Talk:Parallel ATA/Purpose of this article (Off Topic)Part2 Archive

My final contribution before change to inline style. [1]

And when I did ever say you cann't challenge my viewpoint, from the begining I only said don't turn the incident into anything that is personal. Yea you really know how to make excuses for yourself.--Ramu50 (talk) 19:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligible is it, where is your maturity? If you don't understand something, ask! By replying my things you words aren't valid, because it is guessing and assumptions, are you 2 year old.--Ramu50 (talk) 19:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also your statement is original research, it is supported by 1 association only. --Ramu50 (talk) 19:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ATA/ATAPI doesn't have the right to say to the document is the final version, because these association are trusted by government bodies. Judges in the court will need to look at them to understand the ethics and morality of the industries to prevent bias towards other people viewpoint. ATA/ATAPI is not being fined, because USA laws allow it, other countries doesn't. ATA/ATAPI is unlike other association such as IEEE which enforce the documentation, update the documents, therefore I won't challenge them, because they are responsible, reliable...etc. --Ramu50 (talk) 18:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With all the information above being said, your works are an original research. --Ramu50 (talk) 18:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The ones I use aren't original research, when reviews are published, usually they will only finalized if grammatical exist, if info is incorrect, they usually release another article for apologizing. --Ramu50 (talk) 18:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok when the works are finished I will placed a Critism section, because Wikipedia is being self-contradictory. How come article can have criticism. Criticism is personal viewpoint whether or not it is supported by original research, nonetheless it is a viewpoint. However, if my try to make my viewpoint more neutral by concluding only some ATA/ATAPI support SSD interface.--Ramu50 (talk) 19:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Havin all the above thing said, I proven it is not a original research, but arguably can be a synthesis. By saying only some ATA/ATAPI support SSD interface, this statement is true, ATA-4 only mention it, it doesn't references any of the interface technologies. --Ramu50 (talk) 19:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok if you said there are only one version of ATA/ATAPI, then prove this website wrong [2]. Just because one of the version of support one of the interface, that DOESN'T MEAN ALL of the ATA/ATAPI document are supported.--Ramu50 (talk) 18:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also do you not use ftp, not everybody has access to the documents.

[[solid state  disk]]s<ref>{{cite book
 |last=T13 Technical Committee of Accredited Standards Committee NCITS
 |title=AT Attachment with Packet Interface Extension (ATA/ATAPI-4)
 |url=ftp://ftp.t13.org/project/d1153r18-ATA-ATAPI-4.pdf
 |format=PDF
 |accessdate=2008-07-14
 |date=1998-08-19
 |publisher=American National Standards Institute (ANSI)
 |language=English
 |pages=339 pp
 |chapter=page 36, section 6.13
 |quote=CFA feature set: The CompactFlash Association (CFA) feature set provides support for 
 solid state memory devices.
 }}</ref>

--Ramu50 (talk) 18:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, that site requires login. The login credentials are easily available [3] but that's still a poor citation. I have changed the citation to point to the copy at t10.org.

Sure, but you treat many criticisms, even though they are simply criticisms of your ideas, as personal attacks. This is clear because you have responded with personal attacks and incivility ("asshole", "be mature idoit", "I don't give a fuck of your suggestions", etc.) even though no personal attacks or uncivil language had come your way. You also try to tell me to not respond to you inline (like this), point by point, even though to do otherwise would require a great deal of repetition of your material. Jeh (talk) 02:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, no guessing because I simply haven't responded to anything I thought was unintelligible - except to point out that I found it unintelligible. Which is a valid criticism, as statements that cannot be understood are not advancing your position. Jeh (talk) 02:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:V. It is purely your invention that something "supported by 1 association only" is original research when that association is the primary source!

It is true that WP:V says that multiple secondary sources are more desirable, but there is an exception for information that comes exactly from the primary source. The ATA documents explicitly mention SSD. Your claim is that SSD are not supported, or are not "really" supported, or some such, but you have found no sources that directly state that. Nor would it matter if you found 100 sources claiming that, because the argument here is over what the ATA documents say, and what they say is what they say. It doesn't matter what anyone else claims they say. Jeh (talk) 02:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

T13 committee are the document authors! How can you claim they don't have the right to say "ok, we're done with this version"?

You seem to think that because the ATA/ATAPI docs might be cited in a court case (which is plausible, though unlikely), the T13 committee has no right to say which document is the final version? Why do you think that makes any sense at all?

I've never heard of a case where the T13 committee was put on trial for anything. If you think the T13 committee should be responsible for the reliability of anything attached to the connector they define, why weren't they sued over the failures of the IBM Deskstar 75GXP hard drives? If I plug a toaster into a NEMA 5-15 power receptacle, and the toaster sets the house on fire, do I sue NEMA? Nonsense, I sue the manufacturer of the toaster.

And btw, IEEE does not "enforce" anything either. If you're thinking of things like those that issue the "WiFi" logo, which you can't get unless you pass approval by (and are a member of) the WiFi Alliance, you should know that the WiFi Alliance is a trade group, not part of IEEE. Jeh (talk) 02:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:V sets the standards for what is "original research" and what is not. WP:V disagrees with you. It wins.

My "work" in this case is exactly supported by, indeed is, a direct quote from the primary source on the topic. That is not "original research", it is a proper and sufficient citation as per WP:V. Jeh (talk) 02:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I have pointed out before the sources you have cited don't support your position. I've said this at least three times now and you just refuse to respond. Jeh (talk) 02:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have a valid point! I'm actually glad we've gone down this path. I never liked that section, but I was not previously familiar with WP:CRITICISM. Now, since you brought it up, I see that that section needs some work. It's ok to quote criticism or refer to it in a published source (as long as the overall tone of the article or section remains neutral, but you can't quote facts and then write original criticism based on those facts. Not on Wikipedia, I mean.

Accordingly I have moved that section to this talk page pending a minor rewrite. I'm pretty sure it can be rescued.

The same problem, though, applies to your ideas re SSD and ATA. You have cited no sources that state that ATA does not support SSD. You don't even have more than very weak citations supporting your contention that SSD are unreliable: You have a couple of specific cases but nothing that states they are generally unreliable. (Certainly they're more reliable than old Zip drives, and certainly more reliable than IBM 75GXP Deskstar drives.)

Even if you do find some clear citations proving SSD unreliability references to those would belong in the article on Solid State Disks, not here. A device or device class being unreliable has exactly nothihng to do with whether ATA supports it or not. (Note that this article says nothing about IBM 75GXP Deskstars either.) Jeh (talk) 02:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but that is not a valid conclusion. ATA-1 through ATA-3 are obsolete and therefore no longer relevant. All non-obsolete versions (ATA-4 and later) do make explicit reference to SSD. They also state

3.1.20 device: Device is a storage peripheral. Traditionally, a device on the 
interface has been a hard disk drive, but any form of storage device may be 
placed on the interface  provided it adheres to this standard.

That's from ATA/ATAPI-4 and similar if not identical langauge is in all later versions. Jeh (talk) 02:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Havin all the above thing said, I proven it is not a original research, but arguably can be a synthesis. By saying only some ATA/ATAPI support SSD interface, this statement is true, ATA-4 only mention it, it doesn't references any of the interface technologies. --Ramu50 (talk) 18:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only "interface technology" ATA-4 needs to reference is ATA-4. Remember,

any form of storage device may be placed on the interface  provided 
it adheres to this standard.

ATA-5 did add explicit mention of the CompactFlash connector but that does not mean that ATA SSD could not exist previously. After all one of your references had a picture of an SSD device with an ATA 40-pin connector right on it. No CompactFlash connector, no need for the connector to be referenced in the ATA docs. Jeh (talk) 02:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The paragraph & quote, I got no clue what you are trying to say and what is your point.

I never said there was only one version of ATA/ATAPI, indeed the article here has long referenced the various versions. There is however only one latest revision of each version; earlier revisions are considered obsolete. The t13 site has a particularly large number of revisions of ATA/ATAPI-4. But this doesn't say anything for your point at all. For any version there is just one latest (current) revision, and in the latest (current) revision of all non-obsolete versions of ATA/ATAPI, SSD are explicitly supported. All non-obsolete versions also state

any form of storage device may be placed on the interface  provided 
it adheres to this standard.

Jeh (talk) 02:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You don't give me respect, I don't give you respect, simply as that. You are just attacking me in a different way, because you know I had enough with you sware words.

Yes I clearly said not to repsond in inline format, because you are the only one that does that. That has nothing got to do with advancing my position, it is point it and I correct it or rewrite. You are using your own opinion which is totally bullshit.

And let me ask you, is the primary document written by one author, yes it is. Just because it follows the association request doesn't mean it isn't one person viewpoint. One person viewpoint = original research.

Clearly you don't understand how legal systema and association works, I already explain it previous reply. I forgot to add USA government allows it only because this would promote their economy.

Further info, any laws that is related to ethics and morality can be challenged, the documentation documentation are use for references, the government doesn't require you to cite it, but you are require to understand it.

Direct Quote doesn't mean anything, Wikipedia stated before that multiple statements from documents and adding your own conclusion is considered original research.

I am not refusing to respond, I want to finish this discussion before we continue.

Give proof

(Certainly they're more reliable than old Zip drives, and certainly more reliable than IBM 
75GXP Deskstar drives.)

I don't want nag on this one, but since you are the one who started with this disrespect, consult with your consequences.

Weak citation & Couple of specific cases isn't a citation ? (now you are being bias) Wrong it would not belong to SSD drives, because I am criticizing ATA/ATAPI association not SSD.

The quote you gave was a mention, a suggeston doesn't equate support at all.

It says The CompactFlash Association (CFA) feature set provide support, it is referencing but more clearly it is mentioning, because it is not a correct way to do it, by law you are require to state the revision/version number, date of publication or Article name/#, section #...etc. As seen in all legal documents of government, they always says something please refer back to Article #, Section #...etc. Even in bibliography MLA format you are require to state it very clearly.

I will accept an exception that is ATA/ATAPI referencing equate with support, because almost all industries accept the practice that you don't necessarily have to enforce under the circumstance of insufficient money issue. Even though the law require you to do so, however, countries nevertheless protect their economy even if it means going against the law or agreement.

The CompactFlash Association (CFA) feature set provides support for solid state memory 
devices. The commands provided for the CFA feature set are:

INCITIS ATA-ATAPI 4 --Ramu50 (talk) 05:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, sorry to interrupt, but I spent too much time on writing this and apparently I haven't replied to Wikipedia criticism, so don't reply just yet. --Ramu50 (talk) 05:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now, Ramu, I am not going to respond to you further here until you find citations that explicitly support your claim that SSD are not supported by ATA. I have a citation (two, actually) that explicitly states that they are supported, and it comes from the primary source, so you are going to have a tough time with that.

Finally, I think you should have described the following as "just pure opinion". The term "references" should be only used for authoritative sources. Jeh (talk) 02:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I clearly say more than 3 times that ATA-4 doesn't support it, mentioning it doesn't mean anything. You are the one that paying attention, that is your own problem. You are not the adminstrators so I don't care about your citation at all, because you want to use the citation for original research. --Ramu50 (talk) 04:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is just pure notes, not mean for anything just pure references. My opinion is that ATA/ATAPI is just purely immature. First everybody knows RAM (whether it is violatile or non-violatle) they are not design for SSD. So if the industries want to use SSD interfaces into RAM for better solution, then ATA/ATAPI should of published 2 document for SSD. Document 1 is the guideline and document 2 is the acutal document, because document are made to be neutral, however, they should be responsible for it.

Reason If you publish the SSD interface into ATA/ATAPI which it wasn't design for, then it looks like your supporting SSD which isn't neutral (I mean connotation-wise). Also you (as in ATA/ATAPI association) are supporting things which you have no experience about (RAM-based) so what make the document reliable.

But if you publish in other document, it is more ethical because you can say that we are providing safety for customers, however, we provide the document not because we support or we do not support you. But because everybody in the world can make a choice, however, we as an ATA/ATAPI will not take responsibility because of the following

(ATA/ATAPI wasn't design for SSD and RAM)
- SSD is RAM & PLD ROM-based in the early developement (which is 1970s, at that time, no SSD products aren't released)

theoretically or ethically you shouldn't take things that other people have develop and turn it into something of your own and sell it to the market, unless you can prove the product is safe, which ABSOUTELY NO COMPANY IN THE WORLD HAVE DONE SO. However, you should have a freedom of choice.

This was just to clarify that I am not against ATA/ATAPI association, but I am against and suspect ATA/ATAPI overall decision and practices which I consider as unethical. Do they really care about SSD at all and worse are they blindly making unintelligent decision by placing human as a experiment, when they perfectly know there is the risk of this product is metaphorically an unknown time-bomb which can explode any time, because RAM & PLD ROM are made to be SSD. --Ramu50 (talk) 19:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is NOT additional opinion, this opinion the purpose of writing it in the beginning. Do not edit my works, base on your own opinion idoit.--Ramu50 (talk) 03:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, neither of us is listening to the other. I don't believe you have valid sources and you don't believe what WP:PRIMARY says about primary sources. Accordingly I have opened the question of original research re. the quotes from the ATA documents at [4] Jeh (talk) 09:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You obviously have ignored the ATA-4 evidence, we mention that before, and you know very well, it is in the archive page. Clearly you still don't want to be acceptive, you keep bringing on Wikipedia policy to put me down, but I know how the basis of Wikipedia works and the previous justification have obviously justify it, so if you don't have any legitmate and logical documents this part of the talk page is going to infinately big and it will be pointless.

Yes I do talk a bit sacastic which is bad habit, but I have no intention on hurting anyone or else I wouldn't have even brought up the purpose of this article and remeber this section initially was not made to talk about my evidence at all you are the one that turn around the topic so keep that in mind, you are the one that constantly bringing chaos so might I suggest you go re-evulate yourself before you judge upon others, because clearly none of your attempt have work, instead of fighting about it mine as well learn it. Well this is probably the last time I am going to be nice again, don't expect me to give you respect if you continue to do so. You have my warning and you better not regret it and whine about WP:Civil again.

Whether it is whining or not, I don't care, just fix everything yourself. Obviously I am not the problem.

--Ramu50 (talk) 23:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]