User talk:Vossanova/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Vossanova. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I've put the "inuse" in noincludes, because it was marking all the acura articles as inuse. Rich Farmbrough 16:27 11 May 2006 (UTC).

Great, thanks. --Vossanova 16:29, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I noticed you edited a category on the List of Wisconsin musicians, and that the cat is up for deletion. It would have been helpful to give a notice to me or someone else who has done some work on those pages, so we could help out and populate the page. I'm not trying to blame or anything, just giving a heads-up. There are a few of us who might be happy to populate the category. Thanks for noticing it and for voting. -Freekee 04:11, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

As someone who has previously voted or commented at the recent CfD discussion about the naming of Legend of Zelda categories, I thought I would let you know that I have started a new discussion in an attempt to reach a consensus. The current position of having 2 sets of categories serving the exact same purpose is unsustainable, and we need to reach a consensus on which set should be removed. If you have previously voted on this proposal, I would ask you to reconsider your vote, and ask yourself whether you are willing to give a little ground in order to reach a compromise. This is a generic message I am leaving for everyone who took part in the previous discussion. Thank you for your time. Road Wizard 14:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• Please see my comment under Proposal 3. Scepia 21:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
• I see you are a mergist, but please read my added comment. Please take a look at the number of articles in each subcat and realize that the subcats ease navigation rather than make it harder. Thanks. Scepia 01:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Further to my comment above, I am letting you know that Proposal 1 (merging all game sub-categories) has been successful, and I will be relisting it at CfD later today. Of the renaming proposals, only option 7 appears to have gained a consensus in support. However, I am going to leave that discussion open a few more days as we have had a related proposal (No. 11) that has not yet been discussed. Please use this time to consider whether you wish to support or oppose the new proposal, or in any way change your previous votes. I will be reassessing the situation at about 18:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC). Road Wizard 19:38, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

You can user {{tl}} with prod: {{prod}}. - CrazyRussian talk/email 14:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I hope you've noticed that the Hugi article is now in risk of getting deleted. --Viznut 19:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I am writing to inform you, and many others, that an AfD in which you voted delete, List of automobiles that were commercial failures, was already unsucessfully nominated a short time ago, but under a different title. This was not noted in the nomination. Please read the opposing arguments here, and reconsider your vote, because it is important that the opinions of previous voters be considered. Thanks! AdamBiswanger1 23:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey, before accusing an editor at the Wiki, find out who created the +cat first...OKAY ! As an editor I can create +cats and add articles. Are you advising me you now own the wiki and make your own rulez ? MapleTree 23:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I will let you decide. thank you MapleTree 00:39, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Vossanova, are you Andy from demodulate? --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 17:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Yep, same guy. I go by "Phoenix" in the demoscene. Mostly working on MindCandy now. --Vossanova ^o< 17:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Cool. How is MindCandy II - Amiga Demos going? I registed at the pre-order list almost a year ago (or whenever the form was put up :)) I also made recommendations and are glad that all the ones I thought should be on it made the list. I had some emails back and forth with Trixter when you were working on MindCandy I and offered him my GUS (Gravis Ultrasound), but he had it already (I still have my GUS and also my original packaged PCBoard BBS Software (I used to be a sysop for quite some time). I don't have the right hardware for it anymore though. I had to leave that behind when I left Germany and moved to the states :( ). Nice to see you around here. Keep up the good work. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 21:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

It's basically done. They've just started production at the manufacturing plant. We'll start taking orders off the reservation list in about three weeks. Then I can finally catch up with all the new demos. :) I've also let Demodulate go stale, maybe next year I'll find some new tunes to add. I still have a GUS and a GUS clone, but DOSBox has worked so well that I haven't bothered to get my old PCs up and running again! --Vossanova ^o< 21:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Just ordered my copy of Mindcandy 2 ;) --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 14:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The article Amiga demos, to which you have helped contribute, has been flagged as requiring cleanup. If possible, we would appreciate your assistance in cleaning up this article to bring it up to Wikipedia's quality standards. If you are unsure what the nature of the problem is, please discuss this on the article's talk page. If you do not want to receive bot-generated messages on your talk page, please consider using the nobots template on your user talk page

Hi Vossanova, you were on the list of members at WikiProject Automobiles and we are introducing a new way of listing members, as the old list was becoming too long. Our new method involves having all of our members in a category.

To add yourself to the category just add the userbox to your user page by putting {{Wiki Auto Project}} where you want the userbox. Alternatively if you don't like the userbox you can add [[Category:WikiProject Automobiles members|Vossanova]] to your userpage.

