User talk:Gerry Ashton/Archive 1

blogs as sources

Since you participated in the discussion I'd like to point you to this newly created page Wikipedia:Guidelines_for_Blog_Citation to further continue the discussion we started over at WP:RS.

I also noticed that you removed a completed discussion from your page. I did that once until someone showed me WP:ARCHIVE. Werdnabot is pretty slick.--Crossmr 21:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

At university I used a computer where I had to enter the bootstrap program into the computer with toggle switches. I'm probably more space-consious than I need to be with modern technology. Gerry Ashton 21:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

disambiguating "power"

Hiya, Gerry! It turns out that "power", for radio stations, should almost always be disambiguated to "Effective radiated power" and not "electrical power". The FCC (and the engineers at the station) measure the radiated power that comes off the antenna, not the electrical power that goes into the building. Happy editing! -- Mikeblas 02:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. I have added Effective radiated power to the Power disambiguation page. Gerry Ashton I'm 02:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Anti-metrication

Gerry, thanks for flagging this up. One seems to have been a mistake, for which I apologise. The removal of the link to gallon was because the article already has a link to that article in it. I was trying to cut down on some of the over-linking. Thanks again. --Guinnog 18:33, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

You're very welcome. I'm still annoyed I made the mistake, and more annoyed that the lead para had been utterly garbled for over a week before I touched it, and I didn't notice. Hey, to err is human I suppose. --Guinnog 18:40, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

ZIP and encryption

Thanks for your suggestion, but i need something that denies access to the files even if i am logged on. Also, the files will be moved around by DVD, email, and USB drive. the encryption method from the Properties dialog only denies access to other users and is automatically removed (without notice!) when u copy the files to removable media. from reading around, i found that the ZIP file encryption method is vulnerable to dictionary/brute-force attacks and fundamentally flawed, even with long passwords because of something to do with plaintext/cyphertext pairs that can be obtained experimentally (im not realy clear on that). if you know any other quick method (preferably drag-and-drop or a few clicks) to protect entire folders of files with very strong encryption, please do point it out. best regards, 02:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

encryption

Yeah i just replied to a couple of users on ther own talk pages. i am still exploring my options and learning at the same time. i used to think securing files (with absolutely no loopholes) would be a simple task. the problem is my needs are very specific. im not concerned about keyloggers and other spyware at all --my computer is quite secure actually--. im not worried about an attack from the internet or from a hacker i do not know. rather, i want to make my data 100% inacsessable to someone who would be able to physically steel or take posession of a disk or flashdrive that has my files on it, or in worst case, the computer itself.

also, i dont realy care about some1 being able to login, i usually stay logged on when im not using the PC. im looking to secure a few portable files and not the whole system.

another wikipedian has suggested using a combination of encryption and security-by-obscurity and suggested placing one encrypted zip file into another (a few deep) each using a different password and a different software (windows, winzip, winrar, filzip) to encrypt, and ontop of that, change the extensions of every .ZIP file to .DAT and .BIN, and throw in some "dummy" encrypted files that contain nothing sensitiv. he says this should confuze the hell out of any human trying to break in, and make it practically impossible for a fully-automated computer attack.

yet another obstacle, (which is the main reason im not turning to professional encryption software) is that i want to be able to quickly unzip the documents on any standard windows XP computer (using the built in zip capability), without installing any software.

the task is on-going.. in the meantime, i am using basic password-protected zip files burried into one another, but im looking for something absolutley bulletproof just for added piece of mind.

07:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

my boo boo

Thanks for pointing that out, Gerry. I can't find it, so I assume that you've corrected it. I'm interested in your opinion of the units/measurements queries on the talk page. Tony 04:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Good definition

Compliments to you on your definition of publish. I hope you are not deterred by a certain problem user in the discussion.--Fahrenheit451 05:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: Citing films as sources

Many thanks for your helpful information. --ChaChaFut 21:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

NOR

Hi! I answer your question explicitly in my edit when I write "However, where an article (1) makes descriptive claims the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable adult without specialist knowledge, and (2) makes no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claims, a Wikipedia article may be based entirely or primarily on primary sources (examples would include apple pie or current events)." In fact, we wrote this many years ago, it is long-standing policy. SInce my edit merely puts these sentences right after saying that one can draw on primary sources, I think it is pretty clear. Slrubenstein | Talk 04:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC) My talk page comment was over the top. I apologize. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

St.Jimmy666

St.Jimmy666's edit to Metric system didn't make sense because he was trying to replace the entire article with http://lamar.colostate.edu/~hillger/internat.htm. I've {cv} warned him already. --  Netsnipe  ^(Talk)  18:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Formatting error ≠ test

A misplaced "e" is not a reason to remove an entire comment; you could have just fixed it yourself. The removal was clear vandalism on your part, and the test1 warning was simply uncivil. Please review WP:WQT. You did yourself no credit with the removal and reversions. Thanks. El_C 19:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The placement of the stray "e" appeared to ridicule the spelling of another user. That is why the edit seemed less than polite to me. However, a cursory look at El_C's talk page did not reveal any example of being impolite to other editors, so I will presume it was some strange editing problem. --Gerry Ashton 20:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I am El_C! Me! I assure you that, in any event, WAS' spelling is vastly superior to mine. But next time, please try to WP:AGF it being a one letter misformatting error, i.e. begin to assume otherwise only after a cursory look. Bottom line: proportionality. Thanks again. El_C 23:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Hybrid couplers

Ok, the {{stub}} template is removed, but I thought the article was a little small. Although I am interested in electronics, I do not know very much about it, and would have liked more information on that subject. -Wser 16:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

NOR (Part 2)

Gerry, I dont want to overcrowd the talk page, so I am responding to your 23:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC) comment here (concerning the birth certificate). first, you are taking my words out of context. I was responding to a specific objection you brought up. Please do not try to apply it to the question of the birth certificate. Second, your question is interesting but it applies not to proposal 2 but to proposal three, and you should be raising this issue under step three not step two. The question is this - do you think that what I have proposed in step three (which is simply to retain the language that is currently in the policy and that was in the policy before my editing in August) would prevent an editor from doing the fact-chaking you describe? If you think that it would prevent such fact checking, then you have an appropriate objection. If you do niot think it would prevent such fact checking, then again, you are not objecting to my proposal.

frankly it seems like you are just being argumentative, arguing with me for the sake of arguing. I do not believe you are acting in bad faith and wish you no ill will, I just want us to make progress. Does what I propose really prohibit what you suggest? To know the answer to this question I implore you not to refer to my response to your response to my response, which will just have us going in circles. instead, I implore you to refer to what I have actually proposed, and I believe the relevant proposal is in step 3. If you think that what I propose there really prohibits what you suggest, by all means make your objection there, and lets discuss it. But if you do not think that what I am proposing really prohibits this fact-checking, please, drop it as it is not relevant. I would rather you focus on what I have proposed (which you often do, I readily grant - your comment to step four is a good example) rather than my comments, or your interpretation of my comments, which ultimately are unimportant as I am not proposing to put any of the language in my responses to your responses into the policy itself. I hope you believe I am sincere when I tell you I am trying to be constructive. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I will look for your responses here (though I am signing off now). When I think I can directly and constructively respond to one of your coments on the policy talk page, however, I will respond there (I have tried to twice, proposing changes to my proposal in response to your objections). Slrubenstein | Talk 00:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

If it seems I contest much of what you write about primary sources, I think it is because you and I have seriously differerent (not opposite, but different) views about the role of primary sources in Wikipedia. The way you are steering the policy, it will end up saying that primary sources are always a last resort for any use within WP, and secondary sources are always better. I, on the other hand, feel that secondary sources are a first resort when creating the skeleton of an article, making sure the topic is notable, and making sure all significant points of view are included. But when it comes to checking facts, or filling in facts that may have been dropped from secondary sources due to space limitations, primary sources are a first resort.

Let me give a specific example. I edited the Certified copy article to give a table from the US State Department about which states allow notaries public to make certified copies. I consider it a reliable secondary source, since it draws on laws and other information from at least 50 different sources. Now suppose next year I happen to be looking at the Vermont notary public law, and notice that a new law prohibits notaries public from making certified copies. One could argue that a law is a primary source. Even if it is, it woud be appripriate to update the table (with attribution) to reflect the new state of affairs.

If, while reading WP, I come across a narrow fact from a secondary source that seems suspect to me, my inclination is to find the fundamental source of that information, rather than checking other secondary sources, because I believe in going directly to the source whenever possible. When I get to the fundamental source, I really don't care if it is what WP calls a primary source, or a secondary source, I just care if it is reliable. If it is reliable, and the fundamental source and secondary source address exactly the same fact, I'll go with the fundamental source. Now if it's a matter of interpretation, that's different. When interpretation is required, I'll stick to secondary or tertiary sources.

I object to a policy that gives the overall impression that primary sources should always be a last resort, and that is where I think you are taking the policy. --Gerry Ashton 00:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I do not think primary sources should be the last resort. I really do not believe this. If you think I believe this with respect I can only suggest you misinterpret me. I believe that in some articles or sections of articles primary sources may be the appropriate source of first resort. BUT I believe that the use of primary sources should be restricted more than the use of secondary sources, and that the situations where primary sources should be used, or how they should be used (even if of "first resort") needs to be clearly definied. SO, either we disagree that the use of primary sources should be more restrictive than secondary sources, or we agree. If we agree, perhaps we can also work together to reword my proposed edits so that they are more appropriate and clear. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

a quality encyclopedia

You are quite right that my point is not appropriate to NOR. That said ... are you sympathetic? If so, would you be willing to work with me on coming up with appropriate wording and figuring out where to put it? The obvious place would be a policy on the encyclopedic nature of Wikipedia. When I used to be active on the list-serve, there were many debates where, basically, the anarchic nature of a wikicommunity was at odds with the quality of Wikipedia as an encyclòpedia. Indeed, the first of Wikiopedia:Five pillars atates that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. However, the link is to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Perhaps there is a need for a policy, Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Alternative potential cites would be the poliocy Wikipedia: Cite sources (what constitutes a prefered source) or the guideline, Wikipedia:Reliable sources. I am open to your ideas. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I think "Reliable sources" would be the best place to discuss. My attitude is "the best is the enemy of good enough." If someone wants to paraphrase another reliable encyclopedia article in a way that complies with copyright law, and place it in Wikipedia, without consulting any other source, that is better than having no article on the topic. If the article attracts interest, other editors will improve it by consulting secondary sources (and maybe the occasional primary source). --Gerry Ashton 19:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Would it be worth phrasing it as a suggestion, not only to first editors but to following editors, that one way to improve an article is to pinpoint over-reliance on other encyclopedias and look for a wider variety of well-recognized secondary sources? Slrubenstein | Talk 19:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

No Insult

I was not insulting you as a person, I was using the word "vandalism" do describe your edit, because tahts what it seems to me. Dual citizenship is not a hard concept to understand...Khosrow II 21:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Speed of edits

I hope you will forgive me for bringing this here because I want to make something of a philosophical point about your video-game comment on the Reliable Sources Talk page. Speed in Wikipedia is relative; every edit takes place at one moment, though it may have been a while in preparation (mine tend to take a fortnight): the reader or editor doesn't have to react immediately, because nothing is lost; so you are free to take several days to respond to edits or suggestions on the Talk page. I was surprised at your response to Mikka's suggested edit, because after all he was presenting his boldest change on the Talk page, which is good practice. It was also clear to me that he had put some time and thought into it.

He also put a good deal of thought into changing "his" to "their". I think you were right to see the flaw in that but wrong to revert it to "his", which Mikka had correctly identified as unacceptable; instead of reverting, I feel you should have either discussed it first or, better still, come up with a better version ( for example, the plural "well-known researchers...their..."). The best process of editing is wiki-process, and that never includes reversion of good-faith edits which address existing flaws in a document, because "reverting should be used primarily for fighting vandalism" (Help:Revert). The best articulations of good practice in such situations are in my opinion to be found at W:BOLD and Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. For me these beautiful and inspiring pages hold the key to Wikipedia's dynamism. In my opinion they are attempts to reinforce two of the five non-negotiable founding principles of Wikipedia: "2. Ability of anyone to edit articles without registering" and "3.The "wiki process" as the final authority on content". Forgive me for feeling alarmed to witness three reverters crush a good-faith editor's attempts to improve the text, the final result being the destruction of any improvement at all.12:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)qp10qp

The editor was making multiple changes faster than people could react to them. I stand by my reversion. --Gerry Ashton 20:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC)