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

Before I continue any further on supporting my evidence, can you guys please vote on something? Do you guys want this article to be an article that deals with ATA/ATAPI Standards only or Storage Interface throughout the history? Hard Disk history and Hard Disk Standard?

Because the reason why I am starting provoding the IDE: IDE/EIDE, ATA/PATA, SATA, SSD is I want us to create an article that is about Storage Technologies and interface being developed throughout the history, and some part about the standards. Thus readers can understand the history of Storage Devices through a template. If you want to know more specific info on each of the topics of HDD, SSD, adapter card related technology (e.g. ESDI) the template will provide the links. Because the HDD, SSD...etc. has already has a

I want gather some viewpoints on your opinion, because I am not sure should I stop providing evidence, because the a lot of thing I write I believe that throught the history of IDE devices, I feel that all of the association aren't very responsible for what they have done and I believe this is an important problem that any technician, developers, readers should know. Maybe putting it as a problem would be too harsh, but it is a trend that been happening for a quite a long time in the storage industry. I mean putting too much negative things on a topic, most people would oppose it as other people's work a an original research which is not accepeted in Wikipedia. But if you look at Storage industry in general, it is almost impossible to invent a new interface or any virtual technolgies by physically researching it in the past, you have do it through a type of research known as mapping (going through test and analysis and yet you don't really what is actually happening unless you provide 2 evidence (the actual thing that is happening and evidence of what is actually happnening at the hardware level).

Thus this leads to struggle about how to develop a new technologies, that is each association belief in their own viewpoints and publish their version of standards. (different version from the associations are) INCITS, T13, T10, ANSI

association tend to reference info from

• standards of SATA I/O, PCMIA, PCMIA, MMCA, SD Card Association, CE-ATA.

So what do you guys think --Ramu50 (talk) 18:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

This article is about the AT Attachment interface, and only the AT Attachment interface. Information such as you describe doesn't belong here. There are already articles on Mass storage, Computer data storage, Hard disks, etc. Perhaps you should take this discussion on historical issues to one of those talk pages. A template providing links to many aspects of mass storage (with categories for various types of mass storage devices, interfaces, underlying storage technologies, etc.) that could go on all of those pages would be a good idea, although there is already one for a certain spectrum of storage tech (hard drives vs. other devices).

Templates btw are developed on their own pages (and as such have their own talk pages), not on an article page or its talk page.

I don't know what the "mapping" process you are describing has to do with designing a new interface, or anything new for that matter. To design something new you start with a set of functional requirements - your "requirements document." This doc might refer to older standards or specifications or devices or it might not, but there is no need to analyze an existing device through "test and analysis" and "mapping" if it complies to an older standard. You can just look at the standard, verify that older devices comply, and then use the standard from there on. This "mapping" you're talking about is more applciable to reverse engineering, which is not about designing new things at all.

Parenthetically: It seems to me that previously you complained that ATA/ATAPI specs did not reference these other standards where appropriate. Now you're saying that where they do reference them, it's a problem.

Anyway, I think a template for "computer data storage" encompassing storage technologies, interfaces, etc., would be a good idea and it could go on many many pages. However here is not the place to develop it. Participation on this particular page is extremely limited at the moment, probably because little attention is being paid to parallel ATA these days. I would suggest that you propose your ideas about a template on the talk page of one of the articles I mentioned above, preferably an article that is currently receiving more attention on its talk page, in order to get more responses from more people. Jeh (talk) 22:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

In invention, using the standards is a traditonal way that is why Microsoft.NET framework is not the dominant framework. Sorry I mis-used the word interface, I meant by anything that is virtual rather than interface. Any set of codes can written to comply it, but to fit well at the relational IA-86 architecture it take much more time. You are just the same as any other graduate from the university who only learn what they teach you and you don't even have a clue about what the set of codes of Perl, Ruby, PHP...etc are design to be a certain strucuture. Mapping is just an extremely smart part of the designing consideration. Apparently that is why Sun Microsystems is all about.

And since when I did say this, for the beginning till now, I always considered this as a trend, just because I didn't say it doesn't mean my viewpoint are constantly changing. You should've seen it when I say about the problem about renaming the topic without users' agreement.

Now you're saying that where they do reference them, it's a problem

I am being openminded to accept anybody idea and you just want to be an ass in other face, so I am not going to take your illegimate viewpoint. The tone of your voice, pretty much says you don't even care about if the article WikiProject Computing, you just want the article for yourself. --Ramu50 (talk) 16:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

No, I am just trying to point out that your arguments are, besides being not based in fact, not even self-consistent. One day you chide the ATA documents for not referencing another standard (even though they DO so reference, but the section you were complaining about had nothing to do with that other standard, and you didn't notice that), and another day you are complaining that design processes that refer to earlier standards are somehow broken.

Now, regarding the topics you have suggested here: A WP article should conain only information that is directly relevant to the topic. In this case the topic is the "AT Attachment interface". It says so right there in the lede. This article is not about the process of technology development in general, or the problems caused by that process.

Your contributions must also be factual. Time and again you have proposed your "logical" arguments that turn out to be anything but logical because they are based on suppositions and premises of yours that are flat-out wrong. Over and over I have pointed out cases where what you are claiming is not supported by, indeed in many cases is precisely refuted by, easily-available documents including the ATA documents themselves (which you didn't even know where to find until I pointed them out to you, despite their having been linked from the main article since long before you got here). Very often you have even cited "references" that, when checked, turn out to not support what you are claiming at all, suggesting that you simply don't understand what you read. (A particularly egregious example: You linked to a white paper that you claimed "doubted" SSD futures, when it was doing exactly the opposite!)

And after after all of these well-referenced rebuttals—to which you have not yet provided a single fact-based response—you refuse to learn the obvious lesson: that you just don't know what you're talking about. Far from being "open minded to accept anybody idea", you are refusing to learn better even after literally dozens of your premises have been shown to be not based in fact.

Instead you just proclaim all such objections as illegitimate. (Except that you spell it "illegimate", which can't even be pronounced correctly; you're missing an entire syllable.) Now you've added the standard rant about college graduates. You know what? You can only legitimately criticize what you learn in college after you've found out what you learn in college.

Speaking of factual: your personal opinions and speculations about the history and problems of technology development not only do not belong in this article, they belong nowhere on Wikipedia. Please see WP:NOT, in particular WP:SOAP and the section entitled "Wikipedia is not a blog, webspace provider, social networking, or memorial site".

If you take this to other pages related to computer storage you will find that a large number of other editors will tell you the same thing. No WP article should be a soapbox for an editor's opinions, even if the opinions are focused on the article topic.

Finally, contributions to a WP article must be written in encyclopedic style and tone. I'm sorry to have to say this (again) but your writing continues to be nearly incomprehensible. So even if you did have something that was both relevant to "AT Attachment", and factual, it would likely require extensive rewriting. Perhaps you should consider contributing instead to whichever Wikipedia is in your native language?

If you have valid, factual, documented, well-written contributions under the subject of "AT Attachment" to offer, they will be welcomed here. So far I do not see that anything you have written qualifies.

No, I do not want the article for myself. In fact I wish there were many other editors helping to defend this article against misinformation, personal opinions, and generally incomprehensible writing. But as long as there are not, I will continue to do so. Jeh (talk) 19:10, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

So far everything that I said, I know where to get the facts. I am trying to show if my principle works, then if you disagree, give evidential proof to prove me wrong. Anyhow don't discuss this off-topic any further, there is no point. The ATA documents, I know where to find it, you are the one that is suppose to specifiy which version of the ATA documentation. ANSI, INCTIS, T13, T10...etc all have their own version, did you even care about that points in consideration. You didn't even care. --Ramu50 (talk) 16:48, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Your misunderstand the roles of the standards bodies. As I told you before, the documents at the T13 committee's web site document the T13 committee's work. T13 is a committee of INCITS, which operates under ANSI's rules; INCITS and ANSI do not have their own versions of the T13 committee's documents. T10 covers SCSI, not AT Attachment, and do not have their own versions of the T13 committee's documents either. There are other documents authored by T10 but they do not maintain alternate versions of those authored by T13. They may be cacheing earlier versions, but those at T13 are authoritative.

As for your demand for "evidential proof", that's not my problem. You claim to know where to "get the facts," but you have provided none. For anything you propose—i.e. "your principle", whatever that is—it is up to you to prove it, not up to those who disagree with you to disprove it. As in any debate, the side "for" the proposition or resolution (that's you) has the burden of proof. Your unfounded suppositions and your personal opinions do not count as "proof," so your "principle" remains "not proven." Please do not continue to ignore this point in the future.

In any case you haven't described any "principle" here that is relevant to the "AT Attachment" article. Perhaps there are articles on design processes or technology development to which you could contribute. Jeh (talk) 22:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

And you have provided nearly absoultely no evidence at all to show that writing are a personal based viewpoint, just about every single viewpoint your brought up is only based on less than 3 documents while my documents are supported by more than 3 documents. I am not saying not respect the minority, but if only ATA/ATAPI association are supported while others aren't, then one association's idea doesn't represent the history, my evidence are taken from StorageSearch, Softpeida and other review, so therefore it is not personal based, other association do agree with me. Anyhow you can try to claim what you are which isn't what is happening so can we go back to the main topic and stop being off-topic. This question I asked was not directed to you only, all the things I said before I always started with the word To Jeh.

Note: I haven't read your reply yet, but from what I've seen you have done only the minimum. --Ramu50 (talk) 19:07, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the SSD issue the problem, Ramu, is that there is no evidence in your evidence. You have cited several different sources but not one of them supports any of your claims. (I have made this point for each of your sources and you have not responded regarding any of them.) There is no text in any of your citations to support your claims of "pressure" on the T13 committee, or that SSD support was only put in the docs for "safety", or any of the rest of your theory. In any case this isn't a matter of "voting" and the majority does not "win." The ATA documents are the final authority on what ATA supports or describes. It would not matter if you came up with 100 people saying SSD are not supported if those people were not speaking for the T13 committee. Jeh (talk) 21:45, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

If you're talking about these ideas you've you've written under the "Purpose of this article" heading, well here you haven't provided any references at all. But references are not the issue in this case, the point is that it isn't applicable to an article on "AT Attachment". I am sorry I am the only person responding here and welcome other participation. Certainly I am not doing anything to exclude anyone else. But I'm not going to not respond to you just because I'm the only one who presently seems interested. Jeh (talk) 21:45, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Well for starters I talk about purpose, of how we should go about it. You are the one who started bringing the things I am doing incorrectly which is totally off topic. The things you said are according to your point of view only and supported by one association only which is original research).

My stuff have the following

• logical asumption
• proven by more than one community, which isn't original research and personal based

From the beginning I have this all laid out, you didn't manage your reply at all, before I presented the SSD issues, you made several reply, when I made one reply only. I let what other see what my plans, while you don't, if you want to support it, organize your talk, because you are the one who keep getting off-topic. The off-topic I presented are only an introduction (which is applicable, because even if essay you present what your ideas first before your present your viewpoint and evidence).

From the beginning YOU should of refute my viewpoint only, which is on topic, you are the one that analyze the point and utilize those point to challenge my how my management skills are wrong, sof YOU started personal attack and yet you called yourself to respect others when you don't in the first place. My intentions in the beginning as everybody can see was only to provide more info. I started personal attack, because I was sick of you attacking me for no reason. You even said my grammar, who the hell cares, do you want to be Hilter or what?

People have strenght and weakness, that is part of weakness, you got a fucking problem with that asshole? Are you as equally the same as my parents to judge what my I should do? What are you a fucking facist?

--Ramu50 (talk) 18:50, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Once again I refer you to WP:CIVIL.

I am not "attacking" you, I am responding to your claims. You seem to expect to be able to write anything you want and not have it challenged. In your "one reply" you made a large number of claims, and I responded to each. Many of your claims were off topic but I responded to them because doing so showed the overall pattern of misunderstanding that underlies your opinions.

Regarding grammar, I would not mention it just for grammar's sake. But much of what you have written is simply unintelligible: it's impossible to determine just what you are trying to say. Any such writing does not at all support your point.

Citing just one source is not "original research". "Original research" is making things up by yourself. Citing a source is not original research, particularly not when that source is the final authority on the topic. In such cases the source is a primary source and the one citation is all that is required when it directly supports the text in the WP article. This is the case here: somewhat by definition, the ATA committee is the final authority on what is supported by ATA. Citing an ATA's document is therefore not original research, it is a proper, authoritative citation. The ATA docs state that a "device" can be pretty much anything that follows the protocol, and also state in so many words that solid state devices are included in the scope of devices covered. Case closed.

You, on the other hand, despite your claims to the contrary, have exactly no sources that support your bizarre claim that SSD are not supported by ATA. You have a few sources but none of them can be taken to even slightly imply support of such a claim. (I have made this point many times and you have yet to respond.) So your "logic" is based on false premises and therefore leads you to false conclusions.

Even if your "logical arguments" did support your conclusion, your line of reasoning would be regarded as "synthesis" and would therefore be considered original research itself. Quoting from WP:SYN:

Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published

by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to come to the conclusion C. This would be synthesis of published material which advances a position, which constitutes original research. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article. [...]In other words, that precise analysis must have been published by a reliable source in relation to the topic before it can be published in Wikipedia by a contributor.

Even if your sources supported your ideas, you still could not put in a Wikipedia article "therefore, SSD are not really supported by ATA" because none of your sources make that conclusion. Of course, you personally can conclude that if you like, you can write it on a web page of your own, but you can't put it in a Wikipedia article because "original synthesis" is no more accepted here than original research.

The same would seem to apply to your musings about storage technology development.

And yes, this article is about the AT Attachment interface only. That should be clear from the title and from the lede. If you want to write about a larger scope of storage and interface technologies, and development methodology for same, I think any reasonable person would agree that that material belongs somewhere else. To the extent that it is your personal opinion or "synthesis" (even if reasoned from well-referenced origins) it would appear to belong not on Wikipedia, as per WP:SYN.

Have you followed up on ANY of the WP project pages I've linked for you? Jeh (talk) 00:17, 15 July 2008 (UTC)