Talk:Turbo encabulator

message: User:Mikkalai removed the reference to the retroencabulator film, claiming that it was not by Rockwell Automation but rather by nonnotable April 1 pranksters.  I've seen no evidence to support that assertion, but at least anecdotal evidence that it was actually produced by R.A. as part of training for tech writers (e.g., what not to do).  I've added back a reworded reference, as in either case the film is still relevant to the turboencabulator.  However, unless evidence of it being unrelated to R.A. is forthcoming, I will add back a less strongly worded claim of the relationship.  --Brouhaha 19:11, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not a collection of techie jokes. If this video is not mentioned by any urban folklore publication, it has no place here. `'mikka (t) 00:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What copyright are you claiming is violated?  And how can you seriously claim that a video about a retroencabulator that was obviously inspired by the turboencabulator paper is not relevant to an article on the turboencabulator?  That makes no sense whatsoever.  --Brouhaha 18:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  If it is created by an "exorsystem", then it is a work of nonnotable April 1 pranksters. If it is created by R.A., then the poster "exorsystem" violated the copyright of R.A. and wikipedia cannot promote copyvios by providing links. `'mikka (t) 19:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Authenticity of Rockwell Automation retroencabulator film

message: How, who is going to verify this masterpiece of user:67.188.249.116:
:"The author of "The Turbo-Encabulator in Industry" was a young lawyer named Bernard Salwen who was an intelligence officer in Washington DC during World War II. As part of his job, he had to review a lot of professional science and engineerng papers. He had a flair for language and was intrigued by the obscure techinical terms he encountered. The result was this paper, which was printed by a number of publications without proper attribution. It was excerpted in Time magazine some time in 1945, which resulted in some humorous letters to the editor."
I deleted it, naturally. `'mikka (t) 05:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted  

message: I agree Retro-Encabulator should be merged to Turboencabulator. —Quarl (talk) 2006-07-27 19:57Z
These are pretty much referencing to the same thing. They should be on the same page, with two different articles. Agreed. Buzzert 04:01, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Retro-Encabulator]] 

message: There was also a Dodge Viper video circulating around 1995-1996 talking about the turbo encabulator. If anyone can scrounge a copy of this up i'd appreciate it!  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 08:54, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Turbo Encabulator

message: At the bottom of the "Other Turboencabulator Information" section is a reference that reads 
"From an email received from another retired engineer, who went to the Instrument Dept. in 1966 for specialized training and met the author of the turboencabulator datasheet hoax. He is a reliable source. I know him.~~~~".  This is obviously the Wrong Way to do things, but I don't know how one would properly cite something like this.  Help!  Note: I didn't make those modifications. Frotz (talk) 07:59, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I tend to agree, and I am the one who wrote it.  Let's wait a couple days.  If more people agree with Frotz, and I suspcect they will, I will remove it. Pommerenke (talk) 23:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is quite the definition of "not verifiable" -- nobody else can verify that (a) the engineer said this and (b) that he's reliable. I'm removing the refs. 66.95.123.6 (talk) 14:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  ...He is a reliable source. 

message: At the bottom of the 'History' section, I read this statement:
"Circa 1955 Rockwell Automation 'manufactured the renamed Retro-Encabulator in another video spoof. See external link in the bottom of this article."
That date does not seem correct.  The linked video says "© 1997 Rockwell International Corporation."  The editor who wrote most of the article was putting everything in chronological order.  Does the date of 1955 seem like a typo then? BecauseWhy? (talk) 02:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: BecauseWhy?, you are correct, it was my typo.  So I changed the date from 1955 to 1997.  Keep up the good work.  pommerenke.  (BTW, I am surprised people come to this page.  I guess humor is still alive and well :-) )  —Preceding comment was added at 18:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dates? 

message: A page for goodbeads-world.com  claims to sell amulite beads. Real or not? --Auric (talk) 03:42, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Amulite? 

