User talk:Zac67/Archives/2023/October
 | This page 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. |
Parallel routes for a single session
AKAIK usings different paths for consecutive datagrams of a given user session MUST be avoided in the Internet. (TCP doens't like frequent packet permutations with substantially different delays. They can be taken for packet losses and cause cause inappropriate retransmissions). Unless you know real networks that ignore this constraint (which ones?), I respectfully suggest that my wording is more instructive (and avoids being misleading on how the Internet works).RD2017 (talk) 15:45, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
- Different paths should be avoided and are uncommon, but they're generally possible. Please discuss on the article's talk page if required, not here. --Zac67 (talk) 16:41, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
Whois protocol vs client
Hello Zac, you reverted my edit on WHOIS stating "This is about the protocol, not a client". While the main focus of the article is indeed about the protocol, the section where I had added the release version really is about the client. It uses the "Infobox software" template, and I do think release info is appropriate here. Kind regards, MichielN (talk) 20:04, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
- @Michiel: Hadn't actually processed that properly – already restored, sorry about that! --Zac67 (talk) 20:48, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
Vandalism
I issue you a warning for vandalism in the article PCI Express. You are canceling data verified by authoritative and independent sources, while you yourself are guided by WP:OR. This is not allowed and violates wikipedia rules WP:RS --185.52.142.168 (talk) 08:14, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
- You are being ignorant. You obviously haven't read my comments and that the article clearly says that the throughputs are per direction and that PCI SIG and various, copying sources show aggregate throughput for Tx and Rx which doubles the values. If you want to change the article accordingly, you'll need to take it to the talk page. In the meantime, please stop reverting to incorrect figures. --Zac67 (talk) 09:06, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
- Am I being ignorant? Am I deleting data confirmed by sources?! Or are you doing this? Did you read my edit comments yourself? Have you been able to object to at least one argumentatively instead of rude reversals of edits? My figures, as you say, are confirmed by relevant sources, but how do you confirm your numbers?! You are doing original research in gross violation of the WP:OR rule. For the phrase "PCI SIG and various, copying sources show aggregate throughput for Tx and Rx which doubles the values" provide independent sources? I hear this from you, and I repeat, Wikipedia is written not from the words of the participants, but according to data from sources! If the source says that for 7.0 x16 the speed is 512 GB / s, then this is exactly what we indicate on Wikipedia, without any original research! --185.52.142.168 (talk) 12:42, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
- Have you even read your own sources??
- --Zac67 (talk) 14:21, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
- Personally, I don't have to prove anything. You must justify your edits with these sources, and put them in the article itself, as I do. --185.52.142.168 (talk) 15:02, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
- Am I being ignorant? Am I deleting data confirmed by sources?! Or are you doing this? Did you read my edit comments yourself? Have you been able to object to at least one argumentatively instead of rude reversals of edits? My figures, as you say, are confirmed by relevant sources, but how do you confirm your numbers?! You are doing original research in gross violation of the WP:OR rule. For the phrase "PCI SIG and various, copying sources show aggregate throughput for Tx and Rx which doubles the values" provide independent sources? I hear this from you, and I repeat, Wikipedia is written not from the words of the participants, but according to data from sources! If the source says that for 7.0 x16 the speed is 512 GB / s, then this is exactly what we indicate on Wikipedia, without any original research! --185.52.142.168 (talk) 12:42, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
I will no longer deal with the war of edits, but I believe that you are wrong! A significant majority of sources, including PCI-SIG itself, use the speed indication in bi-directionally, so why do you think that we, violating the rule WP: OR, should indicate the speed in one stream? If in the sources the speed is indicated in both directions, then we must indicate this. --185.52.142.168 (talk) 15:29, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
- Using bidirectional numbers is way too common in Ethernet descriptions, and apparently here. Obviously it is an advantage when done by the marketing department. We should be careful on what we count as WP:RS. Ethernet often does not have symmetric traffic patterns. An html query normally returns a lot more data than the request. I suspect that PCI also isn't so symmetric in actual use. If you can find a WP:RS that quotes single direction, I vote for that. Gah4 (talk) 04:59, 23 October 2023 (UTC)