User talk:Jnc/2005B

Vinnie (Vincent) Richards:

Hi, I can understand you changing Vinnie to Vincent in the list of Pro championships, but are you going to do it for *all* the players, so that Pancho Gonzales becomes Richardo Gonzales, Fred Perry becomes Frederick Perry, etc.? Vinnie Richards was *always* known as Vinnie when he was playing, never as Vincent except in extremely formal lists. I personally think that the common names of all the players should be left as they are. Is Pancho Segura gonna become Franciso Segura? No one would know who he is.... Hayford Peirce 1 July 2005 04:43 (UTC)

Okie, I see where the confusion arises. I've just done a Google, and there are about 850 references to "Vinnie" and 530 for "Vincent", which is suggestive but not conclusive. I have two large encyclopedias of tennis, one an "Official" one from the USTA of about 25 years ago, the other the even bigger new one by Bud Collins called Total Tennis. The first one has more stats than write-ups. It refers to Richards, as far as I can tell, as Vincent. Throughout Total Tennis, except in a couple of tournament results, Richards is always called Vinnie, with many references to him in various articles. Frank deFord's biography, Big Bill Tilden, has many references to Richards, always as Vinnie. When I was young, I knew people who had known Richards, and played against him, and they always referred to him as Vinnie. I don't know enough about him to know what he called himself. But I certainly won't argue with you about this if you want to change all the Vinnies to Vincent.... Hayford Peirce 1 July 2005 18:45 (UTC)

Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen:

Hi, I wondered why Mary-Kate and Ashley Olsen wansnt showing up on my watchlist. It has been blocked since 20 June. I think some of the dispute has died down, and request you remove the protection. Thanks <>Who ?¿? 04:33, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Noel 18:15, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for the unprotection, of course, my luck, the same user went back to blanking the talk page, I already reported it on WP:AIV. Just thought I would let you know, I kinda feel bad now :) . <>Who ?¿? 03:21, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you didn't really want to archive the Talk: page (it was only 54K or so, not very large), let me know and I'll move it back (you can't, the replacement now has edit history)

Yea, I really didn't want it archived, still had things in discussion, was just hoping it would actually do some good, seeing this some of the discussion was about him. If you don't mind, you can move it back, now that you have the rest of his ip range blocked. Thanks. ∞Who ?¿? 20:49, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

American Nihilist Underground Society:

Hi. You recently replaced the redirect at American Nihilist Underground Society with {{deletedpage}}, but didn't protect the article, so it's still receiving periodic vandalism. If it was an oversight not to protect it, could you please do so? If it was intentional, I think the page is doing more harm now than it was as a redirect, and I would appreciate it if you clarified your intentions. Thank you. —Cryptic (talk) 04:54, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Butch Buchholz:

Thanks, this whole "redirect" thing can be very confusing. I wrote the new article and thought that I had fixed the Earl (Butch) Buchholz article to be redirected to the new one. And then thought I had deleted the appropriate thingee. I'm still not clear if *anyone* can delete a redirect under what seem like appropriate circumstances, especially when the article in question also seems like it might be deleted.... Sorry for any confusion I've caused. And thanks for your help. Hayford Peirce 23:19, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Libertarianism:

Hey, now that the reason that Libertarianism is being reverted all the time is blocked for another 24 hours, is it strictly necessary for us to have that page locked? - Ta bu shi da yu 05:47, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh... forgot I'd done this... - Ta bu shi da yu 05:58, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Alfrem (talk · contribs) is now permanently banned from editing the article. We'll still have to deal with his sockpuppets, but we might as well identify them now that we have the attention of ArbCom and a favorable decision against him. I would suggest unlocking it- we have some legitimate disputes that need resolution. --Malathion 23:02, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Endocentric:

You seem to have added to Endocentric the phrase

For example, if a has a "lion house", that phrase is endocentric since it functions as a noun, as are its two constituent words.

I'm afraid I can't make any sense out of

if a has a "lion house"

which I assume was an editing error of some sort --Trovatore 05:03, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lithuania:

Ok, thanks DeirYassin 08:27, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WIKIPEDIA ABUSE Ril, (81.156.177.21).:

Ril has been causing problems at Authentic Matthew. Please help us to resolve.

RIL - M.O.

1) Sock Puppet redirects and hopes nobody notices - Article Gone.

2) SP starts edit war-victim gives up - Article Gone.

3) Later new SP 'merges' and redirects - Article Gone

4) New SP starts edit war - Article Gone

5) If all fails, SP puts up Vfd and makes false statements against his victim often getting THE VICTIM BLOCKED.

