User talk:DrPizza

Hi, please ensure that you discuss in the talk page before making big changes to sections such as you did in NTFS. You could have easily added a new section for your content, or at least discussed it with people to see where it best belonged, instead of replace an existing section with content that did not belong to it. You can redo your other changes but please keep this in mind. If your new, welcome to Wikipedia. Quadra23 Sept 26 2005.

DrPizza, I'm saddened by the way your actions in regard to the NTFS article reflect poorly on the nature of editting in Wikipedia. I hope you learn the lesson of communication that makes Wikipedia operate as such a success. Your method of editting, as it looks for my standpoint (and from your wording of that response and from in here) comes out directly across as wanting to stomp out the opinions of others and hurt the feelings of others if they don't agree with you -- whether that was your intention or not, that's how it came across and I noted that in the NTFS talk page to your last post (for which I'm writing this response) due to your exact wording the talk page. If this was not your intention, then you should be more careful about your wording. Please learn to work together as a member of the Wikipedia team, not aiming to tear down others. Thank you. Quadra23 Sept 29, 2005.

I'm trying to excise matters of /opinion/ from the Wikipedia and replace them with matters of /fact/. That has always been my intent, and I am frustrated at your attempts to prevent me from doing so. I've provide considerable evidence to support the edits I initially made--the link to microsoft.com, the demonstrations of the files being created with the "illegal" filenames--and yet you appear unwilling to relent and unable to even acknowledge that Windows can create the files originally listed on NTFS volumes. I'm not tearing down /you/. I'm tearing down /the incorrect information/. This isn't a matter of opinion, or subject to your point of view. It's pure objective fact. The Windows implementation of NTFS does not have the filename limitations you claim. It does have the filename limitations I claim. I'm particularly disappointed that you clearly removed my original edits without even reading them fully or trying to understand them; your comment that they were "variables" is particularly telling. The document I linked listed those filenames (that is, after all, why I linked it--to provide a source for the list) and it was perfectly clear that they were not in fact variables. They really do begin with $s. DrPizza 02:32, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Relent? Let's put this back into prospective, Your the one calling people "idiot" behind their back as opposed to "perhaps uninformed in this matter", and phrases such as "completely wrong" as opposed to "Maybe your not aware of this" -- don't you see how that's a tear down? Additionally, you have very little basis for such language since your original edit contained no such documentation except for the un-sourced message: Put in real reserved names, and fix some factual and formatting errors. From your prospective that may be linking, but I don't have direct line to your brain -- only you do. You originally stated no basis except to essentially say "this is the real factual information", which in the court of law for example, would still need some sort of source. All those links to which you refer only came out after I questioned you about it. I also questioned you to post into the talk page before making the edit, which you finally did but it did take long enough. And yes, the way you came across was clearly tearing down, which is why I separated your intention from your words. I'm not talking what's right and what's wrong right now, I'm talking about how your language behaves regardless of your original intention (our tongues -- and our typed words, can easily betray us). Don't you see the difference? That's my point. Quadra23 Sept 29, 2005.

Un-sourced? My original edit contained a footnote (number 9) which linked to a source for the list of reserved filenames. It's since been reinstated. So please. Don't claim that I didn't provide a basis for the changes. I did. It's dishonest to claim otherwise. And rather foolish; anyone can look at that version of the page and see the footnote in question. Would you like another screenshot to drive the point home? DrPizza 12:21, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Contained a footnote? This certainly wasn't referenced in your comment (that I just quoted). Explain how you can just assume someone would know that is what you added it for? I saw the content trashed and no reason mentioned within the content area (Reserved File Names") itself for it's removal and your comment certainly didn't point to it. Could you please tell me how hard it is to simply add to your comment "see footnote #9 for details"? What do you think a comment is meant to include? You honestly used inappropriate language in the Talk page to which you still have no response and neither in your comment now and no screenshot will redeem you from attempting to gossip against me on the NTFS talk page. I clearly already stated that my issue was not between right and wrong but how you come across through your own postings and yet you continue to return to the "right and wrong" issue. Quadra23 Sept 30, 2005.

Uh. Yeah. Why would my "comment" have the footnote? I put the footnote where it belongs. In the article itself. Duh. I mean, I would assume that before anyone went round trashing an article (as you did) they would at least read what they were trashing first. The comment gave a brief explanation of what I changed. To find out exactly what I changed you'd have to read the changes themselves. This is perfectly normal. Look at other comments about edits. People just summarize what they've changed; in the vast majority of cases (for this particular article, all bar one of the edits) they don't include the source for their change or a discussion of their change or anything like that. Just a summary of what's changed. For the source, you've got to read the article. Just like damn near every other change made to the page. As such, I stand by my comments in the NTFS talk page; you're desperately flailing about trying to find some rationale for your removal of my changes, but are unable to do so; first you claim that they "were variables not names" (which they aren't; they're names), then you claim that the names you provided "are reserved" (which was demonstrated to be false), and now, having given up on the previous claims, you're saying that I provided "no source" for my edits. Which anyone who bothered to read the changes will know to be false. I wonder, what will your next attempt to discredit me be? DrPizza 10:57, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Other rationale? Oh you mean like the rationale I already mentioned to which you still have yet to respond and I repeated several times (i.e. name calling)? I had the decency to at least post a message in your talk page (which didn't even exist before I posted it) about making some sort of mention in the talk page, and I believe I was very respectful in it. Your comment would reference the footnote...this is where the duh part comes in. Your comments are blantantly started in arrogant wording which is also proven by your own naming calling in the NTFS talk page. I clearly said my point was not in what was right and wrong, your still being ignorant about that and beating around the bush. Why do you think the talk pages even exist? I've already stated I saw no mention in it. If I'm so desparate why have you still not responded to my point on this page and the talk page about your name calling? Trash talk is for people that don't work as team. I suppose that is you, correct? Quadra23 Oct 1, 2005.

Your rationale for removing my (correct) edits can't have been because I called you an idiot because I only called you an idiot after you removed the edits. I believe that by removing an edit without even bothering to read it and then posting a patronizing message on my talk page you were far from respectful. I think the talk pages exist so that people can discuss contentious issues. But since the edits I made weren't contentious (because they were simple facts provided with a source) there was no need for discussion. Where did you demonstrate "working as a team" when you decided to remove the edits? DrPizza 04:41, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Where do you come in with the right to call someone names, is that the only justification you can come up with? Calling names based on one single edit reversal is still unjustified childish behaviour which you chose to engage in. For example, if I said you did something foolish (one thing), it is very different from me calling you a fool (everything you do, and personal character). Such a comment as you made is still unjustified and a demonstration of team ability and personal maturity (mature people don't trash talk). You tell me how calling someone an "idiot" demonstrates good teamwork behaviour and I'll tell you how it doesn't. I demonstrated teamwork by saying use the talk page right from my first comment, when you finally used it, you used wording that was obviously a put-down. Do you actually choose to miss my point or does it somehow still elude you? No one is insulting your character, so why then are engaging in insulting the character of others? Quadra23 Oct 2, 2005.

So you'd be much happier if I dimissed your behaviour as merely idiotic? Well, if it makes you happy, OK. Your decision to revert my (correct) changes was idiotic. Happy now? DrPizza 23:13, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Hey, if you'd want someone to call you an idiot go right ahead, not everyone goes after talking others down but I suppose if that's representative of your own attitude towards other people (maturity) and how you would want people to treat you, go right ahead. Quadra23 Oct 3, 2005.

Hey, Quadra23. If you doubt that DrPizza and "Not DrPizza" are distinct individuals, how about clicking on the history tab? It might be rather enlightening. Although logic does not seem to be your strong suit. You claim that DrPizza insulted you "behind your back", specifically calling you "idiot", yet you show no evidence for this. And, yes, you have failed to relent the point you attempted to defend (that your original list of reserved addresses is reserved by NTFS), instead introducing logical fallacies and diversionary tactics when faced with incontrovertible facts. Also, DrPizza is not a North American english speaker, and thus, unless you really wish to risk stepping on a lot of non-North American toes, I'd suggest you refrain from your already broken argument about language and intentions. BTW, the links were in his original edit on the page, again, shown by the history tab. Also, I'd note that the only one accusing the other of immaturity or any other alleged character flaws, is you, User:Quadra23. If you're going to make such a serious allegation, rhetoric dictates you at least have a basis in fact for it. Thus far, you've only shown some tenuous and unsustainable argument about "language" and "intention".

First, I honestly don't care if your different or not. Oh really now, not behind my back? He posted the "idiot" message in the NTFS talk page when he strictly knows who removed the content (regardless of whether he mentioned a specific name), and in that way it was behind my back with the sole intent of telling all of Wikipedia without giving the full whole story (the perfect combination to generate gossip). Such as, his original edit had no real source of proof when first added, as mentioned above. You must be new to Wikipedia, articles get trashed all the time without a real source for the changes, DrPizza obviously is to not even realize that -- it's the nature of anyone-can-edit programs. DrPizza has failed to show that his intent was strictly on bringing out what's false as his words can clearly be offensive to the individual about which he writes, as proven in this talk page and the NTFS talk page. I suggest you read the whole story before writing your own conclusion, like you have done already. All that does is show real ignorance to the real facts. Quadra23 Sept 29, 2005.

"First, I honestly don't care if your different or not." Now that is a lie: "I have a hard time not being that you are really not DrPizza since your argument starts with another thing as if you were DrPizza. (sic)" You only say you don't care now since it's been revealed you were wrong. It's another instance where you shift the argument when you've been proven wrong and engage in a smear campaign. And what do you mean by, "behind your back"? That would mean that he would've said "idiot" somewhere he knows you're not going to look (like, say, the History tab, which you don't seem to know about). Presumably, someone who bothers to edit the NTFS page would clearly read its associated Talk page. So, once again, you've failed to provide the evidence, and again, shift blame and bring up wholly irrelevant issues to cover your tracks. It reminds me of Michael Brown being questioned by Congress. You've failed to demonstrate you had the correct facts. You've failed to justify your ideology that wikipedia should only be limited to what you deem "mainstream". And you've failed demonstrate any evidence for your ad hominem attacks, instead, insulting our intelligence by pointing out blaringly obvious facts and insinuating that we are stupid (unlike DrPizza, your language leaves no room for such doubt, and your profile clearly indicates you have no issues with the North American dialect of the English language--Or are you going to backtrack away from your earlier broken argument about language and intention now?), and casting blame in all directions, hoping it sticks somewhere. These are signs of gross immaturity and a complete failure to be able to put forth a rational, logical argument. These are your faults, not ours. -- Not DrPizza

Actually my point was your too busy standing up for DrPizza at every turn (like I said before, several times now, without looking at the whole situation) that you might as well be him -- think about it, that's what it has been. LOL, you get funnier all the time I have no reason to run a smear campaign. Go ahead make a long pointless argument like you just did, the sources I mentioned to DrPizza's own words speak for themselves and you can't just try to sugar-coat them or run a smear campaign against me with them. There is absolutely no basis to call anyone an "idiot" at any time unless you know for absolute certain that they know nothing at all -- which you obviously don't know over the internet. That is fault of both of you and demonstration of your own level of maturity in the way you have chosen to display it. Quadra23 Sept. 30, 2005.

NTFS

Not completely wrong -- you didn't read the note that stated it applied to Win32 implementations that accompanied the listing of the names. Your note contradicts itself in this way -- the Win32 implementation application was noted. As a matter of question, what else runs on NTFS other then Win32 (it's a filesystem made for Microsoft OSes and to apply to new ones that are coming out such as WinFS)? If it wasn't a closed-source filesystem I suppose your comment on it not being part of NTFS might have some basis. Split the section into two but don't just remove the reserved file names (since they are). Such file names cannot be added or changed in a command prompt unless escaped properly. Thanks for considering the whole prospective and not just POV. Quadra23 Sept. 27, 2005.

Yes completely wrong. You can create your so-called "reserved" names even in Win32 (if you know how; it's documented and uses standard APIs, so it's not a hack or anything).

Really? Try opening aux in Windows Notepad and see if you get any errors. Look at Win32 it points to the Windows API. I suppose you also have some documentation to show how a reserved file name such as the one above can be opened in a program such as Notepad (written by Microsoft people) on Windows if it's not the API. Don't be so absolute unless you no every single fact regarding the subject. Quadra23 Sept 28, 2005.

You must pass the filename on the command-line; the common file dialogues in Windows can't handle them unless created with OFN_NOVALIDATE (which notepad doesn't do) because they attempt to perform faulty filename validation. So, for example, for my previously provided screenshot, type "notepad.exe \\?\c:\illegal-names\aux" and notepad can open, read, write, save the file. Filenames passed on the command-line aren't subject to the same faulty validation. DrPizza 01:56, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

My point is if I type notepad aux.txt I get an error box that says Access Denied. How can you say that's not in the API? If I try it with another program that isn't bound by the specified limitations, such as textpad aux.txt (yes, both opened from the command line) It opens a file with the directory path of \\.\aux\. Now, if that is not reserved then why when I choose to save it (regardless of file extension, and even when quoted) does the file already exist? Finally, using Microsoft Word such as "windword c:\aux.txt" it returns the following error: Word cannot open the document: user does not have access privileges (c:\aux.php) -- even for Administrative users.

And? I never said to type "notepad aux.txt" so who cares whether it works? The API has two modes of behaviour; one which tries to enforce reserved names, one which does not. If you use the former behaviour then obviously it won't work. That's why I told you to use the latter behaviour. But all this is beside the point, because it has NOTHING to do with NTFS (because there's the same dual behaviour on FAT/ISO9660/UDF partitions).

Explain to the average computer user that to create a file with that name (or any of the others) that they need to use the syntax of "notepad \\?\c:\illegal-names\aux" every single time they wish to access the file -- it is far better for the average computer user to stay away from the practice of using that filename completely. The need to use escaping code is a clear indication that such a filename was not the natural intention, or meant for normal operation, of Windows NT (the reason for NTFS). Consequentially, the file has to be deleted using the exact same method (which looks far more like a need to work around the API). Now, I would perfectly agree with you on that basis if such extra code didn't need to be added and it just worked. How is this not a limitation of the Windows API? I already gave you three Windows programs that do not accept opening such files unless that extra code was used. Quadra23 Sept 28, 2005.

Who cares? The article is not about "best practice naming convensions for Win32 filenames". It's about NTFS. And if the extra code _can_ be used to open the files then clearly the API isn't limited; it can self-evidently use them. If APPLICATIONS only use the "reserved name" filename handling mechanisms that's hardly Win32's fault. Win32 allows and documents both modes of operation.

If the Win32 API were, as you claim, limited, how would the \\?\ mechanism work _at all_? Answer: it would not. And none of this has anything to do with NTFS, which doesn't reserve these names at all.

The article is about NTFS, the filesystem; a reasonable subject to cover, then, would be the theoretical limits of the filesystem and perhaps implementation limits of common implementations. What it isn't is an article on the restrictions the Win32 API by default imposes on filenames. It's about NTFS. NTFS is not subject to any of the filename limitations you claimed. Nor is specific implementation of NTFS that MS ships with Windows subject to any of those filename limitations (nor has any implementation been; even NT 3.1 can create those names). Nor, in actual fact, are current implementations of Win32 subject to any such limitations (using the full object manager path to the filename).

What else runs on NTFS other than Win32? The obvious API is POSIX. The NT POSIX subsystem (and its Interix/SFU extensions/replacements) doesn't have any Win32 limitations (not surprising; it's not Win32); it's the "obvious" choice because it it comes from MS, and is a supported addition to Windows, and was one of the things that the OS was designed to support from day one.

The simple fact is that *NTFS* does not, in any way, reserve those filenames that you claim. It *does*, however, reserve the filenames I mentioned. No, they're not variables. They're actual files. You can see them with certain APIs and non-MS NTFS drivers (and of course by examining the disk's data directly). Their names really are unusable, regardless of the API use.

If you want to list those names then they belong in an article on Win32--not least because they apply to all Win32 file naming (whether it be a FAT variant or NTFS or HPFS or SMB/CIFS or NFS or WebDAV or any custom third-party filesystem). This is because that's where the special handling of those filenames is performed; in Win32, not the filesystem driver. Non-Win32 subsystems (including POSIX and most of the kernel and executive) aren't subject to those limits.

DrPizza 17:38, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question for some reason -- probably since NTFS only works with DOS and Windows (currently, if that ever changes the article could be changed). I love you attempt to be very direct on the "completely wrong" ... perhaps you have an in to the NTFS source code to make such a large claim in that wording -- otherwise you could be completely wrong yourself and not even know it. If you have an in to the NTFS source code to prove that it's not inherit I would love to see proof of that as well.

The posting does mention Win32 implementations, why are you arguing with that, do you have specific proof of otherwise? Additionally, I've never seen any files in Windows with a $ char in them and I'm be quite surprised to see it -- that's why I have a hard time believing that. I suppose all I want to know is how you act so certain that NTFS does not have that limitation, and if this limitation is placed on anything that runs on it (i.e. DOS and Windows) then isn't it fair to say that it is a limitation? For example, if a program allows an input of 1000 characters but is only accessible (as in no other way at all) by another program that only accepts 100 characters you would say the input limit is 100 characters. Make sense? It might not be a limitation directly on NTFS but with the current state of DOS and Windows (especially in mainstream use) than people deserve to know this is a possible limitation. Quadra23 Sept 27, 2005.

Which specific question? You asked "what else runs on NTFS other then Win32". I answered it directly: POSIX (which isn't Win32) runs on NTFS. I don't need to look at the NTFS source code to know that it doesn't reserve the filenames you claim. The simple fact that I can create files with those names demonstrates the point. That's how I'm certain. Because I can create the files. Check it out: http://quiscalusmexicanus.org/downloads/illegalNames.png How could those files exist if what you said were true? Windows allows the creation of files with those names.

You won't see the files with the $ names in Windows. It hides them. That's why MS enumerate them on the page I linked to. Because that's the only standard way you'll know their names. But try creating a file in the root directory with one of those names, see what happens. It certainly won't work.

I'll repeat the last quarter of my statement with some changes, so that you know what I mean specifically. If this limitation is placed on anything that runs on it (i.e. DOS and Windows) then isn't it fair to say that it is a limitation? For example, if a program allows an input of 1000 characters but is only accessible (as in no other way at all) by another program that only accepts 100 characters you would say the input limit is 100 characters. Make sense? It might not be a limitation directly on NTFS but with the current state of DOS and Windows (especially in mainstream use) than people deserve to know this is a possible limitation. IF nothing else, this still deserves a mention under limitations (if even limited with a link to page that details these other limits). Quadra23 Sept 27, 2005.

In response to POSIX here is some readily available information, first the quote and then the link , "You may be wondering--what does POSIX support do for me? In general, the answer is not much. :^) The purpose behind NTFS's POSIX support is to facilitate the migration of software to the Windows NT environment. Unless you are a programmer, you probably will never need to know anything more about POSIX support under NTFS than what I am telling you here. Based on my research, it appears that even if you are a programmer, NT POSIX support may be much more about sizzle than steak." PCGuide

. POSIX is not meant to be mainstream and is simply about transfer from UNIX to Windows NT -- back to the limitations of the Win32 environment from which that entire section onm file limitations started. Although I would keep your stuff handy if newer versions of DOS and Windows allow this support, I appreciate your insights at least. Quadra23 Sept 27, 2005. .

You'll note that the article from PC Guide you've referenced starts with the sentence, "Unless you are a programmer, you probably will never need to know anything more about POSIX support under NTFS than what I am telling you here." Are you arguing then that the NTFS article should not encompass information that may be of use to programmers and the technically curious? Seems a rather odd position to take for an "encyclopedia". -- Not DrPizza

Okay, if you want to nit-pick go ahead since I have a specific reason I mentioned that in the first place. The reason I included that line is to prove that POSIX is not for the average user, it's for programmers -- therefore not mainstream. Besides which, you were the one who brought in POSIX to the discussion when you yourself would have been more aware of that than I would be. Quadra23 Sept 27, 2005.

