User talk:Howard C. Berkowitz

Howard C. Berkowitz

Current talk page

1, 2, 3, 4

Did you mean to do that?

I missed this the first time because I usually look at all the changes at the same time.. then I saw that you deleted something.. did you mean to do that? I was going to respond, but thought maybe you changed your mind or something. D. Matt Innis 23:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Didn't mean to delete; now trying to figure out how to restore it. Howard C. Berkowitz 23:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Do you like Ike?

How do you feel about the Dwight D. Eisenhower article from a military standpoint? Is it ready for approval? If so, could you nominate it? Then I'll get some people from other applicable workgroups to join in. --Joe Quick 16:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not ready. The WWII is better than Cold War; the Cold War has a lot of ideological baggage. It's fixable, but I need references and I'd like to get some Afghanistan things in better order -- to say nothing of some Vietnam material that's long been close to approval. Howard C. Berkowitz 16:38, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

RIM-2 Terrier

I have made a copy of your article in my draft space, with the minor modification of using the convert template instead of writing out the conversion. I have set the values to display what you had written, however if you want a more precise conversion simply change {{convert|12|km|feet|-4}} to display as {{convert|12|km|feet|2}} and it will display out to the second decimal.

If you like it this way, simply copy the draft into the article space. I have not touched anything other than the conversions.Drew R. Smith 20:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

DNS

Hi, Howard, did you see my last remark? Peter Schmitt 14:32, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I should have guessed this ... Peter Schmitt 14:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Howard, we need some feedback

Howard, please look at This thread in the forums. We need some feedback in that thread. Milton Beychok 06:37, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Air Force

Howard, Air Force is in state of moving, did you forget it?--Paul Wormer 15:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Dutch air force

"Koninklijke Luchtmacht nu‎" means literally "Royal Air Force now" (nu = now). Why do you have the now? --Paul Wormer 15:39, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Because I don't speak Dutch and that's the translation given by my reference! We should, by all means, change it. Howard C. Berkowitz 15:43, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Kop or sysop needed to format AOTW

Hi Howard, can you please apply these changes to Ancient Celtic music and then set back CZ:Article of the Week to this version? Thanks! --Daniel Mietchen 20:53, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Note that the second paragraph had a "<" removed, and the third one a " " added before the final onlyinclude. --Daniel Mietchen 20:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

One more thing: This transcluded version starts with the article title, but this would not be needed in the approved page, as it already has that title. --Daniel Mietchen 21:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Now changed it such that you can simply copy the whole User:Daniel_Mietchen/Sandbox/AOTW into Ancient Celtic music. --Daniel Mietchen 22:44, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Underground

'subway' is the American term, it sees a little usage here too but 'underground' or 'metro' is more common, mainly because 'subway' over here refers to a pedestrian underpass. 'Metro' is the best general term I think, mainly because it's used worldwide and it doesn't restrict to systems with underground running. I put District Line in the Engineering workgroup, there needs to be a transport one though! Tom F Walker 21:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Internet protocol

Howard, you are answering so quickly that I suspect that you did not notice that a few days ago I put two questions/remarks on Talk:Internet Protocol. Furthermore, you should check if my edits are ok. Peter Schmitt 00:35, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

At Anycasting you have reacted immediately. May I ask what's the matter with Internet Protocol? Peter Schmitt 19:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't know anything was outstanding. I'll check it soon; I'm trying to finish some things with books I have to return to the library this evening. Howard C. Berkowitz 20:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

What title should I use?

Howard, I am writing an article on the U.S.'s Clean Air Act. That is its legal name, Clean Air Act. But some other countries also have Clean Air Acts. So how should I title the article on the U.S.'s Clean Air Act? At the moment, I am leaning toward "Clean Air Act (United States)".

What would you suggest? Milton Beychok 02:49, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd use Clean Air Act (U.S.). Howard C. Berkowitz 04:11, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

File transfer vs FTP

I answered you over on my talk page (I know it's easy to lose track when you edit someone else's talk page... a shortcoming of talk pages in my opinion) -Eric M Gearhart 14:10, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Voting for Domain Name System nominee for Article of the Week

Howard, I am not sure that it is kosher for you to change Peter Schmitt's vote from supporter to specialist supporter. I would feel more comfortable about it if you asked him to confirm that change either on your Talk page or my Talk page. Regards, Milton Beychok 19:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I accidently saw this and added a remark at User talk:Milton Beychok#Specialist supporter-- Peter Schmitt 20:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

pointer

Howard, I left a response on my talk page to your entry. I explain there why it took me so long to respond. Dan Nessett 15:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Internment

In light of emerging news about the Tamils, I'm considering starting an article on internment as a general practice. The topic covers military, politics, and sociology, so we definitely have enough editors to do a three-editor approval if some of them are involved. Care to join me? I'll probably download some reference materials today and tomorrow and get started some time this week.

P.S. I also intend to get back to the interrogation article and approvals in the next few days. Having a house guest got me distracted... --Joe Quick 20:22, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Is internment a subset of extrajudicial detention? I would argue it mostly is; there are some "legal but nonjudicial" forms of internment specified by international law. I'd consider both detention of enemy aliens (and diplomats temporarily) in a declared war, and then population things such as the Japanese, both to be internment. Note that I exclude things that are intended to be harsh, such as the gulags and concentration camps from internment.

You weren't interrogating the house guest, were you?

I may be doing some short classes on interrogation and intelligence soon, a one-hour about the US probably approved this week, but perhaps a 4-8 week adult education course. Howard C. Berkowitz 20:31, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'd say it's mostly a subset of extrajudicial detention. I can't think of any historical examples that weren't extrajudicial, but I don't think that part is actually intrinsic to the idea or practice of internment though. It doesn't take much of a stretch to imagine a legal system making allowances for the internment of certain categories of people. Some of the actions taken against Native Americans in U.S. history might count. I guess we'll find answers as we go along. --Joe Quick 03:13, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Never mind about internment. The term really isn't defined well enough to create a useful article. I was finally convinced when I searched the text of the Geneva Convention for uses of the word. Oh well. I'll have to think of something else. --Joe Quick 03:02, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Not Geneva Conventions primarily; see [1]; Vienna Conventions on diplomatic practice and International Humanitarian Law. I think you will find it mentioned in the GC Additional Protocols. Howard C. Berkowitz 03:17, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, wow! I felt like I was getting some general impressions but nothing specific enough to use as a basis for an article. That document positively affirms those broad themes though. Thanks! I find it fittingly humorous that, after I spent all that time coming to the conclusion that the details are vague at best, there's a line that reads, "The Fourth Geneva Convention makes it explicitly clear that internment..." Yeah right! --Joe Quick 13:50, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

You are, as I recall, in the US? A few years ago, it became much more complex to have a prescription filled due to new HIPAA regulations. The act making these changes, and I am not joking, was the "HIPAA Adminstrative Simplification Act." Howard C. Berkowitz 14:15, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

transplantation

Is there a reason all of those articles need to be titled Transplantation, heterologous‎ and Transplantation, isogeneic‎ and so forth rather than Heterologous transplantation and Isogenic transplantation? If it is for keeping them together in lists, that can be done using the abc field in the metadata and leaving the title as the actual term. --Joe Quick 16:10, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The rationale is that those are the exact indexing terms used by the National Library of Medicine in Medical Subject Headings. I certainly don't mind redirecting in non-inverse order, and indeed am doing so for synonyms such as xenotransplantation, but I do believe that when there is an authoritative reference for a term, that should be the article name. As long as there are redirects, it shouldn't be a problem for the reader. Howard C. Berkowitz 16:16, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

But that's an index. We have the abc field so that in our index-equivalents we can alphabetize them just the same. But regular old article titles aren't part of an index. --Joe Quick 03:32, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

And again, the lede sentence says "heterologous transplantation". There's a redirect to that term. Yes, there may be indexing -- NLM isn't the only such source -- but I am emphatically in favor of the main article title using an authoritative name when one exists. The fact that the title of the article is something odd, as long as users can get to it and search engines can find it, doesn't hurt usability in the least. Indeed, it may help, because the authoritative term should be the search string in things like MEDLINE. Howard C. Berkowitz 14:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I have a hard time believing that those are really the "authoritative terms". They might be the authoritative terms after having been adjusted to be more easily found in an index. But I'm not going to argue because it isn't worth it. --Joe Quick 19:25, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Joe, I spent a number of years working at the Library of Congress, and indeed with NLM. As a chemist, I worked with the sometimes obscure nomenclature of the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry.

You may be confusing "authoritative name" with "user-friendly name". They aren't the same. Further, as long as there is a user-friendly way a search engine can find a concept, why is it so important that the article title be user-friendly rather than authoritative? I guess I don't know why you are making an issue of this — it's a fairly basic concept in library science. From a human factors standpoint, the issue is having multiple names available. Howard C. Berkowitz 19:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Military Editor Qualifications

Howard, do you have any idea what would qualify someone to be a Military Group editor? We have an applicant with 6 years military experience, but I have no idea what criteria to use for thie particular group. David E. Volk 23:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

No simple answer. I could look at the background. For soldiers, look for command, training, or staff experience. For contractors/civil servants, look for things that indicate review or decisionmaking. Where things really get challenging is the avocational expert, soldier or civilian: I know medieval reenactors who are software engineers that know the Battle of Hastings, or Viking raiding, as well as people of the time. The best historian of the Byzantine Empire that I know is an Army Engineer sergeant. Remember, Tom Clancy was an insurance agent. Howard C. Berkowitz 23:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Are you okay with my nominating Chester Nimitz for New Draft of the Week?

Let me know as soon as possible ... or sooner. Milton Beychok 03:52, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Nimitz is fine, although I really should make it a priority to do some updates to it. I was going to get E.B. Potter's biography on interlibrary loan, but it's mostly available on Google. There are a bunch of other updates I can make, and look quickly for sourcing. Howard C. Berkowitz 04:11, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

It has been nominated. If you would like to add your vote as a supporter, please do so. Milton Beychok 07:52, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Block cipher

I've completed my move & am becoming active again. I've created AES competition, but more things mentioned in last couple of sections of Talk:Block_cipher need doing, and I'd like editor input first.

