User talk:Real Deuce

SyncTerm

Hi Stephen. I can't believe that I am defending your own creation against you. Do you regret that you spent all the time writing it? When did you start programming it and for what reason? Why did you implement any type of character set encoding out there used by any BBS software and then make it platform independent to be able to port it to virtually any modern client operating system in use today?. I agree with you regarding "importance" and "popularity", when it comes to terminal software that provides basic VT100 and ANSI support. MS DOS based programs like Terminate and QModem for the IBM PC are more notable in that respect. Commodore Amiga BBS systems supported ANSI, so did the 16 bit Atari's (like the ST or Falcon). I was able to call boards on those platforms with Terminate. However, character sets used by 8-bit platforms like ATASCII and PETSCII were not supported by neither of those programs. Your program came obviously very late, I even presume that you created it after the demise of bulletin board systems. Is that correct? What happened to cause your negative attitude towards this subject today? Cheers! --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 08:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It does seem a little odd, doesn't it? :-)

I do not regret writing it in any way, shape, or form.
I appear to have started writing it Fri Jun 4 08:06:36 2004 UTC
The reason I wrote is is that there was no telnet BBS client for FreeBSD that I came even close to liking
I added the extra VGA fonts because I added multiple font support to ciolib, had the fonts laying around, and it was simple. I don't actually support those encodings (yet)
I made it platform independent mostly because I needed to make all the supporting libraries (ciolib, uifc, xpdev, cterm, etc) platform independent for Synchronet so it was usually trivial to keep SyncTERM platform independent as well
As for the C64/Atari fonts and emulation, I added those because there are telnetable C64 and Atari BBSs in existence and SyncTERM is a BBS client. Ditto for ANSI music support (actually, ANSI music was mostly for The PIT!)
Bulletin board systems are not dead quite yet (See Synchronet)
The negative attitude is simply that Wikipedia will never be the "right" place to look up SyncTERM... there is nothing about SyncTERM that lends itself to being looked up in a reference. "Right" places for SyncTERM to appear in Wikipedia would be:
1. List of BBS Terminal Emulators
2. Comparison of Terminal Emulators
3. List of Terminal Emulators
4. ANSI Music (In a list of terminal emulators that support it)
5. ANSI Art (In a list of terminal emulators that support it)
6. Synchronet (In some section that lists Synchronet sub projects perhaps)
7. ATASCII (In a list of terminal emulators that support it)
8. PETSCII (In a list of terminal emulators that support it)
You seem to think that having a Wikipedia article will help people find SyncTERM, but don't seem to think of it as an ad. I don't understand this bit at all. --Real Deuce (talk) 09:21, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This makes sense. After digging around a bit more about the who is who, does it seem to me that SyncTerm should be a paragraph in the article to Synchronet. I would propose that instead of voting for the deletion of the article you and me should vote to have it merged into the Synchronet article. The AfD proposition because of notability issues would also be a reason to remove it from the Synchronet article for exactly the same reason. This does not have to be the case, but it could be used as argument in case of a dispute over it at the Synchronet or any other article. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 01:04, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I changed my vote at the AfD and also added SyncTerm to the Syncronet article )here. Let me know if there is any content that is missing and I will add it. :) Cheers! --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 01:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC

SyncTerm Merge and Synchronet Article

Hi Stephen, just FYI. A merge would have looked like this (proposal added) and here how the merged page looks today. The SyncTerm article was deleted. Let me check if it redirects to the Synchronet article. If not, then it will shortly :) --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 22:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Working and looks good. Since I proposed the deletion, I didn't think it was appropriate for me to vote. --Real Deuce (talk) 06:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the Synchronet. I saw all your edits and just want to make you aware of the WP:COI (conflict of interest) policy. I don't know if and to what extend it applies to you in regards to Synchronet, because I don't know how big your involvement in that project it. I don't worry about that you have any bad intention and my first edits in Wikipedia also happened to fall under the WP:COI guideline, but I did not know better either. My edits were defended later by other editors, when some guy came and wanted the whole article deleted because of COI. I did not create the article and only extended it as you did in case of the Synchronet article. Just FYI. Cheers! --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 22:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware if COI, and I am pretty actively involved in Synchronet development. However, I am very much uninterested in any promotion of Synchronet and I believe my edits are NPOV and Verifiable. Synchronet development is my hobby, and I am an "expert" in it. I expect someone to trim down the Synchronet article at some point and don't expect to have any problem with that. Even better would be if someone cleaned the article up, I'm fairly certain that the layout I used is not the best one, but it's a start. To be honest, I think that most of the sub project stuff should be in one or two sections, not the mess of sub sections it is now. I just kinda got started and wasn't sure what to exclude. Any guidance on this type of thing is welcome (as is you doing it yourself of course :-) --Real Deuce (talk) 06:53, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you and only wanted to give you a heads up. In my case did somebody want to build a case regarding my contributions to the Superior Art Creations article. There was also no commercial or promotional intention from my part, heck I even provided the first verifyable sources that prove notability. There were no references when I started to modify the article (which already existed). Well, as you can tell, I am also interested in the BBS subject. I was a sysop myself for a number of years, a hobby BBS, also nothing commercial. If you are familar with PCBoard, check out the article about it and let me know if something is missing etc. I made the "skelleton" of the article that existed before to a full article. It was a pain in the butt to find reliable sources for events that I knew occured from back then. This tells you how little or how badly accessible many information actually are on the internet. Stuff related to the demoscene has a similar problem. I am not very familar with the Synchronet project to provide much of a help regarding its substance. I could check the article from a Wikipedia quality point of view regarding the "tone", formating and references etc. Let me know when you believe that you are done with it from your end and I will have a look and let you know what I think. Cheers. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 07:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 02:55, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking of the /16

{{unblock|76.202.0.0/16 is quite large and includes the 76.202.20x.* static IP /29s (which have a reverse lookup indicating the customer... start doing whois lookups from 72.202.200.0 and up every 8 addresses... my block is 76.202.204.40}}

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Range unblocked by Gamaliel.

Request handled by: T. Canens (talk)

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

I will unblock since the block was due to expire very soon anyway. Keep in mind that there is a persistent multi-year vandal using IP addresses in this range and there will be likely blocks in the future that may affect you. These blocks will not affect your ability to edit while logged into your account. Gamaliel (talk) 14:53, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to look into an ip block exemption to avoid such situations in the future. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:16, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IPBE would not help here - the block was a soft block, and RD could already edit while logged in, as Gamaliel said. T. Canens (talk) 04:27, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]