If you no longer wish to be a member of the project, simply don't add the userbox or category, there's no pressure. Thanks for your time, James086^{Talk | Contribs} 04:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Dear Vossanova, let me begin by saying that I absolutely understand that you think that my addition was an "advertisement". It really was one of sorts. And I will therefore not attempt to revert your edit!

I confess, ever since I saw an advertisement about the XGameStation, in a Retro gaming magazine, I became more and more intersted in this system, and especiallly in the "Hydra" and its "Propeller" CPU which is something special alltogether. Let me state that I am not, in any way, connected to the makers of these systems. I don't even own a XGameStation (at the moment), I am simply enthousiastic about what can be done with such a very simple and cheap piece of silicon. Maybe I am just too early with this observation, but I think this chip is important! I have the same feeling about this chip as I had about the 8080 miroprocessor when it came out thirty years ago (yes - I am an old guy!).

I can understand why you think that the XGameStation is not worthy to be mentioned in the same sentence as the venarable old VIC or Spectrum (both of which I still own by the way), or can be compared with any other "Famous Demo platform". In fact I think the XGameStation actually IS not that important, it is just the microcontrollers that are used in these systems that are interessting. The XGameStation is simply currently the most well known and accessable platform for these chips.

Also, I confess that (except as a "consumer") I do not belong to the "Incrowd" of the demo scene (although I did personally knew some people in the past who were).

Let me state why I think the SX52 and the Propeler microcontroller ARE worthy of _some_ form of attention for the demo scene people:

1) The XGameStation really IS a platform for demo writers. Please look at the site http://www.xgamestation.com/ and tell me that programs such as "plasma", "flag" and "rotozoomer" do not count as "demo's" in the sense as stated wikipedia. I confess that these "demo's" miss the customary "sinal wave scrolling texts" that so much define the demo scene, but that is only because there is simply not enough memory in a SX52 chip to do that, however in the new Hydra system there is plenty of meory, but this system is only a few weeks on the market!

2) It has always been, as I understand it, the goal of all demo writers to prove that they can do the impossible with limited hardware. Well then, I can hardly image a more limited system than these ones, based on the on just a microcontroller (the SX52 or Propellor) and an EEPROM to hold the software. These extremely limited systems manage to generate (color) video with just the microcontroller, and and EEPROM. To create the complex PAL/NTSC colour signal these chips only use a few I/O pins and bunch of resistors, they even create the color burst signal in software!. In comparison even the lowly VIC has very complex video generating hardware. It his hard to imagine that it is possible to get _any_ video signal out of such a limited system, let alone to generate a color signal, -and- still have enough processor cycles left to be able to run a video demo, such as the "plasma" demo. That alone should interest some demo writers.

3) The demo's shown on the XGameStation are based on the lowly SX52 chip. The newly released propeller chip however is -much- more powerfull, and I guess some people will be able to trick this litte $12 chip into doing things that (almost) nobody at the moment thinks is possible with a simple microcontroller. That should be a challenge for -any- demo writer.

Again, maybe I am coming over as sombody who owns stock in this company, but I do not!. I am simply of the opinion that this chip really IS worthy of the attention of people who like to "hack with video".

Maybe I took the wrong angle when adding the XGameStation to the existing sentence like I did, but I still think the chip(s) deserves -some- mention in an article about the demo scene.

Maybe you can do -much- better than I did, and write a few lines about these remarkable chips yourself. But If you do not, it's "no skin off my nose"., and I won't have bad feelings about you, or to say it in my native (Dutch) language "even goede vrienden dan".

With best regards, Mahjongg

OK I'll bite.. how come you prod-tagged nearly all the Covenant albums except Dreams of a Cryotank and Europa? Did you think those two were somehow more notable? The articles for those don't seem any more detailed than the rest. Or did you intend to prod-tag them all? --Vossanova ^o< 13:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I thought I'd see if the first were contested. Which they probably will be. So they'll come. Even though I do believe Dreams of a Cryotank, Northern Light and Skyshaper may be notable if some effort is put into finding some references (name something to suit the primary notability criterion)... but in their current state - and the state they have been in for a lot of time, none of them are acceptable. Redlinks are better. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 15:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

You may be right in that they do not meet the music notability criteria, but I don't think you went about it the right way, so I have removed the prod tags. I believe we should add Notability tags to those that do not assert notability first, to allow opportunity to expand and allow user discussion whether to keep them or not. This way we can at least come to agreement on which albums and album articles are the least notable and should be deleted first. I have started by adding Notability tags to Synergy (album) and Theremin (album), which are both pretty weak articles and pretty minor albums. If noone touches the articles with Notability tags after 1 or 2 months, then I would suggest Afd or Prod. --Vossanova ^o< 16:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi vossanova, I noticed you have been awarded for adding verifiable content to wikipedia, apparently I made the rookie mistake of creating a page I'm assosiated with and its beeing deleted from wikipedia. I'd appreciate your input to the issue. thanks!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullarbor_(demo_party) --Aboeing 09:19, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

In order to preserve the contribution history required under the WP:GFDL, after merging articles, the old one should be created as a redirect, not deleted as you proposed at Buick Luxus. See Wikipedia:Merging and moving pages. GRBerry 15:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello! 1.You have put a tag that not so many pages link to this article. Please, explain what should I do to fix that. 2.You have put a tag that the neutrality of the article is disputed. Please, explain why do you think so and what phrases in your opinion give a shade of that.

Louigi Verona 14:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

1. You should find other articles where Elwood would be mentioned. If he's not mentioned in any other Wikipedia articles (and there's nowhere you could add him yourself), that's a sign that perhaps he's not notable enough to have his own article.
2. "is a famous demoscene musician", "is considered to be one of the most influential musicians", "each of which was a huge success", "original melodies", "profound programming", and "very rich arrangements", are all opinions if you have no facts to back them up. You shouldn't have to say someone is famous on Wikipedia. There should be facts and media references in the article to imply that. See WP:NPOV, WP:BIO, and WP:MUSIC. --Vossanova ^o< 15:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Very well, I see your point.

Elwood is mentioned in the demoscene artists. (btw, why doesn't it show in the "links to this page" page?) The fact that he is not mentioned in many wikipedia articles is because generally the information on the demoscene is not very full yet. I will see if I can add the reference to Elwood myself to demoscene related articles. (you can be sure that I am not exaggerating, Elwood was really one of the most influential figures of the demoscene and if you are part of the demoscene yourself, you should know that) Yes, I see, I will remove the opinion words and try to make the article style more neutral. However, in many other wikipedia articles I saw a musician being described as famous. Sometimes that's just plain fact, you know. Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Louigi_Verona" Louigi Verona 06:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

If you do have a suggestion on how to remake the text, please do. I've tried several variants, but they didn't work out. Louigi Verona 09:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the point-of-view/"peacock" terms. It's shorter but it's at least neutral now. If you find reviews of his music anywhere from well-established websites or magazines, you're welcome to reference them in the article. --Vossanova ^o< 14:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks nice... thanks! I will search for reviews, there must be smth at Nectarine. Louigi Verona 16:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Hm. Okay, though Ican hardly imagine a serious magazine out there giving reviews to tracked music. %) Louigi Verona 06:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi - I note that you have made major contributions to the Filmex article. it really needs some work. Wikifying etc. Also no one has started a Discussion page for the article. Are there any other people who could help on this do you think? Davidpatrick 19:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I stand corrected. I was unaware that the article was deleted. There is some ambiguity in WP policy on what kinds of redlinks might be allowed. If the group might get bigger soon, then there might be an article on any of those three topics in the future. WP only states that redlinks aren't allowed in the case where there would never be an article. Also, what exactly consists of a reliable source. groups like polygony have several articles written about them. They aren't written by press publications, nor by academic researchers, but I guess I'm fine with it either way. McKay 21:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I saw you marked Algonquin, Illinois as reading like a tourism guide, having peacock terms, etc. Your main issues in this respect relate to the lead of the article, right? Just wanting to know what to fix. Thanks. I will also try to work so everything's not a bulleted list as well, and reads more like an article. Abog 02:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The first paragraph is fine now. Thanks for cleaning it up. Under Recreation, you might want to change "Nevertheless, the quality of parks, trails, and programs is nearly unmatched." If you find any magazine articles or websites that you can reference at the bottom, it would make claims in the article more legitimate. And yes, it would be good to convert some of the bulleted lists to paragraphs. --Vossanova ^o< 15:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Gone before I got back to it... I was going to add more stuff, but speedy deletion was extra quick this time...

)

Oh well, I guess I'll just get to it whenever now...

Thanks for the note in my talk page about it though, that was considerate.

Jeff Power 21:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I have readded this link. It does not cover just 1 type of replica, the whole history of the Countach replica in the UK is documented on this site. Furthermore Sienna Cars (of which the main portion of this site is dedicated to) has ceased to exist in 1993. So no advertising. As far as I know this is the only site that covers the history of Countach replica to be found on the web.

Countachfan

Thnanks! outstanding work on BMW piece!

