Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:23, 1 November 2007

Categorization

Hello! I've removed some of your category contributions since they were redudant, see Misplaced Pages:Categorization#When to use categories: "An article should not be in both a category and its subcategory, e.g. Microsoft Office is in Category:Microsoft software, so should not also be in Category:Software". Best regards //RustyCale 09:33, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks RustyCale, I was aware of the problem but you are one step ahead of me.

Mahjongg

Do you love Mahjongg? :P -wshun 12:36, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, yes, both kinds (the multi player version and the single player version), but actually my nick is also inspired by my real name, Martin de jongg.

Actually both my first name and my last name are so common in Holland that it was hard to think of a login or e-mail name that was not allready in use, (even ten years ago) so instead of choosing to log in as mdejong245 I chose to use mahjongg as my login name, and I also started to use it as my nickname.

Ski tow?

Personally, I think adding ski tow to "category: transportation" is a bit of a stretch. Ski tows do transport people from A to B, but so do escalators and elevators and merry-go-rounds (well, sort of), none of which I really think of as transportation. To me, "transportation" means of carrying people or goods to various places, not just back and forth between locked-in spots. I didn't change it, but just thought I'd mention it. - DavidWBrooks 13:58, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yes I agree, there are several topics that are in a "grey area", you have to draw the line somewhere!

For example I could have chosen to include a topic about the "Transportation of illness" from one person to the next. Because you could argue about this as being a form of "Transport" of bacteria or virii, but that would really be a stretch. (actually I did add topics about transporting heath and information).

But personally I think that adding anything that is used to transport persons or goods should be included, Elevators and escalators are used to transport people so I added those, but yes the decision to where to draw the line is a difficult one.

But think, if every topic should fall in *some* main category, then in what other category should a ski tow fall than in this one?

Not including the "Transportation of illness" is acceptable because it falls under the main category of "category:medicine" and a person who "walks the topics tree" is more likely to start with the topic of Science=>Medicine than Science=>Transport, but a tow lift does not fall directly under any other main category that I can think of, so I included it in this one.

Okay, I have given this some more thought and came up with the idea of creating the sub category Vertical transportation devices, of which the ski tow is a member (along wth lifts and escalators etc). So I could replace the "category: Transportation" with the category Vertical transportation devices. I hope this solves your objection, although the creation of Vertical transportation devices may cause others to object that this sub category is a bit of a stretch. We will see......

lists of monarchs, &c.

These should be categorized in Category:Lists of office-holders, not in Category:Lists of people. john k 18:38, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Ah, I see....and does that mean that when the &c. happens to be currently in office I should _only_ put them in Category:Lists of current office-holders ? not in both, nor in both this category and the category 'Lists of people'? What is the rule here exactly? and why?

I know that generally I should not put a subject in both a category and a subcategory of that category, but sometimes the _why_ of this 'rule' seems less obvious when applied to a somewhat more involved practical situation instead of the simple example that is given to explain this 'rule' in the help pages.

For example: perhaps I shouldn't categorise "red headed asian jews" in the category 'Lists of people' because there is a category asian jews of which red headed asian jews" is simply a subcategory so I would be breaking the rule if I did. But then, 'asian jews' itself is simply a subcategory of 'jews', so perhaps I should not put 'asian jews' in 'Lists of people' too, which is absurd...

Shouldn't the categorising be there to help navigate between similar topics? It seems to me that strictly adhering to the 'subtopics rule' is not allways helpfull.

Anyway, it is not only the six or so variations on "lists of monarchs" that are to be moved to Category:Lists of office-holders when this 'rule' must be strictly adhered to, but there are perhaps 50 or so other entry's in lists of people too that can be loosly interpreted as office-holders. List of diplomats for example, or List of Byzantine Emperors.

I do understand your logic, but in my opinion list of diplomats (for example) should be categorized BOTH in Category:Lists of office-holders AND in Category:Lists of people. And perhaps in Category:Lists of current office-holders too if the list is talking about diplomats that are currently in office.

To make my point clear: what happens when half of the list list of diplomats lists diplomats that were once in office and the other halve of the list lists diplomats that are currently in office? should I place this list in Category:Lists of office-holders or in Category:Lists of current office-holders ??

I think I should be able to put them in BOTH! Similarly I think lists of monarchs, &c. should be both in lists of people AND Lists of office-holders . Monarchs are people too, and perhaps a user will not look for list of monarchs in the category list of office holders but will try to find it in list of people instead, and there is no reason, in my opinion, why he should not be able to find it there if he so chooses to browse through wikipedia...

"Lists of Officeholders" is a clear wikipedia category which means a list that shows succession within an office. List of governors of New York, for instance. A list of current office-holders would be, say, a list of current US ambassadors. A list of Kings of Galatia is clearly a list of office-holders. Category:Lists of office-holders is a subcategory of Category:Lists of people. Unless there is some way that the list is not a list of office-holders - that is to say, it is not a chronological list of people who have held some office - then it should go in that subcategory. Main categories should be kept as clear as possible. That's what subcategories are for. john k 03:29, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

List of diplomats is clearly not a list of office-holders in the sense that that is usually meant, although I see your point. List of Byzantine emperors clearly is. john k 03:31, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Okay, I see your point now. only lists with a timeline should go into Category:lists of office-holders, and only lists with only current holders of an office should go in Category:list of current office-holders.

I agree, list of Byzantine emperors clearly belongs in the first category. And List of diplomats was just a far fetched example so lets ignore it, it seems to only belong in Category:lists of people).

still my real question is this: where do I draw the line in the desire to "keep main categories as clear as possible". Sometimes I see situations where it is not so clear that this rule should be strictly adhered to. See my above example with sub-sub-sub categories.

However for list of Byzantine emperors and similar I can agree that they belong in the category Category:lists of office-holders.

Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Misplaced Pages's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

• Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
• Multi-Licensing Guide
• Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to ] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2

I agree to ] all my contributions to any ], county, or city article as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

List of fictional Elvis impersonators

The List of fictional Elvis impersonators is currently nominated for deletion. As a previous editor on that article, your opinion in this matter is valued. -Litefantastic 20:12, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Aster CT-80

Hello. I also are a old computer collector from Madrid, Spain. I have read about your design of Aster. Have you more info about this? After the dead of digidome.nl, only your article at wikipedia have info about this. Photos, diagrams, etc are welcome. I have a retrocomputing site and orking in translate article to spanish.--Museo8bits 12:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear "museo8bits", unfortunately the old Asters I have are burried beneath a stack of other old computers in a small room. I have about 80 or 90 old computers (i lost count). When I have the time I want to clear out the room to test and photograph them, including the three different models of the Aster I have. And make some kind of wall rack so I can put the computers in a rack instad of stacking them on top of each other. I also want to make backups of the eproms of the asters. At the moment however I am very busy. I hope I can do this job sometime in the first quarter of next year (2007).

Hi! Just discovered on your Aster CT-80 page a link to a picture on my page. I used to work for a company called Micro-Plus in the eighties, an Aster reseller. I still have that original picture here and can send you a better scan if you're interested. I'm completely ignorant as a Misplaced Pages user, so I don't know how to contact you... Keep up the good work!--Niels.horn 01:45, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Niels, I rather not reveal my e-mail address on this page for all the world to see! Which picture are you talking about?

You know what,wy don't you upload the picture to wikipedia, then I can have a look at it,and download it, or maybe put it in the article. I am not short of originalpictures, I have an album full of Aster Pictures, and too many pictures in the article looks too crowded. for example I have a picture of the old MCP shop. Maybe that is a picture that enhances the article. What I do not have is pictures of the second and third versions, although I -own- these computers, but they are stored in a small room, and difficult to get to.

Hi, it's "A picture of the Aster CT-80 model two used for a business application", that's on my page for an old accounting system. I could upload it if I knew how to do that :-) I'll try to find out how this works and tell you the result on this page. Niels.horn 16:02, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Moving/renaming pages

For future reference:

• When a page's title needs to be renamed please use the "move" button on the top of the page. This moves the page history and automatically places a redirect to the new page (use this feature judiciously). (I am specifically referring to the Spin (programming language) article.)
• When editing disambiguation pages, make sure that the link you are putting is the correct one parenthesis and everything. (See this edit.)

You have a lot edits, so I am honestly perplexed by these edits, but I wanted to let you know about them. --Stux 22:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I did not know how to rename a page and "move" did not seem to be what I wanted. So I learned something new, thanks Mahjongg

P.S. if you wonder why I wanted to rename the page, I just wanted the page name to be "compatible" with "Category:Concurrent programming languages" where all the articles use "(programming language)" instead of "(computer language)" Mahjongg

Re: removal of "XGameStation" as demo platform

Dunno if you were keeping a watch on my talk page for a reply to your message, so I'll respond here to be safe.

