okay -- I saw that page. Thanks, I'll look a bit farther.

Atlant 13:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] vaxlove

hi Atlant, random stranger here. I noticed your history with DEC and I have a rather curious question... in about 1996 I was fresh from college and got a summer contract job for Kimberly Clark in Mobile Alabama as a top-level "problem engineer" during their systemwide upgrade. They had just purchased a very specialized paper plant, and were upgrading their entire network (all servers, desktops, CAD and CAM). I remember in the midst of the upgrade we always had to make provisions for legacy support of the vaxen they employed. The corporate IT guys insisted that all the CAM and production interfaces (from VAX to machine) were too specialized/big/expensive to re-engineer for newer platforms. I specifically remember them purchasing all vax parts and resources they could find, citing impending EoS/EoL from digital. Do you have any direct knowledge of that particular use/problem? I was with IBM for a time, and they carried on OS/2 support for an extra half-decade to support ATM's that (still probably) run OS/2. Anyway, was vax ever so specialized that a solution couldn't be implemented in emulation? Just curious about an insider's view! /Blaxthos 21:01, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't have any direct experience with the Kimberly Clark situation, but it wasn't uncommon. And there were several aspects to that question of migration.

As you may recall, DEC did not provide any emulation layer to allow VAX binaries to run unmodified on Alpha systems; instead, they forced users to recompile from source. It wasn't for any hard-and-fast technical reasons, it was mostly just a managment choice. (Much of the code that was needed was already available; remember, the MicroVAX is a major subsetting of the full VAX instruction set.) To me at the time, and to many looking back in retrospect now, that was a major mistake, but none of the high mucky-mucks were asking my opinion at the time ;-). (Meanwhile, Apple proved that an emulation layer kept the users happy as they moved from Motorola 68K to PPC and then from PPC to IA32 machines. And, as I recall, IBM has done well supporting ancient OS/360 customers right on up to Z/OS.) So some users stuck with VAX because they wouldn't or even couldn't recompile from sources.

A few other users were more constrained. In government contracts, in certain applications certified by regulatory agencies, the users simply couldn't change anything about the systems. These users had no flexibility to migrate to Alpha so they stuck with VAX.

Oddly enough, nowadays, by far the fastest VAXes (and PDP-11s, PDP-10s, and PDP-8s) are the emulators. Bob Supnik and others have designed entire system emulations and, running on modern hardware, these blow the doors off of any of the real systems that DEC ever shipped.

Atlant 21:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)