Talk:File Transfer Protocol/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Debate on inclusion of external link

Want a tutorial? YOU GOT IT!

Hi guys. I am Insanitor, I am the author of several classic tutorials on how to get an FTP server running on the internet. Looking at the links on the FTP page probably makes the beginner cringe in fear, but there is no cause for worry. My tutorial will fix all of that. My tutorial comes with a dictionary that explains all of that technical jargon in PLAIN ENGLISH. It comes with screenshots so you'll never be confused about anything. Whether you want to run your FTP server behind a hardware firewall, a router, whatever, my tutorial will teach you how. My latest tutorial is a combination of all the three tutorials I have written so far with added features. It is an interactive tutorial, sort of like a wizard where you could choose which parts of each tutorial you want to read. It is organized in much the same way as wikipedia, because every word that you might not know the meaning of will come with a link directly to the dictionary, so you can understand what that word means. Each part of the tutorial is divided into several numbered sections and the information is organized in between all three previous tutorials. My new tutorial supports Serv-U, Gene6, and Bulletproof FTP Server in an interactive interface with a tree structure. Creating new users, installation and permissions settings for upload, anonymous, and download accouts are supported. Want to diagnose a problem? I've got it covered. Want to know if you have made a common mistake? Look them up! It is on insanitor.com along with a watermark for each screenshot. I put it on insanitor.com so that everyone here can access it. My normal website address prohibits access to certain people. By putting it on insanitor.com, it is accessible to everyone. My host, is willing to spare his bandwidth and has been informed of the new tutorial's content.

And now... Here is the Insanitor FTP Tutorial Wizard, the tutorial you all have been waiting for!

Ready! Set! Go!

http://www.insanitor.com/introduction.htm

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Insanitor (talkcontribs)

I've replaced this here after it was reverted as spam. Actually, Insanitor placed the link into the article and I removed it as it's their own site. I told them that the correct way to get a link to a site you control into an article is to make a case for its inclusion on the Talk page and allow other, non-partisan editors to decide for or against the link. (See Wikipedia:External links for this guideline.) The fact that they are following this rule and not simply re-inserting the link into the article is a very good sign of willingness to Do The Right Thing. I ask everyone to assume good faith in Insanitor's good intentions and willingness to work within our rules and consider this honestly (and avoid biting newbies). After all, the link being here for the duration of the discussion can't hurt anything, and it might benefit the article. I turn it over to the other editors watching this page (since I will recuse myself due to my part in all this): Does the article benefit from this link? Should it be included or left out? — Saxifrage 10:16, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Here's my evaluation of the site:
  • First thing, WP is not a tutorial so should links to tutorials be included? I don't see why not.
  • Secondly, is the link informative? If you don't know a thing about FTP or administrating any FTP servers, then sure.
  • Thirdly, it's ad free and popup free.
  • Fourthly, I find the site unprofessional for many reason. In particular, I can tell by the terminology used that insanitor is a novice to FTP and the IP suite (e.g., "inside IP" and "outside IP"). None of the images have alt tags for the vision impaired. Many pages violate W3C HTML standards (some pages don't even have a BODY tag).
All that said, I see little reason to not include it. That is until a better tutorial comes along (the fourth point is mainly here to gives grounds to replace and define a "better tutorial"). Cburnett 16:07, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
I see no reason not to include a link to a how-to. Quite honestly, to all of you who say Wikipedia is not a how-to; fine, yes, you're right. However, think about your users here: they come because they want to learn something, I am willing to bet that if you poll the next 100 people who type "ftp" into Google, you're going to find a large percentage are interested in how to use the damn thing (its not precisely intuitive, to be honest, not hard either). So, fine, we may not provide a how-to, but lets at least help them get where they want to go. That said, here is another ftp tutorial that might fulfill the need (http://www.freewebmasterhelp.com/tutorials/ftp). It doesn't tout any one particular client, a problem with most ftp tutorials I read (a case of "here's how to use acmeftp", not "here's how to use ftp"). Cheers. SavantEdge 12:49, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
A link to a howto/tutorial is fine in my books, after all it may prove useful to many users who visit this page. My main concern at the time of writing my above comment was that the majority of the article on the File Transfer Protocol was a tutorial that was specific to an operating system and client instead of giving encyclopedic information on the protocol. I agree entirely with Cburnett's evaluation of the site (especially the lack of professionalism) with one further point to add; it does not give an in-depth account for clients, only server setup. If I find a better tut, I'll report back, otherwise it seems fine to add it to the links section. Martin Hinks 15:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you; the article should be more about the protocol itself than about how to use it. Perhaps, just at the very beginning, a short note saying, "If you are looking for information on how to use FTP, please check out one of the tutorials listed at the bottom of this page."; and then we put a few not-client-specific tutorials at the bottom there. SavantEdge 12:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I really don't see how what you guys said is relevant...?

