Talk:ZX Spectrum graphic modes/Archive 1

Archive 1

Epilepsy?

I'm a bit worried about Image:Parrot rgb3.gif. I think it could give someone a fit, so a slower version would be better -- maybe with a link to the existing version, together with a warning? --StuartBrady (Talk) 22:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

• I've replaced both of the flickering images with links and warnings. The W3C's guidelines on this are available here.--Fastfission 14:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Good, looks fine to me. This "new" display modes do flicker a lot, even on a TV, so the GIFs really simulate the effect (50Hz flicker). I think a good solution is really to just keep the links. Slower gifs will not simulate the effect and still flicker a lot. This way people can see the simulated effect if they can and healht issues are prevented. Since I created and put the images here on the first place, I apologise for some possible inconvenience.

Sorry, I wasn't clear — the idea of using a slower version wasn't to simulate the effect, only to illustrate how the effect works. I should really have said "one or two frames per second". --StuartBrady (Talk) 19:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Shock Megademo

User:Pak21 removed this sentence, citing Shock Megademo as a counter-example:

However, the Spectrum's processor is not fast enough to write to an entire row of attribute bytes in one scanline, so 8x1 attributes can only be achieved over half of the screen width.

Shock Megademo does not utilise 8x1 attributes. It uses 8x2 attributes on top of alternating paper and ink lines to achieve a different colour on each line; one colour per line equals two colours per 8x2 cell. Don't know if it's worth mentioning this particular example in the paragraph about 8x2... Slovakia 10:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I kind of doubt that 8x1 mode could cover half of the screen width. For a 3.5MHz machine, one TV scanline takes 224 CPU clock periods (i.e. 64us) which is enough to change the color attributes for only 14 character blocks (112 pixels) using 14 LDI instructions (one of the quickest ways of copying blocks of memory) without adjusting the pointers back to the start of the hicolor zone (each execution of an LDI intruction takes 16 clock periods). In fact, David Webb propsed in "Advanced spectrum machine language" ([1]) a hicolour mode with a width of only 8 characters (64 pixels). I was able to extend this width to 11 or 12 character blocks (long time since then) by lengthening the code but this would be OR since I don't have anything published. However, if you'd use a single attribute byte per scanline, then yes, you could extend the hicolour zone to half of the screen width (or maybe more - again, David Webb has a full-screen horizon generator that changes the attributes for some 22 characters) but that wouldn't count anymore as 8x1 attributes.89.137.246.65 (talk) 21:48, 27 February 2011 (UTC)Apass

I rechecked the timmings and the Z80 instruction set and I guess, with enough RAM available during execution, it could be possible to change the attributes for about half a screen witdh on each scan line. For instance, a combination of LD HL,(Buffer); LD (ATT),HL; will take 26 t-states for 2 attributes, allowing for 16 bytes replaced during a scanline (and a timming sequence like 4 NOPs on each scanline) - however, the RAM needed for this would be quite large - 16 attribute bytes/scanline x 192 pixel rows x (1 byte/attribute in the Buffer zone + 3 bytes for LD HL,(Buffer) + 3 bytes for LD (ATT),HL) + 192*4 bytes for timing on each line, will make some 22272 bytes needed. Well, it could be done better than this using some tricks, but that's a new project for me :)89.137.246.65 (talk) 21:11, 28 February 2011 (UTC)Apass

I don't know what was wrong with me the other day... the instruction sequence would be, of course, LD HL,Attribute; LD (ATT),HL. And the amount of RAM would be 8x192x(3+3)+192x4=9984 bytes. I was off by a factor of 2.2 - I forgot that each intruction pair deals with two attributes, so only 8 pairs are needed to fill the 16 bytes per line and that each instruction contains all the attribute data needed, so the attribute table is not necessary...89.137.246.65 (talk) 21:26, 1 March 2011 (UTC)Apass

About the color palette section and the size of the thumbnails

Hello. I am the original writer of the section Color palette in the List of palettes article, ZX Spectrum section. I saw you have copy&pasted the section literally. I think that wikipedians must not to "copy-paste" between us! One of two: or the technical details must keep in this page and the color table keep in the palettes article with a link to the yours, or you should to put a simple paragraph (with your image, it's OK) and a link to the ZX Spectrum section of the "List of palettes" article.