PLEASE STUDY THE 'EDIT HISTORY' OF THIS ARTICLE, RIL and 81.156.177.21 for the facts speak for themselves. --Mikefar 05:08, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the above is one of the numerous sockpuppets of the article's creator - User:Melissadolbeer - see the user's edit history, and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Melissadolbeer for details. The article in question is Melissadolbeer's original research based on an account by Jerome which is almost universally considered to be an error confusing 3 different gospels (Gospel of the Nazarenes, Gospel of the Hebrews, and Gospel of the Ebionites). It also contains material presenting Eusebius's views of what was Biblical Canon - better discussed at those two articles, and the entire source text of the alleged Gospel, which is otherwise almost universally split into the 3 seperate texts above. The source text was already on WikiSource, and what was salvagable from the remainder of the article was merged to the above 5 articles, and Gospel of Matthew, at the suggestion of User:Wetman. It exists only to support Melissadolbeer's original research thesis. Melissadolbeer's claims of abuse against me, 81.156.177.21, doc, Slrubenstien, etc. are simply down to the fact that we have at one time or another merged the article elsewhere leaving only a redirect, or have voted to delete it at VFD. The above comment by the sockpuppet has been pasted by it into a vast number of user pages, an act which essentially constitutes excessive disruption to Wikipedia, simply because Melissadolbeer refuses to abide by the process of VFD. ~~~~ 19:13, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see you again:

You're right probably. :-). Still, I'm an admin and have some responsibility to stay up-to-date and weigh in on new policy. (Luckily no-one managed to create a policy for the automatic de-op'ing of admins after an arbitrary amount of time...). Your advice is appreciated! — David Remahl 03:03, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to comments on my talk page:

Noel, I am sad that you consider me to have committed what you consider to be an offense against your authority. (Although, of course, not one against Wikipedia rules.) I take my responsibilities as an admin very seriously, and I am quite upset that you are calling into question my good faith, and, in particular, my ability to keep my roles as admin and editor separate.

Let me explain my actions. I did two things: First, I unprotected the article, which had been blocked for over eleven hours to keep out a 3RR sockpuppet editor, to allow anyone to edit it, as is normal. This was a purely technical action, and quite in accordance with policy; protecting pages to temporarily halt edit wars is only intended as a temporary measure, and is not intended to be used for long periods.

Then, almost two and a half hours later, I went back to the article, wearing my normal user's hat and edited it, in what I considered to be good faith and in a way that was fair to both sides, and also reflected other editors' discussion in the talk page -- note, for example, that I replaced the list I removed with a cite to the original source of the removed text -- and left the article unprotected as before, still available for anyone else to edit. Note that the article was unprotected both before and after my editorial edit.

Now, if I had wanted to abuse my admin powers, I could have simply edited it whilst protected, or used any of a number of subterfuges to hide my actions. As you can plainly see, I did not, and all of my edits are clearly visible, and are as explained above. I can only imagine that when you made your comments, you had not checked the timestamps.

Please calm down before you begin describing other people's actions as "egregious" or an "offense". May I suggest that the way forward with the IP sockpuppet is to deal with them by blocking their IP range, rather than indefinitely blocking pages, or taking issue with other admins? -- The Anome 23:58, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Re: Magdoff and the VENONA book:

You mentioned here that you had available to you another secondary source reference as to Magdoff's activities. On the contrary to your implicit assertions, I believe this would be very valuable. Would you please cite the instance in which he is named, including the page number and relevant footnotes, etc.? Thank you very much. --TJive 16:13, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

Would you take a look at User:Nobs/Magdoff and make any edits that seem necessary. Any criticism or help you can do is greatly appreciated. thx. nobs 16:55, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Celebrating:

Hi! I've just crossed a symbolic milestone. Three thousand edits! I feel like celebrating. Have a cigar! Don't worry, I don't smoke them either, but it's all good :)! Cheers, Redux 15:21, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pi:

I apologise for creation the reditrects for partial representations of Pi, Noel. I left a message on the Pi talk page but no-one answered. Can I either see the page where it was discussed or can you explain briefly the reasons. Redirects are cheap after all... --Celestianpower ^talk 12:20, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

COTW:

Actually, I may have done somthing without knowing the details. Thanks.--Bhadani 02:38, 21 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Wikipedia error message on save:

Thanks. Yes, I'm very well aware of that and I did check the history between each save and even waited about a minute each time to see if they were saved. But this time it took even longer than it usually does on these save-errors (about 4 minutes from my first save, it turned out), so I thought the saves hadn't gone through, which also happens sometimes. Shanes 19:26, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Felix Manalo Article:

Sorry about the cut-and-paste. It wasn't apparent to me that time that WP provides a move feature. Ealva 22:46, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Andover alumni:

I was looking through the Andover "famous alumni" and didn't recognize many of them. The unrecognizable ones also don't have their own Wiki listing. Perhaps alumni who haven't yet warranted a page should be deleted. Thanks <John> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.188.117.11 (talk • contribs) 17:09, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RfD:

Just wanted to make sure that someone was watching. Some Wikitasks have been left undone because the last person who cared gafiated, after all. Good for you. Septentrionalis 21:55, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RE:RfD:

Hi Noel. I was just looking through my talk page and I realised I'd forgot to reply to your message (*cue believeable excuses stage-left*). Sorry about the delete thingy, I didn't realise it had to stay there for a week (I'll leave the page alone now :-p). Oh and thanks for the offer of archiving the noticeboard but just as you have no time, I'm currently sorting out WP:PUI and have no time for it either (with a pinch of bone-idleness thrown in too :-P). Speaking of which, I don't suppose you know of anyone that might give me a hand? There used to be me and another admin but he hasn't got time for it either and I just look at huge lists sometimes and want to cry. Anyone, theatre aside, if you do know of anyone please let me know. Thanks a lot Craigy (talk) 05:02, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

POV Harry Magdoff fork:

Jnc, if you haven't already, could you take a look at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Conspiracy allegations about Harry Magdoff? Thanks. --TJive 19:17, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

