User talk:Oli Filth/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

Fischer Article

Long rant from ChessHistorian...

I direct you to download this file, which is the audio from an online Interview that was on the chess.fm radio broadcast in October 1996:

http://www.GothicChess.com/radio.wma.zip

Decompress the file, and listen to it with Windows Media Player, or some other audio player that supports the stream format. The fact that you can download this file from a website owned by Ed Trice has no bearing on its true source, namely, the ICC chess.fm internet radio channel. They only archive their broadcasts for one calendar year, and Trice requested a copy of it in exchange for being on the program. Clearly that is the voice of Dan Heisman, who does the broadcast. His ICC handle is "PhillyTutor" and he can confirm that Trice was on the show to discuss the sourced material that is being cited here.

There is no way this was a "rumor" if so many people were involved.

Next, take a look at this YouTube video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=54I8wqm2NeE

Note that it is from a company that supplies interviews with individuals from a variety of backgrounds. There is no link between Ed Trice, Gothic Chess, and the news agency that performed this interview. Their YouTube account is:

http://www.youtube.com/user/TheInterviewpoint

It is clear that this is 3rd party sourced material.

Also, take a look at the interview itself. Karpov's signature on the contract to play Fischer is right there. No rumor. Properly sourced.

This material belongs.

Clearly Trice was in Iceland, if you looked at the images that are linked from the blog:

http://www.gothicchess.com/images/iceland/alexis_ed_streetsign.jpg

And here is Grandmaster Fridrik Olafsson, longtime friend of Fischer's examining the new Gothic Chess pieces:

http://www.gothicchess.com/images/iceland/Fridrik_pieces.jpg

The plastic pieces are from the set Ed Trice sells online, the wooden pieces are designed by the House of Staunton:

http://www.houseofstaunton.com/gothicchess.html

Frank Camaratta, owner of the HouseOfStaunton.com, was on the Iceland trip to showcase his wooden pieces for Fischer's approval. Here is a photo showing Olafsson, Alexis Skye, Frank Camaratta, and Ed Trice all together in Iceland in a meeeting:

http://www.gothicchess.com/images/iceland/news_meeting.jpg

His phone number is listed on his website as (256) 858-8070 and their email address is sales@houseofstaunton.com

You can contact them to confirm that Frank was there, and the purpose was for Fischer to approve his Gothic Chess set for use in the match with Karpov.

There is plenty of 3rd party sourced material that supports the fact that the match was well underway, and Fischer was just being Fischer and backed out. This was not a rumor. This is fact. And Wikipedia was founded on the premise that factual, sourced material can be included in articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChessHistorian (talk • contribs) 18:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

ASN-GW

I addressed your concerns but the ASN GW article is deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mustafaerg (talk • contribs) 19:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Please see the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ASN-GW for the rationale for this article's deletion. Regards, Oli Filth^(talk) 20:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

eircom

I'm adding and correcting facts. not opinion. Since I have been professionally involved with Irish telecoms since 1985 and an engineer since 1976 I do know the difference.

Wattyirl

Phrases such as "This is just one example of monopoly domination and regulatory failure.", "which bloats the count", etc. are not written from a neutral point of view. I suggest reading WP:NPOV to get a better idea on how to adapt your choice of words to suit Wikipedia better.

Most of the other stuff you've been adding is unsourced; please read WP:RS and WP:V.

Regards Oli Filth^(talk) 18:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the solution to this is. eircom does not measure the way the OECD does. I have met personally with the OECD and have read Irish Governmental committee reports about eircom and Comreg. They make interesting reading but have been ignored byh DMCNR and the Ministers. Sometimes in striving to hard to have a "neutral sounding" and "Balanced" approach you end up suppressing an distorting the truth. The BBC had an interesting discussion on this problem regarding "Global Warming".

The article currently quotes figures as truth which are proven distortions (not measured the same way as anyone else) or lies. There is no independent measurement or publishing of performance for Telecom companies in Ireland.

The sooner more Telecoms regulation is centralised to Brussels the better for competitors and consumers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wattyirl (talk • contribs) 21:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/70.109.217.17 Posted URL

Oli, User:70.109.217.17 has posted a URL on several others talk pages that you may want to look into. I noticed it's on the top of your talk page as well. Wasn't sure if it was something you wanted to get around or not or if I should delete it. To avoid trouble by messing with others pages I left it. Just a heads up.. --DP67 (^talk/_contribs) 02:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification; I've now reverted all of these! For reference, it's some attention-seeking prick called Jon Dattorro (User:Dattorro) who apparently got annoyed because I reverted some of his link additions a while back, and has the demeanour of a five year old, so this is his "revenge".

Best regards, Oli Filth^(talk) 02:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I thought it might be some grudge case, looking at his contribs it looks like he went through your contribs and posted the link on as many user pages as he could that you've bumped heads with in the past.. Glad you got rid of it. --DP67 (^talk/_contribs) 02:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi. It seems this disgruntled individual subsequently switched over the spamming to another anon ip address, 68.9.194.183 (talk · contribs). I've reverted all those additions, and blocked both the ip and User:Dattorro's account. Someone with Oversight privileges will probably need to blank the edit summaries, I see that Fred Bauder was previously involved so I'll leave a request for him to look into it. Cheers, --cjllw ʘ TALK 06:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Much appreciated! Many thanks, Oli Filth^(talk) 10:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Need some advice on Digital Audio Broadcasting

Hi, you have been a regular visitor on the Digital Audio Broadcasting article, and seem to be a sensible person, and thats why i ask you for advice. I find the recent edits on the page to be somehow aggresive against me as a person, but then it could be me who are just a little to sensitive.

For instance, the paragraphs about DAB in norway is probably aimed directly at me (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Digital_Audio_Broadcasting&diff=170933175&oldid=170932595) (even though I do not work with neither radio og "the norwegian dab industry").

Should i just ignore the article, or should i try to edit this? I have already requested a comment on the article as whole, but i see from the discussion pages that the previous RFC did not get anywhere. What do you think i should do?

best regards, Ga-david.b 11:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, yes I see the edit war at the DAB article has reignited. The edit by Digitalradiotech is vandalism, and a personal attack, so I've reverted his changes from today (not least because he simply blanked material), and have warned him on his talk page. If he continues in this manner, then after a couple more warnings he will be blocked for vandalism. (NOTE: not by me, because I'm not an admin!)

Regards, Oli Filth^(talk) 19:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I certainly don’t have the time for any edit warring right now, so I will stay away from reverting. But I really wish to se the Digital Audio Broadcasting article become better, so hopefully someone will finnish the work with the two ongoing request for comments on the talk pages, as well as a process for judging some of the sources reliability. (Maybe I should change my handle, as I think jsut the sight of me is provocing DigitalRadioTech).

Thank you for your feedback. It’s appreciated.

Best regards, Ga-david.b 21:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh my, I’ve just seen over the history of the DAB-article, and boy, has there been a lot going on. I appologise for pulling you into this. On the other hand i see that you have the routine to handle this sort of behaviour in a appropriate way.

Best regards, Ga-david.b 07:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

General angular modulation

The article is so short anyways, and the term might be helpful to someone researching modulation techniques. Are you sure you want to remove content from a stub like this one? I'm not sure if 'GAM' is a widely used term though, so it makes sense to at least find out if it is relevant before adding any more terms. There's obviously no point in increasing the amount of information if it's unrelated information! JWhiteheadcc 21:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Googling for "General angular modulation" brings up zero hits other than those from Wikipedia. Therefore, at best, it's non-notable. At worst, the phrase doesn't exist. Regards, Oli Filth^(talk) 21:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

As I thought, although Angular Modulation would show plenty of results.  ;) www.vk1od.net/FM/FM.htm is the first link. It seems to verify that Frequency and Phase modulation are both forms of Angular Modulation as the article currently states. I think the author of the 'GAM' messed up their terminology or sentance structure. 'General forms of Angular Modulation' would make a lot more sense assuming that they were meaning to add a list in the future. So called FM is usually a mixture in actual practice of PM and FM. It seems that PED is a real term when discussing some aurial radios.

http://ccrma.stanford.edu/guides/planetccrma/FM.html Another application for FM, hehe.

"exponential modulation" lead to some interesting articles on the WWW. http://www.answers.com/topic/modulation explains how there's exactly 3 ways that a signal is modulated. This pretty much confirms that there's only PM, FM, AM, and a combination of these 3 in any RF communication system. I'll add these links to the end of the article, so that more information is available, to those willing to look(click) further. JWhiteheadcc 02:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC) JWhiteheadcc 02:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Extremely biased reversion on DAB page

Do not remove text on the basis that you are extremely biased. Digitalradiotech 01:01, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

In what way is removing blatant POV and original synthesis "biased"? Oli Filth^(talk) 01:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

YOU ARE biased, because you know deep down that you're aiding the propagation of lies, and you're doing so by means of pedantry, and you know full well - you'll have heard it yourself if you've got a DAB radio and you've compared it with FM - that DAB sounds worse than FM, and you're relying on your pedantry to allow this Ga-David who's whiter than white to get away with propagating his lies so that other people will be taken in by his lies. In other words, you're as biased as he is. Digitalradiotech 01:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Please grow up. This has nothing to do with bias (I've already explained many times in the past that I have no vested interest, so how could I be biased?). Removal of POV, original synthesis and redundancy in an effort to improve the article (bear in mind that I've removed no content that wasn't already in the article) is not "pedantry", by any standard definition. Oli Filth^(talk) 01:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't tell me to grow up, you've only just out of university. And this has everything to do with bias, and you are a pedant. How else can you justify supporting a lie when you're doing so on a technicality? Linking to "evidence" that is supporting incorrect information is dishonest in my book, I don't know what it is in your book. Digitalradiotech 01:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Removal of information

You have removed information from the DAB page that is perfectly valid. Put it back in. That is presumably vandalism, so undo the last 2 edits you made. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Digitalradiotech (talk • contribs) 14:25, 16 November 2007

What are you talking about? The two edits where you decided to revert yourself, but apparently to the wrong version, which I then fixed? Oli Filth^(talk) 18:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Page Plus Cellular

I have voted Page Plus Cellular for speedy deletion because you do not specify why it is significant (see WP:CSD#A7). Cybiko123 (talk) 03:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

This page is nothing to do with me! Why are you telling me this? Oli Filth^(talk) 12:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Ga-David on DAB page

Ga-David has reverted the DAB page 4 times in 24 hours and he seems to have got it into his head that I've breached these guidelines: [1], because he's using them as a justification for reverting the page 4 times. The document I've linked to was definitely published by the Digital Radio Development Bureau (DRDB), which is an organisation funded by the BBC and the big commercial radio groups, and it is basically the broadcasters' mouthpiece. Here's another DRDB document that you won't find anywhere on the Internet apart from on my website: [2]. Presumably he wouldn't dispute that the DRDB wrote that, although I wouldn't put it past him. Basically, I've got my faults, but I've never stooped to being dishonest. So in the name of fairness, because you seem to frequently jump on my back, could you tell him to stop reverting back to his edits please? I've allowed the bit about "proponents claim that" to be left in when I didn't want it to be in there, but with him when he's given an inch he takes a mile.

Furthermore, the fact that he is trying so desperately to keep information about DAB+ out of the intro shows to me that he does work in the Norwegian DAB industry, because simply no ordinary radio listener - however enthusiastic they were about DAB - would care so much about DAB+ being described in the intro. There's definitely some vested interest going in with him, and I'd put a lot of money on him working in the Norwegian DAB industry, although he'll never admit it. Digitalradiotech (talk) 02:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Stop writing at my wall

Hi

First of all, I gave u a reason for why not to change the Genovese crime family article back to what it is now, because it will just make it more difficult for everyone, and if you didn't read the read the headline:

You are not worthy enough to write at my wall and complain about something so stupid when I have already given my reason for why I didn't wanted the article edited, but you just couldn't listen, couldn't you?

So, from here and now, stop writing on my wall, and stop editing the Genovese crime family page.

"Thanks for your cooperation"...;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlir91 (talk • contribs) 20:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

First, please note that your talk page is not "your wall"; this isn't Facebook.

As for the article, you've given no such explanation. Please discuss such enormous reverts on the article's talk page before performing them. Oli Filth^(talk) 20:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Smashing Pumpkins

Wall, whatever. Like Billy Pumpkin's wanting *Melancholy* to matter like Pink Floyd's The Wall. Sure.

If you remove factual edits (alongside an adjective or two I'd put in), it annoys a well-intentioned contributor who chiefly seeks to add to the relevant info. available to readers like you. Do. Not.

Allow me to quote: "I shall visit you in the small hours and put a bat up your night-dress." And, fresh off the presses: "Don't [edit] me like that. Do you know who I am? I am a big star [and a black man w/ a moustache] and I can look you up, find where you live and blow you up."

Two silver stars if you can name the sources before you scurry back to your math. Have fun in the abstract! No one will make you a cuckold while you're attending to the essential matters of math. I'm sure your expertise w/ the Gambino-Galilei crime family has familiarized you with this truism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.202.196.121 (talk • contribs) 03:47, 2 December 2007

What? Oli Filth^(talk) 12:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

FM/PM

I'm wondering if there's a good reference for the differences between FM and PM. The difference seems close to the one between f(x)=5x^2-4x+1 and f'(x)=10x-4. One seems to be multiplying while the other is adding. Any further sources of information would be helpful to anyone updating the angle modulation article. Actually, I think it would be even better if instead of a stub, the AM/PM/FM articles were one, but that's unlikely to work very well.

JWhiteheadcc 06:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC) Bah, if I'd bother rereading the modulation articles, I'd have noticed that it's already done! Nevermind me - my memory sometimes fails. JWhiteheadcc 07:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

VMSK News

Filth, I know you believe VMSK to be backwards and unworkable, but you should look at 2 recent developments: Walker's November paper on the filters at: vmsk.org/filtersS.pdf and 2). try to interpret the disappearance (which I predicted on this site) of Karn's famous VMSK Delusion web site: www.ka9q.net/vmsk. Curious about what you think. I believe I know your answer already, but just providing a little food for thought.

I have chosen to not engage in edit wars with you. Happy for you that you have such abundance of time, I don't these days.... I can handle losing a few wee battles here and there. In the end, it will not be important. Enjoy your Wikipedia page, but my next prediction is that you will be tearing down all of your negative comments, as well. And also be remembered right beside Phil as missing something you never should have. 2 negative footnotes in history. Time for a glass of fine wine.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Knightsurge (talk • contribs) 19:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Not really sure who you are, or what your point is. That "paper" is the same old nonsense, just recondensed. And as of the time of this writing, Karn's website seems to be there! ([3]). Oli Filth^(talk) 00:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I have added citation in article PHP

The revision history can be seen in~ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=PHP&diff=180575719&oldid=180571521

However, my edit is quickly reverted by User:Hu12. I think that the reason may be I removed your Wikipedia:citation needed note (because I have added citation...), but I did n ot told this in the edit summary. Since I don`t know whether my citation is appropriate, I did not revert the edit of User:Hu12, and I would like to ask you how to make an appropriate citation for "the fact that this is a criticism of PHP". From the comment of PHP users and my experience of using various programming languages, I strongly believe that the fact is a criticism of PHP. QQ (talk) 19:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The point is, the list on the PHP article isn't (or shouldn't be) a list of every editor's pet peeves with PHP, because that would be "original research" (see WP:Original research). The items on the list should be well-known criticisms, that can be sourced (i.e. cited) to a reliable source (see WP:Reliable sources), e.g. an article from a respected website or journal. Oli Filth^(talk) 21:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

One Time Password

I noticed that you reverted the addition on man in the middle attacks and OTP. One of the major flaw of OTP is the susceptibility to these attacks. It is a good idea to mention a solution that can overcome it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.86.2.108 (talk) 20:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I reverted the addition of an external link which could easily be interpreted as spam, yes. Oli Filth^(talk) 20:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Third-order intercept point

I respect your professional involvement in RF engineering. Since you undo all my editing, the reason of my editing was:
1. To elaborate the definition with a practical real life example which I am involved.
2. In the theory section, it is written that the 1 dB compression point falls approximately 14 dB below the IP3/TOI value, while the rule of thumb section said this is 10 dB. My updated rule of thumb correct that to 14 dB.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesliu (talk • contribs) 11:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, sorry I didn't reply earlier. I originally reverted your edits because, at a quick glance, they mostly appeared to be "bad" - in terms of incorrect formatting, etc. I didn't notice that you'd fixed the inconsistency in the article. As I'm not an RF engineer (more DSP/baseband) I don't know off the top of my head which is correct, 10 or 14 dB; if you're sure that it's 14 dB, then let's fix the article (although, if possible, we should probably find a source for this). Oli Filth^(talk) 12:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Z-transform - "Example 3 math problem"

Somebody has doubted in correctness of Example 3 in the Z-transform article and you have told him that it is OK. I added another comment about this "issue". Could you please take a look at it one more time? Thanks a lot. Nejko (talk) 12:22, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Fine

Fine, just don't write at my wall... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlir91 (talk • contribs) 15:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Trellis LMS

you have marked my article for speedy deletion claiming it is about a company but it is not. Please review your actions. --Shaddyz (talk) 20:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Empty threats

Please don't bother me with empty threats. I do what I want. That includes criticizing people who aren't competent enough to be editors. The hope is that they will take a hint and leave editing to those of us who know what we're doing. 76.178.252.151 (talk) 21:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

How nice for you. Any more, and your IP address will be blocked from editing here. Oli Filth^(talk) 21:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

DVB-H

Hello Oli, I'd appreciate having your opinion on the title of this article: DVB-H and evolution to DVB-SH. It is discussed here. --Cantalamessa (talk) 22:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7