User talk:intgr/Archive 1

Unicode code for space chars

Hi, just wondering: in the IBM mainframe article, you made a change from "&nbsp" to "&#x2007". Strangely, this doesn't show up correctly in my browser (I get the square symbol signifying a non-renderable character), even though I have set the page encoding to "Unicode (UTF-8)". Do you know if there's an (easy) explanation of this sorry fact? --Wernher 23:25, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, Internet Explorer does not correctly handle most of the special Unicode spaces. I was not aware of this limitation when I made the change as it looked correct on the (several) browsers I tried.

Perhaps the space aligning should be removed altogether, because using regular (or no-break) spaces is often ugly and depends on the operating system, browser, font and hell knows what else. I don't think the page would lose in clarity because the numbers are rather small anyway. -- intgr 20:26, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

OK, fair 'nough. I had a bit of a hope that the space alignment might turn up OKish in many of the browsers; it's a real pain in the *ss that such things aren't properly standardised *and supported* on all modern browsers. But then again, IE, for one, is far from being 'modern' anymore. It's not an easy world to live in for a nitpicker like me...

On a more positive note: thanks a 1E6 for the link to the Yucca info site---just the sort of ref one needs from time to time when doing misc www work! :-) --Wernher 14:53, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I Understand

Thanks for the correction, I'll remember to look up my sources. brainybassist

Thanks for the heads up on my talk page. Would keep that in mind. Was acting on impulse. Apologies and thanks again. User:LoneRifle

Tere

Kui Intgr väljakirjutatult on integ0r, siis me oleme tuttavad. :) PeepP 19:54, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Nii see on; varahommik, solicit. Ma olen oma nickist mõned täishäälikud vahelt ära võtnud, et see vähem lame oleks ;) -- intgr 10:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Blowfish

I'm totally clueless on why my changes here don't seem to appear on the page. Well, I've never edited Wikipedia before, but anyway, email me if you want to: erkkila [at] cc.jyu.fi, at least this seems to appear in the history pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.251.21.229 (talk • contribs)

My response sent by e-mail:

Hello,

> I'm totally clueless on why my changes here don't seem to appear on the page.
> Well, I've never edited Wikipedia before, but anyway, email me if you want to:
> erkkila@cc.jyu.fi, at least this seems to appear in the history pages.

Thanks for your edits to Wikipedia. Hoever, your edits don't appear is since I
reverted [1] them.

Your edit in question removed a paragraph that appears completely consistent
with the Wikipedia NPOV [2] and citing sources [3] policies. Without providing
a convincing edit summary [4] or discussing it on the talk page [5] of the
article, these kinds of edits are not generally accepted by other editors.

While you probably did this in good faith as you bothered to contact me about
it, most editors would consider that edit alone vandalism [5] and revert it.

In the future, these kinds of disputes should be solved on the talk page of
the offending article. Alternatively, you are allowed to enter your edits once
more as per the three-revert rule [6], although this behavior is discouraged.

[1] Reverting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:REVERT
[2] Neutral Point of View: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NPOV
[3] Citing sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CITE
[4] Talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:TALK
[5] Vandalism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:VAND
[6] Three-revert rule: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:3RR

Marti

-- intgr 09:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

IDEA licensing information?

hi, since you added info on licensing of IDEA to the Pretty Good Privacy article, could you add it to the International Data Encryption Algorithm article too? Also I'd like to see more details & references - last I heard, it was licensed freely for non-commercial use, which means that I can use it at home, but not at work..... if that's changed, it would be nice to know! --Alvestrand 14:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to research & update this! --Alvestrand 18:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

CSS

I moved the history for the CSS dab page back where it belongs and restore Paul's text with a reference to his name in the history. Hopefully stuff like this doesn't happen too often. Did you tell him about disambiguation and naming conventions? -- Mgm|^(talk) 22:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I informed him about disambiguation pages (User talk:Pierre Bergey), and told Seglea to be more careful with moves in the future. Thanks. -- intgr 23:22, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Unicode corruption.

Hi. The editing tool you are using seems to corrupt unicode characters. See this edit for an example. I suggest you stop editing until you correct this problem.--Srleffler 03:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

The problem is trying to use MozEx which is responsible for these screwups; I noticed it yesterday and went through my edits to revert the damage, but apparently I missed this article. -- intgr 07:18, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Watermarking attack

Hi!

Great article. Though IV-s could actually be easily 'randomized', to be honest. Like keeping them in a file, for instance, and keeping that file in the memory, and using a default IV for that file. You know any program that does that? And if so how exactly? Would be nice to have it in the article (Ps: I am doing research on RFID security, what do you do that you know so much about cryptography?) Msoos 19:02, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks.

Yeah - theoretically, IVs could be randomized and stored, but this approach is not used at all in practice (as far as i know) due to increased overhead - you would have to store a 128-bit (16-byte) vector for each block on the disk, wasting 3% of the space, and make sure that the IVs are always quickly accessible. Obviously, keeping the IVs in memory at all times is not going to fly (2.5GB of RAM per 80GB hard drive); keeping them in the start or end of the disk would introduce additional, long disk seeks even if the IVs were cached to some extent; keeping them in the beginning of each sector means that the encryption suite would have to realign sectors, as filesystems often assume that the disk is addressable in multiples of 512 bytes. The only viable way to implement this would be to use every 33rd sector for storing IVs of the preceeding sectors, which is still not quite elegant, as updating the sector would mean that the IV sector read (or update, depending on the approac) incurs yet another disk request.

In practice, various alternative techniques have been designed, such as ESSIV (Encrypted Sector Salt Initialization Vector), where the IVs are derived from the sector number, and some constant "salt" (sometimes the encryption key). The dm-crypt disk encryption module for Linux can use this mode. There are also LRW and CBC/EME methods that can get away without using initialization vectors at all, but I'm not aware of any disk encryption suites that employ these. See disk encryption for details; I haven't yet attempted to wrap my mind around these. :)

As for "what do I do" - well, I'm just interested in cryptography and security. I consider myself rather amateurish in cryptography, as there's lots I still don't know. I'm a programmer and a student, and my occupation is not specifically related to security/cryptography. -- intgr 19:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Edit: Newer versions of TrueCrypt now implement the LRW mode; see TrueCrypt documentation on modes of operation: [1] or disk encryption. The maths of this are nontrivial and are better explained with a formula than in words. -- intgr 20:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Using every 33rd sector for IVs is very similar to what GBDE does. Main difference is that GBDE use this sector not for random IVs, but for random keys. This approach introduces problems with the atomicity of updates (which does not depend on whether the sector is used for keys, IVs, or both). The atomicity problem can be solved, but GBDE does not solve it. Kasperd 07:41, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

I noticed that you converted the Gray reference I added to the ACID article to the right Wiki format. Thank you! Neilc 04:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Noinclude on deletion templates

Please don't "noinclude" deletion templates; I realize they may look untidy, but hiding them defeats the purpose of having them at all, to wit to alert people seeing the affected pages of the existence of the nomination. Alai 13:05, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Your new article about fragmentation

Hi, Intgr,

Thanks for the new article File system fragmentation. The Defragmentation article is a bit confusing and biased, with too many disconnected statements. I found the work you just started to be much more clear and informative. Thank you.

—Red Thrush 12:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Signing talk

Whoops! Thanks for that correction - pity signatures can't be automatically included! Nuwewsco 08:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Tesla Roadster

Hi, noticed you have some edits on the Tesla Roadster talk page. I want to give you a heads up on the page and article that I suspect a sock puppeteer (Curaralhos, Ilokjju, DrPersti, ElonMusky, Mu8sky, Rogerstone, Prof nomamescabron, Prof Bujju, and maybe Uramanbfas, Prof Schnitzer, and 216.180.72.14) is editing it. Kslays 21:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Cites

Thanks for the quick conversion on the Pentium FDIV bug article. I like cite/references, but my success rate so far setting it up initially on a page is less than 20%. :) --Steven Fisher 18:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

COMPUSEC Tag

I deleted your cleanup tag on COMPUSEC because you forgot to add the required information to the talk page to explain what you thought should be cleaned up. I would be very interested in suggestions on how to clean it up or expand it. But just adding the tag is not helpful. Please return and explain. John 04:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I listed a few things, as well as a quick rationale, on Talk:COMPUSEC. -- intgr 07:44, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Comparison of disk encryption software

Nice job putting together the Comparison of disk encryption software article. Kasperd 07:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Step

Template:Step has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. --Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 07:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

FDE External Link

Hello Intgr,

Please don't delete the URLs that I add. They are relevant and are not commercial in nature. If you think they are irrelevant please let someone else delete them. If they are irrelevant, you can not be the only person to think that way.

Thanks Saqib Saqib 16:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

GLT speedy

Hi intgr,

I assume you were the one who flagged GLT for speedy deletion. Thank you for the message on my talk. I see that unfortunately the article was deleted and not quite properly since CSD A7 is about web content and people and not about software. Anyway it probably isn't very notable so I'm not gonna contest. --MarSch 12:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The answer is no, I just moved the content off the disambiguation page (article "GLT") to "GLT (programming)", and it was flagged for speedy after that by someone else; I don't know who initially tagged it. Ideally, admins should keep an eye on what actually qualifies for speedy deletion and what doesn't, so if you think this was an error, I suppose you should contact User:Steel359 instead. -- intgr 15:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Matt toscano

You had added a notability notice to this page... I went ahead and changed it to a db-bio, and just wanted to let you know. Pinball22 15:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

January 30th Edits

Regarding On board, you ended up making this a circuliar redirect. I'm fixing it now. Not sure if there is a template for this or not. Please let me know if you have any questions. Turlo Lomon 11:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Never mind. I see what happened now. I added the original redirect target as part of the disamiguation page. Turlo Lomon 11:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

:) -- intgr 11:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Unsigned message

Did it over cross your mind that sometimes people don't sign their messages because they're not supposed to access Wikipedia during their work hours and you endanger their jobs by doing it for them? So thanks a lot. --77.105.60.165 23:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

So use a proxy or register an account. The risk of someone accidentally finding a comment signed by a specific IP address is much lower than someone (who is sharing the IP) accidentally clicking on the "my contributions" link — and not signing comments will not protect you from showing up there. -- intgr 23:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

You know when Wikipedia first started it wasn't all about accounts, signing your contribution, getting credits and moving up the hierarchy ladder. I certanly don't concidere it the best invention of the century anymore.--77.105.60.165 00:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

What does this have to do with anything? Being able to tell apart one person's talk page post from the others' sounds a rather reasonable thing to ask for IMO. If you don't like your IP showing up there, or if you make posts under different IP addresses, you can register an account, but nobody is forcing you to do so. And being able to see people's edits is critical for administrative purposes, such as tracking vandalism. Wikipedia (MediaWiki) has had these features from the beginning, so I have no idea what you're talking about.

Then again, I'm probably just be feeding a troll. -- intgr 06:52, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

dynamic_cast

I just rewrote dynamic cast to fix the copyvio. Since you were the one who pointed this out I just thought I'd let you know. What do you think? –Andyluciano 20:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Looks good to me. -- intgr 00:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

merging Userland & User space

Marti --

I suppose I respond to your comments on my talk on your talk page (why would you review mine?)

You wrote: "I personally disagree with the merge of user space and userland — while "user space" is normally used to point out that some computer process is running in user mode (as opposed to kernel mode), userland normally refers to the programs and libraries (as in files) that make up the operating system. But of course I am not authoritative on this topic — it's better to start a discussion. -- intgr 21:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)"

I understand the distinction you make. User space is of memory, userland is of disk, sort of... I am no authority, either, so I guess I'll let it be... for now anyway...

But I took your advice and straightened out RLL --> ladder logic. So learning happens... Cgmusselman 10:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

WANdisco

Rewrote WANdisco WANdisco and the link from distributed computing. Let me know what you think and if it passes the intgr test. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Owlsfan (talk • contribs)

Mobil 1

It's not disputed, the material being inserted into the Mobil 1 entry is contradicted. Read the discussion.

You are inadvertently preventing the article from remaining a reference-quality encyclopedia entry due to hijacking by members of an internet forum.

Again, read the discussions.

--Eblem 19:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

How am I preventing the article from "remaining a reference-quality encyclopedia entry" just by placing a {{disputed}} tag on it? It was reverted way more than it should have, thus there obviously is a dispute, whatever the reasons or motivation. If you think the article was vandalized, you should proceed with appropriate processes, not wage an edit war, or complain to me about it.

And speaking of quality, the article doesn't even cite one single reference, so there is no way to verify its content. Verifiability is a core policy of Wikipedia. -- intgr 20:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

NVIDIA

Check the GeForce FX article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GoldDragon (talk • contribs)

How am I preventing the article from "remaining a reference-quality encyclopedia entry" just by placing a {{disputed}} tag on it?

1 - By not even bothering to acquaint yourself with the discussion, which made it clear that the material being posted was scurrilous twaddle sourced from www.bobistheoilguy.com where some sort of quasi-vendetta is being waged against ExxonMobil/Mobil 1. By your reasoning, if I post "the Roman Pontiff is a Sugar Plum Fairy" enough times in the entry on the "Roman Catholic Church", and it is deleted enough times, there is a bona-fide dispute (i.e., the Roman Pontiff may in fact be a Sugar Plum Fairy).

2 - Yes, the article needs references. The original article, "Mobil", also needs references. Those references can be assembled and inserted just as soon as the text settles down. Until you took it upon yourself to reinsert the material, there seemed to be a consensus that unreferenced material should no longer be inserted.

3 - I'll tell you what, if you and the other Wikipediasts want to do the research and get the "Mobil" and "Mobil 1" articles into good shape instead of intervening without the slightest notion of what either is about or what's going on, be my guest.

Otherwise I'm ready to let Wikipedia degenerate into the quasi-debate forum it's becoming. Numerous school systems have prohibited using Wikipedia as a reference, and this kind of nonsense is why.

But who am I to complain? A 40-year veteran of the automotive industry with four degrees? Actually, yes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eblem (talk • contribs)

Perhaps you would like to blame me for cancer, world hunger and global warming, too? :)

I honestly cannot see how my placing the tag there would stop school kids from using Wikipedia as a reference. Sounds like you're just in a grumpy mood due to the "forum attacking this article", I don't know. But you're not being civil.

In any case, edit warring or attacking people is not the way to solve problems; as already pointed out, there are several methods for dealing with vandalism, including requesting a temporary protection for the article, or administrative intervention to vandalism. Or if you see someone reverting more than three times, they can eligible for an immediate block per the three-revert rule.

"and it is deleted enough times, there is a bona-fide dispute (i.e., the Roman Pontiff may in fact be a Sugar Plum Fairy)."

I am not going to address this straw man.

"Until you took it upon yourself to reinsert the material, there seemed to be a consensus that unreferenced material should no longer be inserted."

I did not initially reinsert anything, I merely added the tag after the section was re-added; refer to this diff, or see for yourself from the article history.

"40-year veteran of the automotive industry with four degrees?"

Or maybe your arrogance is just a result of your overblown ego. One would seriously expect a man of your credentials to be more civil. -- intgr 22:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Synthetic Oil entry - Discussion

With trepidation I point out that there is no evidence that "In 1999, Mobil fought Castrol's change in formulation to a Group III basestock in motor oils being marketed as fully synthetic."

This line is verbatim from a post at "www.bobistheoilguy.com", where there is an ongoing movement among non-tribologists to rehash long-settled matters, such as the marketing of Group III synthesized motor oils as "synthetic" in North America, based on rumor and old wives' tales.

The National Advertising Division of the Council of Better Business Bureaus

[2]

does not conduct "trials" and there is no adversarial proceedings. It will consider matters of general interest to the public about the fairness of advertising and related matters. In two cases:

3035 08/01/1993 CASTROL, INC. /Castrola Syntec Motor Oil

3526 03/01/1999 CASTROL, INC. /Castrol Syntec Synthetic Motor Oil

it addressed matters of general interest to consumers of motor oils, neither of which involved anything like "Mobil claimed that Castrol was decieving their customer base, while degrading their products.", and concluded that the Group III base stock - which was constructed by removing waxes, combining aromatics into longer chain molecules, and adding hydrogen atoms to the result - were "synthetic". Castrol, Valvoline (Ashland Refining), Pennzoil, Quaker State, Havoline, and others all have made and sold synthetic motor oils, advertised and sold legally in the US and Canada, for at least the last ten years.

Thus, the statement "This has only added further confusion over the exact definition of the term "synthetic oil." is patently false, since in the US and Canada that has been authoritatively settled for a decade.

The statement that "ExxonMobil currently refuses to comment on the primary basestock of their Mobil 1 series of oils." is both knowingly false and misleading. For example, from the very source of all this misinformation, www.bobistheoilguy.com, we can read ExxonMobil's:

[3]

"To meet the demanding requirements of today's specifications (and our customers' expectations) Mobil 1 uses high-performance synthetic fluids, including polyalphaolefins (PAO), along with a proprietary system of additives. In fact, each Mobil 1 viscosity grade uses a specific combination of synthetic fluids and selected additives in order to tailor the viscosity grade to its unique requirement."

The refusal, apparently, consists of ExxonMobil's refusal - consistent with industry-wide practice - to provide the exact make-up of base stocks, blend stocks, and additives of various products.

The statement "In 2006, the results of a gas chromatography test on Mobil 1 5w-30 EP were posted by an industry expert on the popular motor oil discussion website BITOG." is also false, and the long battle over the complete lack of any test results, readings, graphs, or other data and the ongoing attempt of one participant to obtain an actual verifiable gas chromatography test can be found at the website in question, www.bobistheoilguy.com, for anyone willing to spend about four hours reading tendacious, tedious, unprofessional rantings.

The statement "Until this time, Mobil 1 was believed to be a true synthetic, utilizing a Group IV (PAO) basestock." is also unmitigated gibberish.

ExxonMobil has, to my knowledge, only advertised in the US and Canada two motor oils as being specifically primarily API Group IV (polyalphaolefin): its 10W-40 and 20W-50 motorcycle oils. Its other products have been for several years various blends of polyalphaolefin, polyolester, diester, alkylated napthlenes, esterized waxes, esterized vegetable oils, trace mineral oils, and a host of proprietary additives.

The "backlash against ExxonMobil's lubricant products in many automotive communities" consists of this false, misleading, unsupported, mendacious, scurrilous material being inserted in what should be a reference-quality encyclopedia entry by someone with apparently no knowledge whatsoever of either the history of synthetic oil or the accepted practices in the industry.

Because I am simultaneously dealing with "intgr" and "Petri Krohn" and other well-meaning but apparently ignorant Wikipediasts who apparently can't tell a fact from a fig, I will refrain from removing this tripe pending some additional discussions.

--Eblem 01:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

When did I claim the contrary? I was never involved in the conflict/edit war in the first place, and I do admit not knowing anything about motor oils — if that alone makes me ignorant to you, so be it. All I ever tried to say is that your approach to conflict resolution was not the right one. But you can't listen to Wikipedia minions, can you? -- intgr 07:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

When did I claim the contrary?

You claimed the contrary when you inserted a dispute notice.

Let's try this one more time:

An argument consists of facts logically adduced to establish a proposition. A dispute exists when two sets of facts are logically adduced to establish two or more mutually exclusive positions. That is, only one position logically can be true, but at least two mutually exclusive positions appear to be at least plausibly supported by facts.

If you were never involved in the conflict/edit war in the first place, then why would you insert a notice, or do anything else?

The answer, of course, is that as non-contributing dilettante that provides you entertainment.

If you admit not knowing anything about motor oils, which would appear to support the conclusion that insofar as the entries "synthetic oil", "mobil 1", and "mobil" you are by definition ignorant, then why are your fingers in the entry or entries?

Again, because as a non-contributing hobbyist it provides you entertainment and/or fulfills some other need. Certainly it did not enhance a Wikipedia entry, move one towards reaching reference-quality, or otherwise provide light.

No, I can't listen to Wikipedia minions who appear to randomly insert comments and edits without a clue. Hey, it takes you two minutes and me an hour.

Clear?

I am refraining from any edits of the muddled entries in question until you, Petri, and the other know-nothing-at-alls (aka Wikipedia minions) confer and decide if you want to continue mucking about with them while knowing literally nothing about the content. If you do, there's no point in my wasting hours on the endeavor because an idiot from bobistheoilguy.com can take 5 minutes and create a "dispute" out of thin air.

This is providing a good example of why experts who could contribute to Wikipedia don't.

--Eblem 13:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'll bite.

"You claimed the contrary when you inserted a dispute notice."

No, I inserted it since you two were edit warring like crazy. Edit warring is always counterproductive, and there are other means for dealing with deliberate misinformation or vandalism (This, I have pointed out to you several times already). I did not wish to become involved in the conflict, yet you are repeatedly attempting to pull me into it.

"then why are your fingers in the entry or entries?"

Hey, are you even contacting the right person? My user name happens to be "intgr". Have you actually checked the histories of the relevant articles? The only edits I ever did to any of those articles, were:

1. wikify "Grand Prix" and add {{Unreferenced}} (diff)
2. inserting the {{disputed-section}} tag, after Outersquare had re-added the section (in two edits; diff)
3. An edit which was made in accident and which I reverted myself 10 minutes later (diff).

If you don't believe me, please do try clicking on any one of these links to verify the edits I have made: Mobil; Mobil 1; Synthetic oil; Talk:Mobil; Talk:Mobil 1; Talk:Synthetic oil

Apart from these minor changes, I did NOT revert others' edits, I did NOT remove or add any additional content, I did NOT say a single word on any of the talk pages. If you are trying to say that these trivial edits require deep knowledge on the subject and four degrees then you are severely delusioned. Even an imbecile could see that there's an edit war going on.

Yet you go around spewing your personal attacks against me. I find it exceedingly suspicious that you have never (apparently) attempted to contact Outersquare, who did revert your edits and has edited the aforementioned articles and talk pages, multiple times (just have a look at his edits).

In short, your personal attacks are unwarranted and baseless; I just do not care. If you do not stop, I consider myself entirely justified in requesting you be banned for violating Wikipedia policies, namely (1) edit warring, (2) incivility, (3) personal attacks, (4) not assuming good faith. -- intgr 14:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

are you even contacting the right person?

"No, I inserted it since you two were edit warring like crazy."

No, I was correcting erroneous material, and an idiot was reinserting it sans support. You haven't actually read the discussions, have you?

If you actually read the citations I’ve provided, you’d understand one side was posting information, the other was posting unsupported anti-ExxonMobil propaganda

"Edit warring is always counterproductive ...."

So is deleting corrections and terming something a dispute which is not.

"Hey, are you even contacting the right person? My user name happens to be ‘intgr’."

Yep, you’re the one that termed it a dispute, and inserted it into the article.

Have you tried to contact "Outersquare"? I did. No response.

But he is posting under another name on “www.bobistheoilguy.com”.

This is not someone interested in the topics of "synthetic oil", "mobil", or "mobil 1" - it's someone who wants to attack ExxonMobil.

"In short, your personal attacks are unwarranted and baseless; I just do not care. If you do not stop, I consider myself entirely justified in requesting you be banned for violating Wikipedia policies, namely (1) edit warring, (2) incivility, (3) personal attacks, (4) not assuming good faith. -- intgr 14:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC) "

Go for it. Send me a copy of the request.

The entries are crapped out now, and no one else who knows anything about the topic is going to try to correct it and go through all this.

--Eblem 14:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

"So is deleting corrections and terming something a dispute which is not."

Point out one edit where I have deleted anything (except for my accidental edit which I subsequently reverted myself), and I will eat my words.

"Yep, you’re the one that termed it a dispute, and inserted it into the article."

Point out one edit where I have inserted any text (other than the templates, and except for my accidental edit which I subsequently reverted myself), and I will eat my words.

"No, I was correcting erroneous material, and an idiot was reinserting it sans support."

Do I need to remind you for the fourth time how one is supposed to deal with vandalism and deliberate misinformation? And that yours was not the right way?

"You haven't actually read the discussions, have you?"

No, I already established above that I don't need to be familiar with the topic to recognize an edit war. Adding the template was the least I could do in the situation where the section (disputed by you) had persisted for 10 minutes. Hell, I can't even see how you could have taken offense from it, given that you in particular disagreed with the section.

You have previously nitpicked on the word "dispute". Here's a definition: To contend in argument; to argue against something maintained, upheld, or claimed, by another; to discuss; to reason; to debate; to altercate; to wrangle.

Or one from the Cambridge dictionary: an argument or disagreement, especially an official one between, for example, workers and employers or two bordering countries

"Go for it. Send me a copy of the request."

Apparently you are beginning to take me seriously and have stopped your attacks.

"The entries are crapped out now"

Exactly, why do you keep bringing this up if it is fixed and all good?

-- intgr 15:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

"An argument consists of facts logically adduced to establish a proposition. A dispute exists when two sets of facts are logically adduced to establish two or more mutually exclusive positions. That is, only one position logically can be true, but at least two mutually exclusive positions appear to be at least plausibly supported by facts."

Logic does not specify that initial assumptions (positions) need to be "plausibly supported by facts." Assumptions are assumptions because they are assumed to be true. I can declare that the statement "the Roman Pontiff is a Sugar Plum Fairy" is my assumption (my position), and it is automatically, invariably true in my world. That does not mean anyone else has to buy my assumptions. If they don't, they consider it false. This is a dispute, argument, disagreement, or whatever you want to call it.

-- intgr 15:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, why do you keep bringing this up if it is fixed and all good?

It's not fixed up.

The unsupported contentious irrelevant material remains thanks to you and Petri.

But, you've stopped the "contention".

Good job, Grasshopper.

Now you're qualified to run a parking lot or perhaps direct traffic in a small city.

If you can just find someone with expertise in doing a reference-quality entry on "synthetic oil", "Mobil", or "Mobil 1" .....

Over and out.

--Eblem 19:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Logic does not specify that initial assumptions (positions) need to be "plausibly supported by facts."

Right.

However, Wikipedia purports to be aimed at reference-quality encyclopedia entries.

That means they need to be supported by facts.

If you had bothered to read the discussion, you would have noted that I supported the edits with facts and specified precisely where the excised material was defective.

Oh, but hey, to do that you'd actually have to know how to do research quality entries, and the difference between an assertion and a fact.

And if you were able to do that, you'd be doing entries instead of doing what you're currently doing - an annoying imitation of a traffic cop.

I'll let you do the "Synthetic Oil", "Mobil", and "Mobil 1" entries and find something more productive to do with my time.

Bon appetit.

--Eblem 20:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

"But, you've stopped the "contention"."

Contention, you say? Have you attempted observing your own behavior recently?

"However, Wikipedia purports to be aimed at reference-quality encyclopedia entries. That means they need to be supported by facts."

Yes — I wholeheartedly agree. But let's not forget the context here. A few moments ago, you were claiming that there was no dispute at all, since, according to you, disputes imply that the positions must be "plausibly supported by facts".

"you'd actually have to know how to do research quality entries, and the difference between an assertion and a fact."

Pointless and baseless personal attack. You can't be so naïve to expect me to be offended, can you?

"It's not fixed up. The unsupported contentious irrelevant material remains thanks to you and Petri."

Oh, where? As far as I can tell, all the information you wanted to remove from the Mobil 1 article has been removed, including the ever-so-annoying "disputed" tag. I have had no contact with the rest of the articles, as I have reminded you for... I keep losing count how many times. And nor do I wish to, having seen your behavior.

And when it comes to demanding me to do it: Keep in mind that Wikipedia is a volunteer-driven encyclopedia. You cannot hold anyone responsible for not improving it. However, there is a multitude of places on Wikipedia where you can ask other willing people for help. For example, Wikipedia:Resolving disputes documents several ways of getting a third party involved in a dispute. Alternatives include WikiProject Automobiles, administrators' noticeboard, administrator intervention aganinst vandalism.

"I'll let you do the "Synthetic Oil", "Mobil", and "Mobil 1" entries and find something more productive to do with my time."

Now, is this supposed make any sense? Have I tried telling you, how or whether to edit certain articles? Not to mention that I could hardly care less about motor oils, hence why I don't know anything about them — something you recently used to agree with.

Previously, you were claiming that I was responsible for the fact that school kids are not allowed to use Wikipedia. Now you want me to turn the articles into "reference-quality encyclopedia entries"? Wow, where did the sudden rush of confidence come from?

But anyway, I have to decline your offer, for reasons stated above.

"If you had bothered to read the discussion, you would have noted that I supported the edits with facts and specified precisely where the excised material was defective."

Ditto. I don't care about the topic and you don't have any authority in telling me what to do. I have already addressed why I did what I did.

"and find something more productive to do with my time."

Please let me refresh your memory: you are the one wasting your time arguing with me on my humble talk page, making up irrelevant claims and attacks regarding the non-issue of a single, trivial edit. In fact, your first argument here was posted after your complaint regarding the "Mobil 1" article was resolved. I cannot conclude anything else than that you keep showing up repeatedly just for the sake of having an argument — e.g., arrogance. It's not something to be proud of.

"Bon appetit."

Thank you. See — being nice over a while is not that hard.

-- intgr 22:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. See — being nice over a while is not that hard.

Being stupid is apparently not that hard either.

What, prithy, is your contribution to furthering Wikipedia as a reference-quality encyclopedia?

You aren't even able to, in simple English in one to four sentences, outline what you believed was in contention.

"Have I tried telling you, how or whether to edit certain articles?"

Actually, yes.

But then, those who can, do, and those who can't apparently do what you do. Pick nits. Obfuscate. Rationalize.

I look forward to seeing what you do with "Synthetic Oil", "Mobil 1", and "Mobil" - in conjunction with "Outersquare" or alone.

--Eblem 23:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

This conversation is going nowhere. -- intgr 23:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

And yes, I know what follows. Your estimates of my adequacy and cowardice. -- intgr 23:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Going nowhere?

Nowhere?

Au contraire, mon ami.

I now understand that a controversy existed when I thought there were facts and mere idiocy.

And I have been in the 'presence' of the intgr, not two digits, not three, but ze intgr.

What an honor, what a thrill.

One can only anticipate your upcoming work on "Synthetic Oil", "Mobil", and "Mobil 1".

The Master. The intgr.

One can hardly imagine .....

--Eblem 00:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for making a report on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Removing and reporting vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, administrators are generally only able to block users if they have received a recent final warning (one that mentions that the user may be blocked) and they have recently vandalized after that warning was given. The reported user has not yet been blocked because it appears this has not occurred yet. If this user continues to vandalize even after their final warning, please report them again to the AIV noticeboard. Thanks. Please note that we do not block IP addresses if they have not had a recent final warning, as they may be shared. Viridae^Talk 07:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

CTR

I noticed you added {{disambig-cleanup}} to CTR. I'm not sure what you are suggesting should be done. Do you think the tag lines are too long, or? - grubber 17:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I meant; too verbose. -- intgr 17:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah it is a bit verbose. I'll work on it later - grubber 18:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Web Application Frameworks

I noted your comments on Seagull and the notability question is an interesting one. Looking around web frameworks, I suspect a number of other articles, on a particular framework, could equally have a notability tag applied. For example, consider Zoop Framework, is it notable just because it’s been downloaded x times?

The list article, e.g. List of web application frameworks, may provide a useful point of reference, but perhaps a straight link to the framework’s homepage is more useful than an article that simply repeats, and has to keep up to date with, what’s said there?

However, I think it would be contentious, to say the least, to sprinkle notability tags around; implicitly suggesting that these articles may be candidates for deletion.

I understand that some frameworks are clearly more established than others, would anyone question that there should be an article on Ruby on Rails?

Maybe that article could be cited as an example of what should be included (more on the history and less a copy and paste feature set)?

V. berus 01:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, most of them would probably get thrown out if strict notability was enforced. I personally have not decided to go nazi on them, and have only tagged a few articles that I have stumbled upon, and found advert-ish in addition to not satisfying notability.

Another idea is to slap {{notablewarn}} tags all over existing redlinks, to remind people of the notability policy before they create an article — though I don't know how effective that might be, if at all. -- intgr 07:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

By the way, would you mind cross-posting this discussion to Talk:List of web application frameworks? That way we could get more opinions. -- intgr 07:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Done V. berus 21:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Please describe your tags!

You recently tagged B protocol with a wikifi tag. If you tag an article, its up to you to clearly describe the problems on the talk page, something the tags themselves suggest. Looking over the article, I can't see anything wrong with it, and since I don't have ESP, I can't figure it out. Please suggest improvements on the talk page! Maury 17:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The 'wikify' tag usually means that more relevant links should be introduced in the article, or sometimes that markup needs conversion, see Manual of Style (links) and Only make links that are relevant to the context; it is usually taken for granted that these tags are self-explanatory and editors are not expected to explain/justify the tag.

The tags also add the article to relevant categories for editors who perform these kinds of tasks. -- intgr 17:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

---