IAS:

I'll go see what you've written. As for Fine Hall, both the name and the math department have since been moved to a new building, halfway across campus. This ancient history had not occurred to me when I nominated the redirect, but I still think it should go. (I agree with how you handle replies; watching other user talk pages embarasses me, without necessarily telling me I've been answered.)Septentrionalis 15:45, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"My blushes, Watson" ;) Septentrionalis 16:00, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

VfD Cat:Soviet spies:

Please see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Category:Soviet spies. Thank you. nobs 20:26, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reread your comments on the problem of Categorizing Soviet spies. I'm something of newbie with limited technical knowhow, so I'm not sure what or how a Metacategory works. Perhaps Soviet spies could be renamed, sorted out, and integrated into this Category:Soviet and Russian intelligence agencies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nobs01 (talk • contribs) 16:36, 5 August 2005 (UTC)nobs 17:08, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think I can follow it the way you explained. Two questions: (1) what would be the appropriate time frame, wait til the Category survives the VfD? and (2) what about "operatives" as a temporary catchall, excluding Soviet nationals as Case Officers, perhaps leaving them in Category:NKVD? nobs 17:08, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've created Category:Venona, which I think I screwed up. I'd like to make it a subcategory of Category:Espionage (this may help end some disputes leaving it outside "Soviet" references for now). Could you look at it and maybe fix whatever i screwed up. Thanks. nobs 03:28, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks alot, you're a life saver. I'm thinking of then within Category:Venona, creating subcategories Venona Appendix A, Venona Appendix B, Venona Appendix D etc (using Haynes & Klehr as a guide). This hopefully will end the contentious disputes about including so-and-so as a "Soviet spy" etc. What needs to be done eventually is sepatate KGB from GRU, since KGB has undergone so many reorganzations, whereas GRU is still very much alive and in existence. And eventually there will be a need for an SVD grouping too. Thanks again. nobs 04:17, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments on Muwaffaq's page:

You said that if he "pulled this kind of stunt again" he would be blocked. Please see this edit [1].Heraclius 04:58, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Quux:

← No relation to Guy Steele; in fact, I didn't know he invented "quux" until you pointed me to the article. The "plus one" doesn't indicate any kind of relationship; it indicates that I needed something random but longer than four characters. :) --Quuxplusone 19:28, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Perlo:

Let me call your attention to Victor Perlo. I would like to separate Victor Perlo's personal biography from Perlo group. He made some interesting quote's in the late 1990s, for example, "The Gorbachev-Yeltsin betrayal, which destroyed the USSR..." etc. Let me know if you are interested in collaborating. Thanks. nobs 21:01, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Vandalism:

I commented at User_talk:Redwolf24/Archive08#Vandalism. Redwolf24 23:13, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

3020 (user):

Yeah, after I put the rfc template on the page, I tried to add it to the rfc page and was having problems accessing the page, so when I came back and the database was working again, that was the first edit I made. It was when I saw that the link was red that I realized that it had been deleted between the time the system went down and I was able to come back and add it to the page. Sorry about that, I should have checked prior to making the edit. (Ugh. System error again when I tried to add this)John Barleycorn 04:07, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Re: Swamithoppu:

Sorry for the failure to sign the comments.

Noel wrote: RfD notices go on the redirect itself, not the target page, the talk page, etc.

I did place the redirect on the page I proposed to redirect. I think I also placed the RfD on the Talk page as well though, I am unsure why that is not proper?

My opinions for the correct name were posted on Wikipedia:Redirects for deletion.

Noel wrote: Comments about what to do with an article always go on the Talk: page of the article.

Sorry about placing the comment on the content instead of the talk page.

Noel wrote: Never, ever, cut-and-paste to move a page from one name to another. Use the "move this page" link.

I did (do) not cut-and-paste anything, sorry for the implication! Thanks for the instruction, however "Never, ever," seems a bit rough (since I have never done such a thing).

Sorry if I got the procedure wrong. I appreciate your comments. I have never attempted a redirect of a page, I now have a little better understand of how to do it, but I will still leave the redirects up to the administrators. Your comments were very helpful. Steven McCrary 00:26, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Chip Berlet:

Noel, the backdrop to the problem at Chip Berlet is that User:Rangerdude has been waging almost a campaign of harassment against User:Willmcw and User:Cberlet for weeks. I don't know the details, but it has been vicious and irrational. It culminated in Rangerdude posting an RfC against Chip and Will, which went decisively against Rangerdude: see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Cberlet & Willmcw. (And he has since posted another RfC against User:FuelWagon simply because FuelWagon supported Chip: see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/FuelWagon.) Now, it appears out of revenge, Rangerdude is trying to edit more criticism into Chip Berlet — not just the Horowitz material, but he wants to rewrite the article — and is elsewhere trying to have Chip's published journalism ruled as an inappropriate source for Wikipedia articles. It's a bad situation, and I for one would appreciate it if the page could stay protected until we figure out what to do about it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:38, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Also, Rama endorsed the protection in case you didn't notice his comment. [2] SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:34, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Noel, please assume good faith. Jayjg saw it come up on his watchlist several times being reverted, so he protected it. As for the Horowitz section, I agree with you, and TJive and I have agreed a compromise, with Rangerdude the only one not in agreement. However, there's a larger issue, and that's Rangerdude's desire to rewrite the whole page, which he shouldn't be doing as part of a vendetta. It's WP:POINT at the very least, and could cause legal problems because Rangerdude has openly declared his hostility toward the subject. That's why I'd like the page to stay protected so the other editors can agree on what balance of criticism to positive material is appropriate, and can cooperate in making sure no inappropriate criticism is inserted. Will you allow it to stay protected if TJive agrees? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:39, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, Noel. I'd appreciate any advice. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:01, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

