User talk:Jpaulm

Hi, I'm trying to find out more about your Mediation Request 2006-06-15 Etruscan-Albanian connection and I can't find the location of the dispute. Can you please put a link in your request? Ideogram 04:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, now that the mediation is closed I can talk to you about other matters.

I encountered your work many years ago when I was scouring the Web for information on new programming paradigms. I am quite sympathetic to your views and must say it is quite a pleasure to be able to talk to you at last.

My views are based on a slightly different foundation; I was primarily influenced by the Actor model by Carl Hewitt. I would certainly enjoy discussing the differences with you. (You can reply on this page, I've watchlisted you.) Ideogram 05:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Adam, thanks for the kind words! I have started reading Functional programming and Actor model, and of course there are close connections between them and Flow-Based Programming. I have been told that I cannot add a page for Flow-Based Programming, but I assume that, if someone else does, I will be allowed to edit it...? Once that exists, we can start cross-connecting things. (It's getting a bit frustrating!)

I have created it. Feel free to edit. Ideogram 21:02, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW you can remove the speedy delete tag from Flow-based programming as soon as you edit it. Ideogram 21:20, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Adam! - unfortunately, I can't seem to find it. Could the speedy delete tag have deleted it too speedily? Esp. as my computer clock hasn't even reached 21:20 yet! Jpaulm 01:21, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you go ahead and create it. I don't think anyone will complain. Ideogram 03:06, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's there now - mysterious! Thanks, Adam! Does it still have a speedy delete tag? If so, where? Jpaulm 14:05, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I created it. There is no speedy delete tag now. Ideogram 17:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For completeness, I feel a Canada-bio-stub would be nice for me (esp. since my father is on Wikipedia)... Will it get deleted if I add one? Jpaulm 14:25, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We should keep it focused on FBP. Bio information isn't really relevant. Ideogram 17:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are saying that bio info is not relevant to FBP - I agree. What I was thinking was that I am named in 3 current articles - John Rodker (my father), Barbara_McKenzie-Smith (my mother), and FBP - and also have a User: entry. Would it not be cleaner to have an article (or at least stub) for Paul Morrison, so these links can all point to the same place...? Of course, we won't know if I'm notable in my own right for another few decades... :-) Jpaulm 18:05, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I'm not sure you meet the Wikipedia guidelines for notability. I think it's best to play it safe and not add the stub. You are of course free to put bio information on your user page. Ideogram 18:08, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK! Makes sense! I guess I can make my user page the common point - just don't create an article... I have started to expand the FBP article - hopefully others will get into the act. We can now start the discussion you originally talked about! Jpaulm 18:17, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Adam, I notice you've reverted the link to User:Jpaulm in Flow-Based Programming, but I did this in a number of articles, based on your comment above (and the fact that you didn't appear to object when I made the suggestion). If I can't add an article, and I can't link to User:Jpaulm, what do you recommend?! Is there some neat feature that I don't know about? Thanks in advance! Jpaulm 20:32, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For now I would just accept that you can't link to your bio information in the articles. Ideogram 20:40, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well! I've reverted the other ones.Jpaulm 21:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(outdenting) You can read an interesting conversation about the differences between the Actor model and the process calculi here. Ideogram 18:21, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks interesting - I will be studying this conversation over the next little while. Jpaulm 18:31, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Over my head, I'm afraid! IMHO FBP is the most effective way to build efficient, maintainable applications that I know of. While I understand that it has close affinities with Actors, CSP and functional programming, to name a few, and that it is important to be able to pigeon-hole it, I have to leave discussions such as this one to the young and mentally agile. I name either processes or connections, but not both, but I also name ports - I also name components, as I don't know another way to say what code a process is executing... But yes, I do agree that it is probably not necessary to execute a component on the same process all the time, as one may be able to switch to another process when the process for a given component gets suspended (but not always). Hope this helps... Jpaulm 18:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I do think in terms of events - in FBP terms, an event is the moment when an IP is consumed by a process. And I also agree that you cannot guarantee that every event has its own moment in time - of course it will if you only have one processor, but the logic shouldn't depend on it.Jpaulm 23:35, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also interested in Ideogram - AFAIK the Aztecs didn't have an ideographic language, but the Maya did - see Maya_hieroglyphics. And of course Ideograms tie in with Visual programming language. :-) Jpaulm 18:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do feel free to edit Ideogram. It needs a lot of work. Ideogram 21:02, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For your amusement - see http://www.hanzismatter.com/ Is this too frivolous for Wikipedia? Jpaulm 01:21, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is amusing. I can't think of a place for it on Wikipedia, though. Ideogram 03:08, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thought so! I've also made a small change to Ideogram. Maybe more to come... Jpaulm 14:05, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Ideogram 17:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adam (or anyone), I have a Wikipedia question: I would like to put a section into Flow-based programming sort of positioning it or relating it to other technologies, e.g. Functional, OO, etc. (this will also require input from people like you!). Is this appropriate? If so, what should this be called?

This is fine. I suggest it could be called "Comparison with other paradigms". --Ideogram 19:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Related question: the References section seems to be intended mostly for work the article's concepts are based on. In the case of FBP, we are starting to see the opposite: papers which are based on FBP - can these be cited in References? or under another heading? Thanks in advance. Jpaulm 16:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Under References is fine. --Ideogram 19:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much! Sorry to keep bothering you! Jpaulm 20:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Paul,

I'm sorry but I don't feel I know enough about you or flow-based programming to be able to start an article on you. However from the sounds of his comments, I believe Ideogram may be able to help you with this matter. I really think an inventor contributing to Wikipedia information about his inventions is fantastic — we need all the help we can get. The purpose of placing the notable Wikipedian tag was just to alert readers to the fact that someone who the article focused on helped construct the article, this will hopefully make readers more comfortable with the article and more receptive to conducting peer reviews.

