Talk:TCP

message: Just out of curiosity, why is there individual wiki pages for each OSI model layer, yet none for the TCP/IP model? I think we should create these pages as soon as possible- I'm surprised they haven't been already. Or is there a particular reason they were left out? zac439 18:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  TCP/IP Layers 

message: http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/03/army_escalation_handbook_070328/  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.75.90.184 (talk) 17:11, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  traffic control point 

message: Sorry, I'm not into all the protocol here, but there must be some question area, Wiki always seems to leave me with a question of the experts.  Hope this is OK (Newmans2001 (talk) 17:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  TCP, has what to do with the music industry? 

message: I attended working groups under the TCP "Three Countries Protocol" (aka "Travelling Cocktail Parties") in the 90s.  The three countries are/where Canada, UK, and US.  This was in relation to governmental defence bodies.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.154.240.195 (talk) 14:50, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  TCP - Three Countries Protocol 

message: * Tumour Control Probability, the chance a certain dose of radiation will effectively irradiate a tumour.
Widefox; talk 07:55, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed 

message: Hallo Widefox, Please note that MOS:DABENTRY says . Thanks. PamD 07:06, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup sure PamD, of course it's not objective but subjective. Undoing that edit  removes other fixes:
*Internet protocol suite has a meaning, so is a more accurate description (following the article) than "fundamental", but my use of two "protocol"s was sloppy, so this is better:
*"Transmission Control Protocol, of the Internet protocol suite"
**and it is vital to somehow dab the two protocols as per my edit summary
*TCP is a brand (the active ingredient having changed) so it's not a chemical as "(antiseptic)" would imply, hence a tiny description to keep it real (in fact, we arguably could spell out the original acronym of trichlorophenylmethyliodosalicyl but that seems OTT
*"Plasma" would be nice to specify that it's in physics with some wording so it's obvious it's not a plasma#Biology so in the wrong section (which at least helps me when I cleanup dabs, so may help others)
**Also, it's not a type of plasma, but a type of plasma source, so for me it's more clear with a small description (although as the only physics entry it could be argued that it doesn't need dabbing from other entries)
* TCPalm - I see you've now restored that
Regards Widefox; talk 08:17, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

text: User:PamD ? (just to clear that up, I don't agree with my primary topic proposal above, nowadays) Widefox; talk 14:28, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  My main objection to your edit was that in your edit summary  "" you seemed to be saying that WP:MOSDAB required text for each dab entry, while MOS:DABENTRY is quite specific that text is not required, so that you seemed to be claiming an authority for your edit on the basis of a misreading / misremembering / whatever. PamD 14:42, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ah, just realised I think I misunderstood your edit and edit summary - I was reading "two protocols" as referring to MOSDAB and DABYESNO! It was because your edit added text to a couple of text-less entries, as well as annotating Transmission Control Protocol, so I read the edit as being determined to add text to every entry and mis-citing MOSDAB to justify this. Sorry about that.  PamD 14:49, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Glad you explained. Yes I was just restoring the TCP protocol entry description to the wording of the article. Hehe. Anyhow, the wording is better now you've questioned my edit (per my mistake), as long as you agree with restoring the modified edit? Widefox; talk 14:53, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: TCP dab page