This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Guy Macon (talk | contribs) at 06:55, 26 November 2011 (→Stateless Emulators: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 06:55, 26 November 2011 by Guy Macon (talk | contribs) (→Stateless Emulators: new section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | Computing Start‑class Low‑importance | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
 Archives | ||
|
||
State of the art
Article had almost been stubbed due to edit warring. Restored to last stable revision and contents. Moving the previous sections to Talk:Floppy_disk_hardware_emulator/Archive_2 (already created) has been blocked by automated filter. Another authorized user should retry. 137.204.148.73 (talk) 13:02, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
- Done . That was probably down to me. The move looked like a mass delete because of the (lack of) edit summary mentioning archiving. Ho-hum - fixed now. Velella 13:06, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
- The user has also conveniently archived the recent discussion of why most of the content they just re-added was removed in the first place. Rwessel (talk) 18:09, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Re-additions of low level interface details
Frankly, I don't see the value of including pin-outs and low-level signal descriptions in this article. They are far to detailed and low level for an encyclopedia. They should be removed (basically the table, and most of the misnamed "Solid state storage" section). This topic deserves only a short article. Rwessel (talk) 18:09, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Edit warring memories
Hoping this article will not fall into the edit-warring downward spiral again... 137.204.148.73 (talk) 22:21, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
- WP:BATTLEGROUND & WP:POINT - no further comment needed. 137.204.148.73 (talk) 08:49, 25 November 2011
- "plan of attack..." "pizza connection..." - no further comment needed. 137.204.148.73 (talk) 09:38, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Conflict Of Interest
A while back a user going by the username of User:Blackvisionit showed severe signs of claiming WP:OWNERSHIP over this page. Upon further investigation, it turns out that he sells floppy disk hardware emulators and was making decisions not for the good of this article, but rather to advance his own interests.
When this came out he engaged in edit warring and some rather nasty personal attacks against me, ending up with him being temporarily blocked and warned to be civil and to not engage in WP:COI editing. Rather than comply, he "retired" from editing Misplaced Pages.
Here it is several months later, and I noticed that someone editing from IP address 137.204.148.73 had re-inserted most of the material that had been inserted by the editor with the COI, so I attempted to rewrite one section with more of an emphasis on all types of floppy disk hardware emulators, not just the kind that he sells (which are characterized by having the same connector and pinouts as an IBM PC Floppy drive). As I expected, he reverted my changes. I rolled his revert back and, as I expected, he was monitoring the page and reverted my changes 4 minutes later (1RR for me, 2RR for him) with the edit comment "User:Guy Macon is back...". He then placed the comment about edit warring that you see in the section above.
I have been pondering what the best course of action at this point should be -- what is best for the article. I think that the best thing to do at this point is to take the following actions:
First, I am going to remove all links to any vendor who is selling any variety of floppy disk hardware emulator. I expect there to be strong objections from Blackvisionit/137.204.148.73 over this, and if history is any guide, repeated personal attacks and claims that, despite being a vendor of floppy disk hardware emulators, the COI rules don't apply to him. Nonetheless, I think removing all vendor links is justified on the basis of them not meeting Misplaced Pages's criteria for reliable sources. Note that this may leave some sections unreferenced, so I invite all who read this to help find reliable sources that are not vendors to replace the links I will be removing.
Second, I will be removing the pinout and low-level interface details. They are specific to the particular type of floppy disk hardware emulator that Blackvisionit/137.204.148.73 sells and ignores the fact that Commodore 64/Amiga, Apple II/Mac, and many synths have completely different pinouts. Besides being an important step to making this page vendor-neutral, as Rwessel correctly pointed out a couple of sections above this, such details are not encyclopedic.
I think that both of these changes are justified. I also believe that Blackvisionit/137.204.148.73 should abide by the instructions given by the blocking admin:
"As I said very clearly, I do not believe that you can judge when your edits will or will not be neutral based on your admitted COI. Please get consensus for every non trivial edit you wish to make on the talk page first. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions."
and
"it is abundantly clear to me that Blackvisionit's COI is making it impossible for xyr to edit the article neutrally and without resorting to OR. As such, I have informed Blackvisionit that xe is no longer to edit the article directly (outside of basic typo cleanup), and instead make suggestions on the talk page. I have alwso informed xyr that xe needs to stop the disruptive editing on the talk page, including borderline personal attacks. Should the behavior not change, I will seek a block at a more formal forum. "
I will be glad to discuss the above plan of attack plan for attacking the problem of ongoing COI editing with anyone, including Blackvisionit/137.204.148.73, but based upon my previous experience, I will simply not respond to any personal attacks or incivility. I would also remind other editors that according to WP:TPO you are allowed to delete personal attacks but not messages that are merely uncivil. I will leave that decision to others so as to avoid my own bias influencing the decision as to what to remove.
As always, all of the above is open to discussion and I will be happy to follow consensus. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:40, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
- I see that Blackvisionit/137.204.148.73 has added - without discussion - a link to the open-source VFD project, which I am going to allow, and re-inserted a smaller version of the pinout table, which I am going to remove without prejudice - if he discusses why he believes that it belongs and the consensus is to keep it, we can re-add it later.
- I would also like to ask other editors here for an opinion as to whether we should allow any edits at all by an editor with a clear conflict of interest, or whether we should ask an administrator to enforce the previous ruling instructing Blackvisionit/137.204.148.73 that
- "You've demonstrated you don't know how to be neutral, so now you need to use the talk page for all edit suggestions" .
- I am seeking consensus on this because, although I try to be fair, the fact that I have been the target of his personal attacks in the past may influence my judgement. Here are the arguments for and against enforcing the COI restrictions:
- Argument for: We should not reward a user editing in defiance of a ruling by an administrator to follow what really are standard restrictions for any editor who has a clear conflict of interest and has shown that he is unable to be neutral -- especially since he waited until the page was no longer under scrutiny before re-inserting material related to the product he sells, and has committed sockpuppetry in the past (Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Blackvisionit/Archive). Allowing any edits without prior talk page discussion sends the message that it is OK to ignore the rules, and puts an undue burden on other editors to have to scrutinize every edit to see if, once again, he has added material related to the product he sells.
- Argument against: Blackvisionit/137.204.148.73's last two edits appear to show a willingness to change -- at least while under renewed scrutiny. His latest talk page comments, while somewhat uncivil, did not rise to the level of being an actionable personal attack. The purposeful misinterpretation of the commonly used phrase "plan of attack" is troubling, as is the accusation of WP:BATTLEGROUND (I believe that I am being more than fair) and WP:POINT (he refuses to discuss his edits on the talk page, so there is no point to miss). Should we allow the infraction in the hope that he will either further moderate his behavior or violate community standards in a way that is more egregious than the recent edits, thus making the right decision clear?
- Please let me know what you think; I would like to reach a consensus as to what is best for the article. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 14:53, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
- I see that Wtshymanski reverted Blackvisionit/137.204.148.73's last changes. I don't always agree with Wtshymanski. but IMO this was a good call. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:59, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
- As the un-named admin in question, I would like clear evidence that this IP is Blackvisionit. If you have it, give it to me on my talk page, as it doesn't directly pertain to this article. Diffs would be great. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:01, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
- Done. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:39, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
- As the un-named admin in question, I would like clear evidence that this IP is Blackvisionit. If you have it, give it to me on my talk page, as it doesn't directly pertain to this article. Diffs would be great. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:01, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
- I see that Wtshymanski reverted Blackvisionit/137.204.148.73's last changes. I don't always agree with Wtshymanski. but IMO this was a good call. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:59, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
- I see that Blackvisionit/137.204.148.73 has changed the article from stub class to start class without discussion on the talk page. If he had discussed it, I would have supported the edit, and I believe everyone else would have as well. The continued refusal to voluntarily discuss edits is troubling, but the edit itself is fine. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:32, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Stateless Emulators
I am having trouble understanding exactly what this means:
"The emulator saves the data written to the floppy in either local storage (stand-alone emulators), or in a remote storage device or data exchange module (stateless emulators)."
I do not believe that a floppy disk hardware emulator can be stateless. It needs to keep track of rotational state of the "disk" and the position of the "head".
Are we just talking about the difference between a board or box you install locally and a cable to another computer? --Guy Macon (talk) 06:55, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
Categories: