User talk:Sphilbrick/Archive 24

Archive 20

←

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

→

Archive 30

Are you in DC?

I know you said you would be here. :) I've been looking for you, but that's kind of hard when the only thing I know to look for is "Somebody who isn't anybody I've been introduced to." That describes quite a few people here. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:07, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I'm happy I finally met you. I had my iPad, not my laptop, and haven't quite figured out how to edit WP in an iPad.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:58, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Genius!

This... Ryan Vesey Review me! 12:28, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Sangita.jpg

Could you check the ticket for File:Sangita.jpg? It's received the OTRS ticket but there's no indication of what license was provided. Thanks. Skier Dude (talk) 04:57, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I added the license, and asked the up loader to add the description and source.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 10:41, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I just realized I did ask for this info on 3 July, not sure what happened, but I've asked again. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 10:43, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Hayley Chapman

It is probably due for delete. She left the public eye and all the RS are dead links now. Could you userfy it to my sanbox somewhere in case she has a comeback and RS appear again? I may find the history useful as well. Thanks in advance.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:48, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

 Done

Thanks. Should I go through and : all the categories or does that get done automatically?--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:06, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually you should, I forgot about that, and I don't believe it is automatic. Thanks for remembering.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 21:07, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

 Done--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:12, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Heey, thank you very much for the Dolma plate! It is the first Wikilove msg I receive, even though I know I did nothing to deserve it. :-) I see you're an admin here; that makes the issue more meaningful -although the dish was intended for serving to another user- because the only (well, almost only :-) thing I have received from admins until today had been warnings and blocks (one of them here in En:WP). Thanks again and all the best. --E4024 (talk) 18:49, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Some Turkish food for you!

To a Good Admin

I gave myself permission to try how to send one of these messages on your page. Without doubt you deserved some Turkish food cooked with gratitude and served on a white tablecloth; regrettably this is all I can do here. (I tried to put an Artichoke Dolma pic in the relevant page but it was deleted. Very complicated for me all those rights and wrongs. :-) Thanks for your help and understanding. E4024 (talk) 20:05, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank-you.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 20:16, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Just to say

it was a pleasure, however briefly, to put a face to a name whose work - particularly as an admin - I greatly appreciate. All the best, --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:26, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words. I was so surprised to see you, I'm not sure if I managed to blurt out what I was intending to say: there was a short list of people I wanted to see at Wikimania, and in two other cases, I had pictures so I had a fighting chance. I wasn't there Thursday, didn't see you Friday, and by Sat afternoon, I realized I was going to have to do something more than just wander around. I literally was walking over to sit at a table to start thinking about how to find you, and start asking people. I sat down, and there you were. Great to finally meet you.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 00:38, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Glad it worked out. Hope you found the conference as awesome as I did. It was doubly important for me because it was my first ever (and probably only) visit to the USA. I'm now back home in the northeastern wastes of Thailand recovering from massive jet lag. Perhaps see you around next year in Hong Kong? --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:45, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

thanks

Thank you for your sensible comment at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 July 6 section about NRHP architects, etc. --doncram 10:04, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Sphilbrick. You have new messages at WP:RX.
Message added 19:37, 21 July 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 19:37, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Sphilbrick. You have new messages at Stefan2's talk page.
Message added 15:36, 23 July 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Stefan2 (talk) 15:36, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Help request

Hello there. Could you place this or an announcement about it somewhere so all the interested users in the community could see and come give a helping hand? Thanks in advance. --E4024 (talk) 18:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I've just poked around a little, and it looks like a potential minefield. I see Talk:Bloody_Christmas, which looks like a discussion about the potential notability of an article on Kanli Noel—1963. I don't know enough about the subject to know whether such an article is warranted, although it seems likely. One possibility is to start a draft in your user space, and leave a notice at Wikipedia:Greek and Turkish wikipedians cooperation board/Notification board urging interested editors to contribute. Does this make sense? I realize you are relatively new, so I don't know whether the concept of creating a user space draft is well-known to you or not. Let me know if you want more information.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 19:58, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your interest. By "potential minefield" I understand important topic. Certainly it could be controversial, still after half a century but that makes the issue an important vacuum for the English Wikipedia. I am new. Have many changes because write almost everything in several attempts. :-) I am also aiming to be a Wikidwarf, trying to correct editions. Indeed I did not open any article nor am (was?) intending to do with this one. It is a sad history of the Cypriot history and Turkish and Greek Cypriots should (be able to) do that altogether, in co-operation. After 50 years! (One Turkish Cypriot user already volunteered to contribute.) Attention: There were several "red" Wikilink brackets in various articles with this denomination; indeed it was already on the table, how not, such an important issue, I am just helping to put life in the sleeping article proposal. --E4024 (talk) 20:12, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Test or Vandalism?