The page was on my watchlist, and I saw it reverted yet again. Since there was an edit-war going on, I simply protected it. Early on in my admin career I reverted a page and protected, and was soundly excoriated for doing so; since then it has been my policy to always protect the current version, regardless of what it is. Had I reverted first I would no doubt have been accused of favouring some other version. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:22, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your latest note, Noel. I think Nobs may have been supportive of Rangerdude, though I'm not certain of that. I'm considering going to the arbcom with the problem, but haven't decided for sure. In the meantime, the best thing would be to find an uninvolved, completely neutral, very good editor to keep an eye on the neutrality of the edits. I would normally suggest Willmcw, as he's excellent at solving NPOV problems, but Rangerdude has it in for him too (he seems to have it in for a lot of good editors). There's Mel Etitis but RD would probably reject him too. I'll try to think of someone tomorrow. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:56, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Re: Princess Alexandra of Greece:

In continuing with our previous conversation at User talk:Matjlav, the reason I moved "Princess Alexandra of Greece" to "Alexandra Georgievna" (then later someone moved it to Alexandra Yurievna) was because the former article name would be more likely applied to Alexandra of Greece. What's more, the article did not even mention in a headnote that Alexandra of Greece could also be reffering to the aforementioned Queen of Yugoslavia. That's why I feel it's more efficient to put the article on Alexandra Georgievna. --Matjlav 04:12, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have written my answer to your message at User talk:Arrigo#Alexandras of Greece. Please visit read it. Arrigo 20:26, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

my original request for deletion:

Unfortunately, I did not know that. I thought that as the requested deletion had got done, the request is unnecessary and can be deleted. 217.140.193.123 18:18, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Substantive title:

Article looks pretty good to me. There's no need for it to be terribly long, I think. If you haven't already, you might ask Emsworth or Proteus to comment. john k 18:07, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto John. Thanks much for creating that. I'll give Prince a look as well... Mackensen (talk) 00:26, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi:

Thanks for the advice. Unfortunately, I like Recent Changes patrol. :) Zoe 05:41, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Alexandra of Greece/Ancestral data:

Hi Jnc,

I read your post on the talk page of Alexandra of Greece with great interest. I've never heard anyone connect the rulers of the Eastern Roman Empire to the Glücksburg dynasty before. This must mean that the current royal families of Denmark and Norway are also related to the Eastern Roman emperors. May I ask, where you found these data? Best regards from Denmark. Valentinian 00:01, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of people known by incredibly long title :

_ _ Despite your very clever and fully justified talk title, which i thoroly enjoyed, "full name" is too far from having its primary meaning coincide with the intent of your list. Sophocles, Ataxerxes, and Mao Tse-tung are as much full names as the people so far on your list. There are lots of long titles, and as Lincoln implied of his legs, "too long" would mean reaching further down than to the floor. It needs (if it needs to exist at all) a title as long is it takes to not mislead people. With your title, it would be (since people, once they've seen the title and decided a name they think of qualifies, will ignore whatever you put at the top of the page (the first page of many, i expect), go looking for that name, and add it without looking back) an overwhelming task to keep cleaning out the people someone puts on it just for lacking a middle name -- or bcz the middle name is widely known, even if not mandatory.
_ _ As to need for the list to exist at all, your people are unlike people known by initials, or without their surnames, bcz those people may occasionally be

unreasonably hard to find in LoPbN, and
easier to find on the corresponding lists.

In contrast, no one would be significantly easier to find on your list than LoPbN: To find Henry xxx Thoreau, you just go to the end of all the Thoreau, Henry [no middle name] entries, and there they are, alpha by middle name. There is 10-to-four support for LoPbN as a navigational device. Your list sounds to me like a trivia game, and i'd bet on it being easy VfD bait.
_ _ I'm not going to be the one to VfD it if it has an accurate title, and if i do VfD, it will be on the separate ground that the only articles that could be written, and accurately described by that "full name" title, are rendered redundant by the existing LoPbN.
_ _ Have you considered People known by more than given and sur-name? I didn't propose that bcz a middle name is to my understanding a subsidiary part of a given name, but i would find that much less obviously wrong than "full name": the biggest problem with "full name" is that no one would say that someone lacking a middle name has no full name; in contrast, nearly anyone looking at that "more than" will expect that they need to know more about what kind of "more than" is intended: conscious unclarity is much more tolerable than the misplaced certainty "full name" would produce.
--Jerzy•t 23:57, 2005 August 17 (UTC)

Venona again:

Please be advised the Venona list and all names of persons cited have been removed from the Venona project article proper as a good faith effort to de-politicize the subject and allow editors interested in the purely cryptographic aspects of Venona further developement of the page. However, Mr. Cberlet has returned from hiatus and recently inserted materials attacking the government's case against 171 individuals. I have proposed declaring the main Venona project article neutral of historical & political disputes, and those arguements be moved to Significance of Venona. Your comments or suggestions are welcome. nobs 00:05, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Will do. nobs 01:05, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I listed that Weinstein and Vasilliev book in VENONA or elsewhere as a reference though I don't believe it was cited. However, there was a dispute between the two mostly over the characterization of material related to Hiss which is a single point always played upon by the anti-revisionists (to label them respectfully), similar to how it is always heard that two editors of The Black Book of Communism dissociated themselves from a few remarks in the intro. Nothing substantive but broad smears.