Also, I think that the size you have put the sample thumbnails blurs the images (at least, in my PC) and the original effect is lost. A casual reader (and even an proffesional) will not note any difference between them. I think it's better to keep them at their original 256-width size.Ricardo Cancho Niemietz 20:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I made the copy. Yes, it's a duplication and for me just some details and a link the Spectrum section on the palettes article is a good solution. Just like on other articles were you have "See main article". So that's fine for me.

As for the image size, good point. I formated the article for good layout out of experience. If the images are larger, someone will just edit and change their size. I've see this happen and really I don't have to time do keep reverting edits :-) Let me see if I can format this with 100% images and a good layout. Thanks for your input, I'll see to it when I have time if no one else does it first. Also, congratulations for the good job on the pallettes article ;-)Ricnun 00:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I've changed the image sizes, let's hope nobody reverts them as this is pretty important. Moroz1999 (talk) 11:56, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Grammar error near start of "ULAplus" section

"If only used to slight modify" does not make sense. I'd change it myself but I'm not completely sure it should be changed to "slightly" or if it's trying to say something else.

It means "if changes to the original hardware palette colours are slight". With ULAplus you can redefine the hardware palette completely. For example, you can change Black to Orange. Viewing such graphics on original hardware would look bad, as the displayed colour wouldn't match in any way. But small changes, for example Yellow to Orange, or Blue to Teal, would still look good on original hardware. The displayed colours wouldn't be too far off. Feel free to make the original sentence clearer! 4throck (talk) 08:50, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Demo scene

This information needs to be reviewed by someone who knows the ZX demo scene or has used any of these modes. I myself only have access to some image converters and emulators, and couldn't get much more information than what's here.

It would be good to sort out the proper names and machines on which they are avaliable as software or hardware supported modes.

Also, a list of graphic editors for each mode would be nice, along with some software that showcases its use. --Ricnun 15:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

exact RGB values for palette.

The exact RGB values for the palette has been taken from the topic on ZX.PK.RU forum, where they have appeared as a result of a thorough discussion, hardware test and mathematic calculations. original topic (in russian)[2]

The mostly agreed result is on the 13th page (Unreal Speccy palette format):

pulsar=00,76,CD,E9,FF,9F:FF,00,00;00,FF,00;00,00,FF

Moroz1999 (talk) 19:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Removed sections

While I'm not a great expert on the ZX Spectrum, nor a longtime participant on this talk page, it seems somewhat unorthodox to remove topical content from a talk page altogether (unless it consists of, say, insults or BLP violations or the like). Typically, people use the {{cot}}/{{cob}} (or {{hat}}/{{hab}}) templates. That way, even if the conversation is not germane to the article's talk page (and even if it's forced to stop), people are still able to see what was said, and by who, and they don't have to dig through page histories to figure out what the situation was. Is that not possible here? jp×g🗯️ 10:48, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

I got a ZX Spectrum for Christmas 1983 and learned how to program on it. That said, if I was going to look at technical information about the screen buffer, I wouldn't think of going to Wikipedia. The article title is misleading, giving the reader the impression that the ZX Spectrum has some sort of equivalent to INT 10 to switch between various resolutions and colour depths. In fact, there is only one graphic mode, and doing anything else involves extensive jiggery-pokery (to use a technical term :-D) by flipping the right bits on the frame buffer at the right time. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:08, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

@Ritchie333, thank you for your thoughts. What you have pointed out is possibly true, but it is unrelated to the topic "Removed sections". I would appreciate it if everyone stays on the topic. Z80Spectrum (talk) 04:12, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

I am ready to continue this conversation.

As a reminder, User:Chaheel Riens has removed some topics (mostly written by me) from this talk page (tp-content) on 8 January. User:Chaheel Riens has made objections that the removed tp-content violates at least WP:FORUM, WP:OR, WP:NOTHOWTO. As a part of a counter-argument, I mentioned that WP:CALC applies here.

Apparently, the main problem is in interpretation of all those policies, where different editors interpret the mentioned policies very differently. All those policies are likely vague, ambiguous, and insufficiently accurate (IMO).

Both parties agree that this dispute essentially involves article content. The contended parts of the article are almost all the images in the article and the color-table.

The talk page topics removed by Chaheel Riens are:

* How to simulate Spectrum's PAL output,

* Article split suggestion,

* Too bright 'dim' RGB values suddenly – “PAL gamma”? (most parts).

Related DRN discussion is here.

If we can't get a solution here, I'm likely going to open an WP:ANI case (again). I would prefer if we can get some sort of agreement or compromise this time.

I would like all participants who have commented here or who were previously involved to make another comment here. Z80Spectrum (talk) 04:13, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

I think those conversations are moot, since they are discussions about "simulating output" in a way that isn't compatible with WP:SYNTH. VQuakr (talk) 04:18, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

That is a good objection, but note: any images in the article must be some kind of "simulation", because nobody has PAL TVs at home today to take a photograph of the output and post it to the article. Pixel-perfect output is also a kind of simulation, and quite an unfaithful one. Z80Spectrum (talk) 05:14, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Simulated images aren't the problem (though no working PAL TVs is a questionable statement). It needs to be a reliable source doing the simulation and not Wikipedia editors. VQuakr (talk) 07:21, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree 100%. However, on which basis do you find pixel-perfect graphics to be a simulation by a "reliable source", while PAL-simulation is by unreliable source? I find both of those simulations equally reliable, equally WP:OR, equally WP:SYNTH, equally WP:CALC, etc.

The only difference between them is: one is more faithful to the original, the other much less so. Z80Spectrum (talk) 09:36, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

I do not understand which two things you are comparing. VQuakr (talk) 16:49, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm comparing the methods of producing the 3 images in the Standard mode gallery, to methods of producing other images in the article.

The last steps of PAL-simulation method are described in the removed tp-content topic: How to simulate Spectrum's PAL output. The methods used to produce other images are described nowhere (but I'm guessing they are based on a few image conversion programs like BMP2SCR). Z80Spectrum (talk) 19:06, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Whether the method is described on the talk page or not is not relevant. We should be using real images of the graphics, simulations already published in a reliable source, or none at all. VQuakr (talk) 22:53, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

What you described doesn't exist. You are setting the standard too high.

Being consistent is fine with me, so one possible solution is to remove ALL images from this article, and also all images in all other articles on 80's microcomputers. Quite drastic, I'm afraid.

How do you know which method is being used to produce any image on Wikipedia, if it is not described on a talk page? Wikipedia does alow users to produce images, to upload "own work". Z80Spectrum (talk) 23:44, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

I am not setting any standard, I am describing the standards that exist already. If simulated images of this systems' performance don't exist then we shouldn't be the first to generate them. We're talking about this article, so let's not do whataboutisms, ok? The policy on original images is in the same policy as WP:SYNTH: WP:IMAGEOR. VQuakr (talk) 00:09, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia does allow users to produce and upload images, and such is the accepted standard on Wikipedia regarding graphics of old microcomputers. So, we SHOULD generate the images.

WP:WHATABOUT says: "While these comparisons are not a conclusive test, they may form part of a cogent argument; an entire comment should not be dismissed because it includes a comparative statement like this." Z80Spectrum (talk) 01:04, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Can you point to this "accepted standard" and where its acceptability under WP:SYNTH has already been discussed? Examples of it existing is not a standard, that just means it's a low-visibility page that flew under the radar for a while. WP:WHATABOUT is part of an essay on deletion discussions. VQuakr (talk) 01:15, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

The interpretation of WP:IMAGEOR, and your other objections are issues for another topic.

However, we cannot discuss any of those if the methods of generating original images in question are unknown or undescribed. That's the reason why the removed tp-content topics should be restored, especially How to simulate Spectrum's PAL output Z80Spectrum (talk) 03:33, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Seems like we're going in circles. They're mooted by the synthesis problem. VQuakr (talk) 03:42, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

We are not going in circles.

The conclusion is clear: in order to discuss applications of Wikipedia policies on user-generated images, the methods for generating those images should be describend on a talk page. Z80Spectrum (talk) 08:43, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

It might be helpful to describe the steps of processing that were done to an image on the image description page. That's a better location IMHO since then it's associated with the image wherever it may be used, not with a specific article talk page. VQuakr (talk) 17:30, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

The discussion about the preferred and allowed methods of image generation must be on the article talk page.

Unrelated to that, I like your suggestion. I have just added one such description on the Commons Z80Spectrum (talk) 21:13, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

The discussion about the preferred and allowed methods of image generation must be on the article talk page. I disagree. What makes you think that? VQuakr (talk) 21:18, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Without a discussion on the talk page, how can it be determined whether a certain method of image generation is allowed and/or preferred? Editors must be allowed to post their arguments. Z80Spectrum (talk) 21:25, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

It seems pretty obvious that we can't use the images per WP:SYNTH. The images could be used anywhere, which is why discussion on a particular article talk page doesn't make much sense to me. If discussion is needed, how about WP:ORN instead? VQuakr (talk) 21:33, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Whether something is "obvious" is just an opinion.

My understanding is that decisions on Wikipedia are made by WP:CONSENSUS, which heavily relies on discussions on the associated talk page.

The discussion must be on the article talk page, because it is a discussion about the allowed and preferred methods of image generation for that specific article. Some other article might prefer other methods of image generation. Z80Spectrum (talk) 21:54, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

It's an informed opinion based on experience though. Your understanding of consensus is incomplete. Consensus happens in many forums, not limited to article talk pages. In this case, WP:LOCALCONSENSUS on any particular talk page can't override a policy like WP:SYNTH, so it makes sense to discuss at a centralized location such as the noticeboard I suggested. VQuakr (talk) 21:58, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

What you are asking is that me and everyone else should just trust your subjective judgment, without any discussions.

There must be a discussion on the article talk page to provide arguments related to any Wikipedia policies that you desire to invoke. Z80Spectrum (talk) 22:15, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Policies apply whether they are "invoked" or not. As near as I can tell, the rule that the discussion must occur on this talk page and nowhere else is entirely of your own making. VQuakr (talk) 22:41, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

The main purpose of talk pages is discussing the article contents (including images). You are the one who seem to be proposing an extraordinary claim (of not allowing here my discussion about article contents), so you should defend your claim, not postulate it. Z80Spectrum (talk) 03:16, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

So, please, state your arguments now, clearly: why shouldn't my discussion about article contents (i.e. How to simulate Spectrum's PAL output) be allowed on this talk page? Z80Spectrum (talk) 03:53, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

I've already explained the problem, clearly and repeatedly. And despite your claim that I'm the only one to be raising the concern, the same issue has already been raised by Escape Orbit, Chaheel Riens, and Remsense elsewhere on this page. At some point it becomes a WP:ICANTHEARYOU situation. What you're proposing isn't related to article content because it isn't usable in the article. It still is available in the talk page history, as you linked, so you can copy it to your blog or personal website or wherever you care to publish/work on it. VQuakr (talk) 07:03, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

You have so far (heavily) attacked my position and asked for explanations, and we exchanged some arguments and opinions. That is fine, but it is too confusing and broken up to be useful. It was a long discussion. Now is the time to CLARIFY.

I'm asking you to summarize your argument, so that we can discuss it more clearly.

Please, write your summary that provides an answer to my question:

• Why shouldn't my discussion How to simulate Spectrum's PAL output be allowed on this talk page?

Z80Spectrum (talk) 15:20, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

[3]. I haven't "attacked" anything, heavily or otherwise. VQuakr (talk) 17:00, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Look, @VQuakr, I asked you a simple question that is the central issue of this topic. I don't see your answer yet. If you don't answer, it will be impossible to continue this discussion with you.

In the answer to my question you should clearly state all the most relevant Wikipedia policies that you think are applicable.

Here is my question again:

• Why shouldn't my topic How to simulate Spectrum's PAL output be allowed on this talk page?

Z80Spectrum (talk) 21:57, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

WP:LISTEN. VQuakr (talk) 22:23, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Heya, @Z80Spectrum, I saw your post on the Teahouse. Just did a quick read through of this issue and the original post in question. Admittedly, both primary parties in this have been less than stellar in tone but VQuakr is correct. The post in contention does seem to fall under WP:NOTGUIDE. It may be a bit roundabout but your point could be better done by noting your success in finding a way to complete the desired task and then linking out of the realm of articles and their talk pages.

Talk pages should generally be in regards to content of the article and debate thereof, not strategies or guides for fabrication of content.

There are places, even within Wikipedia, where this could be placed. Say, on a subpage of your user profile. Then, in a content based debate or proposal you can link to the guide.

Simply put, guides and tutorials do not belong on Wikipedia article and talk pages. But they do have their role elsewhere. If anyone in this or out of it disagrees with me or has questions I'm happy to answer them. Admittedly, I am myself a fairly new Wikipedian, but this issue does fall under WP:NOTGUIDE so far as I can tell. Dionysius Miller^talk 00:24, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

@Dionysius Miller I tend to agree. As an administrator who has tried (in the limited time available to them) to wade through this battleground talk page and other posts from @Z80Spectrum, my view is that:

a) it was wrong for another editor to delete a proposal to split or merge an article. That should be reinstated and discussed (preferably without the wall of words with Z80Spectrum and others seem to manage to create, nor the accusations of liars and scammers I've seen from them elsewhere).

b) Although I know little about computer graphics, I believe another editor was quite right in removing all Z80Spectrum's lengthy discussion and personal research from the talk page. Wikipedia is not a 'how to do it' platform. It looks like an old thread from 2021 got answered at huge length by Z80 and an IP, with detailed WP:OR, and this strayed well into WP:NOTFORUM territory. If Z80 believed it is relevant to any discussion here on Wikipedia, as opposed to on Commons, then they could always put it in one of their user sandbox pages and simply link to it. That would have avoided a lot of kerfuffle and hot air that they have so successfully managed to generate or contribute to.

c) there are 13 'citation needed' templates in that article. I suggest Z80 would be better off addressing finding sources to support existing content, rather than going down a rabbit hole of seemingly highly technical personal investigation and research which is out of scope of this Project.

d) {{cot}} and {{cob}} templates sometimes have their uses on talk pages, too, though not to collapse detailed investigative chit-chat which is better off being kept to other more specialised, dedicated forums, and not posted on Wikipedia. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:43, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

All the above seems reasonable. @Z80Spectrum: do you wish to copy/paste the split proposal into a new section on this page? VQuakr (talk) 00:57, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't know what exactly you are referring to. I would certainly like my "Article split suggestion" topic re-instantiated on the talk page. That is one less point of contention.

I'm sorry to say, but I won't allow this discussion to be derailed. My question cannot be affected by off-topic opinions of other editors, however influential they are.

In order for this discussion to be fair, you have to stay on topic and formulate the exact objection(s), so that it can be discussed. You can't give 20 fragmented objections, and then require me to assemble it all up.

My question, which is the central point of contention, is:

• Why shouldn't my topic How to simulate Spectrum's PAL output be allowed on this talk page?

In the response, please state all the Wikipedia policies that were violated, in your opinion. Then, we can continue the discussion. Z80Spectrum (talk) 01:54, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

@Z80Spectrum Try WP:OR and WP:NOTFORUM. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:58, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Just in case that it isn't clear enough, my reply below to Dionysius Miller is also a reply to you. Z80Spectrum (talk) 05:31, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

I will not be involved going forward but the topic you specify violates: WP:NOTGUIDE, WP:OR, and WP:NOTFORUM. Again, feel free to use your userspace to keep your findings and link to them in the future. Dionysius Miller^talk 02:01, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

You all are CONFUSING unrelated issues. That is why I wanted a CLEAR summary. You are all confusing article content with talk page content. The two are not the same. You can't request talk page content to be removed due to policies which apply to articles only.

Talk page content can't be deleted easily, because it would be an attempt to stifle a discussion. Only serious violations of policies warrant talk page content removal. The point of talk pages is to DISCUSS contentious issues, but that can't be done if talk page content is immediately removed by just an allegation of polic violation.

• WP:NOTGUIDE - is about articles, not talk page content. I quote: "article talk pages exist solely to discuss how to improve articles", notice the words HOW TO. It is perfectly normal for talk pages to contain how-to's.

• WP:OR mostly applies to articles. In this case, we should DISCUSS whether WP:OR applies, but that can't be done if my discussion is immediately deleted before it can be discussed.

• WP:NOTFORUM - my contended topic How to simulate Spectrum's PAL output has an obvious purpose of discussing how to improve the article. That is in accordance with the purpose of talk pages.

By the way, @VQuakr main objection was WP:SYNTH. But you haven't read it, you just rushed in and produced a flood of irrelevant policies in defense of an established editor. OK, you don't have much time for everything here, I understand. But, please, be more considerate. Z80Spectrum (talk) 02:37, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

@Z80Spectrum Again, I keep saying that I have no intention of continuing to be involved but I feel like a moth staring at a tasty looking lamp. I do apologize, legitimately, if I came across as being overly defensive of VQuakr in my siding with his argument in my initial two responses.

What I will say is that I have now been specifically reading for a solid couple hours into any pertinent policy and notes in addition to what I had done yesterday. I try to avoid walls of text and any form of accusation in keeping with WP:AGF, so do know that I am doing my best with that and truly mean zero offense. I would like to be constructive so do WP:AGF in what I say.

First, I want to cover the issue of the original discussion:

• While WP:NOTGUIDE is primarily for articles, it can be applied in specific cases elsewhere. In particular, on talk pages. WP:TALK#USE specifies the intended purposes of the talk page. Specifically, the talk page is for discussing validity of claims, collaboratively introducing a new claim, and discussing issues on the article page. The talk page, through a recognition that talk pages are intended to be the discussion of the improvement of articles, should not include a guide to gathering or creating material. WP:NOTGUIDE does, in my view, apply to this situation because of this.
• WP:TALK#USE is fairly clear that a talk page is specifically and solely used for the improvement of the attached article through a standard set of circumstances. It is, in essence, for resolving content disputes, discussing content additions, discussing source validity, and collaboration on content addition and removal. A step-by-step guide would only fit under "guide on how one can contribute". Here's my main point with this bit: There's a reason you don't see any guides or discussion on how to find sources or images on an article's talk page. This belongs elsewhere.
• WP:OR does not apply to talk pages. But it does apply to articles, and the talk page has the sole purpose of harboring content which one believes will or ought to end up in the attached article. Given that there is no reasonable idea of your guide actually ending up actively on the article, it does not belong on the article's talk page.
• Previously in this discussion, WP:IMAGEOR came up. I do not believe that there is any intent to deceive by anyone involved so this should not apply to this specific case. Similarly WP:WHATABOUT is unrelated.
• User:Z80Spectrum, you brought up early on that this is WP:CALC. I contend that that is not the case as WP:CALC specifically applies to routine equations and simple equation adjacent items. The example given by WP:OR is simple arithmetic and/or conversions, which this case is not.

In total I do agree with the deletion of the talk page content, though I also believe that some prior warning could have helped avoid this.

Second, I want to discuss this debate fundamentally:

• If you only read one of this section's points, this should probably be that one. WP:AAGF. I am not, and I believe other participants are not, trying to assume bad faith. I do believe that you want what's best for this page, but I do also believe that you think I do not and that specifically User:VQuakr does not. I promise we do.
• WP:AVOIDYOU is at least very close to being applicable. Note that I have zero intention of expanding this into anything official n'at, but I do want to clarify some of Wikipedia's expectations relating to civility so that when, at some point in the future you have another debate, you can help keep things civil and becoming of a debate as opposed to an argument/shouting match. There have been a couple statements and assertions which are fairly ad hominem namely:

- But you haven't read it, you just rushed in and produced a flood of irrelevant policies in defense of an established editor. OK, you don't have much time for everything here, I understand. But, please, be more considerate. This is an accusation against another user for which you have no way of proving. This falls under WP:AGF and is quite aggressively delivered. I am not your enemy.

- [...] some Wikipedia editors might be liars and scammers. Even long-time editors might be such. Then when you were inevitably confronted for this statement for evidence, you responded You win. I've had enough. I don't even know why am I wasting time here. Calling your opponents in a debate on a volunteer website liars and scammers is extremely ad hominem would constitute a personal attack had you referenced a specific name. Then, after you claimed to have evidence, you refused to show that evidence, thus implying that the claim was exclusively a personal attack.

- Each time someone has tried to mediate or User:VQuakr tried to help in resolution, you stated,I'm sorry to say, but I won't allow this discussion to be derailed. This is a bit analogous to My God there are DOZENS of them!

I'll stop there, I know this look a lot like me saying your the bad guy, but I'm not saying it and you aren't that. Just keep in mind that discussion only works when everyone is civil and the easiest way to initiate civility is to be the one to hold it and pull incivility out of the discussion by sheer determination.

Thank you for your obvious care about the validity of Wikipedia and access to knowledge. Dionysius Miller^talk 15:37, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Looking at this again, I seem to have failed at the whole concision thing. Dionysius Miller^talk 15:39, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Nonetheless, I thank you for your opinion and your effort. I didn't read it all yet, but just quickly skimmed through. I don't get easily offended, so don't worry about that.

I think that this issue is more fundamental and more complicated than you think it is. I would have some serious objections on your line of thoughts. But, it is complicated. So, let's just think about it for a while.

I would also suggest to think of proper venues of action to resolve this dispute. What new discussions should be started, and where, to resolve this issue. Z80Spectrum (talk) 19:13, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

You can open a discussion somewhere else, or on my talk page, if you wish to discuss the fine points with me. Z80Spectrum (talk) 20:29, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Here is another suggestion.

If you want to get a really good insight of what is actually happening, just re-read the entire "Removed sections" topic on this talk page. It doesn't get long before it all blows up.

While reading it, try to imagine what is in the heads of each of the editors who are debating (me and VQuakr). Z80Spectrum (talk) 21:52, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Please stop continually replying to my message, I said the reasons why deletion was warranted in my view and how you can better handle yourself in future debates to avoid things "blowing up". You made a personal attack regarding my character and, in reference to myself and others here, called the group "liars and scammers". Incivility is not ok and ad hominem attacks are never ok. Further I am culturally inclined to strongly react to such accusations and attacks against my own character and the character of other users. But, civility dictates I withhold any drastic response.

Now, you have messaged me three times in three hours. I will not make an assumption as to your goal and will only ask that you please stop messaging me after I made my position clear and my lack of a desire to continue involvement clear. Dionysius Miller^talk 22:02, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Please sorry, I misunderstood you. Z80Spectrum (talk) 22:17, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Of course, I was unsure about the exact nature of the misunderstanding until you answered with

"WP:NOTGUIDE, WP:OR, and WP:NOTFORUM". Z80Spectrum (talk) 22:16, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm replying to myself here to temporarily stop the archiving of this section by ClueBot III. Z80Spectrum (talk) 05:39, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Unrelated to article content

Z80Spectrum, I'm still waiting for you to post the evidence you say you have[4] that some Wikipedia editors might be liars and scammers. Even long-time editors might be such.[5] I feel it would benefit all to see this evidence - especially when it's pertinant to this topic - so the appropriate action can be taken. Chaheel Riens (talk) 20:44, 30 January 2024 (UTC) I'm not going to respond to this. In my opinion, it would be a derailment of this discussion. Z80Spectrum (talk) 20:55, 30 January 2024 (UTC) You see, here's the problem. You have declared that you believe there to be scammers and liars involved in this discussion. You have also stated that you have evidence to support this claim. If that's true then the integrity of this article - at the very least - is compromised. It would be counter-productive not to complete a statement you made several weeks ago. Chaheel Riens (talk) 21:59, 30 January 2024 (UTC)