Cedars 15:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough! I had already suggested that to Ideogram, but got the impression that he was using a different definition of "notable". Oh well! Maybe one day... Jpaulm 23:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The {{oldpeerreview}} template only indicates that the peer review discussion associated with the article has met one of the archival reasons listed at Wikipedia:Peer review/Request removal policy and had the transclusion entry for the discussion moved from the list of current discussions to the monthly archive. There is nothing preventing you from adding additional comments to the peer review discussion page. It should be noted that the addition may not be noticed as few people track archived discussions and the article's talk page may prove a more effective location for your suggestions. You amy also wish to be bold and make appropriate improvements directly. --Allen3 ^talk 14:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See IBM 7070, which I did NOT write. It's the 10 digit word that would make it a 650 upgrade, even though a simulator is required.

btw: I'm still new to Wikipedia. Posted about this same response in my talk page -- how you would know to access a reply there? Do you have to remember to look there? Would make a "conversation" difficult. To get to your talk page, from your commnent in my talk page, I entered a search for "User Talk:...". Is there an easier way? Thanks. 69.106.254.246 18:49, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I can wire: 077, 552, 407, 604, 519, 101 (almost forgot that one). Programmed 650, 1401, before modern times. Had a 610 accessible (a toy, never saw it used for any real work). Have a garage full of stuff (mostly books & PC software) but a number of boxes of 1950, 60 things, no room to get cars in. So much stuff that I lost control and nothing can be found. Somewhere in there are: IBM Sales Manual pages for a nubmer of early machines, complete run of CACM into the 90s, complete run of Byte into the 90s (with 1st issue signed by editor if anyone cares). Many of the 1401 manuals available on the internet came from my collection (I loaned them for scanning).

Put me down as one of those who knows that the 407 was a parallel number-cruncher: it did add in parallel and it did crunch. 69.106.254.246 02:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya, the format looks reasonable, but I'd still like to see more to prove notability of the particular term, since it's fairly obscure. Can you provide other references than just the one book, to prove that the term is genuinely "encyclopedic"? Even on a google search, it only pulls up a few dozen hits, one of which is in your own work, so it may run afoul of WP:AUTO. You'll need to provide other sources (that you're not involved with) to make the article stick. --Elonka 02:31, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It has indeed changed since your time. Bumfreezers no longer exist, and stickups have been limited to keepers and school officials, with a large debate about secretaries of societies. You english was fine :-)

Yanksta x 15:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We still have two suits, which are exchanged every two weeks- one is always being worn and the other is at a tailor's to be cleaned. I haven't heard of the lice story, but it sounds quite probable. I'm not sure if it belongs in the aticle, but if you slip it into the uniform section it would seem to fit. Yanksta x 07:25, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A suit is worn for two weeks, then sent to laundry and the next is worn for two weeks, and so on. I'd assume it's the same for scholars, although I don't know if the gowns have a different arrangement; I'd suspect not. Your profile is fascinating. You invented a whole type of progamming?

Yanksta x 12:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But you've succeeded now?

Yanksta x 07:18, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So do you work as a programmer or run a tech company?

Yanksta x 18:53, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you notice that this section is a guide to Wikipedia articles, not a list of machines? (of course that can always be changed) tooold 23:32, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm afraid College has changed a bit...--Peruginionio 18:38, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, thanks for the note. Book reviews definitely help establish your notability, because they establish that you are an accomplished author. In contrast, an author who published a book using a vanity press would not have any book reviews, and thus not notable. If you review WP:BIO, which is our guideline for determining if a person is notable, you will see that one of the criterion is "Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work". You can add them by making a statement in the article that your book has been reviewed by a number of sources, and then use footnote citations to add the items under your References section, just as is already done in the article.

Remember to make sure that your citations are from reliable sources - that means trusted book review entities for your field. Established journals, periodicals, or Web sites that have an editorial control process and that are regarded as authoritative in your field. Normally, blogs and wikis are not considered reliable sources. Hope this helps! --Ars Scriptor 19:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your prompt response! Does this constitute an authoritative source: http://www.melbpc.org.au/pcupdate/9502/9502article7.htm, or Ed Yourdon's "Coolbooks" http://www.yourdon.com/personal/books/gentech/index.html ? If not, I'm afraid it's a lost cause as the book is now out of print... A lot of the other commentary is now going on in blogs and wikis. Feedback would be appreciated. Jpaulm 19:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, but you only have one review there - the second link is just quoting the first. I do believe that you have made significant achievements, but ultimately the burden falls on the article to prove notability, and there's not much of a case for it right now. Barring book reviews, you could also provide citations stating that you have made a widely-recognized, enduring contribution to your field. Again, news stories, interviews, peer-reviewed journals, etc. Can you find anything like that?

Additionally, I would strongly recommend that you allow someone else to edit your article just to avoid conflicts of interest. If you can find those citations, I would be glad to put them in the article for you. --Ars Scriptor 19:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again thanks! I mentioned Coolbooks because Ed is recognized in his field, and I feel my book is in pretty good company there! I have listed quite a few articles referencing my work in the article on Flow-based programming - there are lots more. I thought too many could be taken as self-promotion... I asked my son what he thought, and he said that the article on FBP was so complete that he is not surprised nobody had added anything - anyway all my friends/colleagues are pretty busy :-) I have sent out a plea for help, however... Re your kind offer, how about if I collect a bunch of references in template format, and send them to you via your preferred medium. Is there some timeframe for an AfD? TIA Jpaulm 20:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did add COI tags to your article and its talk page. --(AfadsBad (talk) 16:46, 10 February 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Hi, John - I took a look at the article, and did a copyedit to bring it more in line with WP formatting. I think some of the problems are happening because of the amount of work you did on the article. While I think your work with FBP is notable, any bio article where the subject contributes text about themselves is going to come under the microscope. I would second the suggestion for finding more reviews to cite, and also other books and articles where your work has been cited as a source. Though I think it's sometimes ok to add cites yourself, in this case I would suggest sticking to the guideline of posting any proposed additions on the talk page, and letting other editors decide whether to incorporate them into the article. --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 21:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Paul Morrison, I'd also like to very strongly suggest that you should not edit the article about yourself, according to WP:COI. Best, Sandstein 17:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added an additional bunch of citations to Talk:John_Paul_Morrison, as per Kathryn NicDhàna's suggestions, and would like to get them copied to Flow-based_programming#External links (under Articles). These citations are certainly not doing much good where they are, but I understand from the above comments that I'm not allowed to edit either article! Could some kind person copy these citations to Flow-based_programming#External links, or possibly to John_Paul_Morrison if you think that is more appropriate. Thanks! Jpaulm 15:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added references . Cheers! If you need any help, just talk to me. Thanks! Yuser31415 (Review me!) 20:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Christmas! Yuser31415 (Review me!) 20:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy! I was perusing Rich Farmbrough's talk page and saw your comment about the subject headings. Just thought I'd let you know it's OK to revert the edits made by the bot. If the bot keeps changing it back, you can always let Mr. Farmbrough know that you'd prefer it the other way. Lunch 03:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, as Lunch says, but there is more comment on my talk page. Rich Farmbrough, 09:57 15 December 2006 (GMT).

What do you need assistance with? Cheers! Yuser31415 (Review me!) 18:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, could you activate your email? --Ideogram 12:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Better yet, send me email via Wikipedia. --Ideogram 18:59, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"I am confused - aren't you the person who just deleted quite a few people from the list of Tinnitus notables? I only removed one, as I couldn't even find him on Google, so I assumed it was a case of vandalism... Unless this IP address is being used by multiple people - in which case apologies! Jpaulm 18:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)"

Nope, not me. Probably my idiot brother. 69.204.197.94 14:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you take one minute to analize what I did you get the answer. There's no need to redundant explanations. Less bureaucracy please. Dantadd 15:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite welcome --Closedmouth 14:59, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that 195.195.166.31 has done it again - however, the address is assigned to Eton, and, who knows, Will Hillgarth may be a real person, even though apparently not notable enough to show up on Google... I have reverted him. Any suggestions? Jpaulm (talk) 02:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to tell if the IP's edits are vandalism or not. It could be a different person in each edit. I'll keep the address watchlisted. School IPs usually don't work out well in the long-run. Spellcast (talk) 02:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I can totally sympathise with you about making registration mandatory. But the ability to edit without registering is a foundation issue. And about the survey, I'm pretty sure there were studies done on who mainly contributes to the project. I can't remember the source, but I'm quite certain there were studies on this. Spellcast 15:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment, and glad we are of accord - reach was wrong, but rearing also sounded a bit rude! Let's see if anyone else comments regards Motmit (talk) 16:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been logged into WP in a long time, but found this on my discussion page from last year:

I posted this on the Afrikaans discussion page, but got no answer, so I am contacting a real Afrikaans speaker - hope you don't mind! I seem to remember being told that, while Dutch has "naar school", Afrikaans has IPA /skweltu/ - not sure how it's written... If true, is changing a preposition to a postposition an influence from one of the substratum languages? Thanks. Jpaulm 15:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The question I am afraid proved a little more complex than I originally expected. I would like to answer for you, indeed I enjoy when others show an interest in the language of my mother (though I am not sure if you are still interested in the question).

Truly Afikaans does have "skooltoe" (IPA: /skweltu/ or maybe more accurately /skɔ:l tu/) which does translate as "to school". Afrikaans also has the phrase "na die skool" which is an acceptable translation of the Dutch "naar school". Important to note is that the use of "-toe" is similar to the suffix "-ward" as used in English.. The words "huistoe" and "skooltoe" are only used in phrases to describe motion towards. "Ek gaan skooltoe" translates as "I am going to school" not "I am going to the school". The latter becomes "Ek gaan na die skool" in translation. Similarly "Ek gaan huistoe" would translate "I'm going home", or "I'm homeward bound". As to the question of the source of this specific feature, I cannot be sure. The similarity between the Afrikaans and English examples may be due to both being Germanic languages (with Dutch or German possibly having a similar construct that I am unaware of). It might also show contamination from English itself or by French, though I am unaware of any such construct in the Romance languages also.

I doubt a contribution from any other source languages of our Afrikaans pidgin. The other contributory languages do not behave similarly enough grammatically to allow much borrowing other than lexicon.

A last possibility is that of natural evolution. The phrase "Ek gaan na die skool toe" is perfectly acceptable in even current usage (notice that the "toe" in this case is a postposition and not a suffix). I assume that the "toe" is our way of coping with the loss of the case system that Afrikaans shows (as might also be the situation with English). In this case the postposition just relays (and doubles) the notion of movement towards. Contraction easily accounts for the shortening to "Ek gaan skooltoe". I was unable to find any literature in my school textbooks to ratify any of these possibilities, but hope that I have given you at least some clarification. --payxystaxna (talk) 13:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I can't give you an answer. My knowledge of Albanian is too elemntal. As far as I knoe, the word for cream is ajkë, but there is a lot of dialectal words and may be the word you are asking for is just a local term.

bye

Ninonino (talk) 11:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the reference on Gerard Heinz because you can't use a reference like that on wikipedia. There are rules regarding how you should used references --> WP:V and WP:SOURCES. You are not allowed to just say "she said it" you have to give a citation where she said it (a book, tv/radio interview, newspaper, etc.). Jorgejao (talk) 05:54, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I responded to your most recent message on my talk page. Jorgejao (talk) 21:46, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

-- Tinu Cherian - 01:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I left some thoughts on the Cadwaladr problem on my talk page. I'm going to do a little more research on it to see if the passage is even appropriate for the article. It may be flawed information or off-topic. I'll look into it. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 01:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: your 2007 edit adding the "down-side". Was that in reference to the 2000 presidential election or other experiences/sources? I've moved all the election details to Electronic voting which has a "Documented problems" section.

I'd also like to move the IBM Votomatic somewhere else - when I organized the Punched Card and Keypunch articles back in 2006 I was careful to have only card descriptions in Punched Card. Votomatic is an application of Port_A-Punch, so by that criteria, doesn't belong. But its equally hard to think of Votomatic as a unit record machine and I can't think of where else to put it. Too small for its own article.

Thanks 69.106.231.38 (talk) 02:11, 17 May 2009 (UTC) (wandering IP address, you left a note for me a while ago - Mystery contributor!)[reply]

(more) Votomatic been moved to Voting machine. 69.106.231.38 (talk) 13:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Answered on my talk page; I think you can just remove the templates. — kwami (talk) 10:00, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Responded. — kwami (talk) 22:36, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but there is no way that passes our criteria at WP:RS. Sure, Daniels is notable, but anyone can pretend to be anyone on Usenet which is one of the reasons we can't use it. Dougweller (talk) 09:47, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have really enjoyed reading your book, and I have been struck by how your own ideas correspond with those of Michael A. Jackson, whose work I have been studying for several years now.

I was pleased to see your consideration of the Jackson Inversion and I agree with your analysis of the JSD approach that assumes the need for a single main line.

In his later work, Jackson System Development the ideas are developed more fully. The method is described in the 1982 paper which is available as a pdf: http://www.ferg.org/papers/jackson--a_system_development_method.pdf

In JSD the design is maintained as a network design until the final implementation stage. The model is then transformed into a set of sequential processes to the number of available processors. Jackson discusses the possibility of directly executing the network model that exists prior to this step, which I consider to be an accurate description of FPB. Would you agree?

The specification produced at the end of the System Timing step is, in principle, capable of direct execution. The necessary environment would contain a processor for each process, a device equivalent to an unbounded buffer for each data stream, and some input and output devices where the system is connected to the real world. Such an environment could, of course, be provided by suitable software running on a sufficiently powerful machine. Sometimes, such direct execution of the specification will be possible, and may even be a reasonable choice

Section 3.1, emphasis added

I would be very interested to hear your thoughts regarding JSD. For example, Jackson defines two types of connection: Data Stream and State Vector.

A Data Stream connection is described as follows, and appears to be the type of connection used in FBP: "One process may communicate with another process by operations on a named data stream. The operations on a data stream are open, close, write, and read. For any data stream there is a writer process and a reader process." (Section 2.2)

A State Vector connection is described as follows: "The state vector of a process consists of its local variables together with its text pointer. The value of a process's state vector can be changed only by execution of the process itself: it is strictly an own variable from this point of view. In one respect the state vector of a process in JSD is not strictly an own variable: it can be directly inspected by other processes."

Is there a corresponding concept to the State Vector in FBP? I note the discussion of difficulties encountered in the design of the User Response Analyser (URA) component providing a lookup table. Could the concept of the State Vector be useful here.

One concern is obviously the problem of dirty reads, where the component's internal state might be read while it is partially modified and inconsistent. Jackson addresses this by separating the current state from the published state. The updated internal state does not become visible to other components until a checkpoint is reached where all modifications are complete. The the published state changes to reflect the modified internal state.

I would also be interested to hear your thoughts regarding Jackson's implementation stage. The implementation is defined using an explicit set of transformations that are applied to adapt the network for execution on shared processors. The Von Neuman processor is effectively coerced into becoming one of the schedulers:

The third principle is that the system should be implemented by transforming the specification into an efficient and convenient set of processes, adapted to running on the available hardware and software. A central concern in the implementation stage is process scheduling; a small number of available processors must be shared among a large number of specification processes, and it is highly desirable to determine and bind the scheduling of processes when the system is constructed, rather than waiting until it is run. The transformations are therefore chiefly concerned with process activation and suspension.

Section 1.3 I've added this quote to the main article

One idea I have been pursuing but have had difficulty explaining to others is the idea that these transformations may be done in reverse. ie. given an existing program in an imperative programming language it might be possible to define a set of explicit transformation that would translate it into a FBP model, separating the component code.

In you book you state that a conventional program is in fact an FBP network consisting of a single process. I would like to suggest that all conventional programs consist of multiple processes that have been interleaved with scheduling code, as described by Jackson. If this is true, I would then suggest that the "refactorings" required to separate component and scheduling code might be defined.

Could you see the value in this as an approach for "converting icebergs into ice cubes?"

Many thanks for reading this far Ged Byrne (talk) 18:27, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ged,

Interesting feedback! I guess I am not up to date on Jackson's more recent work, but his comments in Section 3.1 seem reasonable - with the minor quibble that I specify bounded buffers, rather than unbounded, as IMO this is the only way to ensure complete processing of all data.

I can't say I understand his State Vectors, and I would have thought that the idea of allowing one process to inspect another process's internal state runs counter to FBP's philosophy. Why would you need such a facility?

I am also not sure about this comment in 1.3: "it is highly desirable to determine and bind the scheduling of processes when the system is constructed, rather than waiting until it is run". If you look at some of the correspondence, e.g. on the Google group, surely the latter is precisely what a lot of people would like... :-)

At the end of your note, you suggest that "all conventional programs consist of multiple processes that have been interleaved with scheduling code" - this sounds like an overly complex way of getting from a conventional program to a flow network - sort of like unmixing a martini! Still, if you can define a process or methodology, I think there would be quite a bit of interest out there... Maybe you could post some of your work on the Google group - in case you haven't come across it, it is at http://groups.google.com/group/flow-based-programming . Thanks for your interest - stay in touch! Jpaulm (talk) 20:13, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jpaulm,

Thanks for your response. I think the points of divergences between FBP and JSD are of great interest. I believe they are due to different levels of granularity. For example, determining and binding the scheduling of processes leads to a more efficient use of the processor resources. The idea that this optimisation is necessary probably reflects the age of the book (1984).

I'd like to split my suggestion at the end that "all conventional programs consist of multiple processes that have been interleaved with scheduling code" as a principle to be established. Demonstraing that any program could be transformed would be useful for proving the concept, but as you say it would not make for a very practical approach.

For an approach based on this principle that coud be practical I am looking at adapting Value Stream Mapping from manufacturing. Value Stream Mapping is a Lean tool used for adapting factories from a Batch to a Flow arrangement.

I believe that the traditional approach to software relates to Batch production, while FPB and related approach relate to continuous flow. You mention several times in the book the usefulness of an approach that can model both the software and the wider systems that the software serves. I believe that Value Stream Mapping is one way to explore that potential.

Value Stream Mapping has two types of connection: Push and Pull. Jackson has two types that correspond very neatly but FBP has just one type of connection: Push. I note in the second addition of your book you add the following comment prior to figure 15.9

In the bank branch situation, the tellers "pull" customers off the queue, FBP however is a push environment.

Within FBP is there any places for a Pull connection? Obviously it would not be implemented in the way that Jackson describes, but is the concept at all useful? Maybe not at the level of granularity being discussed in Chapter XV, but what about at a higher level of granularity? (Rhetorical question).

Anyway, this is all rather academic. I will put together a practical example and share it with the discussion group. I hope that it might be well received and possibly begin some interesting discussions.

Ged Byrne (talk) 13:54, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I restored the photo of Hari to the King's College page. And yes, his ethics are questionable. But he is notable (with his own Wikipedia article), and he is an alumnus. Wikipedia's task is to present the truth, not to present just what is positive. My own college has Nick Griffin listed by Wikipedia as an alumnus. I am not proud of this, but it is true, and I would consider it wrong to delete him from the list.

However, King's has pictures of all the alumni on its list, while Downing has a longer list of generally less notable alumni, with no pictures. So you could argue that the standard of notability for the King's article is higher, and that Hari does not meet it. If you delete him again, motivated by his level of notability rather than by loyalty to your college, I shan't disagree. Maproom (talk) 16:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you removed the picture of Hari on the grounds that he is not as notable as Keynes, Rushdie, etc., that makes sense. But "Mr. Hari does not appear to be an asset to Cambridge" is not, I believe, a valid reason. I'll leave it to you. Maproom (talk) 13:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't actually seen this discussion but removed him on the basis that he is scarcely at the level of notability of the others in the collection.--Smerus (talk) 17:32, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I accept Smerus's judgement. Maproom (talk) 22:02, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

		Research Participation Barnstar
		For your participation in the survey for Anonymity and conformity on the internet. Michael Tsikerdekis (talk) 08:15, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to semi-protect the talk page as all editors should have the opportunity to make their views known and that's the correct venue. Has a discussion been going on elsewhere? Also in your first post to ANI you said "Representatives of the Unionville Villagers Association feel that the article should be amended to reflect official policy" but later said "AFAIK, at this time, UVA doesn't have an official position". Which seem to contradict each other. One more thing if any members of the UVA are making edits they should be aware of WP:COI and it is best if they declare that on the articles talk page. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 19:48, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem that you would have to end up saying "according to a the boundaries are such (reference), but b indicates they are (reference)." If you can prove that one side is in a minority then you could say that as well. By the way I just semi protected the article for two weeks. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 00:19, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let's give it a try for a month. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 16:37, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And protected for another month. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 23:16, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can't think of a good excuse for that. Fixed now. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 13:19, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Different admins have different ideas on protection. If it continues after the month is up we could try longer. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 21:04, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem to lengthen the protection if it starts up again. Just let me know. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 21:45, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Try three months this time. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 03:06, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what they were doing either. They seemed to remove part of a edit request and edited another article to change the demographics. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 15:45, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They are allowed to blank their own talk page. It also means that they read all the warnings, so they have no excuse later. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 01:24, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wondered about that. Gone with 6 months this time. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 17:31, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would start with a warning. It can be escalated later if necessary. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 15:18, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if it is what you are looking for but there is {{Shared IP}} CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 05:27, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to give him the full opportunity to respond before I move to an indefinite. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 07:41, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Congratulations, Jpaulm, you've recently made your 1,000th edit to articles on English Wikipedia! Thank you for expanding and improving so many articles, and for all your contributions to the encyclopedia. Keep up the great work! Maryana (WMF) (talk) 20:49, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited John Laredo, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Zulu (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:13, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, DPL bot. Fixed it! Jpaulm (talk) 00:19, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very good, thanks for sorting it out - you reworded it to lose any pov, which is great. Dougweller (talk) 19:03, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I saw you have interest in it. I may found something new. My userpage, point 5.2. -- Portolanero (talk) 16:28, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked them for 31 hours for now. Do you know who the Don Hamilton is that they were referring to in this edit? Is it a local person or is it supposed to be the real life name of another Wikipedia editor? CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 15:09, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I wasn't sure and it may have needed deleting if it was an attempt to post the name of an editor. It was unsourced and I removed it because it was a BLP violation. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 17:28, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know they are allowed to remove all that stuff from their talk page. See Wikipedia:User pages#Removal of comments, notices, and warnings. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 00:22, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've fully protected the page so that the talk page for Unionville, Ontario can be used. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 09:07, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Once the protection expires it will be open again for anybody to edit. I'm hoping that the other editors will discuss it on the talk page before then though. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 06:37, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

6 months this time. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 02:51, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The registration comes up often. It's listed at Wikipedia:Perennial proposals#Prohibit anonymous users from editing. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 19:59, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They probably think it's some sort of joke. If they had anything proper to add they would use the talk page. Given them a warning. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 20:47, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked and I'll leave them another note about using the talk page first. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 21:44, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That didn't take long. He's back to the same editing now that block is over. Cmr08 (talk) 06:15, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I've been watching since I had to revert that editor in several articles a few months ago. What's the story with all this, is the editor just trying to confuse people? Cmr08 (talk) 22:42, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not common but not unique either. The only thing is to block and revert. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 06:43, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just after I left the above message I came across this. It's a ever changing IP that randomly changes sourced climate data. They change so often that there is no point in blocking so all that can be done is revert. It's a weird obsession that they have somewhat like the Unionville person. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 06:50, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes they hit multiple targets. Mostly in Canada but also in the US. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 04:02, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 6 months. Should keep them gone for a while. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 04:27, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I was thinking later and expect the page will need semi-protection eventually. Oh well. Hope you also have a merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 00:43, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the page was deleted as a vanity/autobiography page per WP:G11, unambiguous promotion. It looks like you were heavily editing the page and even tried to remove a conflict of interest notice from the page. As an admin, I have to say that this really, really doesn't make you look good and makes sentences like the following one seem very promotional: "While in Montréal, he started developing the ideas which led eventually to flow-based programming, whose concepts are now (roughly 40 years later) being picked up by major companies and computing practitioners world-wide." That you have content on your userpage about your book and a link to your article doesn't really help either. You need to talk to @Guy Macon: about this. He may be willing to restore it, but I think that he will likely require that you not edit the page. Personally, I would heavily discourage you from editing your own article on Wikipedia. As far as your userpage goes, I don't see where your userpage was ever touched or deleted. I can only assume that you are referring to the article, which would not be "your" article in that there's no WP:OWNERSHIP on Wikipedia. My recommendation would be this: go to WP:COMPUTER and ask for someone to create the page anew for you. Once that's been done DO NOT TOUCH THE ARTICLE. I need to repeat this: do not touch or edit the article directly. Instead, only suggest edits via the talk page or by asking someone at WP:COMPUTER to make the edits for you. At this point an admin has deleted the page as spam and there's a reasonable argument to be made for this, so any further direct edits to the page could be seen as you trying to promote yourself. This goes for the page for Flow-based programming as well. I can't stress enough that it's very highly discouraged for people to edit articles that directly pertain to themselves, especially since you stand to gain from the page reading in a certain manner, both financially and reputation-wise. You've been warned about this in the past. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:41, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm posting this again here because I want to make sure that you see this, also so Guy Macon can comment in this thread. I have to again state that I would heavily, heavily recommend that you not directly edit any page that is about you, either a biography or about something you created/pioneered. You stand to make a financial gain by these pages existing and reading in a certain manner, so this led heavily into the pages being seen as promotional. I need to point out that you were warned about this back in 2006 and you commented in a way that suggested that you understood that you were not supposed to directly edit your article. I have to say, things have only grown more strict since that point in time and it's a lot easier for things to be seen as promotional. I'd also be remiss if I didn't give you this warning: if there's enough concern that you're primarily here to promote yourself, you may even run the risk of getting a temporary or permanent block if things get particularly bad. I don't think that things are quite that bad yet, but a warning still needs to be made since while you've made other edits, a sizable chunk has been devoted to editing the pages concerning yourself. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:41, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• On the REFUND page you posted "the technology that John Paul Morrison pioneered", referring to Morrison as if you are not Morrison. Are you Morrison or not? If you aren't, then Wikipedia has a policy against someone using the name of another person to post on Wikipedia and you will need to request a new username. Also, REFUND will not restore the page since it was deleted as WP:G11. I've recommended that you go through WP:COMPUTER to get an uninvolved person to edit the page. You've been told to contact @Guy Macon: over the content (although I note that it was @JzG: that deleted John Paul Morrison) and you've contacted neither person. That you haven't gone to either admin or asked for help at WP:COMPUTER, plus the fact that you seem keen to have your specific version of the article restored, does not reflect well on you and only makes me more concerned about the conflict of interest in this situation. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:48, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• He did contact me by email. I have not replied yet because I have not been able to figure out how I am involved here. I can't find any interaction between me and Jpaulm -- likely because I am not an admin and cannot see deleted pages, but maybe I am just looking in the wrong places. I will say that I have seen many administrative actions by Tokyogirl79 and by JzG/Guy and hold both in high regard. I would be shocked if either one got this one wrong. If anyone wants my opinion of the deleted page, please drop me a note on my talk page and post a copy in my userspace, which I will save to my hard disk and delete from Wikipedia as soon as I see it. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:05, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for advertising or promotion. From your contributions, this seems to be your only purpose. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:28, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm erring on the side of caution here. If you can verify your identity I'm willing to unblock you, but I also have to caution you about self-promotion. I asked you twice, one at REFUND and once here to talk with the editor and/or WP:COMPUTER and you did neither, instead posting at REFUND insisting that the deletion was not because of promotion, but because of vandalism or a mistake. I'm willing to unblock you but I need to make sure that you understand that you should not be editing your own articles without first asking others first. This will be a requirement of your unblock as well, since a large chunk of your edits have been about yourself or things you are affiliated with. People have expressed concern about this in the past so there's no reason why you shouldn't have been doing this. I can understand and even appreciate that it can be difficult to get people to edit on your behalf, but this is very, very important as you editing your own article gives off an extremely promotional appearance since you stand to personally gain from an article's existence and from it reading a certain way. I've asked WP:COMPUTER for help in seeing if you would pass NBIO for things other than flow-based programming. If this is the only thing that you're predominantly known for, then you will likely not pass NBIO. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:05, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The user page gives the same email address as [3]. I have no reason to suspect that this user is impersonating Morrison. The issue seems to be self-promotion, not impersonation. Guy (Help!) 17:17, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm changing this to an advertising block since JzG is vouching for you (somewhat) however the main issue now is of self-promotion, since it appears that you've been making promotional edits for years. The unblock requirement would still be that you have to agree not to directly edit any of your pages. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:29, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which pages do you not want me to edit? I assume you just mean John Paul Morrison? If so, I can arrange for it to be updated by one or more of my colleagues. I haven't visited it for several years, and there are a number of old papers on it which I think should probably be updated. Also, since JzG vouches for me (thanks JzG), why am I still blocked? What is an advertising block? Also I have no idea how to contact Guy while I am blocked - do I still need to do that? Thanks Jpaulm (talk) 22:37, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think I see what an advertising block is, but I am just trying to summarize a concept which is becoming more and more important in the application development industry. If you are saying you will unblock me if I only get other people to do this, OK by me! However, I need to know if you are now talking about the Flow-Based Programming page or the John Paul Morrison page. TIA Jpaulm (talk) 22:42, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That may be what you believe, but most of your edits are to an autobiography and many of your other edits are either about you or citing your own work (notably a self-published book). You don't *think* you are engaged in self-promotion, but you are. Guy (Help!) 23:30, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to put info about FBP on WP, not about myself - if you would rather other people than the author did it, fine! Bottom line: what do I have to agree to to get unblocked? And which WP pages are we talking about? BTW Are you Guy Macon, referenced by Tokyogirl79? BTW Just noticed you removed references to my book, which is the primary source for information about FBP - that's very weird! What are primary vs. secondary sources? Where are people supposed to get this info? What is going on here? Help!!! Jpaulm (talk) 01:26, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Guy, the plot thickens! I now find you are a different Guy - sorry! I am somewhat older than you (78), but my school is somewhat younger than yours (Eton, 1400+). I have to throw myself on your mercy, as I am totally confused! I barely recognize the FBP article - how do we make it accurate and useful again! The block is of lower priority, as I just hate to have stuff with my name on it lying around on the internet in less than perfect shape, and I'd like to get that fixed first. Jpaulm (talk) 01:52, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• What you need to agree to is as follows:

1. You do not make any direct edits that pertain to things that relate to you. This includes FBP. You can request additions on the article's talk page and at WP:COMPUTING. This also includes inserting yourself as a source in other articles.
2. You will not try to re-create the article about yourself. You can request that it be created, either at Wikipedia:Requested articles or at the computing WikiProject.

Those are the main two things. The thing about self-promotion is that it's possible that you may not be aware that you're making problematic edits, but that's the issue with having a strong, strong conflict of interest: it's extremely easy to make a promotional and/or problematic edit unintentionally, without ever realizing that there's a problem. Now when it comes to primary sources, the primary source here is anything written by yourself, since you were instrumental in creating FBP. Primary sources can be useful, however at the same time Wikipedia does also need secondary sources that were written by people other than yourself, published through places that Wikipedia considers to be reliable. Now going back to primary sources, the problem here is that your book was self-published. This means that it did not undergo the scrutiny that a book would if it were published through someplace like Springer. As such, at most it could be listed in the article or even used for some very basic details in the FBP article, but it's not really seen as a reliable source on Wikipedia because it hasn't undergone a lot of scrutiny. This doesn't mean that the information in the book is incorrect, but Wikipedia does have to be careful about overly relying on a self-published, primary source. When it comes to other articles, it's best not to use it because it's self-published. There are some exceptions to this, like if the book has received enough reviews via independent, reliable sources to show that it is reliable, but it's difficult for most SPS to get this, especially if the topic isn't wildly mainstream.

Now as far as the article about yourself goes, I have to repeat that I'm concerned that you might not be notable outside of FBP. This next part may sound harsh, but is not intended to be as such. A quick search didn't really bring up much overall that didn't pertain to FBP and while FBP might be notable, that notability does not automatically mean that you are independently notable and would merit a separate article. Independent notability would be established if you were to have quite a bit of coverage (via secondary, reliable source) that focused on you or on other things that you've done. I'm not saying no article on you ever, just that anyone creating the article would have to really assert notability for you outside of FBP.

This is getting a little verbose, so I'll sum this up here again: the basic requirement for you to get unblocked is that you cannot edit about yourself on Wikipedia, which includes the articles that relate to you (an article about yourself, FBP) and trying to add your work as a source to other articles. You've received warning about this in the past, so consider this an official final warning: if you add information about yourself to Wikipedia and it's deemed promotional, you run the risk of getting blocked with little chance of an unblock. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:31, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Many thanks - that's very clear! You have explained some rather arcane aspects of WP in a way I can understand! Also on rereading your earlier post I get the impression you were not the person who deleted my biog - apologies for accusing you! I am guessing JzG, but there is no way for me to tell! BTW Is there any way for me to get a copy of the deleted article? A lot of work went into it, and I never kept a copy as it never occurred to me that it would disappear with no warning! It would be great if you could send it to paul.morrison@rogers.com . TIA

I freely promise not to update Flow-Based Programming or any biography page about me, should someone else create one. I think there are links to me in John Rodker and Joan Rodker, my father and half-sister, respectively, and a few other places, so these can just stay as names, rather than links. Now that I know I can request changes to FBP on the article's talk page and at WP:COMPUTING, I'm less worried about the restriction.

I definitely think the history section in Flow-Based Programming needs a few tweaks. For some reason, JzG put Wayne Stevens before me in the history - while we worked closely together after he came on board, until his untimely death, there was an interval of several years before he joined me. I freely admit that he published more than me, but he was in research, while I was working full time building applications for a customer! I didn't have time to write my book (or anything much) until after I retired! This is not egotism, but my name should come before Wayne's - sorry, but that would be correct by chron sequence.

Since some readers will want more info about FBP, where should references to my book go, or maybe the web site - http://www.jpaulmorrison.com/fbp/ - would be more acceptable? Does that go in References or External Links?

The source issue is interesting, and makes sense if the main concern is about people promoting wacky ideas :-) In the case of FBP, there are now Google scholar citations - http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1859470 , links to my book in papers, presentations and other books, e.g. Matt Carkci's book "Dataflow and Reactive Programming Systems", most of Henri Bergius' articles on NoFlo, etc. 10 years ago, most of my references were to similar concepts - now I can reference actual products, e.g. Facebook Flux. I am now thinking that many of the External Links in the article are kind of old - should I have them deleted, or is it better not to change them?

This note is getting rather long, but I don't understand why JzG added 4 "primary-inline" tags - Technical Disclosure Bulletins are vetted by company lawyers and go to law firms all over the world (this document guarantees nobody can take out a patent to prevent the company (IBM) from using the concept); the IBM Systems Journal - http://researchweb.watson.ibm.com/journal/sjindex.html - is very highly regarded world-wide; and the other two publications were by Wayne Stevens, so that seems secondary to me - I'm afraid I don't understand what JzG was thinking!

Lastly, I won't grieve over losing my biography article, but WP:NBIO says:

Creative professionals

The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique.

which I thought was pretty clear! Just asking!

Again, thanks very much for explaining things so clearly - I look forward to having the block removed shortly - or if you want to discuss other points first, that's fine too! This has been very educational!

Best regards

I highly recommend our page at Wikipedia:Best practices for editors with close associations. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:55, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Guy, I will definitely study that - of course it's a bit academic until the block gets removed!  :-) I asked Tokyogirl79: "I am now thinking that many of the External Links in the article are kind of old - should I have them deleted, or is it better not to change them?" - any thoughts on that? I am also confused about JzG's "primary-inline" tags - hopefully one of the 3 of you can explain those...! TIA Jpaulm (talk) 19:15, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Tokyogirl79, I seem to be still blocked - as I have committed not to directly modify Flow-Based Programming (or John Paul Morrison if anyone else recreates it), I am surprised that I am still blocked. It would be great if you could take care of this within the next few days - unless you have a further reason for leaving the block in place. Thanks in advance. Jpaulm (talk) 03:09, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At the top of this page you will see a box produced by Template:Uw-soablock. The box looks like this:

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for advertising or promotion. From your contributions, this seems to be your only purpose. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Please follow the directions in the box for appealing a block. Because we at Wikipedia want to avoid any bias, the block will be reviewed by another administrator with no prior connection to you, the admin who blocked you, or the article in question.

I am not an administrator -- I am just an ordinary editor, same as you -- but I have been here over 10 years and have made more that 30,000 edits, so I do know a bit about how Wikipedia works. In my opinion, the block should be lifted based upon what you wrote above. I am watching this page; If the admin declines the unblock I will comment again explaining my reasoning in detail and advising you as to what the next step is.

On a related issue, I received and carefully read the thoughtful email you sent me, and it also gave me reason to support an unblock. I did not reply by email because I have a strong preference for doing things on talk pages such as this one, so that everything is in the open and anyone can review my actions.

Your questions about the article content are best dealt with after appealing the block. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:30, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Guy, that's very clear - I also appreciate your kind support. I will start the process, and see how things develop! Best regards! Jpaulm (talk) 16:28, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Jpaulm (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I was warned about updating articles about my own work (FBP) some 10 years ago, but I'm afraid I had totally forgotten about this over the years. This work has been taking off recently, which is very exciting for me, and I merely wanted to bring the article up to date. The rationale for the block seems to be that I stand to gain financially from the WP article - however FBP has been in the public domain for 40+ years, so the only possible financial gain I could receive is the trickle of income I get from my book. I saw the WP article as more of an information vehicle, not a sales vehicle. I have committed to never update this article again, and believe I still have a lot to contribute to WP in other areas. Jpaulm (talk) 16:46, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

This is going to be a legitimate second chance - just make sure to not make any more direct edits to the articles. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:04, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Tokyogirl79: it seems like this user is taking your advice above. What do you think about an unblock at this point? HighInBC 16:55, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I think we can give him one last chance, but this is important: do not forget that you've been warned several times now not to directly edit articles relating to yourself. As far as profiting goes, there are ways people profit off of having articles, as there's a general consensus out in the world that being on Wikipedia gives a certain level of prestige - whether we like to think of it in that way or not. This was something stated at the DC conference by one of two speakers that were giving a presentation about COI on Wikipedia. He also stated that many of these same outlets felt that it reflected badly on the person/topic if the article was deleted for any reason. Now I don't necessarily agree with that since I don't know that Wikipedia is as much of a make-or-break website as all of that, but I can see their point. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:30, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Tokyogirl79:Thanks a million, Tokyogirl79 (and HighInBC)! When can I expect the unblock to take effect? Do I have to take further steps? TIA Jpaulm (talk) 15:02, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, everyone! This has been very educational! All the best for the New Year! Jpaulm (talk) 16:34, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I don't have time right now to read through the whole history here, but I see people who know policy made the call that you wrote an autobio, and I concur with them that is a violation of WP policy. I support their decision here and will not revert them. Per your email, I will post the last version of the deleted article in your userspace, at User talk:Jpaulm/autobio but I suggest you copy it to your own server promptly. If the admins who handled this don't want it hanging out in userspace, I will not stand in the way of them deleting it. Best, - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 20:48, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, @CorbieVreccan, I have copied it to a safer spot! I understand the idea in general behind the ban on autobios, now that it's been explained to me, but continue to claim that my updating it was not intended as self-promotion, but simply to make sure it was up to date. IIRC I did not create it in the first place, and after 10 years I had totally forgotten about the autobio restriction, esp. as I don't see anything non-objective there (that was checked for 10 years ago!). Further, I do not stand to gain monetarily from the biography, and my reputation is pretty much established now 10 years later! Anyway, thanks again for your help, and Season's Greetings! Jpaulm (talk) 19:08, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've described the reasons for change on that talk page ("Too broad", "Not the common name"). Can't make the changes myself, if you agree... would you make the change? Thanks. 73.71.159.231 (talk) 16:58, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Moura Budberg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a clear copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/bookreviews/11573311/A-Very-Dangerous-Woman-the-Lives-Loves-and-Lies-of-Russias-Most-Seductive-Spy-by-Deborah-McDonald-and-Jeremy-Dronfield.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. _Muffled ^Pocketed 10:05, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jpaulm. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jpaulm. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jpaulm. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	For your amazing expertise and contributions incorporating thereof. I'm sorry you were speciously dinged (I just came from the Expertise essay to which you contributed last year). Neopeius (talk) 05:13, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]