Incidentally I have the "Battleground: Berlin" book but haven't looked through it much. --TJive 02:50, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Noel: Got Haunted Wood right here on my lap. thx. nobs 17:08, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bentley:

I'll do a search; I have a good idea where the whole may exist in the Silvermaster file & have been meaning to examine it (unsure if it's the whole, or just the page with her signature on), but I will check it out and get back in about 3 or 4 hours. nobs 21:46, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For now you can see pg.6 PDF format [3] bottom of page for a clue where it is; right now I here the dinner bell ringing. nobs 22:12, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This index [4] PDF format pgs. 7-9 gives a continuous narrative that includes all Bentley's testimonies, from her deposition to various Congressional hearings up to 1953, with comparisons and inconsistencies. (It relates to a lawsuit between the FBI & William H. Taylor in 1955, at which point the FBI pretty well screwed up the case, good defense lawyers were beginning to pick it apart). It does go into details of her depositions between 27-30 November 1945, (and you can just subtract out the SISS & HUAC hearings if need be). May be the closest thing to a continuous narrative in the Silvermaster file. Also the FBI site says there is Bentley material in the Rosenberg file, which is only 171 pgs. The full, original, deposition would be what's called a "FOIA Special Request", and you may have to pay for it, unless somebody already did and posted in the web. I'll keep looking. nobs 02:22, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I believe she signed another deposition on 30 December 1945, but I'm only speaking from memory. And if you follow that index above, the whole file is only about 88 pages ("Resume of Facts" is a good read). nobs 02:22, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the file #:30 November 1945, FBI file 65-14603. Checked all the .gov search engines, etc.; I dont' believe it's available in open source on the internet. nobs 19:47, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also this section of the Silvermaster file [5] PDF format pgs. 86-93 (last 8 pgs) memo 24 August 1948 Ladd to the Director deals will specifics regarding the time of her defection and summary material. Interogations evidentally lasted from 7 November to 30 November, was approximately 500 pages in length, and I believe she signed a second statement on 30 December 1945, too. Is there person named specifically you are looking for, cause that I can locate. nobs 20:01, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A word of thanks on the Bentley article. Eventually, someday, I'd like to revisit specifically the citations you discovered regarding the Remington v Bentley lawsuit, because this touches precisely on what the original, true definition of what McCarthyism is. Senator Homer Ferguson questioned Bentley on Remington, shortly after Bentley's sensational testimony at HUAC. Remington just happened to be the focus of the Senate's investigation when Bentley was called to testify, and Bentley ended up being sued over events which she had no control. Since that incident, and afterwards, with the experiences of Joseph McCarthy, Senate Rules have been revised to consider carefully witness rights before requiring them to testify (obviously Homer Ferguson is not Joe McCarthy). All this has its origins in "grandstanding" and media sensationalism, without considering the effects a powerful Senate Committee can have on a witnesse's life. At some point, this needs to be written about, but I got my hands full now with the Venona stuff. Thanks again. nobs 00:56, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I finally noticed...:

Nah, not really, it's just the I've aquired bigger responsibilities that require running from, so I've been hiding out here a bit. Still, good to see you too! Have a cup of tea and a some barnstars :) --fvw * 01:26, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Damn it Noel.:

Damn it Noel, why did you fuck with the Are you Afraid of the Dark page!?! You just had to break the page again didn't you? The redirect is confusing as hell with the question mark. Heres an idea, leave my edit alone. If it doesnt work for me I'm sure the page is messed up for someone else too. Leave the question mark out.--Arm 03:48, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah you did edit the pages. It's called reverting. When I try hard to fix a problem (understanding why the problem exists mainly) that is utterly confusing and then someone comes around and reverts everything that I worked hard to fix, it kinda makes a person angry doesnt it?

I think the problem might have to do with the many redirects with similar names for Are you Afraid of the Dark. There are a few with similar names and I guess they cause a mixup. I cant delete them as I'm not an admin and people just revert when I try to blank the page. I guess if all those similar redirects were deleted there wouldnt be a problem.

Oh and those redirects are not needed anyway. --Arm 12:09, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

re Go and Search:

You wrote: Err, "Go" is not "Search" - it's go. In other words, it's exactly the same as typing that string into a URL (except that wierd characters like '?' get correctly escaped). If someone wants a search, they need to hit the "Search" button. Noel (talk) 03:47, 5 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what brings this up, but "Go" doesn't act like a URL fetch. Compare this URL vs. typing "user talk:Rick block" in the search box and hitting "Go". By URL, it doesn't find my talk page. Using "Go" it does. I haven't looked at the code, but I'm pretty sure in most cases "Go" is doing a case insensitive SQL lookup by article name, and if there is a match that doesn't follow certain rules, the match must be a full case sensitive match. URL fetch (and wikilnks) seem to be case sensitive all the time. Is there some problem you're chasing, or (perhaps more likely) something I've said you think is incorrect? -- Rick Block (talk) 05:00, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you're talking about this edit? I agree using the terminology "Go search" is probably confusing and your version is better, although I still maintain "Go" actually does a search by article title (not a URL fetch). -- Rick Block (talk) 23:35, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

History of the Internet:

- Not sure how to find your talk page. Apparently moved.

Huh? Mosaic (web browser) clearly mentions both uSoft and Netscape, and Abbate's book mentions the Netscape connection too.

-Going the wrong way. Mosaic pre-dated Netscape by a long way. Just go to Netscape or MSIE, click on help, chick on about, and there is the tribute to Mosaic. Plus, I was there. If you look at the webpages on Mosaic they claim invention (1990's) long after I was a user and freely distributing copies (1980's) which was years before the copyright.

Anyway, getting back to Albert Clark, I'm afraid anything as late as 1979 was in no way notable; use of interactive systems was quite wide-spread by then (although not ubiquitous).

-I'm am well aware of interactive systems being in use. The difference is adding thousands of ordinary government employees to a formal interactive system for the conduct of day to day non-computer related business. Prior to that time, at least in the government, computers were key punch cards fed in by computer professionals who printed out batch reports.

Any material dating to the 1960's would be of considerably more interest, though. Not that it will necessarily produce any great change in the histories; I don't think his work was significant to the ARPANet people, who were going along the path laid out quite a few years earlier by J. C. R. Licklider, and, AFAIK, knew nothing of Clark's work.

- I don't know as AFAIK existed in the 60's. Certainly no one working there now. My documentation shows that Clark did not go through formal computer request processes. He defined a need through the management side who took action to build a system that became the ARPANET.

- As far as Licklider, I read some of his stuff around 1960-1966, not sure when. I read of lot of other science fiction so I know the idea was mainstream future. Might seem increadible to someone younger, but in 1960 they were predicting computer controlled automobiles that would follow wired highways by 1984...didn't happen...still waiting. People were playing chess against computers in the 1950's. His funding priorities really helped though. It was R&D money looking for a home. The money was close to being taken away by Congress when the requirement for computers to share data came to DARPA. Army computer talking to Air Force computer, perfect. (Army is the main driver of DARPA and involving AF made it a joint service project). Use the money to pay for University study and software programming, perfect. Quick response to immediate problem, perfect. Who gets the credit? The person with no idea but influence to get money or the guy with the idea to apply the money.

I encourage you to obtain a read a copy of Lick's excellent biography (The Dream Machine, Mitchell Waldrop) which covers the early period (from the later 50's onward) in great detail. Noel (talk) 22:47, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- I just love how people come along long after the fact and try to document things that happened before they were born. The Dream Machine copyright is 2001. History should be written by people that were there that have nothing to gain financially. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allynnc (talk • contribs) 18:03, 9 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

History of the Internet:

Coppied over from your comments on my talk page. Please make comments disputing changes to an article on the articles talk page.

Prior to the Internet, communication networks would operate based on their physical transmission method - Ah, technically, no, Even the ARPAnet needed nothing more than a bit-string and clock, and it used a number of different physical transmission technologies (including satellite links) to get that. (You may have meant something slightly different, but I can only go by what's there.)

This what a typo. I'd intended to write internetworking. Which by definition is the unification of diferent physical networks.

as the research project at the UK's National Physical Laboratory under the direction of Donald Davies - I am unaware that Davies played any role at all in internetworking (he certainly had no role after '77, which was when I joined the project); please provide a reference to his work on that topic. (His role in packet-switching is well known, but that's different.)

Um... Packet switching is inherently an internetwork technology, not sure I can imagine any other way it would be used?

who developed the concepts of packet switched networks - The credit for packet switching is split several ways; see the ARPANET article for a more detailed look at this topic (Baran's work is the earliest).

Well, the article on Packet Switching gives Davies credit?

Parallel to DARPA's research, packet switching networks were developed by the International Telecommunication Union in the form of X.25. - There was nothing "parallel" about it. Telenet was an ARPANet clone, done by Larry Roberts after he left DARPA, and went online in '75. X.25 was heavily based on Telenet. In any event, the X.25 spec was only done in '76, contemporaneously with the early Internet work.

Then edit this to be correct. Say that X.25 is a branch of the early ARPANet development. I do not accept it's a clone of ARPANet since Telenet

X.25 would see large take up in business, particularly banking and public access networks. - So? It was a non-related branch that died off (like a whole bunch of other failed networking technologies, such as SNA, DECnet, etc, etc, etc), and irrelevant to the history of the Internet.

X.25 was the home for a wide wide range of comercial public access networks, including AOL and Compuserve. Leaving them out makes it appear that comercial public access networks sprung up after NSFnet.

The Internet's technical roots lie within the ARPANET, - You added the "technical", but this is incorrect. The "network culture" of the early Internet was a direct transplant of the culture which had grown up on the ARPANet (with mailing lists, etc, etc), so it's more than just "technical".

I dispute this. USENET, and BBSs in general gave the Internet it's "geek" culture. Remember, ARPANET was a military development, the D in DARPA. The mailing list culture came over from USENET and the colleges where research took place.

which was initially the core network in the collection of networks in the American Internet Backbone - Again, incorrect. See the 1982 and 1985 maps. In the early stages, the ARPANET was the backbone, there was nothing else.