What to do in cases like this? All the best. --E4024 (talk) 09:49, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

You handled it exactly right. It was the first edit by an editor, many of whom do not really believe that one can edit this place. They found they could, but they weren't jumped on. I would not assume it is vandalism until I see it repeated, after warnings. You might consider posting a welcome to their page, but that's your call.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 11:20, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

WP:Naming conventions (characters)

I have finished developing this essay into the Wikipedia namespace. Since all policies and guidelines are adequate, I'm not planning to turn it into a guideline. Nevertheless, this essay should serve its purpose, like WP:notability (fiction). --George Ho (talk) 20:26, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Some questions: [Ticket#2012053010011819]

Beatles
padding
Hello. Why at OTRS Garmin must was get moral damage from some users yesterday .... Not this is major. Possibility to use online The Beatles materials is actual (having sanction of the government of the US - projects for the good). What do you think, tell me please. Thank you! - 2.93.62.144 (talk) 19:21, 19 June 2012 (UTC). I need to see some evidence. A simple assertion isn't sufficient. And I'm not clear what the government of the US has to do with it, they do not hold the copyright. However, if I get an email from either the US government or the British government, I will be happy to pursue it.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 19:34, 19 June 2012 (UTC) Sorry: 2 minutes ago connection disappeared (and IP changed because of this). The same user writes. Opportunities, which are found via website of the US government, are created with main aim: deletion of different troubles of the civil society (deletion of contradictions, including). All of this is higher of any copyright in the world. Section http://www.serve.gov/about.asp (About) gives us understanding of such aims. This is the protection of the government in the relation of citizens. One of the main troubles (in some cases), is copyright - everybody understand this. Copyright holder can be the big enemy of: knowlege, education, culture, research, moral development and so on. Simple example: cruel monopoly of copyright holders on the creative work of The Beatles is the great enemy of knowlege in the relevant articles of Wikipedia (cruel owner forbids usage of online materials: all articles in this context are about nothing). Enemy of people: using online materials in Wikipedia, we can make lower impact of poverty (and a large number of other moments) . To delete the such troubles, exist sites: http://www.allforgood.org (All For Good), http://www.serve.gov (Serve.gov), http://www.nationalservice.gov (National & Community Service) .... Clicking http://www.serve.gov , we read the program of President Obama (left): United We Serve "The President is calling on all Americans to participate in our nation's recovery and renewal by serving in our communities. There are many ways to get involved. America's new foundation will be built one community at a time - and it starts with you". Near (right) we see one of the methods to implement these aims: "Find Volunteer Opportunity". And we seek our opportunity for the usage of search results (implementation of the program of President). Thank you ! - 2.94.199.14 (talk) 23:09, 19 June 2012 (UTC). Thanks for sharing that. I was frankly puzzled about what was going on, now I understand.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 23:12, 19 June 2012 (UTC) Okey (sometimes connection can disappear). On our main issue: what can you say? By the way, long time ago our people understood the such thing: probably, at Wikipedia exist people with interest (they are from the copyright holders, they are payed editors, which love rollback). They are not terrible if we use projects for the good. And our protector is the US government (and partners of this government). Thank you! - 2.94.199.72 (talk) 09:23, 20 June 2012 (UTC). On this stage we need to be free of threat of lobby in favor of copyright holders. In the case of the such activity is need take action and remove danger (you as admin can do it). At last the celebration of Knowlege can become reality (very possible): We wrote message to the main department of the British Council and now we saw reply: Dear John, one of our offices in China will be able to help you. You'll find contact details on britishcouncil.org/china-about-us-where-we-are-in-china.htm. Now we will send relevant message on address to one of these e-mail addresses (see above .htm) and will tell about this to the Center (to make all faster). Sense: the British Council will give the personal permission (on address of OTRS, in first). Please give me know about this event, when getting of the such permission will become reality. Thank you! - 2.94.199.72 (talk) 12:35, 20 June 2012 (UTC). Hello. We tired to wait. What about permission from any site who on this page: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Правительство_Российской_Федерации (article about government of Russia)? May to try. Thank you! - 2.94.187.222 (talk) 11:06, 24 June 2012 (UTC). No, it will not be granted. Wikipedia respects copyright.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:08, 24 June 2012 (UTC) I respect your opinion. But very interesting things exist at Wikipedia (Russian). Link in the article The Beatles leads by 2-3 steps to almost 1000 online songs by The Beatles for free and without moderation even. Site in black list of EN and RU Wikipedias (but Russian admins do not want look for new source of info and crime in continue). Respecting of copyright.... In the Russian section not exists of the such respecting. 2.94.233.90 (talk) 20:34, 24 June 2012 (UTC). Sorry, did you got the permission of the British Council, or no? I can not understand sense of letter for me (of the British Council). - 2.94.233.90 (talk) 23:19, 24 June 2012 (UTC). I did not see anything from the British Council. Was it incldued in an email to OTRS? If so, I'll look again. Unfortunately, I am extremity busy at the moment, I had a full day of work both weekend days, so have not done much on Wikipedia this weekend, and will be in NY for the next three days with limited internet access. But if it was sent, I will check when I return home. Should I check the string of emails from you, or was it sent separately? If separate, will I find it if I search for British Council?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 00:29, 25 June 2012 (UTC) I checked all emails received at the permissions desk at OTRS in the last year mentioning "British Council". There were none from the that organization discussing permission of any kind. Hello. We saw this letter yesterday. Letter from 22 June (we check this e-mail not often). We asked about details, sending reply to understand better (we understood a little, as I wrote yesterday to you). Hour ago we got almost the same text (this is not bot - it is from human on 100%: almost the same - not the same, the more). I feel not very comfortable, if I will write all text here (respect confidentiality in the relation of the British Council). I write main sense (from main e-mail of the British Council in Hong Kong): "Thank you for your e-mail to the British Council Customer Services. Due to the nature of your enquiry, we have forwarded it to the related personnel again for their reference. I hope the information is able to assist." (in letter from today appeared, including, the word "again"). Thus, our issue in progress. Of course, you need check your e-mail (and OTRS) oftener. Separately permission will be, or in string of emails from me - I do not know else. Currently is need to wait of something good, and not only we can wait (this is important for many people: we try for society). If something new, please give me know. Them messages (every) contain golden words: "The British Council is the United Kingdom's international organisation for educational opportunities and cultural relations. We are a registered charity; 209131 (England and Wales) SC037733 (Scotland). We create international opportunities for the people of the UK and other countries and build trust between them worldwide. We call this cultural relations." Thank you very much! - 2.94.120.212 (talk) 11:23, 25 June 2012 (UTC). Hello. Important question (can be important): Can be used the project under other license (more strict license)? Because exists big difference: 1) sell or no (work); 2) change or no (work);. Very big difference ! (this moment can impact to the opinion of the British Council). Please give reply in the nearest time. Thank you! - 2.94.119.198 (talk) 14:22, 29 June 2012 (UTC). Hello. Is there something new at the OTRS on our issue? Thank you! - 2.92.76.34 (talk) 22:12, 16 July 2012 (UTC). It would be helpful if you could identify the subject line of the email, so I could search for it. I searched for every email containing the phrase "British Council" which took quite some time, but there is nothing new. The most recent on is 46 days old. If you didn't include the words "British Council" I wouldn't have found it.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 22:25, 16 July 2012 (UTC) I do not know also. May be to try seek info using some other method: the British Council could pass this issue to another agency. Thank you! - 2.92.76.34 (talk) 01:06, 17 July 2012 (UTC). Hello. I found this now: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:OTRS_noticeboard&diff=503546150&oldid=503545849 (our social networks). Someone wrote: This is the real community, see: http://musicbrainz.org/artist/b10bbbfc-cf9e-42e0-be17-e2c3e1d2600d/relationships / http://my.mail.ru/community/beatles-gold-tv/131D0B9D72565564.html (The Beatles Coalition for Cultural Diversity). Russia ratified law about joining to WTO http://www.mk.ru/politics/russia/article/2012/07/18/726819-sovet-federatsii-ratifitsiroval-protokol-o-vstuplenii-rossii-v-vto.html (exist several stages till finish) several weeks ago and now is need to implement agreement http://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/27-trips_01_e.htm (TRIPS). People from the Federal Security Service http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Security_Service_(Russia) can implement integration into the such communities after asking of access. They have agreement with copyright holders on reciprocal basis (deletion of illegal content in return for some concessions in favor of human rights). Agents from this community http://my.mail.ru/community/beatles-gold-tv/131D0B9D72565564.html suggest favor for Wikipedia (to reach global results in this scope). Thus, all on legal grounds (and owners agree, because they get benefits also). Thank you for attention. This is the truth (agents have agreement with owners via integration with such communities). If there is the chance - is need to to use. I think so and sure. I ask you to consider this matter. Thank you! 2.94.13.193 (talk) 14:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC). Sorry, but there is nothing in those link explaining how you came to acquire the copyright to Beatles Music.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:32, 23 July 2012 (UTC) About "you" - not we. I know only about this issue. And not more. Earlier I was member there (some time ago). I know about method to implement TRIPS in Russia. But I did not knew about usage of the such method in relation of this particular community. I do not clearly about mechanism. But if try to explain: concensus was found - owners and agents. Agent in the such case is the representative (and he acts on behalf owner and has full agree of owner). May try send letter with hope get reply. But I have doubts about getting of reply (the more, I am simple user). Agents do not have right to distribute info to provide needed security in accordance with legislation. And other side also does not has the such right else more (sides must have respect each other on international level (international law). In Russia and not only in the such cases often is used method of notification via copy of message for other people and organizations, which are copyright holders, including (to provide full control). In our case, this is the common sence on legal grounds - to be higher of any limitations of the security. I am simple user and I have no chance get reply from agents totally (as I wrote above). I know very a little about this issue in Wikipedia (two hours ago I knew). But you are not simple user and you have possibility get reply (OTRS). I ask you to send letter for agents with request to get permission. If they will send copy of your message (them reply for you) for owners - this means: agents really are representatives and they have right be named as copyright holders (have right to act on behalf of them on legal grounds). This is the validation and possibility get favor in the same time. Sorry for such big number of different details: I am jurist and I can not act by other way (when try explain). Can you do it (request to get permission)? Thank you! 2.94.137.76 (talk) 18:05, 23 July 2012 (UTC). I'm sorry but I won't be able to. Frankly, it is not very likely that there is such permission. I looked at one of the links you provided - it was a blatant violation of copyright.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 19:13, 23 July 2012 (UTC) Sorry also. But, ..... You say about violation: you are wrong softly speaking, because them activity is directed for deletion of illegal materials (on behalf of the state and copyright holders in the same time, and on legal grounds). In this situation you are more in several times offender, than these agents (you do not wish help provide implementation of the TRIPS). More clearly: They must delete illegal materials (but you do not give implement this). Why? Exchange of benefits can not become reality. I used to think that you are decent person. In this situation exists the damage for: law, owners (Apple Corps), Wikipedia, a large number of people from all the world. Also, the damage for: principles and norms of WTO + WIPO + UNESCO (the UN contains WTO + WIPO + UNESCO). Global issue, who has greatest relation to the Berne convention: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berne_Convention_for_the_Protection_of_Literary_and_Artistic_Works (and big number of the parties: these parties wish provide protection of copyright). I ask you make this issue topic for wide discuss on notice board of administrators (to reach wise decision). If not make this - worse than crime (in direct sence). Thank you! 2.94.137.76 (talk) 20:47, 23 July 2012 (UTC). Hello. Please sorry for letter from yesterday. I very regret, you can be sure. Also, I sent yesterday letter to to the government of Russia http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Правительство_Российской_Федерации#.D0.A1.D1.81.D1.8B.D0.BB.D0.BA.D0.B8 (Департамент Российской Федерации по связям с общественностью / Department on the public relations of the Russian Federation) with the question about the implementation of TRIPS via different creative communities (including, the community of The Beatles at Mail.Ru). I spoke them send reply in the OTRS. Such letter was got in the OTRS, or no yet? Thank you! - 2.94.137.187 (talk) 10:53, 24 July 2012 (UTC). I am on a business trip, may not get a chance to check before Friday. Someone else may look at it first.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 12:11, 24 July 2012 (UTC) I understood. Thank you! - 2.94.137.187 (talk) 13:54, 24 July 2012 (UTC). Vandal creates damage for Wikipedia not on his page (he uses your personal page to implement the such dirty violations). This means he does not respect you, he does not respect your working issues, and I ask you about ban of his actions at your personal page and OTRS. Vandal ignores the usage of VPN and other related things (as result - IP address can be the same, and provider also). His bright fantasy created person with name crazy80 (who has millions roles) and he not able think about something else. He not has right edit your personal page in such style (this style has name vandalism and nothing more). Please ask somebody to check OTRS. Because the vandal will create the damage for Wikipedia and will block my IP address again (probably). Creation of the damage for Wikipedia = to block my IP address in this situation. Is need to use punishing - I think so (vandal can not be admin on Wikipedia) ! Interesting: knows vandal about chapter USA or do not knows: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Society (here). I think he is looking for very big troubles in the scope of chapter USA. - 2.94.119.96 (talk) 16:15, 24 July 2012 (UTC). Hello. Which news about letter in OTRS (message from the agency on public relations)? Thank you! P.S. I ask you protect my posts on your page. - 2.94.3.136 (talk) 00:42, 27 July 2012 (UTC). Hello. I found man, which has collections of the Beatles music as owner (is used scheme, which also related to the national law and international law). Main thing: the full guarantee, that all is on legal grounds (on highest level in the world: his organization and website of this organization, are in the UN database). Database of organizations. About collections: There also is used password-protected interactive space with strict limitations, and also at Yandex (main Ru hosting). These collections is the base of project of his organization. Link to this project is directly on the main page of the website of organization. To become part of the UN database is need to go via the process of cruel moderation. Cruel moderation is finished successfully. In the result all his projects can be helpful for society on legal grounds (under protection by the UN). What do think? I think is very big chance for Knowlege. Working issue of course. Thank you! - 2.94.209.21 (talk) 22:34, 27 July 2012 (UTC). Protect page not means the only protect page: this means also is need protect IP address to be free of stupid vandals, which are looking for the big troubles. Several days ago I got the invitation and took: ISOC-DC Invites You To Attend The IGF-USA The Greater Washington DC Chapter of the Internet Society The IGF-USA engages with individuals from civil society, government, and business, as well as technologists, researchers and academia to discuss topics being deliberated at a global level and in multiple fora regarding the governance of the Internet. Topics under discussion include the role of the UN and governments in oversight of the Internet, issues related to Critical Internet Resources such as top level domains and IP addresses, cyber security and cyber-crime; openness/freedom of expression, Cloud Computing, youth in an online world. Sphilbrick, if be free of reaction on dirty actions of vandals, is the same that implement the promotion of dirty actions in favor of the such mad vandal. Please be human (not pig). If accordance with the rules on Wikipedia, you must block this vandal (I do not ask to block: only ask protect my actions and be normal human). In the community of Alexander Boldin 7000 of humans, which has common provider and common range of IP addresses. Currently I am not there (if I there even - nothing bad in this). - 2.94.199.65 (talk) 02:00, 28 July 2012 (UTC).

