This is an archive of past discussions with User:Jasper Deng. 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.
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)
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).
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
Right, but this nomination for deletion is beyond humour, and is disruptive. We're all for a few games, but they cannot negatively affect the project. For example, fake RFA's will close today, but your nomination is true disruption. (talk→BWilkins←track) 12:13, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
We want to bring 100-150 people together, including lots of people who have not attended such events before. User scripts, gadgets, API use, Toolserver, Wikimedia Labs, mobile, structured data, templates -- if you are into any of these things, we want you to come!
I also thought you might want to know about other upcoming events where you can learn more about MediaWiki customization and development, how to best use the web API for bots, and various upcoming features and changes. We'd love to have power users, bot maintainers and writers, and template makers at these events so we can all learn from each other and chat about what needs doing.
Hey, I checked the diffs on the talk page and I don't see anything weird. Is there some {{appealblock}} abuse I'm not seeing? Thanks for the heads up! :) Keilana|Parlez ici05:10, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm not terribly inclined to block talk page access, he's not really hurting anything and may decide to become a productive editor. Or get bored. (Probably the latter!) I also don't think blocks should be punitive, and I feel like blocking talk page access both crosses that line and would breed a lot of unnecessary resentment. If you want, I could get another sysop to take a look - I just returned (2 days ago) from a long wikibreak and hadn't performed any admin actions since August 2009, so I may be completely off my rocker. Keilana|Parlez ici05:18, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
FYI. I'm done taking abuse (insults, false accusations) from the anon at 3D. Also, I don't prefer my Talk posts are copied to article Talk – do I have a WP right to request & get stoppage of it? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:58, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
What's going on? What do you mean? It's clear what's happening, if you read 3D Talk. What is your "please" request about? (That I don't initiate an ANI? Don't you know that, that would be impossible? I'd die first.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:09, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
I've told the anon that the vandalism accusations are not warranted. That being said though, he can quote you, however rude it is. Yeah, I just don't want the massive chastising that would occur if this spilled over to a AN(I).--Jasper Deng(talk)01:11, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for that. (IMO, the "silly", "nutty", "fearful", and "irrational" comments from the anon were also unwarranted.) Regarding ANI, not only wouldn't I open an incident there, I would never participate in any opened incident there, that did or didn't involve me. (I'd rather drink hemlock.) Cheers, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:19, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
So you understand, I don't object to being quoted. My objection was with an editor copying my User Talk posts, and pasting them on article Talk. (The posts have context at User Talk, not necessarily at article Talk.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:50, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
When you wrote above about telling the anon accusations of vandalism are not warranted, I thought you were referring to the accusation of "possessive vandalism" directed at me, untrue and without basis. But I see that is not what you meant. Hmmm.
An editor has say over posts by others to his User Talk, but has no say over another editor copying a user's posts on User Talk, and pasting same on article Talk? (Want to be sure.) Ok, Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:57, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
In addition, he made a vandalism accusation on my User Talk. Now he's accusing me of committing some "crime" ("removing incriminating evidence"). And now again I see he's accused me of, huh?, "profiteering" from the 3D article thru "advertisements" placed there in external links?!? (What's next, charges of racketeering and prostitution? Dope trafficking and making bad loans? When does this insanity end?) He's said on your Talk and elsewhere he's full of "suspicions", and somehow I don't doubt that a bit. What WP mechanism stops loose cannons like this from an unceasing stream of false accusations invented in their imaginations? (As far as I know he might need a doctor. They don't let people like that wander the streets in the town where I come from. But in WP?!?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 02:26, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I'm not canvassing you, or asking you, or suggesting to you, to do anything. (I simply asked you, based on your understanding of how WP operates, what mechanism stops a user like Mr. anon, from an unceasing stream of false accusations, as he has shown proclivity to do? If you know, I simply like to know, too.)
The accusations I've faced from Mr. anon, are totally fabricated, based on nothing. I haven't registered an opinion re his sanity, and don't intend to. (All I know, the environment on WP is insane, if nothing stops him, he is allowed to roam free to do what he has been doing.)
I do not agree with you, Deng, that I "took out frustrations on other editors ... last time". (If I "took out anything" on anyone, then it was for something they said directly, or accused directly, and are responsible for independently.)
You seem to have a tendendy to turn each and every possible comment back on me, as though I am the trouble, and though I am guilty of ... whatever. That is an extremely annoying experience from interfacing with you. (Do you even know what the heck I'm talking about?)
Somehow, you seem to slowly love to turn this around to ... do me harm? Amazing.
(Look at your statement above, that I "took out frustrations on others". Really now? That's a fact? Who says so? You? Of course, you, like many others here, just LOVE LOVE LOVE to make accusations, and get away without backing them up, defending them, or apologizing for them. Least of all dialogue about them, to discover whether said accusations have a basis or not. It is so much easier, and feels better, to just ... accuse.
I am not like that. You are (IMO). You should know, not everone likes to be accused of ... whatever others like to say, without regard to fairness or not. And quite frankly, my observations and reading at WP have shown me that this problem, is epidemic on WP. (Just go see what Malleus or Pigs have had to endure.) I don't blame WP independently for this suckingness problem, because it is a general human failing or condition. But, it is still quite obvious to see that on WP, it is ... rampant. (Look at some of the quotes on my Talk. Especially the one by User Gwen Gale.)
I don't blame you for the general condition here at WP (irresponsible accusations flying every which way at any time for anything), but for sure, you are at least a small part of it IMO. You've frustrated me in the past, sure. And I let you know. (Perhaps too much so. Sorry for that.) But you are also annoying me again now, with your little unfounded "taking frustration out on others" comment. I don't do that. If people get shit from me, it's something they were in control of, with and by direct contact with me, that lead to the shit.
I asked you a simple question ... what stops an anon like this who unceasingly goes off fabricating false accusations about someone, at WP. If you don't know the answer, fine. But say so. (Don't insult me as your answer, and don't threaten me or give indirect implied warning as your answer, because I'm not interested in any of that, and don't deserve it. [If you think I deserve it, then you should discuss it plainly and clearly. Or isn't that how you operate, preferring hints and implied warnings for God-knows-what, instead?])
The plain and simple fact is that what I've experienced on the 3D article Talk recently, from the anon, is abusive and out of line, and I'm sure it violates WP Civil. (If you don't think so, go ahead and say. Then we disagree.)
But don't invest in somehow trying to turn this around on me. I'm not in receiving mode for more crap.
I'm willing to end (forever) any WP dialogue with you again, if that is what you see best. Or I'm willing to somehow eek out a cooperative relationship w/ you. It is really your choice, or capability. I could go either way, but if you prefer no communication between us, I can fully support that too.
What you don't get, is that I'm thru w/ taking shit from anyone here on WP, anymore. (The ANI was enough for me.) Does that make any sense at all to you? Yet I harbor no attitude toward anyone, unless they give me reason to, and false accusations without backing them up are just the kind of thing that gets me going.
Nobody likes false accusations. But some of us have had our fill, more than others.
Oh, a common response on WP is to typify what I just wrote as a "rant" or "tirade" or "vent". Not at all. Instead I'm trying to communicate something to you (get thoughts into your head, that I don't think have ever been there, or at least not with the ... notability).
Each of us has a contribution to make WP a better environment, or a worse one. Now go back and read the entire contents of the 3D Chess Talk, and see who has been who. And then come back here and start hinting I might be in trouble, if I don't listen to your warnings.
This place sucks, and, I'm not the only one who's observed it. (Why in the H do you think I'm asking what can be done or not with the anon who's gone off the edge making scurilous and unfounded accusations, and how it can eventually be stopped by WP mechanisms? What? Don't you know? So you rather play games w/ my head, than look it up? I thought you wanted to be an Admin? Does one get there just by flexing muscles and giving warnings of block? Or by knowledge of WP operations.)