Fair enough, I won't dispute this. However, between 1985 the X.25 college and institute networks in europe were being converted over to a European Internet so it is important to note that ARPANET was the US Internet backbone. (see http://www.mkaz.com/ebeab/history/)

Early TCP/IP work - In the earliest Internet work, there were no separate TCP and IP protocols, so this title is inaccurate.

Never the less, the section in question was solely about the development of TCP/IP.

The early Internet, based around the ARPANET, was government-funded - The material you struck out was factual and accurate. See the circa-'85 Internet map I added to the article.

Which lacks any of the European Internet based around CERN.

I'll re-edit to adress your concerns, and restore information on the non-ARPANET contrabutions to The Internet.--John R. Barberio ^{talk, contribs 11:07, 30 August 2005 (UTC)}[reply]

ARPA/DARPA Researchers:

Anyone who received ARPA/DARPA research grants was a DoD employee for the period of research, and in respect to the products of the research. --John R. Barberio ^{talk, contribs 10:33, 31 August 2005 (UTC)}[reply]

IP Address:

I like your idea about moving the IP address allocations to a different place ;) 0waldo 00:02, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1Time:

Yeah, I remember that. A whole bunch of similar and near-useless South African-themed nanostubs came pouring in from that same IP that day. It was before I had the priviledge of the "history eraser button" at my disposal, so I thought that a redirect looked better than a red link. I agree it's pretty useless redirect and I'll go vote accordingly. Thanks for the heads-up. - Lucky 6.9 16:49, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Votes for deletion question?:

I was wondering if you could tell me who I would I could get tally up a vote and whether the length of time from September 1 to now is long enough to decide a vote. My question is specifically in regards to the Samuel Krafsur votes for deletion. Any info would be a big help. Dwain 17:05, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the help! Dwain

Re: Cut-n-paste move:

Re your note: Thanks for making me aware of just how bad a practice that is. Next time I will ask an admin for help. It just seemed so strange to me that someone would create the main article under a name which, on the entire Web, Google found only on Kenneth R. Conklin's website (KRC being a political opponent of Ms Kame'eleihiwa)—with the name everyone else uses (646 Google hits) as a redirect. It seemed part of some sort of dodgy manoeuvre, which impression increased after I determined that initially the only content of said article was a reference to a "damaging" newspaper article about her given prominent play on, where else, Dr Conklin's website. So although the Wikipedia guideline is "assume good faith", there may be an overall pattern here that bears further watching and investigation. --IslandGyrl 20:49, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

… As to that editor's political orientation, well, that's life. No doubt they feel the same way about you, right? :-) The challenge for both of you will be to try and work together to produce articles...

Exactly. And if worst comes to worst, one learns to walk away from troll-bait and work on something else rather than engaging in revert or flame wars. In fact, from the Wikipedia perspective, if we both achieve the proper distance from our subject matter, the two of us would probably make an ideal team :-) . --IslandGyrl 21:19, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

History of the Internet:

Noel, can I please ask you to back off from the History of the Internet article rill you cool down, for reasons given on the talk page. At the very least, read the article before you complain about it. --John R. Barberio ^{talk, contribs 23:46, 14 September 2005 (UTC)}[reply]

Again, can I ask you to back off. You are reaching the point of making adversarial personal attacks. You are no longer contributing to the article, and instead seem concentrated on proving your point, and picking out any errors your opponant makes, even on talk page comments which don't get fact checking. Please take a cool off period on this. You are not helping this article by throwing your weight around. Your personal experience with the ARPANET being your early Internet world is colouring your view of this. There are other people who came from the UUCP side of things who find the concept that ARPANET was 'The Internet' and all other networks are insignificant to be a disputable POV. --John R. Barberio ^{talk, contribs 00:59, 15 September 2005 (UTC)}[reply]

After advice from an admin, I've reverted your rewrite. Please do not make masive and systemic changes to a contraversial article without discussing them. One of the other reasons for the cleanup was to give the article clarity, one that was succsessful, and one that your edit reverted. Again, can I please ask you to back off from this article since you are being agresive about it. --John R. Barberio ^{talk, contribs 10:15, 15 September 2005 (UTC)}[reply]

Venona RfC:

User:Ruy Lopez is back spreading the myth Elizabeth Bentley "lost a suit" (Talk:Joseph_McCarthy/Archive 1#Venona) as part of the an RfC on Talk:VENONA_project#RFC:_references_to_Venona_in_other_articles. nobs 03:11, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redir speedies:

Ah, yes, thanks for clarifying that. I get confused about when a redirect is a speedy or not, because I don't often work with them. I've gone and read the stuff at the top of RfD and on CSD again, so hopefully I'll get it right in future! Thanks again. -Splash^talk 15:44, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for tagging Stubbornness:

Thanks for putting the {{rfd}} tag in Stubbornness - I missed that step (d'oh!) -- BDAbramson ^talk 20:12, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

re: RfD for Gold Coins:

My apologies for deleting the Gold Coins page too quickly. I just became an administrator today, so I'm still adjusting to everything. If I do anything wrong, please feel free to yell at me! ;) --Ixfd64 23:51, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

History of the Internet - unprotection?:

I heard about this dispute/protected page History of the Internet, and I'm hoping I can do help in getting it resolved. According to User:Barberio(who is one of the participents, as I'm sure you know ;-)), the dispute about the ARPANET may be able to be resolved, leaving only the layout dispute. I don't know if you would agree about this, so that's why I'm asking. Do you think the factual, content dispute about the role of the ARPANET in the creation of the current Inernet has been resolved? I've asked Barberio to provide a minimal set of changes to the current(protected) version which he feels would resolve this dispute; do you want to make one too, then I can compare them? Let me know if I can help, and thanks for all your work on the 'pedia. JesseW, the juggling janitor 00:02, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Jonah Ayers Talk page:

Was wondering how you happened on me? Thanks, Jonah.Jonah Ayers 02:20, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bermuda:

Bermudan --> Bermudian was probably an improvement, but i was curious enuf to look it up. IMO you'll especially find the result amusing, given yr interest in ships: Random House unabridged lists Bermuda rig as having 3 synonyms, including Bermudian & Bermudan rig.

Thanks for caring about LoPbN entries, and have a good day.
--Jerzy•t 22:02, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kyla:

Hi i accidently put Jessica Liao up for deletion because i didnt know it had been moved from a user page. Is there anyway you could bring the deleted text from Jessica Liao back to kyla's user page. I would do it if i had admin powers but because i dont could you please help? Job E 6 03:27, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much, she seemed really bummed out at the time. Job E 6

03:30, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Noel, you may want to examine the edits on that account...it appears to be one of two things...either a completely innocent teenager who set up the account and has provided entirely too much personal information (name of school and family members)...or it is a the complete opposite of that. Protect the innocent and or at least we need to do the right thing. Suggestions?--MONGO 05:06, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Naturally, if she has been informed that she should consider eliminating some of the personal information, then that is enough. Thanks.--MONGO 16:30, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay:

Okay sorry, I just thought it was going to just be a pointless page that someone created for no real reason. I just patrol the recent changes and I saw it. So I try to check with people first on some things that may be being worked on. Private Butcher 15:43, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merging page histories:

I noticed you've had what appears to be a lot of experience performing a merge of page histories. I've never done one so to not screw up anything, I'm hoping you can answer a question of mine.

The "how to" claims that if you have two pages with histories that overlap that we should forgo merging page histories and instead move the history elsewhere (kind of like an archive, I guess). In the case I have, the page was turned into a disambiguation about a year ago, but it has a number of recent minor edits to the page. I'm wondering if I should forgo merging the histories or if I can just not undelete those edits that overlap (I'm not advocating this position, but it doesn't seem like something worth keeping either) - or perhaps move those edits to an archive? What is the proper procedure in this case? K1Bond007 07:22, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This one appears to be a little more complex than I should probably take on for my first one. I'm already a little cross-eyed :) Perhaps it would be best if you can do this when you have some spare time. Better that then have me do something and screw it up further and then you or someone else has to come in later when it's even worse :D Theres a pretty good consensus currently to move it all to Lost (TV series) and that's what I was planning to do last night. Anything you can do for it, would be great. K1Bond007 16:57, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, go for it. I'm the only one that opposed this move because I was trying to keep ambiguity down. Now, I'm not so sure if it would be a problem. My view has somewhat changed lately as to how to handle these rare situations. -- That's fine, I'll do the renaming then if you'll fix the histories. K1Bond007 19:01, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Doh, I hate to add another page to an already confusing situation, but I forgot about the rewrite that was done earlier in the month. :) See /draft. You might want to think about working that in there, although it could be added to the top of the discussion page noting the rewrite and when it took place. Sorry to add this so late to the pile, but thought you should know. K1Bond007 20:33, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do what you gotta do. You don't have to ask me for permission :) This last part is my fault. As an admin, I should have merged it when it was completed and ready to be added back to the article - but likewise to our present situation I didn't want to screw it all up and lose the history to the current article. Heh.. K1Bond007 21:48, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just deleted the (TV series) to make way for the move. The Lost dab article was in existance far longer and when (TV series) was a disambig page it was a word for word copy of what Lost was. Maybe this was bad, but it was just a clone. Anyway, it's all done. Thanks for your assistance :) K1Bond007 02:29, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lost history:

Thanks for the additional insight. However, as you note, what you're referring to as the "duplicate article" was actually started a month earlier, making it the original, rather than duplicate. My comment was based on the edit summary left on Lost (TV Series): "18:52, 5 November 2004 Ahkond (moved all content to Lost (television drama))" -- which doesn't sound like a merge, nor look like one, as it replaced the previous "stub" content entirely. Plus, it still didn't follow any formal vote to merge/move. :) LeFlyman 16:12, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted redirect:

That redirect was one of many contributions from a user whose only other contributions were vandalism, the most egregious of which was repeated posting of an image of a man pleasuring himself. It may not have met any CSD for redirects, but it didn't seem very useful a redirect to me (especially given the capitalization), and given the other contributions, I felt it best to nuke the user's entire contribution history. If you feel it's a useful redirect, let me know and I'll undelete it. android79 17:10, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RfD:

I'm curious, why did you leave Passing Songs (Legend of Zelda) when removing two other redirects I nominated under the same criteria? -- WikidSmaht (talk) 19:25, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I see... thanks for clearing that up. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 02:58, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]