First of all the site loads and works perfectly in Internet Explorer and Mozilla Firefox so making it w3c html compliant is not really necessary is it?.

Second, I am running three different websites that are Valid HTML 4.01 Transitional compliant so it's not as if I am not capable of making the tutorial w3c compliant. If you want the addresses for those sites then they are available upon request but that's not relevant either is it?

Third, I used the terms "inside IP" and "outside IP" because I wanted to explain what these terms mean to beginners. It was not my intention to write a technical manual on the FTP protocol itself.

I also resent the comment that I am a "novice to FTP". I have helped hundreds of people get their FTP servers running by posting my tutorial.

I only agree with your statement that my tutorial does not include alt tags for the vision impaired, but that is because I did not write the tutorial for the vision impaired.

It seems to me that you have misinterpreted my purpose for writing this tutorial.

Basically, I wrote a tutorial on how to setup an FTP server under windows for beginners with screenshots.

Nothing more and nothing less.

Gee, I don't know... Should I include my mother's recipe for Veal Parmigiana in my tutorial?

Would that increase the chances that a link for my tutorial will be included in this article...?

Now I am totally confused. Please give me some Tylenol or hit me over the head with a hammer...

--Insanitor

P.S.

Let's examine the links that are included on this article to see if they are w3c html compliant.

This one isn't.

http://www.ftpplanet.com/ftpresources/basics.htm

Failed validation

Sorry, I am unable to validate this document because on line 259 it contained one or more bytes that I cannot interpret as utf-8 (in other words, the bytes found are not valid values in the specified Character Encoding). Please check both the content of the file and the character encoding indication.

How about this one:

http://www.ncftp.com/libncftp/doc/ftp_overview.html

Failed validation, 9 errors

Maybe this one?

http://slacksite.com/other/ftp.html

Failed validation, 47 errors

How about this one:

http://dmoz.org/Computers/Internet/Protocols/FTP/

Wow! This one is ok. Two out of 3 so far is not bad, right?

This one:

http://www.ncftp.com/ncftpd/doc/misc/ftp_and_firewalls.html

Failed validation, 8 errors

Here's the last one:

http://www.bitkinex.com/ftpfiletransfer.php

Failed validation, 1 error

Awww... One error short of valid HTML!

You guys are toying around with me and I want to know why!


I agree that a link's inclusion should not be based on W3C validation - google.com fails the W3C auto-checker! However, that is not really the issue and since my last comment on this topic I have somewhat changed my mind. This article is about the File Transfer Protocol - that is; an explanation of the uses of RFC 0959 and an article that describes the technical details of that RFC. FTP is not restricted to a single operating system, client or server application, it is the underlying mechanism through which files may be transferred. A more appropriate place for a tutorial that details the setup of a specific server for a specific operating system would be under the Wikipedia article for the specific software. If a rationale can be provided that shows clearly how the tutorial link enhances the article on RFC 0959 and it's extensions then it can be included, otherwise it must go elsewhere under a topic to which it is better suited (try Serv-U). Martin Hinks 08:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

If someone is looking to use FTP, they will most likely be running a Windows OS.

If someone is looking to run an FTP server they will probably use one of the three most popular FTP servers which are those three I support in my tutorial.

If someone wants this information and uses Wikipedia to get it then if we remove the tutorials link on this article then Wikipedia is pretty useless.

I agree more with what SavantEdge had to say about this.

P.S. The Serv-U article has almost no information, and also, Serv-U has their own tutorial so posting my own tutorial on that article would be a useless waste of time. The other FTP servers in my tutorial have no articles at all on wikipedia.

If information is not posted in this article then such information will never be found on wikipedia. Assuming that the mission of this website is to inform, then not including tutorial links on this article will abandon that mission.

Perhaps I should stop wasting my time here as well.

--Insanitor.

The aim of Wikipedia is to create an encyclopaedia, not to provide training manuals/tutorials, a simple search for ftp tutorial will do that job. This is not any form of attack on your efforts to create an FTP Server tutorial, which it would seem you have done succesfully, but I am instead calling into debate it's relevany for this article which is not about how to run your own FTP server but instead about the specifications and standards of the underlying protocol. I would also call into question your assumption that the majority of people who wish to use FTP are Windows users, with Apache holding the largest market share of web servers[1], it is probable that many first time unix/linux system administrators would want information on FTP. Furthermore, if someone *expects* Wikipedia to point them straight to a tutorial on how to configure their exact server (OS, Server specifics etc.) then they have missed the point of Wikipedia. Finally, I also must refer you to WP:NOT which represents official Wikipedia policy and present this extract:
"while Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places, and things, Wikipedia articles should not include instruction - advice ( legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, video game guides, and recipes."
If you still feel that, in spite of official policy on Wikipedia stating otherwise, the link should be included, then this discussion would best be furthered on the WP:NOT talk page where you would have to convince all involved that a change to official policy is needed. Martin Hinks 13:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I see your point and I appreciate your being diplomatic about this.

My point is this:

All of the knowledge in the world about the FTP protocol itself will NOT help you run an FTP server nor will it help you use an FTP client nor will it help you utilize FTP to share and/or download files from an FTP.

If I wrote an article about different types of filaments used in light bulbs and light bulb construction techniques, that won't help you turn the light bulb on. To do that, you need electricity and you need a switch.

A manual filled with nothing but with technical jargon is usually of absolutely no use to most people.

With people getting in trouble using p2p programs, people are looking for safer and more secure ways to share files and FTP is definately the way to go. People are now downloading and sharing things and they don't even know what they are sharing or downloading.

If someone looks for that information on wikipedia and only finds technical jargon about the FTP protocol, then that person will definately look elsewhere.

This article definately needs links for USEFUL information. There is no doubt about it.

I see nothing wrong with a section entitled, "If you want to use an FTP client or run an FTP server, then these links might help"

--Insanitor.

Keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a Google replacement. Information that will rapidly get out of date isn't of much interest to the encyclopedia in most cases, and how to use particular clients and servers is that kind of information. The technical jargon of the FTP protocol is exactly the sort of information that doesn't go out of date that Wikipedia is about collecting. For everything else, there is Google. — Saxifrage 01:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I can't argue with that. WWW.wikipedia.com will never reach google's level and it will NEVER ever be up to date and instead will provide obsolete or useless information that nobody will use.

--Insanitor.

AND! My Encyclopedia Americana has updates in additional books by year. So wikipedia won't be like my encyclopedia either? =D

Oh! May I ask how does someone get to be a famous editor like you? And like that other guy and like that other person here? I like obsolete information that I will never have to update. Where do I post that information? How How How???!!!!

I hereby retract my initial request to include my link in this article.

I am tired of being unfairly treated and if at any point wikipedia decides to include the link to my tutorial in the FTP article as I initially requested (not the link to it in this talk page) then the owners of wikipedia will hear from my lawyers.

A copy of this discussion and all related documents will be sent to the owners of this website.

RFC number/title

Can someone please clarify the references used to justify ongoing, slow simmering edit war over the disputed presence of a "0" in the title of the RFC? The title of the document linked to in the article (at IETF.org) has the title as just 959. The link itself works with or without the 0 and the title of the HTML page changes accordingly but the title of the document itself does not. The RFC as listed on faqs.org also does not have a preceding 0. So why is this the subject of contention? What evidence exists asserting that the title of the RFC has a leading zero? --ElKevbo 19:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I was operating under the (apparently) mistaken belief that the zero was part of the official naming scheme. Your observations about the irregularity of the titling put this in doubt so I went and checked, only to discover that the link in the article is broken and only works now if the 0 is removed! Most drive-by editors seem to prefer the zero-less title and there's no justification for retaining it based on the IETF's own site, so I was wrong and it oughtn't be with the zero. — Saxifrage 03:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I applaud your honesty and appreciate your swift reply. Good show! (But the link with 0 still works for me...?) --ElKevbo 03:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
That's very strange. With the 0 I get a IETF error page that says it can't find file "rfc0959.txt", and removing the 0 brings up a normal page with the text of the RFC. — Saxifrage 07:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Never mind, it seems like that was a temporary glitch that they just happened to be suffering from when I did the check. Still, given their irregularity the zero seems to not be significant, so it's six of one, half a dozen of the other. — Saxifrage 07:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

FTP command articles

I have begun making articles for all the FTP commands starting with PWD (FTP command). Is this a bad idea?--I hate to register 16:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Probably if all there is to say about each command is a one-line explanation of their function. Command listings are available all over the 'net and do a better job of it. — Saxifrage 17:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Ok! Maybe something like this then?--I hate to register 09:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I see you've made List of FTP commands. That looks a bit more like it, yes. — Saxifrage 16:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I've proposed to merge List of FTP commands into this article. Feel free to discuss here. PizzaMan (talk) 12:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

client progs?

Links to popular FTP clients?

BTW, whats the name of that FPT client where you must do all the typing yourself?

-Unreg user

I believe it's called ftp, or maybe ftp.exe on DOS/Win.
A "popular" list wouldn't really do much good: everyone and their dog would add their personal "popular ftp client" and the list would be useless. See List of FTP clients and decide for yourself on one. — Saxifrage 21:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense

This article is full of nonsense. A "8-bit protocol"? What's that? And what does UUencode have to do with FTP? Hard to filter FTP traffic? It's rather hard not to filter it, no? I propose this article be deleted, apart from the information that FTP stands for file transfer protocol it doesn't contain any facts. Only falsehoods and nonsense.

Please sign your comments using four tildes. I agree with you that there is some rubbish on this page, but there is also some good stuff that should be kept. Martin Hinks 17:26, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Certain sections are too technicqal and do not add any value besides being yet another reference. For example, FTP return codes and FTP over SSH. I do not find majority of the rest of the article as junk. --Raanoo 09:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Question

I'm a student and am pushing to get my school to support a FTP server or -like option/tool. What I'm mainly looking for is for students to upload unfinished projects and papers onto something so that they may log on again back at their house, work on it, and prehaps re-upload it if neccessary. My question is simply if a FTP server is my best option or if there's something better. If the FTP happens to be my best choice, I'm looking to find a good client and server. My school, I believe, has its own server -- all I need is probably the program. If there's something better than a FTP, then please tell me. By better, I mean in security and effiency. Thanks. Wolfie001 18:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Better would be setting up an SSH server on the school's hardware. It's an encrypted link that won't send passwords as plaintext, and it gives you SFTP (Secure FTP) as well as the SSH shell server. Of course, it will be necessary for students to have individual accounts and to install a client that can connect to SFTP. If students don't already have accounts on the server or if it's impractical for the school to set students up with accounts, I'm afraid the project is doomed both for lack of software that will do what you want, and for security issues (i.e., students messing with other students' work). — Saxifrage 21:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
One more suggestion: you can use the online 'folder' space provided by the likes of Gmail, Yahoo. There are some Web sites that provide virtual briefcases. These could be accessed from both the school or remotely from anywhere there is Web access. About SSH client: students can consider using PuTTY--it's open source. I trust once a PuTTY session is established, all communication that passes through is encrypted. I imagine students using freely available command-line FTP client (ftp.exe on Windows and ftp on *nix). —Raanoo 09:00, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
Wait an minute though. Trustable web services such as Angelfire and Lycos use a FTP. That's where I got the idea since I'm a webmaster on Angelfire. I believe such FTPs are safe enough for what I want. We're talking about middle school level here. Angelfire requires a password before you connect with their FTP. I think that's enough safety for me. Students already have accounts on the server, but cannot access anything without being on one of the school's computers. And again, if Google and Yahoo! offers such tools, would it be so hard to set one up? Even if FTPs or SFTPs are not safe or efficient enough, could you suggest a program or applet thatt allows what I'm trying to do that can be run on the school's server?
I resist to answer here as this discussions is supposed to be about the article itself and not setup issues individuals face. Newsgroups could be best place for that. Good luck! — Raanoo 04:17, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Could you at least reply in my user talk? Wolfie001 22:16, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

More accessible introduction

Oh, great. You need to make the article more understandable to a non-technical reader. That's exactly what I know how to do.

This article needs more context around or a better explanation of technical details to make it more accessible to general readers and technical readers outside the specialty,

I was trying to figure out FTP, so I went first to Wikipedia. I couldn't figure the article out. So I asked on one of my email list, and a professional editor explained it to me.

Then I went back to Wikipedia and said, "Now I understand what they're talking about!" This is a good job. Now I can get answers to all my further questions.

I'll try to re-write the introduction, with the editor's explanation, to make it clearer to an ignorant reader (like me).

I want to contribute, but I don't have enough technical expertise — so I'll contribute my ignorance. Nbauman 17:19, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

ElKevbo (Talk | contribs) deleted my change and said
(I don't think that's true but it's definitely not sourced.)
The benefit of sending files by FTP, over sending files as email attachments, is that FTP is a direct connection. Email travels through ever-changing relay points. FTP is thus more certain, easier to track and troubleshoot, more secure and quicker.
OK. The main reason I've heard techies recommend FTP to non-techies is that they say it's a better way to transmit files than email attachments. That's why I put it in the introduction -- you want the non-techie reader to know right away why this is useful.
Why is FTP better than email attachments for transmitting files? What's the citation? Nbauman 21:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
We can make the article more understandable to "non-techies" (and it definitely needs help in that area) while remaining accurate and precise. Characterizing FTP as "better" than e-mail for transmitting files is difficult (and inherently POV) without appropriate sources and citations. The particular explanation offered is incorrect. Specifically, FTP and e-mail traffic all "travel through ever-changing relay points" as they're both TCP/IP packets travelling over the Internet (ignoring the possibility of dedicated routes, LANs, etc. - we're generalizing for the general Internet user). I understand what you're getting at but the original statement is simply incorrect and misleading. The "FTP is more secure" argument is almost certainly false as, at best, vanilla FTP traffic and SMTP traffic are both plain-text and thus offer no security at all. It's much more common for e-mail to offer some level of protection, particularly in the arena of web-based e-mail accessed over SSL. Therefore I think it's fair to conclude that at best the two protocols offer the same level of security and at worst e-mail is "better."
With respect to the topic of "Is FTP better than e-mail for transferring files?" I think the answer is indeterminate. The two protocols and their implementations differ too significantly to offer a simple "yes" or "no." E-mail is definitely more widespread and more familiar than FTP. There are also security differences depending on the specific e-mail service and how it is implemented.
You're welcome to cite some sources that offer opinions on this topic but I think we're better off avoiding the topic altogether as it's complicated, dated, and dangerous for us to steer away from descriptive information to prescriptive information. --ElKevbo 22:11, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I've written a lot of science articles and I've asked a lot of science editors how to make science writing more accessible, readable and interesting. Steve Petranek, the editor of Discover, told me: "Narrative, super-readability, news, a cosmic paragraph fairly high up on why you should waste your time reading this."
If you want to make this article accessable and readable to the general, non-technical reader, you have to tell them clearly towards the beginning why this article is important to them.
Can you tell me, in language that I as a non-technical reader can understand, why knowing more about FTP could be useful to me?
The benefits of a technology are usually an important part of the introduction to an article. (An article should also discuss the problems or limitations, and the benefits of alternatives, which should make it NPOV.)
The most common reason people give me for using FTP is that, for transfering files, it has certain benefits over email attachments. Is that right? Nbauman 20:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I have no intention of telling anyone "why this article is important to them." This is not a for-profit publication that requires readers to purchase or view our material. This is a scholarly publication
But editors of non-profit and scholarly publications, like Science, IEEE Spectrum, etc. say the same thing. Every article I read in the New England Journal of Medicine, which is scholarly and written for doctors, starts off with a paragraph that explains why this article is important for them. The current Science has an article on high-speed atomic force microscopy, and they start off by explaining why high-speed AFM is important to readers who may not even know why it's important.
and if you're looking at an article then presumably you already know why it's important to you.
Not for me. People told me generally that FTP would be useful for me, and I was trying to find out exactly why FTP would be useful. People go to encyclopedias to find basic information.
A well-written article should entice most readers into reading it but I think it's mistaken to write an encyclopedia with the explicit intention of telling your readers why it's important to them.
But the review articles in Spectrum, Science, NEJM, and other journals are encyclopedic, and they always explain why the subject is important. The editor of Spectrum told me specifically that when she took over she had to change the articles to make them more accessable to their diverse readership, because people weren't reading them.
