User talk:Jasper Deng/Archive 14

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

→

Thanks...

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

...for taking care of a minor irritation. See ya 'round Tiderolls 01:06, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

FYI, I've proposed that this guy be banned at AN.Jasper Deng (talk) 02:09, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

IPv4_address_exhaustion#Reclamation_of_unused_IPv4_space

Latest comment: 12 years ago15 comments3 people in discussion

does it make sense now? Are you familiar with the terms used in the sentence? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tenretnieht (talk • contribs) 23:17, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I know these terms well, and with assignment almost exactly equivalent to allocation, your statement makes absolutely no sense.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:20, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

well that's the problem assignment is not defined as "almost exactly equivalent" to allocation. Please look it up. Also I do provide a reference and I just spend two weeks proving that to myself. What you just deleted in a few seconds is a conclusion of two weeks of data crunching and thought. It should not, but it may take you more than a few seconds to understand. Tenretnieht (talk)

I still don't get your statement here. If you mean that you're also counting things like the private addresses and multicast/broadcast addresses, technically those addresses are also allocated.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:34, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, I see what you're trying to do. While the RIRs have not assigned the addresses to anyone, the addreses are still allocated by the IANA. They are not unallocated.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:37, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Cool thanks, I am glad :) ... Here is what I was ready to save ... allocated by the RIRs as well. the " multicast/broadcast ... " are the special purpose IPv4 addresses (http://ipduh.com/macro/ip/special/) . Please try to understand why we use the two terms ( allocated and assigned ). Do you think that every not available IPv4 address is in use? What is the ratio of used / unused ? What is "exhaustion"? Please take a look at this http://ipduh.com/macro/ip/exhaustion/. Anyways, I am going to redo my edit. When you undid it the first time it was not done. I was typing one more sentence. Let me know how it looks. Tenretnieht (talk)

Independent from whatever this statement may actually mean, even in understandable English, if it is derived from your private research, then it is certainly not appropriate material for WP, see WP:OR. Are the quoted links also your sites? Kbrose (talk) 23:50, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello Kbrose. My research was mostly on how to write the software that does the basic arithmetic on the delegated RIR data -- What I state there is really just a measurement, it is a fact and not an opinion. Someone would argue, how accurate is these data. Well they are provided by the RIRs --it cannot get more reliable than that. I just state the allocated / (allocated + assigned)% ratio -- I start the sentence with the term Theoretically because I cannot prove that every allocated address is not assigned to a host on the Internet. I just take the datas word for it The truth is that I did ping them all but that is inconclusive too. I think that this ratio is important enough to be mentioned in this article and I got the idea for it when I read the article the first time. Unfortunately, I do think that this is not just a routine calculation for someone who is not familiar with programming. I argue that, It should be for the editors of such articles. Also this ratio is not a constant. So I should add the date of the data used in the calculation. It is the unix timestamp on the reference. The time dimension is needed in many places in this article. Tenretnieht (talk)

Your definition of "allocated" and "assigned" is not correct. Assigned, in that context, does not mean that the address is used - we cannot ever measure that, especially since not all hosts accept incoming ping. Assigned means allocated to an organization below the RIR level. Allocated means space made available to the RIR by the IANA.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:47, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I do not define allocated nor assigned. It is pretty debatable what really is. But a simplistic view would be 'declared allocated and reserved' and 'declared in use'. I just state the allocated / (allocated + assigned) / 100 ratio. The ping thing or a latter more sophisticated approach I took is not used anywhere in what I state on the article. It is just a side note. I think that this is would be considered research + is not done yet. Tenretnieht (talk)

Well, that view is not the generally accepted one here. Your statement absolutely makes no sense under the accepted definition, the one that the source uses.Jasper Deng (talk) 01:16, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

The second sentence '3 out of 4 ...' does needs work Tenretnieht (talk)

Well, that too, but your main statement cannot be in the article because it makes no sense whatsoever. (Btw to stop getting stalked by SineBot, type ~~~~ after your comment) Jasper Deng (talk) 01:23, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

The main statement is the allocated / (allocated + assigned) / 100 ratio === "The official Allocated IPv4 addresses are the 72.23% of the total Assigned and Allocated addresses" It certainly could be written better in English. But do you find this ratio important for this article? Especially this section of the article? Because personally I find this as the third most important sentence on this section. Tenretnieht (talk) 01:36, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

what about something like ~ Based on the IANA and the RIR delegated data on 2012-03-25, The Allocated IPv4 addresses ( without the Special Purpose IPv4) are the 72.23% of the sum of the total Assigned and total Allocated addresses Tenretnieht (talk) 01:39, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

English is not my forte. What about ~ " Based on the RIR delegated data of 2012-03-25, the Allocated IPv4 addresses are the 72.23% of the total Assigned and Allocated addresses (ref http://ipduh.com/macro/ip/exhaustion/). Theoretically, approximately 3 out of 4 delegated IPv4 addresses are not assigned to an Internet host."

Also if you do not mind you do the transfer of the conversation to the article's talk page, however you think appropriate and let me know so I can continue there. Tenretnieht (talk) 02:00, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Please do your messages in one edit so you don't make me edit conflicts like this one First, explain how you are going to follow our definition of "allocated" and "assigned". Start a new section on the article talk page.Jasper Deng (talk) 02:01, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

OK I started a new section on the article talk page Tenretnieht (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:11, 26 March 2012 (UTC).

Jasper, I think that the original statements are not 100% true. What do you think about Something like that: The status allocated xor assigned is defined as the allocation or assignment made by the registry producing the file and not any sub-assignment by other agencies. ( ref: http://www.apnic.net/publications/media-library/documents/resource-guidelines/rir-statistics-exchange-format). Based on the RIR delegated data of 2012-03-25, the allocated IPv4 addresses are the 72.23% of the delegated (total Assigned and Allocated) addresses (ref http://ipduh.com/macro/ip/exhaustion/ or http://ipduh.com/macro/ip/world/ ). --- 100% true - Reliable Source and a Simple Arithmetic Calculation - I put it here so you see it but i ll look at the article talk page when I login again so answer there Tenretnieht (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:51, 26 March 2012 (UTC).

hi jasper, I got a message that you left me a message here. I do not see it. Anyways, I ll login again tomorrow. Tenretnieht (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:53, 27 March 2012 (UTC).

Merging CIDR and CIDR notation

Latest comment: 12 years ago14 comments2 people in discussion

Hi jasper, I want to merge Classless Inter-Domain Routing and CIDR notation Talk:Classless Inter-Domain Routing Foo (talk) 15:51, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

It's been discussed. I'm opposed but I'd let the discussion run its way.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:29, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I am working on this article and I need to create a CIDR notation section. I cannot just link to CIDR notation because it is poorly written. If someone was asking me to rewrite CIDR notation I would delete the whole paragraph and write it again. It is that bad! I cannot write the next section that I want to write 'CIDR Routing' without explaining CIDR notation either.All the users who are familiar with networking subjects - 4 of them are supporting the merge. Only one --you are opposed the merge. Kbrose weekly opposes and some anon supports it. That is roughly 5 vs one and a half. And you have admit before that you are not an expert on such matters. What should I do until you draw your veto? Should I go ahead and write a CIDR notation section on Classless Inter-Domain Routing or just wait? Foo (talk) 18:24, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

If that many other editors are there, execute the merge. My main concern is that CIDR itself is often not relevant to the users of the notation. No-one has veto powers on Wikipedia.Jasper Deng (talk) 19:41, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Cool, thanks for that the other thing. I 'll write the CIDR notation section next time I ll login Foo (talk) 20:04, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello jasper, I just logged in. I did not merge the articles when I saw what happened at Classless Inter-Domain Routing Kbrose pretty much vandalized the article along with the Talk page of the article.

He even deleted my votes on two matters on the Talk page. He is mad and I am afraid that his capacity to reason is very limited. I can only programmaticaly respond to him. But I am not here for war.

I am not going to edit anything on WP this weekend because I am afraid that the user Kbrose is just following me around deleting whatever I contribute or whatever is related to things I contribute.

He even deleted whole sections coedited by me and other WP users just because I was involved. Please advise.Foo (talk) 23:35, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I've told Kbrose to be nicer to you. He was pretty upset, though, at your edits because apparently they weren't good English; that's needed per WP:MOS. Neither of you two's edits were vandalism.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:48, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I really appreciate that you are trying to do the dad here. I apologize being one of the kids fighting.

To not attack him? Do you mean the thing about limited capacity? OK, I 'll take it back. I did NOT want to imply that he is stupid. I did not want to offend him. I am sorry.

I wanted to say that his temporary madness, his anger limits his capacity to reason.

Searching for the vandal. Actually I did not even try to redo my edits. The history view is the best proof.

On English. Many of these edits have been worked by other users. Again the proof is on the history view.

A Rhetorical Question. Which wikipedia policy best describes that he does not have the right to delete my votes and my conversations with other users? Foo (talk) 00:29, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

That wasn't proper either, and you can restore it at time. Unfortunately, proficiency in English is a prerequisite for editing here; if you do not believe you're good enough, you may want to stick to talk pages only. It's not nice and only provocative to say someone does not have the capacity to discuss.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:30, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

OK. I am proficient in English though. Maybe not as good as you. I am better in math and programming than english , greek , spanish , german ... human languages

NO I did not want that.I wanted to that his temporary madness-his anger limits his capacity to reason.

I did not want to offend him and I will go to type that I am sorry at his page now. Foo (talk) 00:47, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Yep, even if you do make mistakes, it's best to apologize. English is not my favorite thing to study either, but Wikipedia often is edited by highly educated intellectuals, who set the standard rather high for writing.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:51, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

OK I typed at his page that I am sorry and that we should stop fighting.

how's that bad faith?

how' s that bad english?

On the Article at least three other editors were working with me. Kbrose also deleted their stuff too and sources like RFCs and I am pretty sure that he did not even read most of the stuff that he deleted.

He was wrong. His anger made him blind. Foo (talk) 01:52, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, stop attacking him, because he's not going to like that. It wasn't in bad faith, but saying things like "is described as" is not good because we need to know who is saying that. You also removed citations.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:54, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I am not attacking him. I am just saying what happened. He is been accusing me of pretty much everything bad can be said of a WP editor since I tried to explain him his little mistake on his user page.

I am not saying that my edits on the article were perfect. They were however worthwhile of reading instead of being deleted in bulk.

I even deleted one paragraph that I wrote a while ago and I admit it was both bad English and not necessary. He reverted that. Funny and sad.

I did not remove citations. I added two RFCs,I moved one reference lower within the text --the one he claims I removed, I renamed one EL to match its original IETF name.

I had a good time editing WP until Kbrose ( or Paul how I like to call him ) came along.

I am not going to discuss this anymore - It is not constructive. Thank you for doing the good dad here. I am sorry if I did offend him.Foo (talk) 19:37, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Everyone, get back to work!

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.