Two main questions, quoting talk page:

• It is becoming clear we need a catalog listing many block ciphers, perhaps starting with WP's list. I'm not sure how to create that; I could do it with an HTML table but there may be a way that is more wiki-ish or easier. Suggestions? Volunteers?

• What it the right format for article names? Blowfish cipher? Blowfish block cipher? Blowfish (cryptography)? Blowfish (cipher)?

The first one is not urgent; we can do that when we get to it, though likely it should be done before approval. The second is urgent; I want to create articles, but am not certain what to call them. "Blowfish (cipher)" would be my first choice, but I do not feel strongly about it. Sandy Harris 05:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I would say blowfish (cipher). And it can always be moved if it turns out to be the wrong choice.Drew R. Smith 06:05, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Welcome back. How's the new area?

Catalogs confuse me as well, especially when they are more than a simple list; see Intelligence interrogation, U.S., George W. Bush Administration/Catalog. Daniel or Milton might be able to advise; we really need some style guides.

Yes, I think Blowfish [minimal name] (word), where word preferably is a main article title. Right now, we have (block cipher), but if we have enough (cipher) articles, I think I'd prefer mildly, the more general if there is a (cipher) article.

Increasingly, I've started disambiguating things both when the basic word is ambiguous (e.g., Arrow (missile), or when it's cryptic and doesn't suggest anything (e.g., Vympel R-33 (missile)). I may be rationalizing, but I haven't put a (encryptor) on KG-34 because it follows the TSEC- system, and it will always be written TSEC/KG-34. Howard C. Berkowitz 15:18, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd say (cipher) or (cryptography). Regarding catalogs: In this case a simple list of ciphers (classified according type, if feasable) is sufficient (similar to a Related articles subpage), maybe with the year it has been developed. Using the {{r}} template only if the definitions are reasonably different which they probably will not be. Peter Schmitt 16:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

That is done. Both block cipher and AES competition may now be close to approvable, and there are a whole lot of new (short, often incomplete) articles on specific ciphers or groups like CAST, RC*, SAFER, LOKI. Sandy Harris 01:24, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

In the process, Ive created at least a dozen small articles for individual block ciphers: Tiny Encryption Algorithm, Square (cipher), etc. Most of these do not yet have subpages. What categories should they get? Obviously "computer", probably "mathematics", perhaps "military". I could just guess and/or mark them all for category check, but it seems better to ask.

Should they have a "main" tag? Cryptography? Block cipher? I'd say that's unnecessary since they all start with "<name> is a block cipher..." anyway. What do you think & is there a policy? Sandy Harris 07:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

linking acronyms

Just had a glance over cruiser. Should we be linking acronyms like "HMAS" and "DKM"? I figured out HMAS right away but had trouble with DKM. I presume the links would point to articles like Australian navy and Bundesmarine. Just a thought, but I didn't want to actually create the links without asking. --Joe Quick 23:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I've taken a first shot, but it's a little tricky. You'll see that I linked the acronym from a graphics caption, not a ship name, because the prefix is part of the ship name. We have, therefore, articles USS and USS Vincennes (CG-49). Germany used SMS and DKM, although I'm not sure that they use a prefix these days. DKM is even stranger since one usually referred to the WWII command as OKM. Howard C. Berkowitz 23:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

"SMS" should be "Seiner Majestät Schiff". Peter Schmitt 00:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, Howard, "Seine Majestäts Schiff" is still not correct. Peter Schmitt 00:24, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Peter, my German is non-native and mostly forgotten. Would you correct it, please? Howard C. Berkowitz 00:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I just did not want to interfere while you were working on it (and you know better where you used this phrase). Therefore I preferred to leave a message. You got it right in the definition, but not when moving the page. Peter Schmitt 10:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Having just looked over the Battle of Coronel), I do not think linking ship nationality prefixes (or whatever they are called) is a good idea. It's just too much linking and gets in the way of authoring. If a person is interested in what SMS means, they can (presumably) backlink through the SMS Scharnhorst page, etc. And as Howard pointed out above, the prefix is part of the ship's name. Russell D. Jones 12:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's rather why I wrote Battle of Coronel -- to explore what would happen. There's no question it is awkward for authoring. The prefix is part of the name. When we speak of "Mr. Smith", we don't link "Mr.", although I believe we do have an article somewhere that explains at least "miss" and "Mrs."

It is practical and useful to have links for such thing as ADM and LTG, but those aren't parts of names, but rather they are titles. Howard C. Berkowitz 14:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Grand Trunk Railway

Howard, I just nominated this one for approval. Please look it over. It's in the engineering workgroup. (I don't know why). Russell D. Jones 20:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

We've generally put transportation into Engineering. Howard C. Berkowitz 20:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)