It's not "nitpicking", it's comprehending what the author wrote. At any rate, you are essentially stating that wikipedia should not include what would be considered encyclopedic information on a particular subject. Basically, you'd argue that the entry for the Battle of Trafalgar should elide the order of battle, since that is only of interest to hardcore war history and naval battle enthusiasts. Besides that fallacy, you are also wrong that POSIX is out of the mainstream. Many enterprises have very heterogenous environments where that support is vital to gluing different platforms together. These include just about every major financial institution in the G-8 which have a mix of mainframes, Unix servers and Windows servers (and in many cases, Windows on ATMs). If your bank is not mainstream, then I don't know what is, then. -- Not DrPizza

I'll repeat the last quarter of my statement with some changes, so that you know what I mean specifically. If this limitation is placed on anything that runs on it which it isn't

(i.e. DOS and Windows) then isn't it fair to say that it is a limitation? No, because there is no such limitation

For example, if a program allows an input of 1000 characters but is only accessible (as in no other way at all) by another program that only accepts 100 characters you would say the input limit is 100 characters. Sure. But that's not the situation here.

Make sense? It might not be a limitation directly on NTFS but with the current state of DOS and Windows (especially in mainstream use) The current state of DOS is irrelevant (DOS has no NTFS support except through third-party hacks). The current state of Windows is that there IS NO LIMITATION, as my screenshot demonstrated.

than people deserve to know this is a possible limitation. IF nothing else, this still deserves a mention under limitations (if even limited with a link to page that details these other limits). But it's not a limitation of NTFS, because current NTFS implementations have no such restriction.

In response to POSIX here is some readily available information, first the quote and then the link , "You may be wondering--what does POSIX support do for me? In general, the answer is not much. :^) The purpose behind NTFS's POSIX support is to facilitate the migration of software to the Windows NT environment. Unless you are a programmer, you probably will never need to know anything more about POSIX support under NTFS than what I am telling you here. Based on my research, it appears that even if you are a programmer, NT POSIX support may be much more about sizzle than steak." PCGuide (a) I am a programmer (b) that information is obsolete. The POSIX layer in Windows has become more capable and mainstream than ever before. Windows Server 2003 R2 (coming in the next few months) will ship with a full POSIX layer plus a shell and the standard utilities (IOW it'll provide an environment much like BSD or SysV). What you're quoting was true back in the days of NT 4, when the POSIX support was extremely limited. But it's not today. Read up on SFU http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserversystem/sfu/default.mspx. SFU's future is to be completely integrated into Windows becoming ever more capable such that it'll be a standard part of the OS (in the Longhorn Server era): http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1855274,00.asp

. POSIX is not meant to be mainstream I never said it was. It's simply something other than Win32 that runs on NTFS, which is what you asked for.

and is simply about transfer from UNIX to Windows NT Not any more. That's true in the old days, when there was no shell, no utilities, just a limited API. But it's not true these days. People use it for system administration and software development and application serving and all sorts of things like that.

-- back to the limitations of the Win32 environment from which that entire section onm file limitations started. But Win32 doesn't preclude the use of those filenames anyway!

Really? Try opening aux in Windows Notepad (written by Microsoft people) and see if you get any errors opening it. Also look at Win32, it points to the Windows API, I think there must be a reason, don't you? Quadra23 Sept 28, 2005.

Although I would keep your stuff handy if newer versions of DOS and Windows allow this support, I appreciate your insights at least. They already provide this support and it's frankly incredible that you won't concede that point. The simple fact is the names I listed are reserved and the names you listed are not. Tell you what. I've shown you how the names you listed aren't reserved (by virtue of the fact that you can create files with those names). How about you show me how the names I listed aren't in fact reserved (by creating files using those names in the root directory of an NTFS volume). DrPizza 06:36, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Another thing: without accurate information on Reserved names in NTFS, this article is of questionable value to anyone attempting to learn about NTFS to conduct forensics on an NTFS volume. i.e. if you tell them "there's no way to create a file named aux", when clearly there is a way, that is both inaccurate and misleading, ending up wasting a lot of time in an investigation. By your dubious "not mainstream" doctrine, this NTFS article would be a lot shorter. However, since it is already attempting to spell out a number of NTFS features that clearly are not of interest to a non-technical person (thereby putting into question your "not mainstream" doctrine), including what names are reserved in NTFS, that information should be accurate. The article, as it reads now, is not accurate. It's not nitpicking, it's about being correct. -- Really Not DrPizza

I have a hard time not being that you are really not DrPizza since your argument starts with another thing as if you were DrPizza. If your not nit-picky then why do you dissect every single statement if it doesn't match your opinion? I don't really feel like stooping to that level since first this isn't worth a long argument, and second because of the simple facts that brought us to NTFS in the first place. NTFS was made by Microsoft to run their Windows NT-based operating systems and as such is currently subject, under Microsoft products, to the rules of the Windows API that has these limitations (same company makes both the filesystem and the operating system). First, the article already includes mention NOTE: This only applies to the implementations used in Microsoft Windows. Other implementations may or may not be affected that already accounts for your entire argument that it isn't solely NTFS. Because of this connection between filesystem and OS (both controlled by the same company, again) it should at least get some sort of mention. Now unlike the previous solution that had no discussion, I have two solutions that I can think of (1) reserved filenames split into two sections, one mentioning that when running NTFS under Windows the following limitations exist and the other mentioning your list of file names, (2) A slight mention of read here for filenames that are reserved under Windows and link to another article (possibly a sub-section in Windows API) that details these limitations are subject to using Windows. This is exactly why things of this magnitude should be done with a discussion first as I first told you. This is how this "encyclopedia" as you call it really works. Quadra23 Sept 28, 2005.

He's saying "another thing" because "Not DrPizza" and "Really Not DrPizza" are the same. He is, however, not DrPizza.

Your proposed solution is untenable because you're still not grasping the fundamental fact of the situation: Win32 does not prohibit the names you listed. The NTFS implementation that MS ships does not prohibit the names you listed. There cannot be two lists of filenames reserved in NTFS because there is only one set of names that are reserved; the list I provided. As the screenshot I provided proves beyond any doubt, those names can be created on NTFS volumes in Windows.

Even if you're hell-bent on discussing the specifics of the implementation and not the design limits of the filesystem, the list of names you provided is incorrect. Even in Windows you can create those names. Even with the disclaimer that you keep talking about, the list is wrong. When we ignore the abstract details of the filesystem and look only at the Windows implementation, we see that those filenames are not reserved and can be created and used.

I'm really not sure how to make this any plainer and can't understand your continued desire to mislead readers; the implementation of NTFS in MS Windows does not reserve the filenames you claim. It does reserve the filenames I listed. These things can be trivially demonstrated and completely uncontentious.

DrPizza 01:56, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

NTFS reserved chars

Is it forward-slash or back-slash? Back-slash seems much more reasonable. Quadra23 changed it to forward-slash, and you didn't fix that - is that your intent or overlook? --tyomitch (another msdn blogs fan) 06:00, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Ooops, it is indeed backslash (directory delimiter), in addition to colon (stream/attribute delimiter). I must have missed that one when reinstated the previous fixes I made.

I think our discussion is going to a level that will only be solved violating NDAs.

I propose you a tie.

I invite you to talk about the different abstractions made by Interix, POSIX and so on for allowing some characters that the WinXX subsystem prohibites, and we forget about the NTFS (not any implementation) reserved characters (as that infobox section is not used and I think, it isn't really useful and will delete it across articles)

Just don't say they are reserved by the NTFS specification and also don't say that CHKDSK doesnt check for illegal filenames.

I think it is a fair pact that will improve the Wikipedia readers experience (while our current discussion, that will never end, do the reverse)

— Claunia 19:28, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Please sign all comments

You are right that people can go back through the page history and work out who is saying what, but with the Wikipedia servers being the way they are, sometimes you are lucky if you can load one page successfully. Loading 31 pages just to be able to follow a single conversation might be, at times, excruciatingly painful if not impossible. And when all it takes is adding ~~~~ after a comment... AlistairMcMillan 01:15, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, I've noticed that with my discussions as well. It makes it very confusing to tell what he says, and using : to indent responses make it easier to tell when his comment was posted -- the little things that still matter. Quadra23 21:53, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Confusing Username

Hello, DrPizza. Would you be in any way related to user:Dr. Pizza? If so, please read WP:SOCK on sockpuppet policy. If you are not related to Dr. Pizza, sorry for this interuption. Thank You, user:Purplepox01 19:28, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Nope.

They are not the same person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.95.143.109 (talk) 16:21, 21 August 2011 (UTC)