Quite honestly, most subjects are *not* important to the average reader. This specific article certainly is not important to the average reader, particularly today's average reader.
In that case, why don't you take down the "make it more accessible to general readers" box? Why don't you say in the introduction that this article is not important to the average reader? If something has superseeded FTP, why don't you send them there instead?
With respect to your question, I can offer some more answers but as to where you can find citeable, reliable sources I can't really offer much help. My gut tells me that you'd be better off looking in documents that are from the 90's as FTP has fallen out of favor as e-mail has become more pervasive, e-mail attachment size limitations have risen, and other, more secure and accessible forms of storage and transmission have become more common.
Then why not say in the introduction that the use of FTP has fallen off? Why not send the reader to to those alternatives that have become more common? (BTW what are they?)
Alternatively, do you have a source to support that claim that FTP isn't important? Nbauman 00:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Don't ask for negative proof please, it's a well-established impossibility and will just derail this conversation.
I don't know what you mean by negative proof. I'm asking whether you have any proof that FTP is no longer important, and has been superseded by something else. That's possible. I could find proof and sources (and citeable opinions) that floppy disks are no longer important and have been superseded by other storage media. Why can't you find similar proof and sources that FTP has been superseded?
I don't have any qualms with making this article more readable. However, this particular issue comes down to one question: are there sources? If Wikipedia is going to offer readers a value judgement such as what FTP is good for (not just what it is for), then our hands are tied: we cannot offer this, but must instead quote or paraphrase someone else's opinion on the matter.
I'm trying to find out what the uses of FTP are. There may be other things that also do the same thing, and I'd like to know what they are too. For example, I use FTP to transfer files to my web site. Is that POV? I don't think so. Is there another way to transfer files to my web site? What is it? Does anyone know a source that tries to evaluate whether one is better than the other? If so, put it in. If not, leave it without a judgment.
If you are just personally interested in why FTP is considered better than email for transferring files by some, asking your resident techie would be more fruitful.
No, I don't just want to find out for myself. I want to find out and share it with other people, in language that I can understand. I want to be able to direct non-technical people to this article when they have the same questions I had.
As a resident techie for other people I know what my answer would be, and it is not a simple "A is better than B". It depends very much on what your needs are, what kind of data you're moving, what your computer access and filespace arrangements are, and a number of other factors. This article is not the place to cover such an inherently subjective question unless we can quote others with sources. — Saxifrage 02:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
You mean you're a resident techie and you can't find a source in the entire Internet where someone compares FTP with another protocol for different purposes? Nbauman 03:51, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
If you want this information, then you find it. I wish you the best of luck but badgering others to do your own research for you is not the way to go about it. --ElKevbo 05:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
So why not take off the Technical tag?
You don't believe in the whole philosophy behind the Technical tag, you don't wan't to make articles less technical, you don't care whether non-technical readers understand it or not, and you don't want non-technical readers to understand it.
You want it to be unreadable by people who aren't as smart as you.
If somebody else tries to make it more understandable, you'll say it's wrong and revert it — but you won't explain to the contributor why it's wrong, or help the contributor do it right.
Why are you wasting the time of people who are willing to make this entry non-technical? Nbauman 14:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Please calm down, cease the baseless accusations, and tone down the unnecessarily accusatory and combative attitude. If you want to improve this article then by all means continue working to do so. It, like most other Wikipedia articles, could definitely use improvement. Unless my memory fails me (and it does sometimes), I haven't added any templates to this article. I'd like to help but quite frankly there are many other Wikipedia articles in much worse shape on which I am working and keeping an eye on. This article is simply not a priority for me. Best of luck! --ElKevbo 15:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
If you can say, as the conversation does above, that you don't think the general reader would be interested in this article, and you don't believe in telling readers why this article is useful to them, then no one can make this article more understandable.
You should delete Technical tag and not ask people for help in editing.
If I had good luck I wouldn't have wound up trying to edit this entry. Bye. Nbauman 17:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC)