User talk:Digitalradiotech

I've added something to the discussion page. BTW, it doesn't say on your user page that you're a Wikipedia administrator, yet this message sounds as if you are, so could you say whether you are an administrator or not. Thanks.

I'm not an admin (the message is a standard template). Oli Filth 16:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the main article and the discussion page you'll see that I've added something to the discussion page but the Norwegian person has just reverted back to his preferred and completely incorrect and biased edit. He basically doesn't understand the technology and cannot back up his claims, so I feel perfectly within my rights to revert back to the correct version.

That's fair enough, but I suggest referring to

Wikipedia:Resolving_disputes rather than continual reverts, as that approach is clearly not improving the situation... Oli Filth 16:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

How about sections 4, 5 and 6?? Oli Filth 17:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All of those options seem to require people that don't understand the technologies, so you'd get the "oooooooo, it's digital, it must be better" effect.Digitalradiotech 17:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, input from others (even if it's non-expert) is a better situation than continuous ping-ponging between two conflicting edits, which essentially makes the article unusable. I'm not sure what makes you think that "oooooooo, it's digital, it must be better" will be the outcome.

Secondly, from the conversation at Talk:Digital_Audio_Broadcasting#3RR, the problems seem to involve whether claims are neutral or biased, whether claims are verifiable, and whether the cited references are reputable. These are all issues that don't necessarily involve technical expertise in DAB.

Thirdly,

Wikipedia:Resolving_disputes points you towards people that are better at finding an approach to settling the "dispute" than anyone currently involved is. Oli Filth 18:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi, yes, audio codecs do have the equivalent of mean opinion scores. There's a BS.1116 standard that's called something like "subjective testing of small impairments to audio" or something like that, which is used to compare audio quality levels of audio codecs - there's quite a few of these listening tests on the Hydrogen Audio forum [1]. It could be done for FM vs DAB, but it would require quite a bit of work to set up such a test and a fair few people to take part.

This is getting absurd, so I've reported both yourself and

Yes, it is completely absurd that I made a large compromise to end this reversion war and then this nutter carried on reverting it and I received no support. Thanks very much. Digitalradiotech 08:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have been

That's called an

autoblock, and unfortunately sometimes they last after the regular block has expired. I've removed it, you should be able to edit now. If not, let me know. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks. Digitalradiotech 15:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I see that you've programmed your bot to correct things like Mhz and stuff, so I was wondering if you could add the confusion between how to signify the units of bit rate. The usual mistake is to use 'Kbps' when they should have put 'kbps', because the 'k' stands for 1,000, not 1,024. The other one is the 'b' which means 'bit' whereas 'B' stands for 'byte'. I don't think I've ever seen 'KBps' used, and if it were used it'd very likely be incorrect. 'kBps' looks so out of place that it might be correctly used, but will probably be a typo. Then again, some would say that the correct SI units are 'kbit/s' anyway, although 'kbps' is so widely used, including in the literature, I personally don't think it would be right to change all the 'kbps' to 'kbit/s' - mainly because I use 'kbps'! ;-) Digitalradiotech 18:22, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. This is a tricky one. Given the lack of consensus, and the frequent misuse of 'b' where people mean 'B', I think the only changes I could safely do are 'Kb/s'->'kb/s' and 'mb/s'->'Mb/s'. Thoughts? CmdrObot 21:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to your comments on Digital Audio Broadcasting: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Specifically, this diff. Oli Filth^(talk) 19:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd already removed the diff you refer to. And if you think you're having sound quality in the "benefits of DAB" section you've got another thing coming. Digitalradiotech 00:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you point out to me where it says that you're not allowed to use the same links more than once on a page please, Oliver? Digitalradiotech 01:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't,

Thanks, that's ALL I needed to know. I will revert back to what I put, because it has been discussed. Don't try to report me, because you're in the wrong here. Digitalradiotech 01:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that this attitude is not going to get you anywhere, except (most likely), blocked for incivility, edit warring and disruptive editing. If your only concern is to force your POV into the article at all points by whatever points necessary, then you're not beneficial to Wikipedia. Oli Filth^(talk) 01:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How on earth you have the audacity to accuse me of trying to provide a POV when you're supporting Ga-David propagating lies on Wikipedia is absolutely beyond me. There is no doubt about this issue, DAB sounds worse than FM, therefore if you are supporting having "sound quality" as a "benefit of DAB" then you are supporting lying, no question. The percentage of people that say such and such is absolutely irrelevant if they're wrong. For example, if you asked the public to vote on what the derivative is of x^2 and they say 3x, would they be right, and would it be justified to link to that result when the answer is obviously 2x? Noooooooooo, obviously not, and yet you're perfectly happy to allow a link to a lie. So don't you dare lecture me about not being good for Wikipedia, because you're aiding lying to all readers of this page. Congratulations. Digitalradiotech 01:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By that standard, some of your links should also be removed. Shall we go along with that, or shall we allow a sensible portrayal of both "sides" of the "argument", leaving links to reputable sources in, with no additional synthesis of interpretation, and allow readers to draw their own conclusions?

I really couldn't give two shits as to which sounds better; I don't even listen to the radio! It's nothing to do with "lying"; as you are aware, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not whether it is true." (

WP:ATT). Most people would consider Ofcom a reputable source, so there's really no question that the link should be left in. Unless you have a source which directly refutes their survey (i.e. it actually states "the Ofcom study was flawed..."), or something which actually says that "the participants were wrong", then please leave this kind of original synthesis to your own website. Oli Filth^(talk) 01:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

For the people to be correct then DAB would have to sound as good as FM, but as it does not, and I have references to prove it, then I am perfectly at liberty to use the links and say that they're wrong. As I say, if 99% of the public voted that the derivative of x^2 is 3x then they would be wrong, so stop trying to support lies. Digitalradiotech 01:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're at liberty to mention the links and state that the results of those experiments differed. Anything more than that is

original synthesis. But given that this is already explained in the criticism section (which is now cross-linked), this would be redundant. Oli Filth^(talk) 02:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Now that you've admitted that I'm at liberty to include the links do not revert it and do not accuse me of vandalism when I revert your illegal reversion. Digitalradiotech 02:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once your block has expired, if you continue to add POV, etc., this whole process will begin again, but your block will undoubtedly last for longer next time. On the other hand, if you add the links in a sensible manner, I'll either revert because they're redundant, or consider doing a section merge as I've already explained. Oli Filth^(talk) 02:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reading the new intro to the page, when my block has expired I will simply revert back to the original intro, because there was nothing wrong with it, and you've expressed bias. I also note that you had a go at me for deleting content, and yet you've deleted content yourself, which I will also add back into the intro. Furthermore, there was absolutely no reason to delete the content that you deleted about DAB and DAB+ being two separate systems, because that is precisely what they are, because you cannot receive DAB+ radio stations on DAB radios. But hey, you're the expert. Oh wait, no, you've admitted that you actually know nothing about DAB tonight, haven't you. Ah, but hey, what does that matter, this is Wikipedia. Digitalradiotech 03:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This was an effort at compromise, and to get the essence of both your "version" and Ga-David's "version" to into a slightly tidier lead. You'll notice that none of the facts nor essence of yours has been removed. For the particular example you've cited, I've replace 1.5 sentences with the equivalent (AFAICS) two-word phrase "backward-incompatible", in an effort to reduce the verbosity (which is particularly important for the lead section).

Your version of the introduction is helping to propagate the lie which is that DAB sounds better than FM. Would you revert an entry on addition that says that proponents of addition claim that 2 + 2 = 5? If you would, on the basis that it is incorrect, then I fail to see why you're supporting the propagation of a lie on the DAB page. There is only one correct and truthful answer to this, and it is that DAB sounds worse than FM. You were in the wrong last night, and yet I'm the one who got blocked! You accused me of a POV edit, when in reality I was RESTATING SOMETHING which has been in the introduction for months and which has been debated at length, and yet you had the audacity to accuse me of POV! Ridiculous. In reality, you were just pissed off because you couldn't get your own way, because you wanted to allow sound quality to be included as a "benefit of DAB", and you simply didn't want me to write anything in the sound quality section. There was no basis for your to accuse me of POV, but you did so because it allowed you to add those warning signs to my talk page, with the sole intention that if I continued to disobey your orders you would try and get me blocked, which you successfully achieved. Congratulations - and it's another victory for the propagation of lies. Digitalradiotech 12:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All I've done is add the mention of the number of stations (a useful fact suitable for an article lead), reword the objectives/reality situation into the proponents/critics version (whilst retaining the description of the studies, and 98% and all that), simplified the sentence structure relating to fading, and tightened the mention of DAB+. Given that all of your "content" is still there, and the only additional fact I've added from Ga-David's version is the "1000 stations", which "lie" is being propagated that wasn't being being propagated in your version?

The discrepancy in your "2+2=5" analogy is that there's no real, notable, dispute out there that this may or may not be the case, certainly not citable to a reliable source. However, in the case of DAB, there is real, tangible dispute about whether it's beneficial or not, and there are citable studies that have supported (to some extent) both viewpoints. Given that (in terms of audio quality), this is all subjective anyway, I can't see how it would be fair to mention only the cons and not the pros. And given that the other aspects of DAB (OFDM, equalisation, interleaving, FEC, etc.) are objective (their performance can be measured or simulated), and have little to do with the ongoing dispute about the low bit-rates, then to not mention them would simply be disingenuous. Oli Filth^(talk) 15:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, no, my analogy was fine, because I said ***********IF************** the public voted that 2+2=5 THEN they would be wrong. Only a loon would suggest that 94% of the public would say that 2+2=5, so you obviously don't realise how much of a pedant you are if you couldn't see that I was taking the analogy to the extreme. Anyway, I don't want to waste any more time communicating with you today, and frankly I don't know why I replied just now, and nor do I understand why I bother with Wikipedia anyway. Digitalradiotech 16:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If there are particular aspects of the changes that you don't like, then please bring them up on the article talk page, and we can go from there. Wholesale reversion without proper discussion isn't going to win people over, and is likely to result in another block for tendentious edit warring. Another tip would be to avoid casting accusations such as "bias", "lying" and "pedantry"; these won't garner you much support either. Oli Filth^(talk) 10:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you're allowed to accuse me of POV whenever you feel like it - i.e. accusing me of bias - but I'm not allowed to accuse you of the same thing? Riiiiiiiiiiiiiight, that seems fair. Digitalradiotech 12:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From your own website, it's obvious that you have a strong POV (which of course, you're entitled to), and from your editing patterns over the last X months, it's obvious that this strongly affects your edits (i.e. your edits are biased), in a way that lowers the quality of the article. Given that I've only stepped in when edit wars have ensued, have no vested interest or opinion in the subject one way or the other, how can you possibly support the accusation of bias on my part? "Bias" doesn't mean "altering someone else's edits". Oli Filth^(talk) 15:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added NOTHING that is POV, because DAB sounds worse than FM and I've already provided links to prove that is the case. DAB cannot be both better and worse than FM. This isn't rocket science. Digitalradiotech 02:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll explain this one last time (even though I'm sure you are aware of what the issue is). The links you've provided offer nothing but equivalent evidence whose results differ. To interpret one as "right" and the other as "wrong" is nothing but POV. And of course DAB can be both better and worse, given that both terms are subjective. There is no objective metric here. Oli Filth^(talk) 03:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The objective metric is the result of a listening test, whose sole reason for existing is to allow objective comparisons to be made. Or haven't you grasped this oh so difficult concept? Try reading up on BS.1116, including the statistical analysis of the results section. Digitalradiotech 03:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The clue is in the name of the standard that you keep touting; "subjective assessment". Whilst I'm not disputing that it's a useful baseline tool to perform a comparison, there's no meaningful way in which an experimental result based on subjective experience can be used to claim that another subject's subjective experience is "wrong". The most you could reasonably do (without resorting to original synthesis) is point to evidence (such as a meta-analysis) that the experiment/study in question was flawed (i.e a source which actually states that). Oli Filth^(talk) 15:38, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't try to patronise me. BS.1116 lays out careful guidelines in order to PROVIDE OBJECTIVITY so that test results will be REPEATABLE. Anyway, I can't be bothered to explain BS.1116 to you, nor to reply to the rest of your pedantic net cop nonsense, because I can't edit anyway. Digitalradiotech 16:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've already suggested a compromise (i.e. merging both "sound quality" sections into one); what's wrong with that idea? Oli Filth^(talk) 01:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As for the subject in hand; what is the benefit to adding these links yet again, when they're already linked in the criticism section, which is now cross-linked from the section in question? Oli Filth^(talk) 01:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is your problem with them being including? Is it that you're biased by any chance? Could that be it? You've been biased against whatever I've done for months now. Digitalradiotech 01:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't have a problem; they're already included.
• Unlikely.
• Unlikely.
• If you feel that people are "biased against" you, that's a reflection on your approach to editing more than anything else. I have no "axe to grind" (to use your words from elsewhere), I'm simply an impartial editor who won't put up with aggressive POV editing. The DAB article isn't the only one that I've dealt with editors like yourself; invariably, the result is that they get blocked or told by multiple admins in no uncertain terms to change their tact. It's your prerogative to continue with this approach, but at this point you're treading on very thin ice; there are several editors whose patience has worn thin. Oli Filth^(talk) 01:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Several editors whose patience has worn thin? Aggressive POV editing? Please remember that you have just admitted that you don't even listen to the radio, and you've never even heard DAB, so you actually have no idea whether what you're sticking up for is correct or false. The reality here is that Ga-David is the person who is doing the POV editing, and I'm merely trying to provide the truth. Of course you don't want to believe that, but that's because you're biased against me.

A massive problem with Wikipedia is the faith in the consensus view, because what if the majority are wrong? That's the exact issue here, because it is well known that DAB sounds worse than FM (even the Director of Radio at Ofcom was overheard by the editor of What Hi-Fi magazine admitting that he didn't think the sound quality on DAB was good enough ([2])), and yet I'm portrayed as being somehow in the wrong, when in reality I am 100% right.

Your justification for what you're doing is based on pure pedantry. You've admitted yourself that you have no idea whether what you're sticking up for is correct or completely wrong - there's another superb example of something that's blatantly wrong about Wikipedia. It's obviously a source of good, but it's absolutely ridiculous that you have people that are treated equally, such as myself and Ga-David, when many people would classify me as an expert on the subject, and he's a mere radio listener (it's either that or he is in the Norwegian DAB industry, in which case he has a massive vested interest), and yet I'm the one who's treated as being in the wrong!!

I really shouldn't care less about this page, because it means nothing in the grand scheme of things, but the only reason I stick to my guns is that I know 100% I'm right, and it bugs me that pedants like yourself think that they can go round policing articles like this one when they know nothing about the subject at hand. Digitalradiotech 02:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll make my response swift, and leave it that:

• If I indeed listened to the radio, then all I'd have is my opinion of DAB, which is completely irrelevant.
• My interest here is limited to ensuring that the article is balanced, and that relevant material is presented, rather than edited out by those who disagree.
• I'm not agreeing with the consensus view because they think that DAB is worse, I'm agreeing with the consensus view because they felt (rightly so) that the article was dangerously imbalanced. The two concepts are completely different.
• What's wrong in this instance is that editors such as yourself have the attitude "I know I'm right, therefore, I should be able to edit the article to present whatever view, at whatever standard, I feel like".
• In all of this, I'm not disagreeing with your views on DAB (I really couldn't care less); I'm disagreeing with your editing approach. If it were Ga-David that was editing in this manner, I'd take exactly the same approach with him. Luckily, he's able to accept that there are differing sources, etc. on the matter, and that the article should be framed accordingly.

Oli Filth^(talk) 02:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You deliberately tried and succeeded in getting me blocked tonight by reverting edits even though you admitted yourself that there is absolutely no rule against duplicating links and therefore there was absolutely no grounds for you to revert my edits, but you kept on reverting anyway and adding warnings along the way and then called in the admin to block me. Digitalradiotech 02:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

but to simply repeat links wherever they contradict (or are contradicted by) the article content is pointless, and redundant. There is already a section set aside for "sound quality" in the "criticism" section. Perhaps a better approach would be to roll all of the sound quality material both "benefits" and "criticism" into a separate "sound quality" section, to avoid redundancy. Oli Filth^(talk) 01:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did to Digital Audio Broadcasting, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Oli Filth^(talk) 01:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did to Digital Audio Broadcasting, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Oli Filth^(talk) 01:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have been temporarily blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

--Stephen 02:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You need to discuss controversial changes (i.e. change that goes against consensus amonge those who have participated in the discussion) on the talk pages prior to editing, or your edits can be mistaken for being done in less than good faith. Ga-david.b 00:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You made some reverts claiming they were agreed on, but they are not. You need to participate i the discussion on the talk pages in order to be able to revert edits like that.

Here are the link to the relevant section on the talkpages for Digital Audio Broadcasting where you can participate in the discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Digital_Audio_Broadcasting#Changes_to_lead_.28and_others.21.29

Ga-david.b (talk) 09:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just writing something on the Talk page now. Digitalradiotech (talk) 09:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good, hopefully we can sort this out. Ga-david.b (talk) 10:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the second time you have reverted the document without being willing to find a solution on the talk pages. I have written in good faith and the best intentions, and I have given a suggestion in advance on how to improve the DAB+ in the intro. Ga-david.b (talk) 16:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I provided an explanation for why your reversion was unacceptable on the Talk page, so stop trying to claim that I'm unwilling to discuss this. Digitalradiotech (talk) 16:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've just looked at the Talk page and you haven't bothered to respond to what I wrote, so stop leaving messages on my Talk page and respond on the DAB Talk page. Digitalradiotech (talk) 16:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please check again. Here is the direct link in case you missed it: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Digital_Audio_Broadcasting&diff=172512075&oldid=172466353 Ga-david.b (talk) 17:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the history of the Talk page : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Digital_Audio_Broadcasting&action=history - I replied to your entries within 30-50 minutes of you posting them, so don't try to accuse me of not responding. Digitalradiotech (talk) 18:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have not accused you of anything. I’m simply asking you to check the talk pages again in order to have a constructiove dialogue on how to make the digtal broadcasting article better, and I have even provided you with a link in order to help you. Ga-david.b (talk) 20:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have suggested a compromise version of the intro about DAB+. Can this work for you?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Digital_Audio_Broadcasting#DAB.2B_in_the_intro

I’m really interested in finding a solution we both can agree on. Ga-david.b (talk) 09:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't made ANY Wikipedia edits since 12.25pm yesterday, see: [4], and that consisted of a ONE-WORD diff: [5]. Therefore, accusing me of edit warring in advance is patently absurd. I've not read the changes you've just made to the DAB+/DMB sub-section, but if I think I can improve the sub-section or if you've made factual errors, I will edit the sub-section, but the message I'm replying to now will be ignored, because as I say, you can't accuse me of edit warring before I've even edited anything! Digitalradiotech (talk) 01:03, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted say that i think you made a good edit to the DAB+ article. Hope we can agree on it. Ga-david.b (talk) 15:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing. Hopefully you can stop leaving supposed warnings on my Talk page before I've even made any edits in future then? Digitalradiotech (talk) 16:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The admins don't seem to concur with your view, please see [6] and [7] Digitalradiotech (talk) 15:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current