message: Please note, there are some subtle errors in the presentation.
The technical drawing on the speaker’s right has minor errors. 
The Franklin heliostat kelter tabs have their polarity reversed; all of the back-linked thermocouplings are shown in millimeters, not Troy grains; none of the outer magnetic arcing rings are touching﻿ the servo surfaces; and the six-phase windings should be encased in argon cooling tubes, not Xenon cooling tubes.
With these changes, the operation of the device should be very easy to understand.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeff92677 (talk • contribs) 00:38, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  One person's criticism of the design 

message: The article says that 'directance' isn't a word (""modial" and "directance" are not even words"), but I found it in a math book. Ian01 (talk) 19:04, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed. It was an unreferenced opinon anyway. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:15, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Validity of the word 'directance' 

message: I found the quote in the article had many misspelling (as I had just read the original paper), and corrected them. Only after I found out these misspellings are actually in the Time article. Now any engineer comparing these two versions will quickly gain the impression the copying by the Time editors was by non-technical people. The wording in the original article makes sense to an engineer in some funny way, an effect which is partially destroyed by Time's misspelling. "Side fumbling" is funny, while "side fumbline" is just nonsense. A baseplate of  aluminite is funny, while amulite is nonsense.
These considerations clearly indicate that the original text should be quoted. So I adjusted the article accordingly.WikiPidi (talk) 11:13, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that the Time article is still cited as the source of that section. You need to change the citation to the original source. - BilCat (talk) 17:18, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quote from Time vs. original article 

message: Some day we should get this to WP:GA to qualify it for WP:DYK, possibly (but not necessarily) to appear on AFD. OK? If someone wants to work with me on that, ping me or message my on my talk. EEng 16:56, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA for DYK 

message: Found out a little bit more about Bud Haggart, who must have passed on by now, but is fast becoming-- and, to my mind, will hopefully remain-- iconic for this training film parody.  Suffice it to say that yes, his sense of humor was exactly what you would guess and hope after watching that.  He apparently had been doing news radio in Detroit (WWJ) until he made his introduction announcer crack up on the air, and got himself fired.  It's that background, though, that explains his somewhat unique delivery.  If you watch that clip, you'll note that his delivery doesn't look quite right for a teleprompter-- that's because it's not.  Bud was apparently known for being able to wear "the ear"-- a prompting earpiece that you probably mostly associate with live translators.  Newscasters used this to "pace out" the news ahead of time, even though they would still deliver it live.  Bud would read all his copy to tape ahead of time, stopping and restarting if he needed to work on any unusual words, names, or phrases.  When delivering the news, he would play the tape and talk along "behind" it by a word or two, just like a translator, except that he was just repeating it verbatim.  This technique-- largely lost, now-- is one of the reasons that some news broadcasts from the 1950s have a uniquely steady, calm, and even delivery that is very difficult to duplicate when reading from paper or a teleprompter.  You'll definitely notice it, if you listen to enough old news broadcasts.  Anyway, mastering this technique is apparently how Bud was able to deliver technical jargon with unparalleled accuracy and reliability, probably rarely needing a second take, and it's the reason that clip is both basically flawless, and in what today seems like such a unique voice.
A few anecdotes support this.  This first one is from an announcer he worked with at a station in Detroit:
The second is from the director of the video in question:
Might be fun to find enough stuff to give the guy a page.  From what it sounds like, he bulldozed the entire technical training film narration profession into a standard style that everybody recognizes, just by example.  Seems like he did hundreds of those things.
--Breakpoint (talk) 23:14, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bud Haggart 

message: The SANS content on this page was added after they produced an advertisement for their paid courses on YouTube. This is an abuse of Wikipedia.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18E:C100:C380:9874:3C9D:4CF7:9A4 (talk) 22:05, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: What are you talking about? EEng 22:28, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The edit that I removed just now about the "SANS ICS HyperEncabulator". 2601:18E:C100:C380:9874:3C9D:4CF7:9A4 (talk) 23:24, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see the problem. EEng 00:01, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: There are no rules on Wikipedia about a company making an advertising campaign on YouTube and then making edits on Wiki that funnel clicks to the advertisement?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18E:C100:C380:F89E:985:7049:6605 (talk) 13:42, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but that doesn't mean that any edit that mentions them originates from the company.  Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 06:58, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: SANS Abusing Wikipedia Page as Part of an Advertising Campaign