User talk:NapoliRoma/Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello, NapoliRoma, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  —Wknight94 (talk) 01:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Itanium

Hi! It was proper to remove the "may yet be successful" from the Itanium page. I only put it there as a replacement for the even worse fluff that I replaced. Basically, Lots of stuff from this article should be moved to the Itanium 2 article. Arch dude 23:11, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

...but does it really make sense to have a separate Itanium 2 article? It's the same family, and it seems like most of what's being discussed is germane to Itanium as a whole, not to the separate implementations. If I were doing a cold lookup for current Itanium info, I'd expect to find it in an article named "Itanium." --NapoliRoma 00:12, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

You are of course correct. However, the first sentence of the article explicitly defines its topic as the original Itanium implementation, not including the Itanium 2. The correct solution would be to create an Itanium (family) article, and convert the current article into the Itanium (Merced) article. I do not wish to do this, as the subject does not interest me that much. My edits were motivated my irritation at the NPOV marketing orientation of the article when I encountered it while researching Project Monterey. -Arch dude 16:31, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

ARC

Thanks for expanding the Solaris link. Henk Langeveld 01:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Request for review and comment

Hi again. I have now written a consolidated Itanium article. Please take a look at it in my workspace. I've added merge tags to the three articles and paragraphs to the discussion pages. If I don't get comments, I'll eventually just do it. Thanks. -Arch dude 00:40, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you!

Hi NapoliRoma, I was checking my watchlist and saw your edit summary at D... please keep up the counter-vandalism and your wonderful sense of humour! :-) --3M163//Complete Geek 21:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Image Amador Valley High School

Hi, yes the image is still around. It's Image:Avhs2.jpg. Garion96 (talk) 05:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

SPARC

Hi NapoliRoma

Sorry for that - I came across an article with a link to SPARC (meaning the Open Publishing group) and saw that it wrongly pointed to SPARC (the architecture), and noticing there were a couple of other SPARCs too, naturally I created a disambiguation page. I noticed the SPARC page was fairly inactive, so I just went ahead and did it without bothering to discuss it. Anyway, sorry to have ruffled your feathers - your alternative solution is fine.

RayNorris 02:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Help with Itanium FA?

Hi! In a burst of unrestrained hubris, I self-nominated the Itanium article for FA. If you have time to do so please ad your comments to the FAC.The only commentator so far is competent and positive, but does not have enough technical expertise to be credible. Thanks. -Arch dude 01:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Sun's Secure Global Desktop

Thanks for the message. I've had second thoughts, the redirect is pretty unlikely so it's gone! Thanks, Mallanox 23:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Whoo-hoo!

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		I have no idea how long you were looking for those Orange Whip references, but that was some serious digging you had to do to get that info there. Thanks for helping flesh out my little whim! Great Job! Thespian 23:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

SPEC

I assume Spec stands for specification, and wouldn't see how someone could (easily) confuse it with SPEC? Feel free to revert it. I just found the note to be more distracting than helpful when I read it. —Ruud 16:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Java discussion

(excerpt from Java discussion)

I said It would be a great service and benefit to the user community if someone more knowledgable than myself could investigate this performance issue and report on it. I fear that too many programers are misguided and consequently make the wrong decision in choosing a language for a new application. Roesser 22:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

you said Wouldn't that be original research?? What would seem to be in scope for Wikipedia would be to find a reliable source that already discusses this, which you are encouraged to do. And you should of course try to keep preconceptions to a minimum.--NapoliRoma 23:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I say I'm not sure of your motivation for the reply above. Asking someone to investigate does not imply original research. That someone could do just what you suggest - find a reliable source or actually be the reliable source. You encouraged me to do that, so what's wrong for me to encourage someone? Furthermore, why did you bring up preconceptions since I did not write one word in the article. Clearly there is nothing objectionable about preconceptions in a discussion about the article - I even asked for the investigation to be "objective".

So let me suggest that you do something constructive and perhaps find a reliable source rather than expending time criticizing someone for what they bring up in a discussion. Roesser 02:24, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

you said on my talk page

Howdy; apologies if you think I was too harsh. What I read was "I think Java is too slow" -- which seemed like coming in with a preconception -- "and I'd like someone else to investigate this and report" -- which seemed like either a call for OR, or asking others to do work that you could do pretty much as well as anyone else if it's not OR.

Perhaps my best option at that point was to say "huh" and move on, and here I am passing up that opportunity again. But really, my impression from what you're saying is that you have decided that a serious number of programmers have been led down the garden path, and are looking for others to do the research to confirm or deny this.

A possible alternative for you might be to Google Java performance , pick some likely candidate sources, and cook up a paragraph or two and see how it's received. If you want to be less bold, try it on the talk page first. That way, I think it would feel less like you've got a random question you're throwing out there and more like you're part of the process. If you can't find anything obvious without too much trouble, you might want to reconsider your hypothesis. Java's been out there for a while, and unless there really is a Vast Java Performance Conspiracy, I'd expect there to be something out there about any problems that would make someone reconsider Java as the language for their project.--NapoliRoma 07:11, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Roesser"

I'm now saying

Your points are well taken. I'm still very concerned about Java performance and admit that my working hypothesis is that it does suffer from a severe performance limitation. I did Google the web, but only found rather inconclusive results. The articles generally admit that Java started with a very bad performance ratio (as much as 20 to 1), but has improved due to a number of innovations. But they don't quantify the improvement.

Concerning a conspiracy, I suspect there is one, which is perpetuated by Sun and fueled by their battle with Microsoft.

Anyways, I'll continue searching and will add something to the article if anything convincing turns up. Thanks for your comments Roesser 19:51, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Rfd

You convinced me. It'll be gone soon. Carlossuarez46 21:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Pleasanton Monologue on Craig's show...

Hey, there...

I was the guy who had originally posted the video of Craig Ferguson talking about Pleasanton for about 7 minutes on his show.

YouTube thought it would be hilarious to delete my account based on my posting of small clips from Major League Baseball. All my videos went with it.

Well, needless to say, I changed my posting name to "kitsa42" and restarted.

I have also put back the FULL MONOLOGUE from Craig and re-corrected the link on the Pleasanton Wikipedia page. Thanks for keeping the monologue link there in the meantime. It meant a lot to me.

Take care! :)

TabascoMan77 10:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Solaris entropy

Hi, thank you for your edit on Solaris entropy. I noticed you deleted the paragraph about the emulation of /dev/random, but I re-included it, since it applies to older Solaris versions. NerdyNSK 07:35, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

CADAM (motorcycle group)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of CADAM (motorcycle group), and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: CADAM. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot 03:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Help desk

There's a discussion about you at Wikipedia:Help_desk#How_to_contact_Wikipedian_who_deleted_article_in_error_due_to_typo_in__title_of_related_article.3F. Corvus cornix 20:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Tiger for Intel

And there was in mine (until I upgraded to Leopard). However, Tiger was not sold in an Intel version, unlike Leopard. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 01:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's right; that's what I meant. If I somehow didn't make that clear when editing an article, you might want to edit it :P. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 04:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Daisy Systems (disambiguation)

You are mistaken. `'Míkka>t 02:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

There's only one active link on the page, back to Daisy Systems the CAE company. Neither the floral software company nor the Dutch printer company have WP pages, and I couldn't figure out any alternative WP page to point them to, as WP:MOSDAB guidelines call for (that is, if the entry line is a redlink, there has to be exactly one relevant navigable link on the line, too.)

Dab pages aren't supposed to be dictionary entries or Yellow Pages; they're supposed to help someone find the page they're looking for in case of ambiguity. In this case there's no ambiguity: the only remotely appropriate page for "Daisy Systems" is Daisy Systems -- thus there's nothing to disambiguate.

In any event, you're not supposed to remove a speedy tag yourself; that's what {{hangon}} is for. Regards,--NapoliRoma (talk) 02:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

We are writing wikipedia, which is a source of information. There are potential wikipedia articles here and red links are invitation. Don't do wikilawyering to me here. I can do it better than you. For example, your reason "It is a disambiguation page that only points to a single article" is false: it points to three artices, two of which are missing. `'Míkka>t 04:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi -- I'm not trying to get into an argument, truly; I'm just trying to do the right thing. I'm all for preserving information (including links) whenever possible, but in this particular case, the second and third entries are not only redlinks, but neither one of them has a plausible link to any existing WP article that I could think of (and I did make the effort to consider what links could be put in). I even poked around to find out what became of the Daisy printer company -- it seemed to have been taken private in 1987, at which point I did lose the will to pursue it...:-/.

Redlinks without any corresponding navigable link are not useful on a dab page.

Oh yes they are useful, for those who are interested in interconecting of information. `'Míkka>t 04:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Both of these companies have managed not to get articles written since the dab page was created in '04, so it seemed reasonable to yank it until there was some interest in either one of these apparently obscure companies that would justify it being reconstituted.

Daisy printer company was very notable in computer industry. It is not your fault that you don't know everything, just keep this in mind. Yes it is obscure now, since the technology progressed beyond. `'Míkka>t 04:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't the appropriate action, if these companies really ought to be represented in WP, to create stubs for them? Then there's no argument at all that the dab page should exist. Regards,--NapoliRoma (talk) 04:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

That's what I am usually doing when I am hit by deletionists. `'Míkka>t 04:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

"It is not your fault that you don't know everything, just keep this in mind."

"That's what I am usually doing when I am hit by deletionists."

Ouch and ouch. I consider myself an inclusionist in general, and I'm also very much cognizant of "just because you don't know about it doesn't make it unimportant." I've had at least one article of my own marked for speedy because the admin made that assumption. (and I got it saved...)

But dab pages are different. They're not articles; they're more multichannel redirect pages. They should never have original content (other than perhaps an alternate article name, just like a redir), they don't require and should not have cites, and each entry on a dab page is supposed to serve one purpose: to move the reader from the concept they were looking for to exactly one existing WP page with content.

You can have a redlink on a dab page, but only if there's a corresponding useful navigable link. If you can't come up with a useful link, that means that not only does the page not exist yet, but basically, the topic of that page is not represented on WP yet. If there's nothing to direct the user to, it should not clutter the dab page until there is.

(In the case of Daisy-the-printer-company, Netherlands would not be a valid alternate link (too vague) but maybe list of printer companies, if it existed, would. Even better, if Daisy was that significant a company, would be to do up a stub for it.

Anyhow... I see this is all moot now, since that's just what you've done. Sorry to come off as a deletionist twit; I'm really not. "Dab page pedant" is probably closer to the mark. :-)--NapoliRoma (talk) 22:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

About Cresta: while I doubt this company deserves a separate article, it does merit a mention somewhere, because its founders are real big guns, and the link to its home page is by no means spam: it is a valid reference about the mentioned company in the immediately necessary place. `'Míkka>t 05:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, it merits a place on WP, just not on the Daisy Systems page, since they really have nothing to do with each other, besides being high-tech companies with a common employee. Again, a CrestaTech stub might make sense, or maybe putting it on one of the "big guns"' pages (Andy Bechtolsheim?).--NapoliRoma (talk) 22:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Notability of Blue Note (jazz clubs)

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Blue Note (jazz clubs), by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Blue Note (jazz clubs) seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Blue Note (jazz clubs), please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 21:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Model 100 picture

Thanks for the fine picture [[Image:Model 100.jpg]] - about the only way to make it better would be to show the Model 100 turned on. --Wtshymanski (talk) 05:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Funny thing, that—when I went to take the picture, I discovered we were completely out of AA batteries. So, I reshot it today; not only is it now powered on, but I took a little more time to get a somewhat better picture overall.

I had to look up how to set the date/time/day... things have come a long way since 1983. Can you imagine asking someone to go into a BASIC interpreter to set the time on their computer? I'd managed to completely forget that the string symbol in BASIC variables was a postfix rather than a prefix (Perl being more of my thing these days), or I would have been able to work it out without cheating :-).--NapoliRoma (talk) 21:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The new picture is much appreciated - the LCD photographs surprisingly well, considering it's non-back-lit and 20+ years old. Nice illustration of the Y1900 problem, too. Thanks for the extra effort. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Only problem is that now I've started poking around Wikimedia Commons: yet another rabbit hole for me to disappear down... . All sorts of fun pictures there, such as the one of the NEC machine I've now added to the article. I also found yet another machine of this genre there, the Zenith ZP-150, whose article in turn references a TRS-80 Model 600, neither of which are currently mentioned in the model 100 article. I'll rectify that as soon as I sort out some POV-looking stuff in the ZP-150 article.--NapoliRoma (talk) 19:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I recall a Tandy Model 1400 but not a 600. If it was an MS DOS machine it was a lot more capable than the 100/102/200. And here it is at [[1]] - clamshell folding display, not the one-piece format of the 100, and an 8088 processor. I've never seen one. --Wtshymanski (talk) 03:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Caere

There is no article about the company, only about a product that they sold to Nuance Communications. The only mention even of Caere in either article is that they sold the product. Therefore there is nothing currently on Wikipedia that would make a good link, and so the link can not be disambiguated to a page. Do you have any other suggestions besides removing the link?? MrKIA11 (talk) 22:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I'm too optimistic, but I had tagged it in the hopes that whoever mentiond Caere would be able to say one of:

1. "I meant to reference Omnipage the product"
2. "I meant to reference Nuance"
3. "Gee, there's no article about Caere; I'll create one"

But you've presented a plausible case that really neither Omnipage nor Nuance has anything to do with this person who once worked for Caere (unless he had a significant part in the creation of OmniPage, which is quite possible, but we don't know that), so the last option is the most likely. So... if the ambiguous-but-tagged-as-such link is really that offensive, my other suggestion would be to change the ambiguous link Caere to the redlink Caere Inc. Either way, it's a flag that this link is in search of a knowledgeable editor who can set it right. Just deleting the link doesn't make that request.--NapoliRoma (talk) 23:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Have you asked Mlpkr yet? My bet is that he (or she ☺) just got it from other source, and did not mean to reference anything else. Personally, I think that Caere Corporation would be better than what is there currently. MrKIA11 (talk) 02:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Ask? Wouldn't that be cheating? :-) I agree that making it a redlink is the way to go, and I see you did so just now; cool. Cheers,--NapoliRoma (talk) 19:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

AT&T & Unix

(Response to my comment at: User talk:Azrael Nightwalker#Your edit/summary comment on AT&T Computer Systems)

See the following articles: Novell, Unix System Laboratories and SCO v. Novell case, where court ruled that Novell owns the Unix copyrights, not SCO. Azrael Nightwalker (talk) 18:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks -- the first two aren't much use, since neither have cites, and the USL article makes no mention of what happened to the USL assets after they were acquired by Novell. However, the SCO v. Novell article does have a wealth of citations, including a collection of documents under "Novell's Unique Legal Rights". These docs make it clear that Novell retained the right to approve all deals "old SCO" might make to assign or waive SVRx licensing rights to another company.

It's a tangled web—I'd still be interested in knowing, for example, whether or not any employees were transferred from Novell to SCO in '95 as part of the deal—but I think your edit to pull this part of it completely out of the AT&T article makes even more sense in this light. Thanks again,--NapoliRoma (talk) 19:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, here they say that Novell just sold the Unix business, they're not too specific about it. Azrael Nightwalker (talk) 20:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The UNIX article has this press release as a source. The article says "In 1995, the business of administering and supporting the existing UNIX licenses, plus rights to further develop the System V code base, were sold by Novell to the Santa Cruz Operation." Later it also states: "Novell disputed the SCO group's claim to hold copyright on the UNIX source base. According to Novell, SCO (and hence the SCO Group) are effectively franchise operators for Novell, which also retained the core copyrights, veto rights over future licensing activities of SCO, and 95% of the licensing revenue." (no source though) Azrael Nightwalker (talk) 11:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Yep, that's the same press release I pointed to on your talk page; I was the one who added that reference to the Unix article back in August '06... .

A possible source for the "veto rights" portion is in the "Novell's Unique Legal Rights" collection I mentioned above, where in a letter to McBride, Novell quotes a section of the 1995 agreement:

"Buyer shall not, and shall not have the authority to, amend, modify or waive any right under or assign any SVRX License without the prior written consent of Seller."

Back in 1995, I don't think many people (including Darl McBride, apparently :-) realized this was part of the deal—to those of us on the outside, it looked more like Novell was dumping all their UNIX-related assets.--NapoliRoma (talk) 14:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

General Redirects

I had never read that article before, and because of it, I will most likely change the way I edit links. I had never thought of some of the points that it makes. As for the work, it is quite easy using Wikipedia Cleaner. Thanks for the heads-up, MrKIA11 (talk) 18:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Removing hatnotes

I've been working through many of the names at Wikipedia:Suggestions for name disambiguation, and the instructions for that project regularly suggest adding "otherpersons4" on both pages where there is a "Joe Bloggs" and a "Joe A. Bloggs". I've found so many horrors where people haven't linked from "Joe Bloggs" to "Joe Bloggs (whatever)" that I'm now thoroughly in favour of hatnotes which link from "Joe H. Bloggs" to "Joe Bloggs", and from "Joe Bloggs (something)" to "Joe Bloggs" (whether it's a single name or a dab page). There's a wording somewhere... can't put my finger on it at the moment... which says that although not recommended, such apparently redundant hatnotes are not forbidden. I've also had a look at the heated discussion on Wikipedia talk:Hatnote over the years! I think that hatnotes like the one you've removed may be useful for the reader who comes across the page because of a duff link, or by finding it on Wikipedia, and it also helps remind editors creating new articles to think about including them in dab pages. I don't see that removing hatnotes helps readers to find information in WP.

I'd rather people spent their energies on expanding dab pages to include all the relevant articles - this morning, Charles Fisher led to a single page which had a dablink to an Australian headmaster; I've now made a dab page to help people find the 4 CFs with bracketed disambigators, one with an initial, and a "Charlie" thrown in. And the headmaster, with a piped link.

Please don't remove any more of the possibly over-enthusiastic hatnotes I've been scattering around. They are harmless and potentially useful. PamD (talk) 15:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

You're probably thinking of WP:DAB#Usage guidelines:

While there is no specific prohibition against it, adding disambiguation links to a page with a name that clearly distinguishes itself from the generic term is discouraged.

My immediate thought would be that a generic guideline page would be the preferred one to follow over a project page, but yes, it is only a guideline page, not a policy, and it does say specifically that it's not prohibited, just discouraged. In other words, there's a lot of leeway in guidance here.

So... not to worry, I'm not planning on following you around in a mad campaign to undo your work; the only reason I saw this one and acted on it at all is because it's on a page I recently created. I agree completely that my energies are better spent elsewhere. In this case, my energies were focused on improving the one page, not on a broader dablink jihad.

But I don't think "having a link somewhat like this elsewhere is useful" is a defensible reason—we do have discretionary faculties we can employ, and the odds that someone coming to a George M. C. Fisher page on their own and wondering "hmm, are there other George Fishers I should know about?" are slim enough that we could leave those putatively few users to discover the "Go" box on their own. My opinion only, of course.

Put another way: if it had been George Q. Fisher, I would probably never have bothered. But two middle initials seals the intent of the visitor—again, in my opinion.--NapoliRoma (talk) 16:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Re:Context MBA

Sorry about that, I don't know anything about the history of computing. I stubbed it as a member of WP:Stub Sorting. It has now been reverted. Kathleen.wright5 21:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)