Thanks for understanding the nature of your article change. We want the article Demo (computer programming) to remain as platform-neutral as possible, keeping platform specifics to sub-articles such as Amiga demos and ZX Spectrum demos. Specific platforms are only briefly mentioned in the article. To write a whole paragraph or two about a specific platform, especially one not yet notable for demos, makes the article severely unbalanced. I'm not saying you can't mention the XGameStation in the article at all, but I would suggest you keep the mention down to only one or two sentences - and that they are based on historical evidence, not promotion or hopeful intentions. For the time being, I would like to see info about XGameStation demo making confined to the XGameStation article itself. Then if there's enough, it can be mentioned in Demo (computer programming). --Vossanova 15:03, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposed removal of ":List of home computers by video hardware"

A tag has been placed on List of home computers by video hardware, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable, that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Misplaced Pages. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert notability may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is notable, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. FirefoxMan 17:34, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

The proposed removal has been cancelled, and I will continue building up the article Mahjongg 01:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Mega duck/cougar boy

In Mega duck/cougar boy, you wrote that the Mega Duck "came on the market in 1993 to be mainly sold in France, the Netherlands and Germany for about €60,- ." However, the euro did not exist as a currency in 1993 yet; it didn't become an official currency until 1999. Could you please find a way to rephrase that statement? --Metropolitan90 14:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear Metropolian60. Yes I know the Euro did not exist in 1993. The €60,- figure I quoted is because I recently aquired both a Mega Duck and a Cougar Boy. The Cougar Boy was still boxed and carried a price of fl 129,- (Dutch gulden) which calculates to about €60,- using the official rate of 2.20371 Gulden to the Euro. However I think it's not that usefull to state a price in Dutch guilders in Misplaced Pages so I mentioned the price in Euro. Also note that this price is a ballpark figure, I only have this source of information. There is precious little information on the internet about the Mega Duck / Cougar Boy. There is some information here: http://www.pelikonepeijoonit.net/duckfaq1.txt (I will add this link, and the price in guilders, to the page). In the meantime I opened up the mega Duck and the electronics are very similar to the supervision (which I also own), it's mainly a 82 pins VLSI, and two GM76C88LFW-1T RAMS, and not much more. Although the cartridges are not interchangable I suspect there is a link between the Mega Duck/Cougar Boy and the Supervision. I will check by opening up my Supervision again and compare the VLSI chips. The LCD screens seem to be (almost) identical. If thats true maybe I can say something about the resolution of the LCD too. Otherwise I have to start counting the pixels :-).

In my memory the screen of the Supervision seemed very much alike the one in the Mega Duck, but now I have them netx to each other I see that the screen of the Supervision is much larger. so they are definitely not the same, although they are of the exact same type. There are so many other similarities, same (smaller than standard) power connector, link connector, power switch contrast and volume regulators, buttons, they are all on the same place on both machines. Coincidence? Ill open the Supervision to see...Mahjongg 20:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I opened up my Supervision too, and the VLSI chip is NOT the same, although they both use the same 80 pins package (16 pins vertical, not 17 as I thought before, I miscounted, and 24 pins horizontal. 2x(16+24)=80. But the clock crystal is not connected to the same pins, and there are other clues too. But both use two RAM chips in 28 pins SMT packages (although the Supervision uses the cheap "die on PCB" package for the RAM's. There are many other similarities inside, so I still think there is some connection between the two. Also I now know the clock frequency, because it was printed on the crystal. The Mega Duck is clocked at 4.194304 MHz! That is not a random frequency either it's two to the power of 22 (2) = 4194304Hz. so with a 22 stage binary counter you can generate exactly 1 Hz. But it's also simple to generate any binary multiple of 1Hz. I will add this, this, and some other new information to the Mega Duck/cougar boy page Mahjongg 23:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC).

I now created two articles showing both the electronic circuits of the Megavision and the Mega Duck, as you can see they are remarkably similar inside. Mahjongg 01:02, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

After complaints the articles were not "encyclopedic" enough, (something which to I a certain degree I can understand, its more a "how things work" article) I removed the articles, but placed the pictures on my user page.

Chiclet keyboard

Hi there,

I accept your criticisms regarding the keyboard diagram and most of your changes to the article were helpful. However, if you wish to draw readers' attention to disputed content, can you please use the formal tags (e.g. {{Disputeabout|Whatever dispute was about}}), rather than mixing editorial dispute with content. Thanks!

Fourohfour 22:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Fine, I was not directly aware of this tag, I will use it in the future. Mahjongg 23:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Watara Supervision internals

An editor has nominated Watara Supervision internals, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Misplaced Pages is not"). Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Watara Supervision internals and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. Jayden54Bot 15:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Although I !voted delete, I liked the article. Have you thought about putting it somewhere else? Wikibooks maybe? Regards, CiaranG 00:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

No, but I'm busy placing a very skeleton version of a combination of both my Watari and mega duck articles on my user page, so you can still see the similarities between both designs. I don't think its "encyclopedic" though. I will look into wikibooks, I am not familiar with them Mahjongg 00:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

iPhone screen

Greetings. Your concept of how the iPhone scrolling works is interesting, but I can't find any evidence from reviews or videos to agree with it. The scrolling actually appears to coast to a halt, not continue forever until you brake it. Unless you can point out a reference otherwise, I'm going to remove that description soon. Thanks! Kevindarling

Did you look at the keynote where steve jobs demonstrates the IPhone, i remember seeing him do it, the only part of my description I am not fairly certain of is that I actually saw him 'braking'. I am certain the display scrolling behaved like he was controlling a physical object. So the braking is perhaps just in my mind, as the "natural consequence". I would like to check the keynote again, but I continuously cant get a connection. Maybe later. Mahjongg 23:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, Mytube came to the rescue, and you can see the keynote here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hfYQ-KpUioA&mode=related&search= At about 2:50 you can see him scroll the screen, and yes the scrolling quickly coasts to a halt, but just before he selects the beatles song you can see that he "drags" the lists. Its hard to see if he starts doing that before are after the display came to a halt though, but my mental impression was that because he dragged the display (The display followed his finger while he kept it on the display, versus just giving it a sweep) he had "total control" over the movement, and that implies also the possibility to halt it. But agreed, we don't know that for sure until we get one to try, So, for the moment, its more a hypothesis than a fact. Mahjongg 00:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see the source of your impression now. What actually happens is that it follows the finger up or down exactly until you let go. Then (if you're moving enough when you let go) it coasts for a while until it slows to a stop. But there's no "dragging" or "braking" involved. I've been doing touchscreen programming since 1990, and have implemented this kind of coasting myself. It would actually be counterintuitive to have braking, since if you touch the screen you expect it to follow your command instantly. Regards, Kevindarling

PS, I just checked your page. We're quite similar, even down to the complete collection of BYTE <g>! However, I went down the 6800-6809-68xxx path instead. Kevindarling

After thinking about it, I take it back about a drag motion being counterintuitive. It would be useful if you had a pressure-sensitive touchscreen, thus it could tell how much braking you were doing. Good idea! Kevindarling

Its a pity that Steve never tries to touch the screen again before it comes to a halt. Perhaps thats not coincidental, his "shows" are always very well "choreographed". Perhaps the software is not finished yet! If Apples engeneers are smart, and I think they are (I don't own a Mac for nothing) I think they will make the interface as intuitive as possible, and that means they should try to mimick the behaviour of a "real" object as much as possible. And then it stands to reason that if you put an unmoving finger on a "spinning" object that it will slow down. The difference between completely controlling the exact movement, and accelerating/deccelerating the "wheel" should be actual speed of the wheel, if it turns slowly if you touch it, it should not have enough momentum to overcome your force, and you should be able to "control" its angle of turn completely, if its turning too hast it should merely decellerate (ar actually accelerate if you wipe the screen in the direction it is already "spinning". But maybe I am too enthousiastic about the engineers, and what they have done. At the moment its very hard to see from the available evidence how far they have taken the "emulate a real object" idea. By the way, I do am a fan of the 6800/6809/68000 etc. When I started with my KIM I looked for other hobbyists in my home town, and found somebody who owned a MEK6800D2 development system, (I learned to appreciate the clean design if this micropocessor, and later the 6809 and especially the 68000) and we are good friends to this day! Mahjongg 11:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I re-worded the article to convey that most observations are speculative at the moment. Mahjongg 12:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for updating the article. I really think you're ahead of what they've done. Try watching here from about 50 seconds in. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YgW7or1TuFk My personal guess is that someone once accidentally showed Jobs a scroll demo where the cpu couldn't keep up, thus it appeared to coast after you lifted your finger. And he liked it :-) Kevindarling

Hmm, I had not seen this clip, but if my eyes do not deceive me in this clip the Apple employee really -does- "brake" the scrolling. You can see it at exactly 1 minute and 1 second into the movie ( 01:01 ) just before he selects the telephone number he dials, the display is scrolling and seems to abruptly stop exactly the moment he puts his finger on the display. If I see it correctly, the moment he puts his finger on the display the IPhone is still scrolling too fast for it to "coast down" at that moment, Also it stops too abruptly. Still, it might be an illusion. Mahjongg 21:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

No, you're right. Coasting stops the instant you touch the screen, and the screen again follows your finger. What does not happen is the concept of dragging or braking. It's just either coasting or following. Kevindarling

Aha, well perhaps this subtlety in language might be the problem. Remember English is not my natural language, I'm Dutch. When I say touching the screen brakes the scrolling, I meant, it would stop the scrolling, (instantly, or nearly so) and when I said you could then "drag the screen" I meant that from the moment the scrolling stopped the screen would follow your finger movement exactly. I think the rest is just a matter of semantics.Mahjongg 11:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

MSX as Spectrum Emulator

Hi! I cannot agree with that statement. A vast minority of titles used the color by character style, after all. I assure you that when porting from the Spectrum to the MSX the color by character was preserved because it was easier to port this way, without drastic changes in the game graphics engine. In fact, I think that this trivia entry should be deleted because its not verifiable, nor properly cited. I am into MSX since its beginning here in Brazil, and I was never, never aware of this kind "of emulation". I did not want to hurt the feelings of the author by deleting the sentence right away and so I have only removed the worst parts of it. Calling this porting a kind of emulation is not accurate... in fact its completely nonsensical: it is a false information. It was not even simulation for that matter. It was a direct port of the code, without enhancements. This happened currently when the PlayStation 3 was launched: lots of XBOX360 titles were ported to the PS3 without benefiting from the better graphics card or the better parallelism of its core processors. Would you call it a kind of XBOX360 emulation? No, its a porting technique: you keep the standards of your software (game or whatever) to the lowest common denominator, so its easy to port to many different systems. That's why I will not let this miss-information to enter the MSX article (or, at least, that's why I will try to convince my fellow wikipedians not to bring it in again.. :-). Regards Loudenvier 13:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear Loudenvier, It appears to me that we do not really disagree that much at all, except for the semantic problem of using the word "emulation". But it wasn't for nothing that the word emulation was used inside quotes, the qotes were used to express that the word was not used in its normal context. The author did _not_ mean to imply that any -real- emulation was going on, only that the programmer treated the MSX system as if he was programming for a Spectrum!

And yes, I agree "A vast minority of titles used the color by character style, after all". Where did I imply this was not the case? Using "tilled" graphics is often very efficient for simple video systems, to preserve memory.

But MSX titles especially designed for MSX, not just ported from a Spectrum title, also used techniques unique to the MSX. For example Sprites, and the much better color resolution.

Deleting information because there is no reference to it is considered simply -wrong- on wikipedia. If everybody did that there would not be much information left. In cases where the accuracy of something is in dispute, and there are no references, it is the norm to use the "Fact" template, like this :.

Your reference to the Playstation 3 and the XBOX360 is completely nonsensical, these are systems that could not be made more different internally than they are, so it stands to reason that any software that must run on both systems has to be ported.

In contrast, the Spectrum and MSX shared -so many- features that for a Spectrum programmer it was simply much easier to modify his existing program a little bit, than to start again so he could use all the resources of the MSX graphics chip. Often the only real improvement that was made to the game was to add sound routines that use the sound-chip of the MSX. The Spectrum did not have any sound hardware except for one I/O port you could toggle with software, so it had lousy sound. This fact, the "lazyness" of spectrum software authors, was the main reason that MSX software from Europe often was not as good as the software from Japan, (Where the Spectrum had little success) which -did- use all the features of MSX

I am aware that MSX was very popular in Brazil (it also had something to do with and embargo, if I recall well, I own a "cougar boy" handheld game, that was also popular in Brazil for similar reasons). But let me tell you it also was very popular in the Netherlands. As a matter of fact, I worked for two different companies, (three if you count that I was also "lend out" to Sony by one of these two) that published software for MSX, and I wrote software in Assembler and C for MSX. I think I know a bit about what I am talking about here.

The current trivia entry as it is completely correct in my view, and gives a valid point of view that is noteworthy. It should stay Mahjongg 16:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, Spanish MSX titles were great! Even better than most japanese titles (Astro Marine Corps, Titanic, La Abadia del Crimen, among others). The analogy with XBOX360 and PS3 still stands... It doesn't matter that the hardware is so different, since the games are written in a game specific framework (probably C++ or something like Unreal Engine), and then only the engine is ported to the new system, the game code is almost the same, just like the Spectrum to MSX "port" the new version for the PS3 did not used the new capabilities of the machine, the developers opted to keep the game just like it was in the 360 verstion (isn't it the same that happened when porting SPECTRUM to MSX?). Its wrong and confusing to call it "emulation". (did you know that a brazillian company wrote an almost 100% compatible ZX Spectrum emulator for the MSX in 1987? It sold 2 copies in its entire commercial life).

And you are wrong when you said that information should not be deleted from wikipedia when it is not referenced. It should, or else we would have lots of articles with unreferenced content that never get pruned. This entry in the trivia looks to me something not verifiable, which is a requirement for anything that enters wikipedia. But I agree with you that a tag should be placed first, for a while... I am still more diplomatic than that: I just removed what was blatantly wrong (the emulation part), and let the rest stands without deleting anything...

I learned to program in the MSX computer (BASIC, then Pascal, then ASSEMBLY - not C, which I used on the IBM PC XT solely). I really love to contribute to the MSX article for that matter. It was a huge success in Brazil, extremely popular, its a shame we could not use such adjectives in the MSX article itself :-)

And you do not need to warm me about your reply... Your talk page is on my watchlist :-)Loudenvier 16:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Again, I -agree- that calling it "emulation" is too strong a term. remember, I did not start to use the term, but -I did- understand what the original author tried to say. When you say "I was never, never aware of this kind "of emulation"." then Duh, of course you were not, because no emulation was going on....! Using the wordt "emulation", -I say it again- is just semantics for "treating the MSX as a Spectrum"!

The point the original author tried to make has nothing to do with "emulation", but tries to explain why, dear I say it.... Okay Ill be frank... It tries to explain why British MSX software authors made such lousy MSX software! Its part snobbism, part lazyness, part "MSX is not invented here" part nationalism (Britain is better than Japan) on their part that they simply did not have the heart for it to say. Okay I have already written a Spectrum game but now there is also this MSX market and I also want a piece of that pie so I will do my utmost to create the best possible port of my game. Instead they took "the lazy way out". In Brazil most authors who wrote MSX software wanted to create the best possible game, that the MSX hardware could support, so they used -all- available resources not only those that happened to also be available in the Spectrum. I think you will agree that the MSX system is definitely superior to the MSX, as your story about the Spectrum emulator for MSX implies, it simply had nothing to offer.

That the same game is running on the Playstation 3 and XBOX360 and only the implementational technicalities are different is logical. But what I wanted to make clear is that this fact is simply not relevant to the -real- discussion.

I won't make a point out of it, but I never said that it was wrong to remove invalid information from wikipedia. I simply said that if the -only- reason to remove information was that there was no reference to it, than that fact alone should not be reason enough to simply remove the information without warning. Also I don't understand you eagerness to remove the whole trivia section, it's simply fun to read. I like MSX (very much, I wanted to buy a 1chipMSX, but unfortunately the only batch that was available was sold during a vacation), you also like MSX. I want to make clear I do not dislike you, I simply think you are overreacting a bit to the word "emulation", thats all. With best regards, Mahjongg 11:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to remove the entire trivia section, I was eager to remove the specific entry about the "emulation crap" :-) But decided against it... But how could you say british programmers were lazy? Rememeber Head Over Heels (game)? Elite (computer game)? and many others... I really do not remember a single color by character game... Could you provide me some examples? I am really curious about it... Also, it only happened with text based games, right? Screen 1, correct? The Screen 2 games, being pixel oriented, didn't suffered from this, am I right? Anyway, it is very nice to discuss the MSX with somebody who actually used it! By the way blueMSX is great, I don't know how long I have not turned on my old Gradient Expert and Sharp HotBit because of the simplicity of running everything in this incredible emulator. Loudenvier 14:58, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear Felipe, Ah yes, I thought I read that you wanted to remove the entire Trivia section, but now i read it again I see I misread that sentence, sorry.

Yes, i do remember head over heels, one of the first 3D trigonometric view games. Not the first, I think there was one older game that used the same technique, and of course I remember Elite, the SF trading game with vector graphics. Good stuff, although I did not play both these games myself much (I played Elite on an Apple ][). My first "computer game" was a game called "nim" on a KIM-1. I wrote it myself, on paper, in 6502 Assembler. Ah, the memories...

My favorite Spectrum games were "Manic Miner" and "Jet Set Willy". Both were also converted 1:1 to MSX (and many other systems, but not all by Matthew Smith).

I owned a Sinclair spectrum, (and by the way also owned the ZX80 and the ZX81) before the MSX, so that was where I played these games on. But the point I wanted to make is this, I did not meant that British game programmers were lazy, I knew a few from one of the companies I worked for that wrote game software, and they were anything but lazy. I meant that when converting Spectrum software to MSX they were "lazy" (please do not take this so literal again!) in the sense that they did not put as much energy in it as they did when converting to other platforms, (the Amstrad CPC for example), the reason is a) they did not have to. but also b) They disliked the MSX, because it was not a British invention. Games like Manic Miner and Jet Set Willy are coincidentally prime examples of this trend. The MSX versions are almost spitting images of the Spectrum versions, nothing extra is added at all!

Sorry! I forgot to put the :-) after the "how could you say british programmers were lazy?"... It was meant as a joke! Sorry again... And please, do not take me so literal again, I am hardly that literal!!! :-) :-) :-) (remind to self: when joking electronically never forget the smiles :-) ). Loudenvier 12:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Almost all games that were converted from Spectrum games suffered the same horrible "attribute clash" as the Spectrum, and that was not necessary!. The spectrum could only display two colors in each 8x8 pixel "tile" (block of pixels). In contrast, MSX systems could actually display two colors in each row of 8 pixels ( or 8x1 "tile" ) So color clash problems should be much less severe on an MSX. But while converting Spectrum games to MSX most programmers filled all eight rows of a 8x8 pixel block, (that in principle could all have different sets of colors) all with the same color combinations, so they were "throwing away" this advantages that the MSX video system had. That is one reason why the author said that programmers were "emulating" the video hardware of the MSX. MSX1 had three "video modes", Mode 0, Mode 1, Mode 2 and mode 3. Mode 0 could display 40x24 text, but only in two colors. Mode 1 could display 32x23 text, but could actually assign two (foreground and background) colors to each consecutive set of eight characters in the character-set, That meant that with smart programming you could display 32 combinations of two colors at the same time. And this mode was very fast for games. Unfortunately MSX basic did not support this, and only used it as a 32x24 two color text mode. Then mode 2, it could display 256x192 high resolution graphics, and as said, it could use two different colors for each 8x1 line of pixels. So its "pixel resolution" was 256x192, but it's "color resolution" was only 32x192. In contrast, the spectrum also had a "pixel resolution" of 256x192, but its color resolution was only 32x24. Then there is Mode 3, it is very similar to the "lowres" mode of the Apple ][, in it each pixel could have any of the sixteen available colors, but the resolution was only 64x48. I don't think any game ever used this mode. Yes, it's nice to talk about this again, I am very much into "old school" gaming. I recently bought an XGameStation.

Oh! I know a lot about MSX specs... I wrote the MSX BASIC article almost alone ;-). And I did also programmed some games for the MSX (mostly educational, for my younger brothers..) I was young myself at that time - 13 years old - It was much better to learn to program in a computer like MSX where you can actually understand the hardware, BIOS, etc without all the mess of understanding 1.000.000 different card boards as it happens in the PC today - did you read the fabulous MSX Red Book? Loudenvier 12:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Huh, I did not know there was a MSX BASIC article, I remember that I looked for one, Now that I know I see the links. Even In my own 1chipMSX article! Thanks for the tip, I will study the article. Yes, the reason I am so interested in retro is that I think that a new generation misses the opprtunity to start learning about computers on a simple to understand platform. The XGameStation is not as simple as MSX, (its much more flexible, and advanced), but it's much better than a PC. I am not sure it's the same book, but If you are talking about the official MSX specification and documentation, then of course yes, I have read it. I still own a copy. Its an A4 size book about 3cm thick. It has -all- the technical specifications about the hardware, bios, basic etc etc. I needed to learn this book by heart, because I had to write low level routines, and later design hardware expansion systems, for it. I think I wrote the most advanced memory mapper routines on the market for it, for "MT-Base", a database system. Wrote special cassette loader programs that had copy protection, and could also load directly to video ram for a loading screen effects, and with the same rainbow effect in the display border that the spectrum had. Also helped writing the special buit in application firmware for the Sony F9P, and many many other things. On the hardware side, I designed cardridges, both the enclosure and the PCB, and o.a. a cartridge based modem, the MT-Telcom.

I noticed we have some other things things in common, (besides or interest in MSX and Misplaced Pages) as well. We both drive Opel Astra's, Mine is over ten years old though. Also, where I live is twenty minutes by car from the beach (the gray north sea), but its not quite as nice as in Rio, I would trade with you any time, it's very cold an rainy here. Also just two weeks ago we had Carnaval here, not quite the same as in Rio, I can imagine, no samba music! And I was dressed as a Viking.... Also, I am (at least, used to be) an avid SF reader, Heinlein, Asimov etc.

One last thing, I would like to try BlueMSX, but alas, I am a Mac user. But recently I installed Windows XP on an old PC to run the programming software for my XGameStation, so who knows. I do have "MAME" and "MESS" on my Mac though, and these are also -real- emulators :-).

P.S. I mentioned that I understood there was some kind of embargo going on in Brazil at the time (1990's), and that is why the MSX was popular as a "business" system. Is this true? Why was there an embargo?

Yes, there was an embargo: brazillian government wanted the IT industry to develop by itself and prohibited importing computers and electronics. Everything had to be made "indoors", by the national industry. But there were a lot of brazillian made computers, which were legal because they were made here in Brazil: they were almost all clones from ZX Spectrum, TRS 80, etc (TK 90X, TK 95, and others). Most of them made via reverse engineering. The factor that made the MSX a success was because it was made by big companies in brazil and the MSX was cheaper than the Apple and comparable in price to the ZX Spectrum clones, which were all far too inferior. The MSX2 came to Brazil soon, in the form of a home-made conversion kit, almost inexpensive: you could have better than NES hardware for much less money: how could the MSX not be this huge success? The IBM PC take a lot longer to came to Brazil, and it was far too expensive, more than 1000% (a thousand percent!) higher price.

YEah, I designed a clone of the TRS-80 myself, it had all the possibilities of the later Model III, and more.... The original was too expensive in Holland. As the time for many things MSX was much better than a PC, especially the video. It's a pity the memory expander system was not better documented (which slots would be used for RAM expansion etc), that was the greatest source of incompatibility. And maybe the Z80 was not the best choice, a 16-bit chip would have been better, or a standard for adding a second 16-bit co-processor. And the fact that BASIC could not use the memory expander was a bad decision. Al that meant that a PC wass still better for serious business use. Perhpas otherwise we would still have had MSX systems.

Since I am a Bodyboarder I can't figure myself living away from the warm waters and waves of the Atlantic. I really prefer Florianópolis to Rio, better waves, better women and less urban violence, but I am happy here... I don't like Carnival though... I like progressive metal and can't stand the Samba beat! :-) 12:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Zoetermeer, the city where I live has "the dutch water dreams", a complex where among other things you can do indoor boarding see here . I'm not really a Carnival person myself,I did not go for years. Carnival here has nothing to do with salsa, and the texts of songs that are played are really stupid sometimes. I like progressive metal too, but I like many other music styles too, from classic to jazz, and punk and heavy metal. I like the Ska band "madness" but also Janis Joplin and Eric Clapton.

I am 50+ and have never been into sport much, except for longboat rowing (six rowers and a helmsman). I have Asthma. So I am a potbellied, (well not really, I weigh 85 Kilo) "old" guy :-) Florianopolis sounds nice, We have a artifical wild water (canoe etc) track in my town, and a artifical ski hill (with artificial snow).

The MSX book I was referencing to was the best book on MSX 1.0 hardware and software, originally published by Kuma Software. you can find it here: in text format. Go check it! Loudenvier 18:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, that was not the book I was referring to, but coincidentally my book is also on that site, the top book the "MSX Technical Data Book". That was the official book for MSX-1 developers. It was not for sale in any bookshop. Ik knew the Kuma book too, but did not use it much (for work), as the "white book" was the official one. Also, I did already have several books that explained the inner working of Microsoft extended basic (the "12K" Basic, that Microsoft sold to several home computer manufacturers, and that was also the basis of MSX basic. Generally though game programmers did not use any routines from Basic, only from the BIOS. P.S. you can see a picture of the MSX modem, I designed The MT-Telcom, here : . scroll down till you see the picture.

P.S. I now started a MSX-DOS article too.

RUN Magazine

Woops!! my bad...I see the reference now. Perhaps it would be a good idea to include it in the RUN artical, so others won't be confused the way I was. My apologies for the misunderstanding.Chahax

Good Idea, I did just that, Thanks for the idea. Mahjongg 17:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Xbox 360 technical problems

In case you come across it before I get the chance I just want to let you know I'm not ignoring what you said, the other issues brought up were a lot shorter and less complicated so I could answer them within my time constraints. I'll try and have a response to yours later in the day.--Oni Ookami Alfador 18:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks, no rush needed.Mahjongg 00:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Binary prefixes

The last consensus is here : WP:MOSNUM. If you think it doesn't reflect a consensus, then discuss it there but stop removing binary prefixes because you think it's wrong. Sarenne 11:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

You must be kidding, you are the pot that says the kettle is black! The discussion about this is actually held here Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers), and there is absolutely no consensus to be found there! You are seen by many as the taliban of the KiB notation. You even have been blocked because of your vandalism. Consensus, don't make me laugh! Untill an actual consensus is found DO NOT VANDALISE RETRO_COMPUTING PAGES! because YOU think you must! Mahjongg 11:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I said Last consensus. There's no consensus to change the MoS. If there were a consensus to change it, it would have been changed. I've never been blocked for vandalism, stop making false accusations and please read what the MoS says now : WP:MOSNUM#Avoiding confusion. Sarenne 11:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

And what does it say above the MoS entry about this subject. "The following section's wording or inclusion in this policy/guideline is disputed. Please see the relevant discussion on the talk page.", so again, this NOT undisputed, however much you want it to be undisputed. I talk with several knowledgable people about this and they all think the stand you take is ridiculous. You KNOW you have been blocked, its on your own talk page, "not for vandalism" you say. But wat is a "WP:3RR violation" other than vandalism!Mahjongg 11:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Nobody said it was undisputed. You have to stop putting words in my mouth. A disputed guideline doesn't cease to exist. If you think that someone who violates 3RR is a vandal you obviously don't understand what is vandalism in Misplaced Pages. See WP:vandalism#What vandalism is not. Sarenne 11:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I do know how to spot vandalism, I personally reverted hundreds of vandalism's here. The person(s) who decided to block you obviously also thought that repeatedly reverting pages to your viewpoint also amounted to vandalism, why else would a edit block be needed. If i't NOT undisputed what you do, then why try to edit pages -not written by you- to suit your viewpoint, instead of the person(s) wrote the articles in the first place. A mayor principle behind wikipedia is that "common usage" dictates what should be used in an article, and using the MiB notation is NOT a common usage (yet)! For example here is a link to a article that documents this. Mahjongg 12:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Because you said violating 3RR was vandalism, you obviously don't know how to spot vandalism. If you take a look at my block you will see it was reverts of my own comments. The person who first writes an article has no particular right about it. You saying that ""common usage" dictates what should be used in an article" is just not true. You want the MoS to reflect the "common usage" ? then express your POV there to change the guideline and stop reverting what you don't like. You cannot say that WP:MOSNUM is my viewpoint. It is still recommended to use binary prefixes and thus your reverts are not correct. Sarenne 12:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Mahjongg you are correct the user Sarenne does not have the support of consensus to make those binary prefix changes (as demonstrated by the most recent vote) and also those binary prefix terms are not used in the article sources. I see you've opposed the current MOSNUM talk vote, however I'd like to point out at this stage that I think the proposed text is a vast improvement over the current MOSNUM guideline. The propsed text intends to remove the sole use of binary prefixes from articles and would have the effect of reverting all of Sarenne's changes in favour of a disambiguation style compromise. So even though I come from the side that is opposed to using binary prefixes in these articles I do support the proposed text because it is a better compromise than the current guideline. Fnagaton 12:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, now you need a new guideline to revert my changes ? Sarenne 12:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

No, it's a matter of proving to you that you are wrong in no uncertain terms, the consensus is currently against your changes. Fnagaton 12:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

That's not true. As always, you present your POV as facts. Sarenne 12:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

What I wrote is true, the vote totals at the time of writing (i.e. consensus) prove you wrong. Fnagaton 12:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

As always, "You're wrong, I'm right". Do you even realize that I didn't vote, for example ? and that the "vote" was about changing the guideline, not removing it ? and that you've changed the wording of the proposal ? Do you even know what is consensus ? You think it's the majority of a binary vote ? Sarenne 12:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I am correct and you cannot logically dispute the facts and I note your failure to disprove what I wrote. I do however note your attempts to misrepresent what I have written and that gives another example of your bad behaviour. Your "questions" are irrelevant ad hominem or red herrings. If you don't vote then that it not my fault. Fnagaton 13:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I see you don't like answering questions about your claims. I logically dispute those. Don't tell me what I can't "logically" do and please be WP:CIVIL.Sarenne 13:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

No you are incorrect, I don't mind answering relevant reasonable questions. However when the questions are irrelevant repeats ad nausium such as yours are and when you demonstrate bad behaviour for which you got 3RR blocked then you are in the wrong. I'm done with your attempts to push your misrepresentation. Your disruption of these articles and this talk page is yet another example of your bad behaviour and I'm not going to let it continue. This ends now, this topic is now closed. You'll get no more replies from me and do not attempt to reply to me in future. Fnagaton 13:28, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

It's a shame you cannot remove the discussion here, right ? Sarenne 13:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I could, but I don't think Fnagaton would want that at all. But please stop this discussion here, get a life! Mahjongg 14:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

You think correctly Mahjongg. It's another great example of bad behaviour by the user. :) Peace brother! Fnagaton 14:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, right, "bad behaviour" is obviously asking questions about your allegedly facts, not at all removing embarrassing questions from talk page. I'm done here. Sarenne 14:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing "embarrasing" here to see that I should want to remove. Mahjongg 16:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism (as used in this context) is disruptive editing. Which clearly discibes your actions. And that using KiB in all cases, (or at all) is wrong is not just my viewpoint, as you seem to imply. An example is User:Crotalus horridus who's reverts first brought my attention to your disruptive edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahjongg (talk • contribs)

You cannot say that following a guideline is disruptive. What is disruptive is your (and my) reverts, not my initial edit. Sarenne 12:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

following a "guidline" religiously while it is still debated, and where there is no consensus over, is disruptive. It's NOT your "initial edit"! The "Initial edit" is the edit of the person who wrote "kB" in the first place! When he wanted to write "KiB" he would have done so in the first place! You are the one who tries to change his meaning, not the other way around!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahjongg (talk • contribs)

It doesn't change anything about the meaning and please take a look at WP:OWN. Sarenne 13:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I did not say anything about "ownership", but you act as if you do. I simply pointed out that the original writer who started the article used the kB notation, while you reverted that to the use of KiB. But you act as if that was not the case at all, and all the reverts were to something you started originally. It's simply morally dishonest to do that. Also, If you cannot conceive that changing an old "name" for 1024 Bytes, to something that is not in -any- of the older literature is confusing and just p-lain WRONG, then you simply lack imagination! For an example ad-absurbitum, lets try a little thought experiment; and please try to convince to the world that you think "Abrahaim" should be equivalent to the biblical name "Abraham", because some people thought it was necessary to distinguish it from other non biblical "abraham's", and that from now on we should use "Abrahaim" when we mean "Abraham in a biblical sense". It's not a surprise that the terminology kiB is NOT in common use today, even after half a decade of lobbying! Mahjongg 14:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

You pointed out something that is off-topic, I don't care about what the original writer did (because of WP:OWN), I care about the article. I changed SI symbols used in a binary sense to IEC symbols because I think it improves the encyclopedia and because it is currently what is recommended. You seem to have reverted my edit only because it's not common usage or because it's not what the original editor wanted. This is not a valid reason until you succeed in changing the guideline. You cannot just ignore a guideline because it is disputed or because you think it is not "common usage". But now the little edit war seem to be over so the case is closed here :) Sarenne 14:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

You don't care about the article, you only care about your obsession. I agree about only two things you said, and that is that the edit war for MSX is over (at least I won't continue with it for the moment), and that this discussion is now closed here (but will continue at the talk page of WT:MOSNUM). Mahjongg 15:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I did, (just now) express my point of view at the talk page of WT:MOSNUM. So if you have anything more to say, you can do it there NOT HERE!. Note that I stopped the edit war you started. Depending on the real consensus someone else will probably step in and revert it back to what it was (or maybe another person disgrunted by your actions will do it), or if a consensus is reached to use the MiB notation under all circumstances I will put up with it. In any case, I won't continue your childish edit war. Mahjongg 12:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Fnagaton, Okay, perhaps I will review my POV there. I have nothing against using KiB where it's prudent to do so. Mahjongg 12:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Fnagaton, Okay, I changed my vote to "support".

I'm glad to have helped. :) Fnagaton 12:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to, but somehow my edit did not register, will try again untill it works... Mahjongg 12:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, i now see my edit -did- register, perhaps the server was slow to update due to the many edits :-). Mahjongg 12:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

:) PS. I apologise for Sarenne's dispruptive edits to your talk page, it's not the first time it's happened. I've notified the user that they must not reply to me anymore, hopefully that will be good enough warning to stop. Fnagaton 13:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Again ? You said that you'll stop edit warring and 10 minutes after you engage another one with the articleList of home computers by video hardware ? Sarenne 15:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I said I would not continue the edit warring at MSX by simply reverting your changes.

I did not do this to provoke you! This is not "restarting the revert war", because I did not simply revert your edit at List of home computers by video hardware! Instead I added an explanation at the start of the article, that explains that "it uses the old kB convention instead of the new KiB convention", and why. So I did exactly what is now voted for, and where the seems to be a big majority for, at WT:MOSNUM. See it as an example of how this conflict can be resolved, nothing more. Again I am perfectly aware that at the moment the WP:MOSNUM says that the "recommended" action is to use KiB, but it is "recommended", not obligatory in any and all situations. The only point I ever made is that using the KiB notation mindlessly is not a good idea. And there are very good reasons why -sometimes- it is better to use the older notation, and these reasons were not realised during earlier discussions that lead to the -current- consensus. I expect the consensus to be modified accordingly, so I just ask you not to be fundamenalistic in your edits.Mahjongg 16:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

You could have the exact same speech about every single occurence of "KiB" or "MiB" so that's not a valid reason IMHO. The MoS encourages consistency over the encyclopedia, not exceptions. You mixed kB, KB, K, Mb in the same article and even with your explanation at the top I don't see how it's improving the article. I'm just asking you to wait for a new consensus before making these kind of edits. If there's a "big majority" as you said, it shouldn't be long before the guideline is actually changed, right ? You cannot wait until then ?Sarenne 16:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I could NOT have the same speech about every single occurence of "KiB" or "MiB"'s. If you think that you still don't get why I want an exception, or at least an explanation, for articles about older systems. It's NOT that using the notation KiB in itself is a problem but that by using it "kB" gains a new meaning! And I totally agree that KiB is a solution to a problem. You just have to be careful when using it, so that you do not cause a -new- problem.

Image the following scenario, if you will. In ten years time when (maybe, I actually doubt it will happen) everybody is using the "KiB" ("MiB" etc) notation and everybody is therefore is trained to understand that when they encounter the "kB" notation, the meaning is "1000". Even the WP article about an "antique" TRS-80 computer uses the "KiB" notation, and does it without any reference that the historical notation for 1024 in the past was kB, not KiB. Curiously about this strange TRS-80 system they look for, and find, a book about this computer, and they see it used "48kB", funny they think, "I thought they used a binary notation for memory size, but they seem not to be, this TRS-80 seemed to have 48000 bytes of memory". If that is not confusing to the reader I don't know what is. You see, by ignoring the historical meaning of kB you open the possibility for all kinds of confusions. -Thats- why I want to mention the historical fact that in the past kB meant 1024, NOT 1000! Another reason is so that the data given in the article is "compatible" with older information sources.

Incidentally, I do agree that "my" List of home computers by video hardware article could use a cleanup, but note that I actually used the notation 'K' (as in 2K, 4K etc) in the table on purpose, to save some room. And yes, I could have waited to make this changes until consensus was reached, just as you could have waited to make the edits you did! Please note I am -only- worried about articles about old systems that have a long history and a lot of external older information that has always used the "kB", (or "K", or KB, there never has been a real consensus about the spelling) I am not at all disagreeing that in -most- cases using KiB is the best solution. We will see what happens. Mahjongg 22:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

You can add information about the old documentation (though I don't think it is relevant in an article that is not about the computer's manual or documentation) but it shouldn't take the place of the important information : the capacity of the memory/disk... I will not oppose to something like "32 KiB (referred as "32 kB" in the manual)" but in that case, you are adding information.

The current guideline is disputed since 2005... so what should I wait for ? You should wait because the current guideline recommends the use of binary prefixes when binary capacities are used. Sarenne 22:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

You are comparing apples and oranges here, the dispute you are talking about is not the same one I am talking about. Your dispute, whether or not WP should take the step to implement the new IEC notation has been disputed for a long time, I agree. Only recently you (and others) have started to implement the decision made in the current guideline. But as is often the case when implementing something designed on paper, the decision to do so has met some snags in the form of consequences you did not thought off, or underestimated, when designing the current guideline. So problems have arisen, and now a -new- dispute about these problems has started.

Its about this latter dispute, as is discussed in Misplaced Pages Talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Proposed_new_guideline_for_binary_prefixes that I am talking. All indications are that the consensus for this latter dispute are NOT in your favor, and that should mean that the current guideline as given on WT:MOSNUM should soon change.

And somehow I don't think that will take two years, as I see growing discontent about how the current guideline is implemented.

Mahjongg 23:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

These are the exact same disputes. It is the exact same dispute that took place in 2005, with the exact same arguments (your argument about "historical accuracy" included). The proposal you are talking about is a compromise to solve the dispute, not another dispute. If you think that the guideline will soon change then you can wait and respect the current guideline. Sarenne 23:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

A different dispute/A discussion to change the current guideline, what's the difference? you are just hiding behind semantics here! There -are- new insights and they came about by WP editors who never heard of the earlier discussions but only became aware of their consequences when you started editing articles they cared about, and this triggered a new round of discussions, with new arguments!

I -am- waiting for the new changes in the guideline, just as -you- should! Mahjongg 00:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't have to because the current guideline is against you, not me. (and I've not seen new arguments since 2005)Sarenne 00:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Sigh, this is a senseless discussion, I -am- waiting for the new changes in the guideline! I am not using your contributions page to revert all the edit you make, or do anything else as stupid as that, am I ? But I just think -you- should -also- wait, or at least be a bit more careful with your edits, until the new guidelines are accepted ! P.S. please do not interpret this remark as a threat, that is NOT my intention. This was my last entry here, whatever you say next, lets just agree to disagreeMahjongg 00:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Paranoid ?

Yes, you are... my "User contributions page" will not be deleted. You will be able to revert all binary prefixes, don't worry about that. Sarenne 16:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

If you did not want your user page to be deleted, then why did you put up the request for speedy deletion, and why did you clear your talk page? That did not make any sense, especially because you did not give any reason to do so.

Actually I don't care either way whether or not all of your edits are reverted, or only some info is added to prevent confusion between Kb=1024 and Kb=1000 , and as you should have noticed, I am not one of those people who reverts your every edit (as many others do, I saw that almost none of your later edits survived), so you should be aware that I am not -that- keen on reverting your edits as you seem to think. Mahjongg 18:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I did want my user page to be deleted. Only my recent edits were reverted, there are hundreds of articles remaining. I only came here to discuss your reverts, even if, according to Fnagaton's lies, I'm not willing to discuss... and even if they were not blind reverts like Fnagaton's or Crotalus'.Sarenne 18:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I can now see that your whole user account has been removed, but somehow the contribution page is still there, and that is something I certainly had not expected. So I have to conclude that my suspicion has been unfounded, I grant you that. Still, I can't imagine -why- you wanted your user and talk page to be deleted. In any case i wish you the best... Mahjongg 18:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you :) Sarenne 18:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Name

Your name would be Americanized as 'De Young,' 'de Young,' or 'DeYoung.' For whatever reason, modifiers in ethnic names tend to be preserved upon Americanization; never is a 'de,' 'la,' 'mac,' etc. rendered as 'the,' 'of,' 'son/daughter of,' or other literal translation.

My own grandparents were actually, according to family legend, talked out of Americanizing their last name when they came through Ellis Island from The Hague in 1947. Nobody knows why - apparently they just happened to be assigned to a judge/magistrate/whomever that thought preserving ethnic indicators in names was important...the main effect of which, as far as I can tell, is to subject me to a lifetime of people asking me if I was French, Korean, Japanese, Russian...it's a mystery ;-) -- lowgenius -- My Talk Page 03:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks John, you will notice I have changed the text of my user page accordingly. people with a last name of Young will then probably just be of English heritage.

At first, when I read "lowgenious" an image popped into my head of a comic portrait of a pipe smoking gentleman. Somehow I must have read about a "lowgenious", or something similar,somewhere that used that image as a kind of logo. So i visited (a few of) you website(s), but their does not seem to be a connection. Also Misplaced Pages does not know the term. Perhaps it has something to do with alt.usenet.kooks? Care to enlighten me about that. That is, if you have any clue about what I am talking about.

The Hague is very near from where I live, actually using the highway it's just a ten minute trip, I often go there for shopping, or drive through it when I go to the beach. Mahjongg 00:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I was a regular on AUK for many years, but a combination of a drift by the group into less finding of strange people and more dragging the same strange people back into the spotlight repeatedly, as well as things in my offline life that limit my time online these days, led to my departure in late 2005. Last I knew, I was still maintainer of Teh Way Of Teh Kook, but other than a week-long period in late '06 when I returned to Usenet, it's not very maintained. If you know me from AUK, that's why.

The word 'lowgenius' was actually coined by me during a conversation with my daughter about intelligence tests in late 2000. As soon as it popped out of her mouth I thought about it for a domain name, and at that time no search engine returned any results for the word. So far as I know, it's my own unique invention.

Ah, then it's not what I was thinking about. In the meantime I have puzzled out that I was actually thinking about "subgenius", as in the Church of the SubGenius. Ever heard of it? I think you should have, it's quite well known, and "lowgenius" and "subgenius" are remarkably similar and the cult of the subgenius has been quite active on usenet in the past. Mahjongg 21:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, sure. I've actually been aware of the SubGenii since the old FIDONet days in the late 80's/early 90's...oddly enough, it wasn't until probably a year after I built the site that the connection dawned on me. So much for 'genius', eh? :P -- lowgenius -- My Talk Page 23:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, then maybe it was your SubConscious at work :-) .

Please do not characterise as vandalism

I notice that you tagged this edit as "rvv" (i.e. "revert vandalism").

There is no indication that the user was vandalising. You're entitled to your opinion on the "KB"/"KiB" holy war (and to revert the changes), but please do not throw unfounded accusations against those on the other side of the disagreement (unless they are clearly acting in bad faith). Posting misleading accusations in edit summaries is not acceptable conduct. Fourohfour 13:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Having looked into this further, it appears that there were issues with that user. However, it is still unclear whether he/she was acting in bad faith at the time, and a more informative summary would be useful (not all of us are- or should have to be- clued in to the details of a dispute occurring elsewhere). Fourohfour 14:25, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, this was a fluke though, I always mention WP:MOSNUM. Mahjongg 18:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Binary prefixes

Sorry about late response. I see that you did change the prefixes anyway. See, I do "date back" to the time when these computers were "brand new" and was quite happy using "KB". In fact, schools even had trick questions asking how many "B" are in a "KB" - the only correct answer being 1024.

However, as time went by, people really started messing those up. While kilobytes themselves really weren't affected directly, they were when part of transfer rates - "is it thousands of bytes or kilobytes per second?". Megabytes were a problem since they essentially appeared - hard drive manufacturers treating them as decimal (to be able to show greater capacities), not to mention the famous 1.44 MB floppy.

My goal is to be very precise in articles I write. What was used as a prefix at the time really didn't matter, especially because, in this case, they actually might have even used cyrillic form of the unit so "using the original style" really doesn't apply. "KiB" is unambiguous, although, I do admit, perhaps confusing to some people as it is not widely accepted yet. However, it was also linked properly (after your change it points to a disambiguation link, not the "kibibyte", to which it should point in any case, whatever the acronim is used, as "Kilobyte" article keeps ambiguity open and does not specify really what was meant).

As such, I would actually appreciate if you return the binary prefixes as they are more correct and unambiguous. These are not quotes but today's articles of, concidentally, past computers. I will not make changes myself, but at least the links should be corrected to not point to disambiguation articles (and not to "kilobyte" article either) but to "Kibibyte".

My suggestion is - for Misplaced Pages (I have to put it somewhere) that we come up with appropriate templates for those units. If you follow the link to Serbian language Misplaced Pages for some of those computers, you will notice that instead of KB, a template Template:Kibibyte (Cyrillic equivalent) is used. It displays as "KiB" but the tooltip actually contains the name and automatically links to what it should. I actually recommed that the tooltip is further expanded to contain actual size as well. That way if all articles are standardized, we will no longer need to change articles themselves to fix those issues but only update templates as needed.

Regards, --Aleksandar Šušnjar 03:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Dear Aleksandar.

Although I do understand your point of view I still cannot agree! The ambiguousness of KB you paint is purely theoretical, and in practice not a problem at all!

That a kilobaud is not 1024 bytes per second is well known, and from the context it's always clear that "kilobyte per second" means 1000 bytes per second.

Similarly in hard-disk manufacturing the term kilobyte is not used at all! Because it's simply a too small a measurement for hard disks.

I have nothing against using the binary prefixes for gigabytes, terabytes, of even megabytes, but changing the definition of KB to 1000 bytes is simply too big a price to pay for the theoretical advantage of doing so .

My alternative solution would be to always keep using the KB notation (especially) in articles about older computer systems, such as the Commodore 64 (with 64KB) and all other older systems like them.

But in the theoretical case that wikipedia really would adopt the KiB notation for 1024 Bytes, (and by doing so consequently changes the KB notation to mean 1000 Bytes) that then, (and only then) I would want to suggest to the Misplaced Pages community to advise Misplaced Pages editors to _STILL_ use the KB notation in those articles, but to display a warning banner of some kind, (something like the userboxes on my user page) on top of the page, in which it clearly states that the article "uses KB in the historical sense". regards, Mahjongg 10:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you are wrong about "kilobyte per second". It is ambiguous. Same with "kilobits". "Kilobauds" are entirely different - do not confuse them with "kilobits" - a single baud can contain multiple bits, including non-integer value.

I -know-, the difference between kilobaud and kilo bits per seconds, I designed modems for god's sake. A "baud" is a "signal change", and in one "signal change" multiple bits can (and are) encoded! So that the use of kilobaud -can- be ambiguous in some cases is obvious to me, but it was never my point to claim that confusion with -this particular problem- is impossible! Take the general user however, and he could give a hoot about the technical incorrectness of using baud for bits per second. These people normally use kilobaud and KBPS as if they are exchangeable terms! I agree that this is a "problem" of sorts, but it's simply not the problem we are adressing here.

What "normal users" generally -do- know, (and -that- is my point) is that the KB=1024 rule generally does -not- apply to modems! Not that this is much of a deal, because fact is that this "problem" already is disappearing, even without trying to enforce the KiB notation. Because modems are rarely used anymore these day's, and if they do they all use the same transfer speed now. And the KB notation being a problem when describing hard disk capacity?! When was the last time you heard the capacity of a hard disk being expressed in kilobytes?

What I wanted to make clear to you is something different altogether!! And that is that normally the -context itself- gives enough clues to know when the KB=1024 Bytes rule might NOT be used in the KB=1024 sense. That goes for modems, but it also goes for hard disks and many other situations. The -context- will tell you whether the normal KB=1024 rule might not apply. Modems and hard disks are -exceptions to a rule- and they even they are exceptions that are less and less important. By the way, don't try to make this into an argument that "this proves that an encyclopedia should use the correct terminology, and therefore we should use the KiB notation", because of course Misplaced Pages correctly explains and uses the kilobaud notation, but the difference between using "KiB" and "kilobaud" is that "kilobaud" IS (and always was) "established use", and KiB is not!

You are also wrong in the other case. Articles are not written as if they are themselves written at the time the computer was made. They are for current public. You seem to be trying to enforce your point of view, with your personal understanding of what these units mean, ignoring the uses that you have not been faced with personally. I just plain disagree with that and will ask you to personally follow the style guide you refer to yourself and return what used to be in the articles. While you can honour the past like I do (that is why I did create all these articles) you do not enforce it on the present. --Aleksandar Šušnjar 12:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

No the articles are not "written as if they themselves are written in the period at the time the computer was made", of course not , any fool can see that, and I never claimed they were! But they -do- (should) use the same terminology as the original documents!

To now try to re-define the notation of KB to mean something completely different from what is in those old (and even new) books is -wrong and confusing-! Imagine a kid that might get his first information about these systems (C64 etc) from wikipedia, and that Misplaced Pages would train him to think that KB meant 1000 Bytes, and that he then would go to the library and find a book about the subject, only to be confused because the book uses KB (unknown to him of course in the 1024 bytes sense), but the numbers simply do not add up! Imagine his confusion then...

Training people that KB means 1000 is simply criminally insane in my opinion!

even though I very strongly feel this, I will still refrain from changing articles, such as yours, where the first mayor contributor uses the KiB notation!

However, I -will- change back articles where someone changed the original KB's to KiB, Kibibyte or other such nonsense! In that case I follow what you call "the style guide", but which is more exact WP:MOSNUM, to the letter, "stay with established usage, and follow the lead of the first major contributor to the article"!

This is something -you- clearly do not!

You are the "first major contributor" of a very small number of retro-computing articles, (I agree, thats why I try not to touch them) but -you- "do not stay with established usage"! Because using KiB is -NOT- established usage!

There are some persons here who seem to think (and hope) that if they can sway Misplaced Pages the world will then follow, but Misplaced Pages will -NOT- be used as a tool for that! And even in the improbable case that Misplaced Pages would change to using binary prefixes, I can predict you that the world will still not follow! Just as they have not the last six years or so. So just give up already!

Being "precise" is generally applaudable, I agree, but not to any price!

At least -I'm- not going to change my mind about this, and so is the majority of Misplaced Pages editors not going to, lets just agree we disagree, and have no hard feelings about it. With best regards, Mahjongg 15:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I do value your opinion. This is why I stated that I am really unhappy with either single approach and would prefer a template. That template can carry a short piece of information - including disambiguation. Whatever is shown in there, it should point to "Kibibyte" as in that context it is most definitely not ambiguous by any measure and "Kilobyte" is.

We have to learn to live in the present and not in the past. These articles do not quote specifications. In that case I would agree with you 100% and include it as is - this is also in sync with WP:MOSNUM. In some cases I would even go further and include the image of such specis if it is available. At the same time, I repeat, I am sure that you don't expect those to appear in there, do you?

Instead of continuing to disagree and take separate paths, I think we should really try to find a true solution. Again, I think that whatever that solution is, it should be resolved as a template. Take the following example:

• A separate template is created for each unit and historical context. For example, "KB" is to be shown, but it should really mean 1024 bytes (or 1000 bytes). For example {{KB-bin}} and {{KB-dec}} or {{KB2}} and {{KB10}}. {{KiB}} does not need disambiguation information.

• A separate article is created for each one of those, linking to "Kilobyte" and "Kibibyte" articles after specifying really which kind that one is. For example "Kilobyte (1000 bytes)" and "Kilobyte (1024 bytes)" or "Binary Kilobyte" and "Decimal Kilobyte".

• The template could actually (possibly) be parameterizable to actually include the value. In that case the tooltip could actually also include exact number of bytes as well. We could have a parameter that may cause the template to expand this data in-line and not just show it in a tooltip.

• Same is applied to other units.

Should this be done, I actually would start agreeing with you 100%. I would use a {{KB-bin}} template for these articles. They would appear as "KB", but would provide an explanatory tooltip and link to "Binary Kilobyte". In cases that use "KB" as 1000 bytes (and there are such cases), they would use the other link. This eliminates ambiguity, is precise in every way, does not confuse anyone and will let Misplaced Pages community easily maintain (change) those templates and associated standards. Should anything change, they can easily just change templates and that will affect all the articles. Trivial!

--Aleksandar Šušnjar 03:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, although I have to see it work in practice. I am also a bit worried with template solutions, (or with solutions that use the "my preferences" settings to show a "preference for either KB or KiB") that a whole new revert war will commence over the content of the templates, or default settings of "preferences".

But I am all in for any solution that introduces the new notation while at the same time avoids the problem of re-defining KB to 1000, or that forces the new "KiB" notation without any explanation that in other sources the "KB" notation means the same thing.

By the way, its a bit strange for you to say "that in some cases, for those computers, it actually did not say "KB" but "КБ" or "кб" or "килоречи". ". In the Russian Misplaced Pages of course they can use "КБ" or"кб" or "килоречи", but I don't expect to see it in the English version, so it's not a real argument to say that "КБ" etc is sometimes used to. I take the Chinese might have another notation too, but that fact is irrelevant to this discussion.

Let me be clear that I have nothing against trying to introduce new notations to resolve the "kilobyte" disambiguation, but -this- solution is brain dead in the sense that it will re-define the meaning of KB from 1024 bytes to 1000 bytes! A much better solution would have been to define new notations for -both- binary and decimal "kilo's", and leave the old notations unchanged.

What they -should- have done would be to define "KiB" as "binary kilo's", and invent another term "KeB" (for example) for "decimal kilo's", and leave "KB" alone.

If they had done -that- no new problem would have arisen, and I would have been all for it to introduce it here.

Mahjongg 10:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

First let me explain why I mentioned "килоречи" - not because of the language, but because you appear to recommend whatever was originally specified. I am myself against that - I prefer standardized set of units. The only true standard we truly have is SI. It has been designed for consistency at it is also the source of the definition for multipliers. Here there are few problems:

• Original "thousand" prefix is lowercase "k", not uppercase. However, first computers only "yelled in uppercase".

• Uppercase "K" actually stands for "Kelvin" - not a multiplier. Hence, kK is 1000 Kelvins.

• SI specifies that uppercase "B" stands for "Bell". Hence, "KB" is, according to a system that was authoritative both then and now, actually "Kelvin Bells". You can take that as anything you like if it makes sense to you. "kB" would be kilo-Bells, just like "dB" is deci-Bells.

• For some time it was more or less understood that, in the computer world, one uses binary meanings and binary prefixes. Furthermore, it did not make much of a difference - 32 binary kilobytes is still 32.something decimal kilobytes and that was quite a memory at the time. Problems begin at 42 binary kilobytes - that is by all means 43 decimal kilobytes. Problems also got greater when computers stepped out of their boxes and started to be used in the real world. How many kilobytes does one need to sample one second of 16-bit stereo audio at some sampling rate f such as 44.1 kHz? Would it be 4 bytes * f? For example 4 bytes * 44.1 kHz = 176.4 k*bytes*Hz = 176.4 k*bytes/s? Is that "k" in 176.4 kb/s decimal or binary? Whether you agree or disagree, you see the point. We need consistent units to work this out consistently. Having same prefix mean one thing here and another thing there just plain does not work.

• You talk about modifying decimal prefix from "K" to something like "Ke". Aside from the fact that it actually means "Kelvin electron", you just can immediatelly forget about it. Why? Because it is not the rest of the world who caused this - it is us - the "ancient computer guys". We can't go and say - "Hey, 0.0...01% of us made a mistake and we used your prefix wrongly, you should all now change to correct our mistake".

• You talk about this being confusing. Well, what is confusing is what previous generations (including mine) caused. You yourself point out that "if this is in that context" then it means that, if it is in another then it means another thing, etc. "All you have to know" is to understand the context and which meaning was used in it. Frankly, that does not work. How many Gallons do you need to fill a 100 liter container? Do you know the context? Of course you don't. Is it US or UK Gallons? How many miles are there from London to New York (shortest route)? Should these miles be nautical or land? Most people who use miles think in land miles and would be surprised with nautical ones. How many gallons of fuel does airplane need to fly 100 miles? "Normal people" don't need to know the details if everything is nice and consistent. They should not suffer. Ultimately, not even your contexts work. Why? Because there were modems that used decimal and others that used binary expression of their speed and were made for that exactly. There were hard drives that used this and that. There were mixtures. There were decimal computers also, you know... and for them, a "k" multiplier is right on the thousand! How about hard drives? What does a "MB" mean? Does a common person understand the difference between a mechanical and solid state hard drive? You will be able to copy one to another but not vice versa. Of course, it also depends on what manufacturers wanted to present. So you can't even talk about one common meaning. There was no such thing for quite a while, then it kind of standardized for some time until it became apparent that it was wrong.

As such, I believe that templates are the only correct way to start solving the problem. At least article source will be consistent until this is finalized. But one thing is pretty sure. Maybe it is not "KiB" but it is definitely not going to be "KB"... --Aleksandar Šušnjar 16:52, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

My (this time short) answer, all your examples and "reasons" are contrived, and the "world" (not a tiny minority as you imply) has decided that KB means "Kilobyte" as in 1024 bytes, except in a very few cases. If you want to be such a purist that -you- cant't live with that fine, but just dont bother the rest of the world with that. Mahjongg 10:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of mailing lists

I've nominated List of mailing lists, an article you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but in this particular case I do not feel that List of mailing lists satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion; I have explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Misplaced Pages is not" and the Misplaced Pages deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of mailing lists and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of List of mailing lists during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Versageek 14:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I plead "no contest" :-). It was more trouble than it was worth, and never came of the ground anyway. So please go ahead and delete it.

XGameStation

AfD nomination of XGameStation

An article that you have been involved in editing, XGameStation, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/XGameStation. Thank you. -- ~ JohnnyMrNinja _{talk} 16:34, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

SAM Coupé binary prefixes

It looks like someone else is trying to force binary prefixes into another old computer system article that you edited a while back. Fnagaton 13:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I have had earlier experience with him when he did the same to the Didaktik spectrum clone, and after my reversal a sockpuppet of sarenne undid my reversal, but eventually the page was fixed and has remained so until now. I have placed the SAM Coupé on my watchlist. Mahjongg 16:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice, I've also added Didaktik to my watchlist. Fnagaton 20:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

PS. Thanks for tidying up the typo in my edit. Kilibytes indeed. ;) Fnagaton 22:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: Rationale for speedy deletion of Image:Xbox360 scratch.PNG

Thanks for the speedy and detailed reply. I'd like to clear up a couple of misunderstandings. First, I didn't add the WP:NFCC#10c dispute tag - that was done by our resident pestering robot, and it is a minor concern. Second, although VARA is a public broadcaster, the content it produces is protected by copyright, so it is not in the public domain. Whether the screencap of the scratched disk is replaceable is a separate issue. You claim that it is not replaceable by any other image of a scratched disc, but the article itself indicates that the scratched discs produced during VARA's testing were ordinary game discs damaged by the X360's drive mechanism. That is, side by side, there's nothing special which would differentiate between VARA's footage of a scratched disc and a potential free alternative photo of a similarly damaged disc. There's simply no reason to make a fair use claim on even a frame of the footage when any Wikipedian with an X360 and a disc could create a potentially superior alternative. (As an aside, this has happened to me, the 360 ate my copy of Perfect Dark Zero when I was playing the last level :( ) Regards, ˉˉ╦╩ 17:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I think I understand your approach, but I must disagree on one point. While your claim for using this picture in a section on VARA's investigation certainly satisfies U.S. fair use law, I don't think it complies with the strict approach prescribed by the first criterion of NFCC. ˉˉ╦╩ 13:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Binary prefix changes

Just a friendly warning to be on your guard for an "anonymous" IP hopping editor who is trying to force binary prefix changes into computer related articles, again. Due to the way the user edits articles, comments them and refers to old events from the previous binary prefix shenanigans current consensus is that this user is actually banned Sarenne. Please see my talk page for more information. Fnagaton 12:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning Fnagnaton, I still have watch pages on many of there articles. Ill keep on the lookout. It's crazy he is still at it though... Mahjongg 12:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Fnagaton, nobody is "IP hopping". That's just the effect of having a dynamically-assigned IP address in contrast to a static one. You make it look as if this was done on purpose to avoid a ban or disguise edits. It is not surprising that someone who cares about the IEC standard prefixes would modify the same as articles as another who cares about this. Your use of the term "binary prefix shenanigans" violates WP:NPA and WP:NPOV at the same time. Next, there is no consensus that I am Sarenne and, in fact, I've told you and your friends that I am not and have nothing to do with this user. You're supposed to back up your claims with facts before accuse someone of something especially if you do it repeatedly. Mahjongg, yes, that would probably be crazy and in fact "he" is not me. Often the most-likely (not most comfortable) explanation is the correct one. --NotSarenne 18:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)