Talk:Floppy disk hardware emulator/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

R/W performance

Thumperward performed a heavy editing cut on this article, referring to it as a cleanup. Had to revert it since it was a deletionist cut off of focused/main info.

• Pinout comparison: Pinout diagram shows the main differences between PC and NC. Flatting the diagram colors doesn't really make it more expressive.
• External links: There are worldwide only a few emulators manufacturers. It would be strange, talking about hw emulators, not to link to them.
• Floppy interfaces: You can't simply understand practical hw emulatiion if you don't understand the main floppy interfaces.

Blackvisionit (talk) 15:08, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

• The point of Wikipedia is to present knowledge here. External links should be used sparingly for information which can be found elsewhere which cannot be included here for whatever reason. They are not to be used for general portal links. This goes doubly when you quite evidently control at least one of said links, and trebly when said link is to a page where you make money from selling the linked product. All of those links should be removed again.
• The "floppy interfaces" comment is presumably due to the alteration of the heading "FDC interface" to "interface". There was no actual removal of information there. It most certainly did not warrant a flat revert under a "vandalism" summary. That one at least doesn't need to be reverted right now, although the article still needs completely rewritten and the headings will undoubtedly change again during that process.
• The current table layout is completely unreadable. Quite aside from massive overuse of HTML (about 4kb of pointless markup all told), coloured headers would be far less useful than, say, adequate labelling of the data. For now, it's easy enough to cut down on the junk markup without actually altering the table layout, though again the whole thing will probably need completely rewritten.
• Obviously the most galling thing here is an editor with an obvious conflict of interest reverting good-faith edits as vandalism, though the petty swipe at "deletionists" didn't help either. This obviously needs attention from an editor with good technical knowledge and good English to progress further at this time, though I'll try to reincorporate those changes which shouldn't ce controversial now that Blackvisionit has been warned.

Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 21:53, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Edited version of the pinuot table was worse than the previous one. I agree when thumperward says that it can be improved, but readability should prevail over compactness. Blackvisionit (talk) 00:43, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Floppy interfaces comment is about the removal of the Floppy interfaces external links. I've had to search internet for over a week to find them and believe it or not they are unique. Instead of removing it could be worth to turn them into a specialized article. Let's think about it. Blackvisionit (talk) 00:49, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the conflict of interest: Yeah, you cannot really include your own personal website/blog. If it is really, really relevant, you should ask another editor to review it and insert it for you. In any case, your page is simply a redirect to http://embeddedsw.net/EMUFDD_Floppy_Hardware_Emulator_Home.html so there is no purpose to using your page: just put the latter link in. I agree wtih ChrisC that it would be nice (the perennial WP wish) if some technical expert in this field could improve the article. I am troubled by the lack of citations (footnotes). What is the source for the information in the body of the article? Technical web sites can be okay, if they are the only choice. Blackvisionit: What sources were used for the text in the article? and for the pin data table in the article? Did that come from a book or web site? which one? --Noleander (talk) 12:55, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

The manufacturer comparison lists EMUFDD, PLR, HXC, QHSFD, FLEXIDRIVE, SWEROB, and DDR, but the references only link to EMUFDD. That's biased. There are few enough makers of FDD emulator hardware that all should be listed under External Links. Also, the manufacturer comparison has a bunch of orphan asterisks. Did somebody do a cut and past without including a footnote? --Guy Macon (talk) 17:58, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorting the manufacturer comparison lists in alphabetical order is a little messy and confusing! There should be a feature order, a guiding concept. Blackvisionit (talk) 19:03, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. If you wish, go ahead and undo my edit, then re-fix just the spelling error. Guy Macon (talk) 20:14, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

You're perfectly right stating that these few manufacturers could be grouped in a comprehensive external links sections, but... there's disagreement. Blackvisionit (talk) 19:03, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

If there is disagreement, those disagreeing should try to make a logical case for that view, keeping in mind that hundreds of Wikipedia articles are structured that way, and we will try to reach a consensus. Until then, I suggest that someone with familiarity with FDD emulators be WP:BOLD and create the external links section. Guy Macon (talk) 20:14, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

You're right. Editors should be less stuck to pure wiki-principles and get more connected to the evolving wiki-state-of-the-art - "Wikipedia does not have firm rules". I did add a fair/exhaustive external links section and that brought me a priori accusation of self-promotion. WP:SELFPROMOTE withdrawal, a kind thought by involved editors, is still missing... Now it's somebody else's turn to be bold and re-add a fair and exhaustive external links section (manufacturers' homepages, resellers excluded). Blackvisionit (talk) 21:45, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

If you have a time and date at which the external link section existed, let me know - if not I will search for it sometime tomorrow and add it back in - assuming it isn't spam of course.

(General advice, not aimed at you in particular:) I find that the best way to deal with potential conflicts of interest is this: if you an in any way benefit from an addition to Wikipedia, put it in the talk page instead of the article, fully disclose your connection, and say that you think it is worth adding. Then wait until a non-involved editor agrees and adds it. Speaking of which, I have an exciting opportunity to Make Money Fast through Multilevel Marketing of Homeopathic Distilled Water... (smile) --Guy Macon (talk) 23:35, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Here is the last available list. Here's the updated EMUFDD link. Here's the updated PLR link. QHFSD seems unreachable. VFD is an emulator accessory (ISO image -> sw virtual floppy drive) so could be dropped. Blackvisionit (talk) 00:25, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I just put in external links to all known vendors, verified every website, added Asia/Europe/North America vendors where possible, and searched for any that we may have missed. I also fixed the indentation on the talk page (replies get one more colon than the comment they are replies to). Thumperward, please review and criticize as needed. I believe in consensus and don't want to walk over anyone who has a legitimate objection. Thanks! Guy Macon (talk) 03:06, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Replied below. I still don't think these links are appropriate. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 10:34, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Just to summarize the discussion below, I carefully considered the arguments and concluded that Chris Cunningham is right and I was wrong. (And that, Boys and girls, is how we get consensus!) Guy Macon (talk) 22:31, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

RfC: Has the Floppy disk hardware emulator article to be edited according to WP:NPOV / WP:SELFPROMOTE ?

No problem in trusting good faith about editing, but complaining about a conflict of interest (WP:SELFPROMOTE) is not a good-faith-expression since, as everybody can easily check, external links refer to ALL active manifacturers (WP:NPOV). Moreover, talking about hardware you don't have an open-source alternative. Hardware can be referenced only by a fair and complete snapshot of the electronic state-of-the-art / features. Citing from WP:SPAM:

Elements of articles about products or services with brand names can also be combined under a common topic or category
to facilitate unbiased and collaborative information by including information about the competition and about different alternatives.

Just to be clear: this is not an edit-war and other editors are more than welcome. Unfortunately this is an extremely specialized technical topic so it's difficult to find other interested editors. As soon as I'll discover the prover page I'll ask for some 3rd-opinion. Blackvisionit (talk) 23:14, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Blackvisionit: An RfC must pose a specific question about content (that is, the material in the article). Is there a specific question this RfC is trying to answer? RfCs are not supposed to be used for "edit war" issues, although it could be used to resolve point-of-view conflicts. Anyway, I cannot see what the question is in your description above, so could you re-state the issue? Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 02:53, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

RfC: re-stating the issue / summarizing

[Question 1] Has the Floppy disk hardware emulator article text/body to be edited according to WP:NPOV / WP:SELFPROMOTE ?

• NPOV: eg. are there any direct or indirect judgments about different choices made by different manifacturers/architectures?
• SELFPROMOTE: eg. is there a doubt that this article promotes a particular brand of emulators?

Answer: pending...

[Question 2] Do we have to remove these sections: ==External links - emulators== and ==Floppy interfaces== ?

• ==External links - emulators== : ALL active manifacturers are listed
• ==Floppy interfaces== : unique references to strange & custom floppy interfaces found among numeric controls, very useful to understand emulators portability/compatibility

Answer: EL removed and interfaces joined in the references Blackvisionit (talk) 03:08, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

On Question (1), I dont see any evidence in the article that there is self-promotion or conflict-of-interest. Has someone alleged that there is? What is the evidence? Question (2): External links are sometimes appropriate, see WP:External links for guidance. They should be used sparingly, and not as an index of manufacturers. As for other the "Floppy Interfaces" section, I would say that Yes, it should be eliminated. Reason: it is far, far better for such information to be integrated into the body of the article. The best thing to do is to (1) get some books that talk about this subject; (2) summarize the books in the body of the article; (3) include footnotes (citations) for all non-trivial statements in the article. Information such as that currently in "Floppy Interfaces" section should - if you follow this recipe - naturally appear in the body (middle) of the article, since the sources talk about it. If the sources dont talk about it, it shouldnt be in the article. Adding "lists of ... " at the end of an article should be avoided. --Noleander (talk) 03:33, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm also going to think that integration + < ref > is the right recipe that should be applied to the Floppy Interfaces section. Blackvisionit (talk) 12:08, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Reviewing the RfC and the talk page history, it's not clear what exactly the question is. Reviewing the edit page history, this appears to be related to external links left by an IP, but those are not currently in the article. As it currently stands, the article looks good to me. aprock (talk) 04:40, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

The external links issue is due to Blackvisionit having reinserted the section titled "External links - emulators". All of the links in this section are to product pages for hardware in this category, and the first link (to "EMUFDD hardware emulator") is to a page which it seems evident is controlled by blackvisionit himself (it's got "blackvisionit" in the URL). There's a related issue in that the pinouts diagram shown here appears to convey the same information as the pinouts diagram on blackvisionit's product page: this means essentially that we're using the editor's own website as a source here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 10:21, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. Inserting links to your own website is clearly out of bounds here. aprock (talk) 23:45, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry that relying on my work as a source can be such as trouble. Unfortunately I'm the only guy on the web that felt the urge to publish clear/full/free info about it (HxC - a real commercial site giving some info - is really confusing and unreadable). Other reliable source about hardware emulation, as usual, are more than welcome. Blackvisionit (talk) 12:01, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

thumperward is missing a main detail about the conflict issue: in my emulation website (1) I give a lot of info (2) I give a lot of free software (3) I only link to another selling site (4) I don't sell anything, since I don't host a commercial site. All other External links - emulators are commercial sites only, added for the sake of fairness. Blackvisionit (talk) 12:01, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the conflict of interest: Yeah, you cannot include your own personal website/blog anywhere in an article, even in the External Links section. If it is really, really relevant, you should ask another editor to review it and ensure it doesnt violate WP:Spam and have them insert it for you. In any case, your page is simply a redirect to http://embeddedsw.net/EMUFDD_Floppy_Hardware_Emulator_Home.html so there is no purpose to using your page: just put the latter link in. I agree wtih ChrisC that it would be nice (the perennial WP wish) if some technical expert in this field could improve the article. I am troubled by the lack of citations (footnotes). What is the source for the information in the body of the article? Technical web sites can be okay, if they are the only choice. Blackvisionit: What sources were used for the text in the article? and for the pin data table in the article? Did that come from a book or web site? which one? --Noleander (talk) 12:55, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

All used sources are now listed in the references section. Removed External links. My tech-research results (unavailable in other sites) in tne last non-commercial reference (without redirection). Any other refactoring needed? Blackvisionit (talk) 13:34, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

@Blackvisionit - Those changes look great. Thanks for putting in the footnotes. I think all the issues in the RfC have been fixed. Good work! --Noleander (talk) 13:57, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Discussion seems to be closed. I'm going to push it and summarize the guidelines we've agreed on. Blackvisionit (talk) 18:43, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

RfCs run for a month, but don't let that stop you from working on the article in the interim. I'll hopefully have more comments soon. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 16:43, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Read about the month period. Now this article could take benefit from tech-peer-review, if you manage to find some. Hoping your main concerns found good answers. Blackvisionit (talk) 19:10, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

This does not appear to meet the criteria for a RfC, but rather to be a simple case of COI editing. I have placed a warning on the user's talk page using Template:Uw-coi and explained Wikipedia policy to him (see thread below). --Guy Macon (talk) 12:50, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I just put in external links to all known vendors (see section above). I have no connection with any of the vendors, nor have I bought any of the products (NewEgg still carries new floppy drives for $8.99...) --Guy Macon (talk) 03:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

They still aren't at all appropriate. We don't habitually include external links to retail sites here just because they sell the product covered in the article and no good reason has been given for an exception here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 10:32, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I was under the impression that each link was either to a manufacturer's site or to the only vendor selling a product. I agree that we don't list retail sites unless no alternative exists, but I don't agree that no information at all is an improvement. Guy Macon (talk) 17:10, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Are you talking about IPCAS / RIOC removal? It has been done because they're not retailers but fraudolent resellers. (1) They buy from china at x (2) apply a stick in front of the object and resell it (as manufacturer) with no other change at 2x. Chinese QHSFD used to be online a short time ago... is still reachable at ebay... needs to be found a direct link. Blackvisionit (talk) 17:28, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

To Blackvisionit: You should not have removed those links, for two reasons: first, you have a conflict of interest. That means you need to only make edits nobody will disagree with (removing obvious vandalism, for example), and otherwise suggest changes on the talk page for other editors to take action on. Please review WP:COI. Second, you have not provided a citation showing that they are resellers from a source that meet the criteria found in WP:RS. Essentially, you need to make an argument that they are fraudulent resellers on the talk page supporting your proposed change to the article in such a way that it convinces thumperward and myself. I have rolled back your recent edits, with the understanding that I can easily put them back if you make a convincing case for keeping them on the talk page.

To thumperward: I agree with your basic argument. Please help me to find an alternative way that allows the reader to easily find all of the handful of companies that actually make FDHEs without promoting resellers and other vendors. Guy Macon (talk) 03:34, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

(1) I'm allowed to do whatever edit I like to whatever article, since wikipedia it's a free community (2) Edits to the manufacturer table have not to be handled joined with the external section (3) Doesn't it seem contradictory to readd links to well known commercial frauds? (4) If you don't feel confortable with external links feel free to remove them ALL. Blackvisionit (talk) 09:03, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Re: manufacturer's table: I am leaving in your version. The order doesn't much matter to me.

Re: Removal: You say "known commercial frauds", Prove it. I am putting them back in. If you - one of their competitors - remove them again without providing the evidence I have asked for twice now, you risk being blocked from editing Wikipedia.

Re: "I'm allowed to do whatever edit I like to whatever article, since wikipedia it's a free community" You are wrong. See WP:NOTFREESPEECH which clearly states

"Wikipedia is free and open, but restricts both freedom and openness where they interfere with creating an encyclopedia. Accordingly, Wikipedia is not a forum for unregulated free speech."

Also see WP:NOTPROMOTION Which says

"Content hosted in Wikipedia is not for ... self-promotion. It can be tempting to write about yourself or projects in which you have a strong personal involvement. However, do remember that the standards for encyclopedic articles apply to such pages just like any other. This includes the requirement to maintain a neutral point of view, which is difficult when writing about yourself or about projects close to you."

and WP:COI, which says

"If you have a conflict of interest, then any changes that might be seen as controversial or not strictly neutral should be first suggested on the relevant talk page or noticeboard."

Also, please stop putting your replies at the same indentation level as the comment you are replying to. I fixed it (allowed under WP:TPO) but it is really annoying. Please review Help:Using talk pages#Indentation if you have any questions. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:37, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Interacting with some users is really hard... but there should be a way to get understood. IPCAS & RIOC are commercial frauds. Check it here and if you still need more evidence compare the user manuals: they've been copy-pasted. Blackvisionit (talk) 13:00, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

You're wrong stating that I removed a competitor link. I have encouraged and added a competitors link full section and discarded malicious links only. If you want to go on stating the goodness of the IPCAS & RIOC links, it's your turn to submit evidence of it. Blackvisionit (talk) 13:00, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Another little consideration: If I really had a COI, then editing with the same name on the linked page would be a suicide... This is transparency. I edit and everybody can check (1) my tech-background in the field (2) my field-related work. Blackvisionit (talk) 13:26, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Nice try, but YouTube is not a Reliable Source. Especially a YouTube video that you yourself posted. You need actual evidence from a reliable source that verifies yoour claim. "Because I say so" is not good enough. Again, I strongly encourage you to review WP:RS and WP:COI. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:31, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Well there're a few things that are now extremely clear. (1) You never hold an emulator in hand and you never took time to read the emulator manuals at the provided links. (2) Evidence that IPCAS is a fraud : IPCAS manual cut-and-pasted from ENGEL manual and QHSFD manual. (3) Evidence that RIOC is a fraud : RIOC frontpage cut-and-pasted from the QHSFD official labelling of the 3 available models: UFR, Brand A and Brand B. Blackvisionit (talk) 17:45, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Punctual editors should also notice a more than suspect resemblance between IPCAS / RIOC / ENGELS / QHSFD front panel. Same leds, same display, same USB in the same position... Look for an updated QHSFD link, and get rid of that junky links. Blackvisionit (talk) 17:48, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Falcon8765 did the right thing. It's much better doing without EL since it's such a mess reaching gaining consensus. Blackvisionit (talk) 17:54, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

User:Guymacon stated that we have started an edit war. Solution is very simple: he only needs to check the provided material and stop adding controversial links. To me the EL removal solution is the best thing and definitively closed this discussion. thumperward seems to be right. Blackvisionit (talk) 18:22, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Relabeling and reselling a product is a normal business practice, not "fraud" For example, see Mercedes-Benz Sprinter which has also been sold as the Dodge Sprinter and the Freightliner Sprinter. Are Dodge and Freightliner "frauds"? Nobody doubts that those are the same product. The problem is you - a competitor - deciding that somehow this disqualifies them from being listed in Wikipedia. You have a clear conflict of interest. Start obeying the guidelines in WP:COI now or you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Guy Macon (talk) 18:46, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I removed the product links as they don't particularly add anything of value to the article, aside from just being random example products. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 18:51, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but I don't agree at all. (1) Provided EL section was fully comprehensive of ALL existing manufacturers. (2) Reselling and pretending you're a manufacturer is a fraud. Worst at all, purchasers never get tech support because of the missing link (there are plenty of purchasers I know that have been frauded and left alone). Such a behaviour shouldn't be tagged as as normal. Good resellers have to clearly (1) point out they're not manufacturers (2) and give tech-link to the manufacturer support service. Blackvisionit (talk) 19:04, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I just did a check of ten Wikipedia topics where I knew that only a handful of manufacturers exist. None of them list the manufacturers. Based upon this, I withdraw my earlier opinion that they should be listed in this case. Guy Macon (talk) 23:30, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Seems that we've found agreement. Blackvisionit (talk) 00:41, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Note to the reader: nobody else seems to agree that "we've found agreement." Guy Macon (talk) 15:42, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Possible COI

A possible Conflict Of Interest involving this article is being discussed at Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Blackvisionit. Guy Macon (talk) 23:23, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Going on this way we'll also need a COI section for suspected Guy Macon's COI about IPCAS and RIOC. Best suggestion is be cool and objective, suppose good faith, check deeply references before reporting your opinion. Stop it, wikilove. Isn't article alright now? Blackvisionit (talk) 00:49, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Quoting from the COI page, (answer continued...)

You may go on complaining a hundred times more, this will not turn your personal opinion into a true statement.
I'm not going to discuss opinions, only facts/sources. I've provided a lot of sources that you still refuse to review,
you didn't provide any RS. My edits are NPOV, without biasing, objective.

Summarizing: stop your attacks and let me stop replying; let other interested RfC editors review this page. Blackvisionit (talk) 09:58, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Possible problematic user

General: active edit warring and non-objective tech-interpretaion

Related links: misplacing of harassing templates/proactive flaming,proactive flaming and non-objective tech-interpretaion Blackvisionit (talk) 22:40, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

(Hoping problematic is the right word - please correct it with a better term if necessary). Guy Macon's editing is getting problematic: reverted twice in a short time the useful disclaimer added by User:Falcon8765 - started a personal COI against me - seems to be seeking revenge after feeling some personal attack. Tomorrow I'll readd Falcon8765's disclaimer because is really a wise piece of edit. Blackvisionit (talk) 01:08, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

RfC updated. Discussion still open on question 1. Blackvisionit (talk) 01:56, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Editing and tech editing have to be cooperative and cool. Blackvisionit (talk) 22:20, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

(1) Being asked for VINCULUM 1 serial speed reference (2) provided official manual with punctual reference Vinculum 1 UM - p.25, Table 6.2 Monitor Baud Rates - 3Mbauds maximumm serial datarate (3) being answered the provided reference doesn't exist. Blackvisionit (talk) 04:47, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

(1) Users provides the embeddedsw.net and [1] links and obstinately states they are competitors. (2) As usual he didn't follow the suggestion to get in touch (by email) and verify it directly and (3) refused to read the whole pages embeddedsw - "Ordering info at" / milosrl - p.14, "contact us". Have you ever seen competitors providing same contact info? Blackvisionit (talk) 11:05, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Guymacon, no way you're allowed to censor a discussion (you're involved in) and prevent other users from reviewing your editing. Somebody should ban you for some time and let you read more about wiki. 93.48.143.214 (talk) 18:06, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

My opinion after reviewing: Guymacon is flaming and proudly adding nonsense. 93.48.143.214 (talk) 18:06, 6 August 2011 (UTC)— username (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Guymacon's quotes are so funny! It's unbelievable. Stay cool Blackvisionit, leave him alone and everything will be alright. 79.45.39.176 (talk) 19:58, 6 August 2011 (UTC)— username (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Problematic user conduct section blanked from the involved user twice. Now he's been warned. 93.48.129.148 (talk) 06:40, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Full protection

Rather than block both of you for edit warring (you're both either close to or over 3RR), I've fully protected the article for 3 days. Please try to work out your issues here and to WP:COIN in that time. After the protection expires, if the edit warring restarts, I will either fully protect the article for longer or block the offending users. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:46, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

The only missing edit is readding that wise comment by User:Falcon8765

==External links==
< ! - - ======================== {{No more links}} ============================
PLEASE BE CAUTIOUS IN ADDING MORE LINKS TO THIS ARTICLE. Wikipedia
is not a collection of links nor should it be used for advertising.
Excessive or inappropriate links WILL BE DELETED.
See Wikipedia:External links & Wikipedia:Spam for details.
If there are already plentiful links, please propose additions or
replacements on this article's discussion page, or submit your link
to the relevant category at the Open Directory Project (dmoz.org)
and link back to that category using the {{dmoz}} template.
======================= {{No more links}} ============================= - - >

useful in order to (1) tell any user about the talk page agreement (2) avoid replaying this endless discussion. Blackvisionit (talk) 10:12, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I strongly urge you to not continue your edit war by re-inserting that material when the protection expires. As has been explained to you several times, WP:COI says "If you have a conflict of interest, then any changes that might be seen as controversial or not strictly neutral should be first suggested on the relevant talk page or noticeboard" You have a conflict of interest. The edit is controversial - I oppose it. Thus you should ask Falcon8765 to re-insert it. And, of course. I am free to ask him not to do so. Please follow the rules. Guy Macon (talk) 12:09, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Guymacon that is misusing the COI. You can't say "I don't object to that edit, I just object to you doing it." Who does an edit is never relevant (except in the case of banned editors); since you have just said the edit is fine, Blackvisionit is free to insert it. Heck, if "everyone" (i.e., the two of you and any silent editors) agree, then I could go ahead and add it right now.

Blackvisionit, I do have a question: do you have an explicit, declared COI with regards to this article? Qwyrxian (talk) 12:23, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Qwyrxian went right to the point. Agreed edits can be performed by everyone, even strictly connected/COI users. Another little consideration: even non-COI users are discouraged from repeatedly performing disputed edits. After being warned they have to cooperate in reaching consensus in the talk page. Since Guymacon that is misusing the COI shouldn't it be closed? Blackvisionit (talk) 12:44, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I'm strictly connected to the emulator field. I always edit with NPOV, without BIAS. I always follow no-reference-at-all or complete-objective-reference editing philosophy. Last disagreement was about malicious links, not about competitors links (added by myself). Blackvisionit (talk) 12:44, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, Re: "Who does an edit is never relevant", got it. I understand and very much appreciate the clarification. I see that I was indeed misinterpreting the policy. I think my frustration over the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behavior got the better of me in this case, and for that I apologize to Blackvisionit. The present state of the article isn't bad, since another editor removed all the links to all manufacturers and I agreed with his reasoning for doing so, which makes Blackvisionit's repeated assertion that he is allowed to remove references to his competitors because in his opinion they are "frauds" a moot point. Now that I have raised the flag, I am going to leave any needed correction of user behavior to others and concentrate on what I do best - technical issues. Again, thanks. Guy Macon (talk) 17:58, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a war. There will never be winners nor losers. Article quality/completeness and provided-reference deep check are our sole goal.

Another little consideration: Guy Macon's last edit is an excellent work in subtle indirect attacking, really dense and even more... Did you read wikilove? Blackvisionit (talk) 18:46, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Since Blackvisionit has been instructed to not edit the article directly and that xe will be blocked for doing so (except for minor edits like spelling correction or vandalism removal (note that I mean vandalism as defined in WP:VANDAL)), there's no more need for full protection. However, I will be continuing to monitor the article and talk page, and any bad behavior by any party will receive scrutiny. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:04, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Bottleneck

The current article makes the following claims:

"Simple emulators are not equipped with an internal permanent storage and directly send data to a remote storage or to the data exchange module. Complete stand-alone emulators instead are equipped with flash memory with no need of a remote link or an external memory device always plugged in. Simple and complete emulators, however, share an intrinsic limit: a big seek time (> 12ms), due to current track saving and new track loading operations. Some hosts could reject any of these emulators.

Fastest emulators are equipped with FRAM memory, replacing both RAM track buffer and flash memory and allowing permanent internal storage at minimum (< 1ms) seek time."

These claims were inserted by an editor who sells the only Floppy disk hardware emulator that contains internal, FRAM-based memory.

So, do these claims make sense?

The floppy disk controller in the PC maxes out at 1 megabit per second (0.125 megabytes per second.) (Source: http://www.angelfire.com/scifi/hardware/ref/fdd.htm)

A recent test of USB flash drives showed speeds of between 16.8 megabits per second (2.1 megabytes per second.) and 146.4 megabits per second (18.3 megabytes per second.). (Source: http://www.flashbay.com/usb-flash-drive-read-write-speed.html)

The USB 2.0 interface itself maxes out at 480 megabits per second (60 megabytes per second.) (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USB)

The slowest available SDD cards run at 16 megabits per second (2 megabytes per second.) )Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secure_digital)

So, all available floppy disk hardware emulators are limited by the speed of the controller in the PC, which is between 16 and 480 times slower than the speed of the USD thumb drive or SDD card.

I thus conclude that the above "fastest" claim is false.

In addition, the use of the terms "simple" and "complete" appears to show a bias.

See Bottleneck for a more complete explanation of this issue. Guy Macon (talk)

No, you're absolutely wrong. Interested users may read the following explanation.

• (1) External USB storage or USB-PC-link
• (1.A) Noone buys USB2-full interfaces (prolific 2.0/vinculum 2/...) because of the exceeding price, more than buying internal memory.
• (1.B) Available USB1 interfaces (prolific 1.0/vinculum 1/...) are well spread, cheap, and USB2 compatible
• (1.C) Fastest available USB1 interfaces are driven in serial-mode and fastest serial transfer rate (non-standard) is 3Mbit
• (1.D) At any time there could be a step-pulse and you need to save an entire track at once. 18 sectors * 2 sides * 512Byte = 147456bits = 49ms at 3Mbit
• (1.E) 49ms is an unbearable wait for FDC because fastest ones required seek times less than 6ms

• (2) Internal memory
• (2.A) The emulator is still forced to survive this sequence (A) writing at 500Kbit (B) receiving a step-pulse (C) save the current track in less than 6ms (D) output the next track
• (2.B) Internal RAM used as track-buffer works well in switching between READ/WRITE but there's the size problem: cheap RAM fits exactly 1 or 2 tracks. Swtiching between tracks is still too slow because of the RAM/FLASH interaction: flash capable to be directly written at 500Kbit are too expensive.
• (2.C) FRAM solves both the READ/WRITE switching problem and the WRITE/STEP saving/switching problem

• (3) Available implemented architectures
• (3.A) No internal memory + USB interface (simple architecture/solution | cheap)
• (3.B) Internal RAM + FLASH (medium architecture/solution | tested WRITE/STEP ~ 50ms)
• (3.C) Internal FRAM (complete architecture/solution | expensive | tested WRITE/STEP ~ 1ms)

Understanding this you've done your first step in building your own emulator! Blackvisionit (talk) 19:41, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I am well aware of the relative costs of a USB 1.0 vs a USB 2.0 chip. A Future Technology Devices VNC2-32Q1B USB 2.0 Controller costs $0.92. I cannot find any USB-1.0-only chips that are still in production.

If you believe that "Fastest available USB1 interfaces are driven in serial-mode and fastest serial transfer rate (non-standard) is 3Mbit" - and have a citation to back up your claims - you should try to correct http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usb#USB_1.0, which (correctly) gives a figure of 12 Mbit/s. Let me know how that works out for you. Guy Macon (talk) 20:15, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Checked VNC2 ordering (few pieces) - got 5$. Emulators refer to a very limited marketing target and you can't apply large scale component prices. I remember reading HXC enjoying because he sold a hundred pieces. QHSFD managed in selling 1K/10K/? because of an overall production price lower than 30$. Blackvisionit (talk) 21:02, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Remember that cheap MCUs (20/40MHz) hardly provide more than 115200bps. VNC1 interacts at 3Mbits maximum and internal SER/DES working at that rate are luxury! Blackvisionit (talk) 21:09, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

You claim that prolific brand USB chips are limited to 3Mbit/s, but the data sheets clearly show that they come in two speeds: 12 Mbit/s Full Speed and 480 Mbit/s High Speed.

I gave you a citation (http://www.angelfire.com/scifi/hardware/ref/fdd.htm) for the speed of a FDD interface (1 megabit per second). If you wish to claim a different speed, provide a citation.

I gave you a citation (http://www.flashbay.com/usb-flash-drive-read-write-speed.html) for the speed of USB flash drives (16-150 megabits per second). If you wish to claim a different speed, provide a citation.

The two numbers above - which are supported by citations - prove that your claims that your product is faster because it uses FRAM instead of a USB interface is false.

You cannot use the limitations of the chips you use in your product as a source for alleged limitations of your competitor's products.

You need a citation to a reliable source to establish any claims you make on a Wikipedia page. Guy Macon (talk) 21:31, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Enough is enough. You're editing (1) posting false info (2) and worse of all with a trollish behaviour. This is my last answer to you Vinculum 1 UM - p.25 - 3Mbauds maximumm serial datarate. Don't feed trolls. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackvisionit (talk • contribs) 22:03, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Accusing another editor of trolling is a gross breach of civility. Falcon8765 ^(TALK) 22:12, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but we've got evidence of repeated intentionally harassing behaviour. Blackvisionit (talk) 22:19, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

It is worth noting that, besides the fact that the serial data rate of a Vinculum chip is totally irrelevant, the document cited does not contain any mention of a serial data rate or any other sort of data rate. Even if we accept the claim that Blackvisionit's competitors cannot possibly have chosen any other chip than the Vinculum chip, and even if we accept the completely unsourced assertion that a Vinculum chip can only move THREE megabits per second, that's still three times faster than the ONE megabit per second that we have shown (with a citation) to be the bottleneck. Thus the claim by Blackvisionit that Blackvisionit's product is faster than his competitors product is totally unsupported, and no amount of flaming will change this basic engineering fact. Guy Macon (talk) 23:07, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Looking through the above, I see pure WP:OR violations on Blackvisionit's points above. You're making an argument about the relative merits of one item over another, and doing it through a complex set of reasoning. In order to support the claim that only FRAM-memory supplemented emulators are the fastest, you need a single, clear source that states that exact fact. You may not arrive at that conclusion through a series of logical statements, even if each individual sentence is supported by a reliable source. Rather, I should be clear: Blackvisionit is more than welcome to make such a claim on xyr own website, on web forums, or even in a trade journal. Xe is not allowed to do so here. Once the article is unprotected, that claim should be removed (theoretically I could do it myself now, but I would like to be sure that the consensus of editors other than Blackvisionit supports the change). I'm also going to leave some followup notes on Blackvisionit's talk page regarding xyr work on WP. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:59, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

No problem to me in politely removing whatever OR requires. Being asked for details and gave them, obviously as informal talk/discussion. Sorry but you won't find any official source about hw-emulating-inside-process. Even HxC (providing firmware source) is not a source. Blackvisionit (talk) 03:40, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Blackvisionit attempted to move the above technical discussion about bottlenecks to his talk page. I am reproducing it here so that interested editors can comment on the technical claimes he is making. Guy Macon (talk) 05:15, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Just in case you missed it, in the talk page (Bottleneck section) you'll find a brilliant example of how-somebody-should-never-edit. (1) Being asked for VINCULUM 1 serial speed reference (2) provided official manual with punctual reference (3) being answered the provided reference doesn't exist. This is getting to be absurd. Blackvisionit (talk) 04:47, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

The fact that the PDF you linked to does not contain the material you say it does is easily verified by searching for keywords such as "serial" and "Mb/sec". The document cited does not contain any mention of a serial data rate or any other sort of data rate. Guy Macon (talk) 05:15, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

(auto shifted to problematic user) Blackvisionit (talk) 11:05, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I am now stopping all further efforts to educate Blackvisionit regarding the multiple technical flaws in his arguments because of repeated personal attacks which are at this point bordering upon harassment. If any other engineer who wishes to improve this article finds the technical discussion useful I will be glad to re-open it. Guy Macon (talk) 12:41, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate it, thanks. Blackvisionit (talk) 12:58, 6 August 2011 (UTC)