Talk:Floppy disk hardware emulator

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)

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?

[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 Blackvisionit (talk) 03:08, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

Possible problematic user

(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)