User talk:AHMartin

Belated welcome[edit]

Welcome!

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

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! MrZaius^talk 13:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Germinoma[edit]

Hi! While you were editing germinoma, did you see anything that needs a clearer explanation? If yes, please leave a note on Talk:germinoma or go ahead and edit the article. Thanks! --Una Smith (talk) 21:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to Teleprinter[edit]

I was going to undo your revision to Teletype machines where you said "Teletype machines - Copyedit: configuration letters are prefixes, not suffixes)"". But, I first wanted to check to see if there is something that I am missing.

I've always seen Teletype machines listed as machine number followed by configuration letters. For example M28ASR for a Teletype Model 28 Automatic Send and Receive. Or, M28RO for a Teletype Model 28 Receive Only where the ASR and RO are the configuration letters.

Have you seen instances where Teletype machines are listed as ASR-M28 and RO-M28 or something similar?

Thanks for your help. Wa3frp (talk) 20:01, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy, thanks for your calm reaction to my evidently debatable edit.

My rationale for that portion of the edit is that from circa 1974 until yesterday,

I do not recall *ever* seeing a Teletype denoted in number-config format.

I think the exception was while scanning the

Model 32/33 Tech Manual

(certainly a primary source if there ever was one), although I could be mistaken.

However, my experience with config-number nomenclature as a timesharing end-user is corroborated

by the majority of the web pages indexed by Google world wide:

Teletype model nomenclature
Model	Mod-Config	Config-Mod
M32RO	7	6
M32KSR	5	21
M32ASR	28	53
M33RO	11	7
M33KSR	68	1170
M33ASR	1060	16900

It seems that the more popular the model, the less likely that colloquial references followed

Teletype's internal naming convention. Indeed, look at the very title of the Wikipedia page

regarding the full-featured model 33: ASR-33 Teletype.

I am reminded of the first IRBM; some cognoscenti may refer to it as the "A-4",

but the most common name by far is "V-2".

Nevertheless, if two competing naming schemes were in fact used, then it's inappropriate

for the article to imply that either scheme was the only one employed.

Given your evident understanding of Teletype internals and manufacturer nomenclature,

could you characterize the distinct naming schemes, and replace the bald-faced

assertion I edited with an integrated description of the two schemes?

73's/AHM/THX (W1AHM)

AHMartin (talk) 22:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I’m sorry for my delay in responding. Since we come from slightly different backgrounds, while sharing a common hobby in Amateur Radio, we naturally have a different perspective about this particular issue. I’ve worked with Teletype equipment since 1967 when I got involved in RTTY on the ham bands.

I’ve gone back to my Teletype manuals, engineering drawings, product notes and marketing material. Teletype always used a number-configuration format. In looking at the Model 33 Teletype documentation, I was only able to find Model 33 ASR, Model 33 KSR, etc. If we look to the Teletype Corporation as the sole source of information about these teleprinters, I can’t find a single situation where the configuration-number nomenclature is used.

On the other hand, you point out the fact the colloquial usage that is defined by a Google search.

I have a suggestion. Tell me if you agree. Can you modify the Teleprinter article to read:

“…Teletype machines were given a model number and often letters indicating the configuration…”

Hopefully that resolves the issue.

73 Russ Wa3frp (talk) 20:35, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I regret that I put you through so much research. (Hopefully as an aficionado, you found at least some pleasure in it). I decided to render the offending sentence agnostic with the phrase "modified by", and to take advantage of your research by giving an example for the two competing naming schemes. (Given your exhaustive search, there is no point in hiding the results in an author's talk page when it can be put in the article itself).

Offhand, the resulting prose seems to flow nicely enough; but feel free to make any grammatical tweaks. 73's/AHM/THX (W1AHM)

AHMartin (talk) 02:06, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One last tweak that I hope that you will appreciate. I've modified the sentence to indicate that some but not all customers placed the configuration letters before the Teletype model number. Wa3frp (talk) 13:24, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks; I had intended "tended" to denote the substantial inversion of convention. 73's/AHM/THX (W1AHM)

AHMartin (talk) 18:46, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Battle off Samar[edit]

Good work on your recent "coyedit." While correcting the typo in the article, did you make a typo in your edit summary? Or were you just being coy? ;-) Maybe there's a law of conservation of typographical errers -- fix one, and another pops up. (I got a chuckle out of it, and I hope you do, too.) Lou Sander (talk) 14:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC) W3BOA, and VERY inactive.[reply]

Howdy. Ah, that's an inadvertent pun all right. (I certainly hope the edit itself causes no controversy; I've verified that "off" is the majority phrasing by a large margin). 73's.

--AHMartin (talk) 15:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC) (W1AHM; ex-PDP-10 (and VMS/Unix) layered product software engineer)[reply]

findagrave[edit]

Hi. I noted that you had added a template for findagrave on the article for Willa Cather. That's completely fine, but I did want to let you know that we are in the midst of depopulating that template and changing over to {{findagrave}} instead. On that template, all you need to add is the grave identification number without the use of "id=" or names. It will work as the old one did. Thanks! Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:10, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The retirement of Find A Grave was news to me. I've been using it in specific preference to findagrave because Find A Grave has a documented name= parameter for specifying the names of target pages which don't match the name of the corresponding Wikipedia page, while findagrave has absolutely no documentation of any kind whatsoever. I now see from reading the source that findagrave secretly possesses all of the required functionality. So I will of course use findagrave in all future edits instead of swimming against the tide. However, in order for findagrave to be a suitable replacement for Find A Grave, perhaps someone can take time out from the conversion project to actually document the interface they expect contributors to use. AHMartin (talk) 19:07, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you have been "correcting" some recent changes I made to {{Find a Grave}}. The correct title should be Find a Grave, there is no need to put in the grid= or id= and there is no need to put in name=. I fixed the logic a while back so that it wasn't necessary to use these and save a few bytes per article. Just thought I would let you know. Please let me know if you have any questions. --Kumioko (talk) 02:20, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kumioko, I just noticed your 14-Oct'10 comment here. I see that from September 2009 to October 2010 I had reverted from using Find a Grave back to making edits with findagrave; I now have no idea what caused me to do that at the time. Sorry about that. AHMartin (talk) 15:59, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FindAGrave.com Part II[edit]

Do you really think that F-A-G is a good reference? It contains a lot of errors. Anybody can sign up on that site and create memorials. Hopefully there are better references out there? > Best O Fortuna (talk) 01:54, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As Wikipedia:External_links/Perennial_websites#Find-a-Grave points out, it's a fine source of historic photographs; thanks. --AHMartin (talk) 04:43, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did you actually read that link (F-A-G)? I agree that if there is a image there, it is a lot harder to get that wrong. The data entry ones are the problems. Although, I must tell you that I have found gravemarkers with the wrong information on them, so even those are not fool proof. As the link you provided (F-A-G) points out: "As a reliable source [F-A-G should be used]:

Almost never. It should never be cited if it is a circular reference to Wikipedia. I would just recommend a double check reference on anything pulled from F-A-G.com, be at least double sourced. > Best O Fortuna (talk) 21:12, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My talk page is not the place for a debate on the micropropriety of the {{Find a Grave}} template. Furthermore, until the community forges a consensus upon its use, I suggest that you not even consider removing an instance of the template unless you have:

1. Placed a precise explanation onto the affected article's talk page of why that specific instance is a bright-line violation of relevant content policies and why the proposed edit constitutes a net improvement to the work,

-and-

2. Waited a decent interval for feedback from the article's stakeholders and more experienced editors.

Thanks for your consideration. --AHMartin (talk) 22:02, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you![edit]

		The Citation Barnstar
		Please accept this barnstar as a token of my appreciation for your contributions to Cobleskill (village), New York. Thanks to your efforts, the History section went from having no references to being completely referenced! JBC3 (talk) 20:54, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] De nada. My paternal ancestors are from Schoharie County, and the necessary references were not hard to find. AHMartin (talk) 03:26, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch on Niagara Gorge[edit]

Impressed. thanx for fixing it on Lake Erie.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:22, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thankew. The caption caught my eye because I didn't think there was an appreciable gorge upstream; when I saw that the photo itself mentioned the Whirlpool, that seemed to cinch the issue. AHMartin (talk) 02:42, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yurewelcome. You have a sharp eye and fine mind.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:18, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

btw you might wish to consider writing something on your user page here. ie Click on the "here" and create your user page. That way, your handle doesn't light up red when you make edits.--Tomwsulcer 13:44, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess I just found a way to solve that, heh; thanks. AHMartin 14:06, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry on Lawrence[edit]

Didn’t even notice it was a template. Since it involves sexuality and the Middle East, there are a lot of really horrible drive-bys on that entry; quite possibly I’ve become too quick with the trigger finger. Tim Bray (talk) 07:00, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can only half imagine the vandalism in articles on such topics. On the flip side, discussions of properly encyclopedic content sometimes complain about links to the site, and I was afraid the reversion was an editorial comment about that. Sorry about the imperfectly neutral edit comment; thanks for your quick consideration. Hope the photos at the web site provided you with some additional sense of place. AHMartin (talk) 16:26, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great Darkness listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Great Darkness. Since you had some involvement with the Great Darkness redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:07, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Article 3 edit[edit]

Good evening, I was reading an article and happened to notice an edit that you made, and I was seeking your opinion on it. In this edit, you make the statement that One associate justice seat is currently vacant. which, though true, I feel is a bit out of a place in an article that focuses on the Constitution, a fixed and historical text, and whose article focuses on that part, not on its current implementation. What are your thoughts? Griffinofwales (talk) Simple English Wikipedia - Come and join! 04:40, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the topic of currently vacant seats is generally inappropriate in the article. Note that the article discussed that before I made my edit: "... with an additional vacant associate justice seat", which also attracted my attention as out of place. However, I did not want to start an editorial debate about the court's political leanings, or the nomination and confirmation of any particular replacement justices, by removing the existing inappropriate information. Rather, I edited the text to make it clearer and tighter, leaving the article with a single sentence that can be simply deleted as soon as the court has nine members again. By all means feel free to delete "One associate justice seat is currently vacant." right now if you're willing to defend the action to anyone who lobbies to retain it. (But thanks for tastefully checking with me in case I was wedded to that distracting prose). AHMartin (talk) 12:36, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]