Re: Crovitz

I would be very careful citing or pointing to the Crovitz op/ed as you did on Jimbo's talk page. It's not just full of errors in every paragraph, but it pushes an anti-government POV that isn't actually reflected by historical sources. Read the comments to see just how poor a job Crovitz did. The authors of the very sources Crovitz used to made his point have come out against him saying he has distorted their work to push his POV. Not good. Michael Hiltzik, the source Crovitz uses to construct his argument, says:

Gordon Crovitz of the Wall Street Journal's editorial page reopens the ancient debate over who invented the Internet with a column Monday calling out the notion that it was the government as an "urban legend." And while I'm gratified in a sense that he cites my book about Xerox PARC, "Dealers of Lightning," to support his case, it's my duty to point out that he's wrong. My book bolsters, not contradicts, the argument that the Internet had its roots in the ARPANet, a government project...the bottom line is that the Internet as we know it was indeed born as a government project. In fact, without ARPA and Bob Taylor, it could not have come into existence. Private enterprise had no interest in something so visionary and complex, with questionable commercial opportunities. Indeed, the private corporation that then owned monopoly control over America's communications network, AT&T, fought tooth and nail against the ARPANet. Luckily for us, a far-sighted government agency prevailed. It's true that the Internet took off after it was privatized in 1995. But to be privatized, first you have to be government-owned. It's another testament to people often demeaned as "government bureaucrats" that they saw that the moment had come to set their child free.[1]

So, to summarize, Crovitz got it wrong, and Obama got it right. Viriditas (talk) 03:43, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but your flat summary "Crovitz got it wrong" is like taking the flaws in Crovitz, and raising them to a power.

Crovtiz was retelling the puncturing of a myth. It's a myth many of us have head, and I heard it punctured years ago. The notion that the internet was invented to ensure communication in a nuclear war is the story equivalent of a backronym. As is often, the case (and illustrated by you), some people can't swing the pendulum away from the myth without over-swinging. While trying to dispel the notion that it was all government, he reaches too far with "If the government didn't invent the Internet, who did?" Not content with reducing the government role, he implies it was non-existent.

You followed that lead. Not content with pointing out an over-reach, you declare it flat wrong. The truth is more nuanced than simple four word declarations.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 11:16, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Here's a better question: what did Crovitz get right? Anything? The entire crux of his argument rests on Hiltzik, who has now come out in the Los Angeles Times to debunk Crovitz, point by point, detail by detail.[2] Private industry did not create the Internet; in fact they fought it tooth and nail. Do you remember how long it took for Microsoft to even get their website up and running? No, you probably don't, which is why you fell for the Crovitz feint. The Internet got up and running with government money, and that's a fact. Crovitz can deny history all he wants, but some of us were around when it happened. That the WSJ is publishing this dreck says a great deal about what happens when you let a private company like News Corporation try to rewrite history. It's really sad that you've actually bought into this. Viriditas (talk) 12:21, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

As you may or may not be aware, Vint Cerf has also debunked Crovitz's attempt at revisionist history. "The U.S. government, including ARPA, NSF, DOE, NASA among others absolutely facilitated, underwrote, and pioneered the development of the Internet. The private sector engaged around 12 years into the program (about 1984-85) and was very much involved in powering the spread of the system. But none of this would have happened without this research support...Articles like Crovitz' distort history for political purposes and I hope people who want to know the real story will discount this kind of revisionist interpretation."[3] Viriditas (talk) 20:04, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Jumping to conclusions, as you did when you presumed I knew nothing about the history of Microsoft and the internet, can lead you to false conclusions. I wrote programs on punch cards before most editors were born; I was trying to wangle a 256K memory allocation on an IBM360 before most editors could walk. Don't get me started on paper tape as a storage medium. I'm well aware of Gates slow uptake on the web, it is the stuff of legend. But surely you know that anecdotes are not data. Pointing out that one company was slow to join the party is not a refutation of Crovitz.

Nor is Hiltzik administering the Fisking you seem to think. I've already pointed out that Crovitz over-reached. There's no question that the government played a role. On that point, Crovitz is guilty of hyperbole. But you weren't content to argue that Crovitz over-sold his point, you seem to think that Hiltzik has refuted Crovitz "point by point, detail by detail". You asked " what did Crovitz get right?" leaving the ludicrous suggestion that Crovitz was wrong on virtually every point.

Let's start with a claim in the second paragraph: "The myth is that the Pentagon created the Internet to keep its communications lines up even in a nuclear strike." It's a big deal, I've heard that claim many times. Crovitz purports to debunk it and Hiltzik…doesn't touch it.

Crovitz then talks about the contributions of Vannevar Bush. These aren't minor, in fact they were the whole point of my post to Jimbo. Bush had an intellectual vision that was remarkably prescient, and Hiltzik…says nothing.

Crovitz say the government didn't launch the internet, and I've agreed this is an over statement. But he then goes on to make specific statements. I've listed the first two, and in a point by point, detail by detail refutation, neither point is even mentioned. So much for point by point refutation.

Crovitz then mention ARPANet, the government project. So it isn't even an extraordinarily claim that the government wasn't involved, it is an argument over how much credit to give to the government.

Crovitz then quotes Taylor, " The Arpanet was not an Internet. An Internet is a connection between two or more computer networks." A rather narrow picky point. How does Hiltzik respond? Confusing, he claims Crovitz " confuses AN internet with THE Internet." No he doesn't. He is saying ARPANet isn't AN internet. Well, if it isn't AN internet , it can hardly be THE internet. Frankly, I think this is also over reach by Crovitz. I agree with Hiltzik that " ARPANet was very much the precursor of the Internet". However, if you are a precursor of something, you aren't that something. So Hiltzik, while defending his friend Taylor, and using words that sound like he disagree with Crovitz, ends up agreeing with the main (albeit minor) point of Crovitz.

Crovitz then claims " Vinton Cerf developed the TCP/IP protocol" Hiltzik's response "...Cerf and Kahn did develop TCP/IP...". Do you call that a refutation? Hiltzik adds important nuance, that others, including the government, were involved, but Crovitz's claim of Cerf's involvement is not disputed.

I could go on, but I have a meeting shortly. In summary, while Hiltzik makes a good case that Crovitz has engaged in hyperbole, his response supports many of the claims made by Crovitz , while adding nuance and shading to some others. Hardly the "point by point, detail by detail" refutation you claimed.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 12:04, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

The idea of survivable communications networks isn't a myth—that's how we got packet switching which allows us to communicate on the Internet. From the article on Paul Baran:

After joining the RAND Corporation that same year, Baran took on the task of designing a "survivable" communications system that could maintain communication between end points in the face of damage from nuclear weapons. At the time of the Cold War, most American military communications used High Frequency connections which could be put out of action for many hours by a nuclear attack. Baran decided to automate RAND director Franklin R. Collbohm's previous work with emergency communication over conventional AM radio networks and showed that a distributed relay node architecture could be survivable. The Rome Air Development Center soon showed that the idea was practicable.

The "myth" exists in reducing the "story" of the Internet to just one aspect of packet switching design. It's only one part of the story that has dozens of parts. Furthermore, my understanding is that while this was the idea behind packet switching, the Internet as a whole is not designed (nor was it designed) to survive a nuclear war. The irony of the entire system is that it is primarily used for things it was never designed for in the first place. Viriditas (talk) 02:06, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

My daughter recently visited, and mentioned that one of her pet peeves is the overuse of the word "irony". Sorry, but I couldn't help but notice that you misused it. Yes, the internet, as with many other things like lasers, are used for purposes other than those in mind at the time of the original design. This is interesting, and often good, but rarely ironic. Back to the main point, Crovitz didn't challenge the notion that survivable communications networks exist, or even that packet switching was invented for that purpose. He repeated the puncturing of the myth that surviving a nuclear war was the motivation behind the creation of the internet.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 12:11, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Sangita.jpg

Did they give you a source? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:04, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

The claim is that they are the creator and sole owner of the copyright. Have you seen anything that would suggest otherwise? Generally, unless there are red flags, we accept their word. If there are red flags, we investigate further, and on occasion have found that someone is claiming to own something that isn't theirs.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 11:51, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Sphilbrick. You have new messages at SarahStierch's talk page.
Message added 17:14, 30 July 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

SarahStierch (talk) 17:14, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Banned user

Could you take care of this please? Thank you. --E4024 (talk) 19:41, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Responded at your talk page.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 19:51, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Permission confirmation

Hello. I recently tagged this article as a G12 CSD. The author said that he received email permission to use the content. I was told that you were likely the one that received the OTRS email and would be able to confirm this and subsequently reverse the CSD if necessary. Thanks Topher385 (talk) 00:26, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I saw the permission request, but I think they are confused about what is needed. Or maybe I am, but the permission statement was "granting" permission for the words in User:Pilot03/sandbox, without reference to an external site. I responded, letting the editor know what was needed. It is fair to say that I believe the editor is making a good faith attempt to resolve a copyright issue with a license for the source material, but hasn't yet provided the permission. I just now read the talk page. The editor is correct, but confused. I'll respond there.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 02:04, 31 July 2012 (UTC)