You say that a lot of complaints have been made about the quick facts section - to be precise it was you and your other friend. Your bringing in an army of 2 people to verse a whole bunch. Good luck. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wjs13 (talk • contribs)

I do have a reliable source, as it was confirmed in the Youngstown Vindicator just the other day. See for yourself. G7 is NOT the confirmed name (although it does mention in the article that it will likely be called that, as it will be positioned between the G6 and the G8), and I mentioned that in the article, however it is likely Pontiac may call it that to go with the current naming scheme on its cars. But the vehicle itself has been confirmed for production in 2009. I know, I live less than an hour from GM Lordstown, and currently drive a Cobalt.

Thanks for everyone's concern.Jgera5 17:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Do not extend lines into MY2009 for vehicles that do not have announced MY2009 models especially when you start tossing in uncited speculation. Thank you for your cooperation. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 02:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with changing the shading of other colors. It doesn't imply any cancellations if the lines aren't extended, it just implies that those non-extended vehicles aren't available in MY2009 models and those that are extended are available in MY2009 models (or the MY2009 models have been announced). Extending the lines for unannounced vehicles violates WP:Crystal Ball. Among things, there is no formal announcement from Toyota that the Solara will be dropped and the Sienna will be redesigned as far as I know. Speculation from blogs are insufficient. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 20:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Why? Existing knowledge should be presented. Whereas there are some cars we know will be discontinued, on the Toyota side, there are no reports from Toyota about what models will be cancelled. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 18:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Blank space works. Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 20:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your multiple reverts of Honda_Insight#Second_generation inclusion onto Template:Honda_vehicles_timeline_(North_America) here, here, here and here. Models for a new model year should be added to the timeline immediately upon official announcement regardless of the model year line being partial or complete. I thought agreement on this was reached in the postings above, and on this talk page User_talk:Butterfly0fdoom#Re:_Car_Timeline_Templates, and in your own edits that followed: here and here.

Hence I am unsure of the reasons for the inconsistency in your position in regards to 2010 Honda Insight. 2010 model is a fact, and ought to be included in the timeline. It is a common sense, indeed, however cheesy this marketing ploy may seem to both of us.

Noticing that you have applied both white color and gray color space blanking for unannounced future model year extensions, I will side with User:Butterfly0fdoom - color choice is a merely visual differential not carrying any logical load and not worthy an argument. White color blanking provides a better informational hint to the reader not acquainted with template's structure that future model years are still "undecided/unknown/unannounced", rather than gray color which may leave that reader guessing. Either color is fine with me as long as it is applied consistently among North American road car timeline templates.

Please reply here to keep further discussion in one place (if such is deemed necessary to you). Maksdo (talk) 18:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. While there is no rule or guideline in place to state what percentage of a brand's model lineup should be official/verifiable, I do not believe it is of value to add single models to the timeline as soon as possible - especially when some are announced two years or more in advance (case in point, the 2011 Chevrolet Volt). The timelines should stay in the present as much as possible to deter speculation and assumption. True, I have added 2010 to various General Motors and Ford templates, but both companies have full or near-full 2010 model lineup info on fleet order webpages.

As for the color scheme, I've settled on the same gray color used for blanks in past model years. I didn't like it at first, because it suggested some models would end production in the current model year, but later decided it would be better to be consistent than confuse people into thinking I had broken the table layout.

If you want to re-add the Insight to the timeline, I am not going to revert it again. However, two things. One, create a new 2010s column and add "0" under it, rather than extending the 2000s to one column and adding "10". Two, I will be keeping an eye on it for other people who instinctively fill in 2010 for the other models, before their existence has been confirmed. --Vossanova ^o< 20:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

An editor has nominated List of shopping malls in the United States, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of shopping malls in the United States (3rd nomination) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 22:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I was tempted to add future generations of cars into there. But in two years you can go back and change it to the way I had it, and have the correct generations. I was just guessing where each generation would end. But if you notice I switched the Impala to a full-size car (which is expected) and added the upcoming C7 Corvette and Volt. I also changed the Camaro to being introduced as a 2010 model, which it will be. Thunder215 (talk) 21:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Why? It's been going for four years, isn't that significant enough? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.13.39 (talk) 17:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, pls discuss this case in WP:CAR before adding new styles to production field, we try keep all car articles quite similar and not adding own fields..I have removed ur edits. --— Typ932^{T | C}  20:46, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I saw you had removed the secondary sources from the Nissan 370Z and replaced them with a primary source. As per WP:PSTS, Wikipedia should be built on secondary sources and are always welcomed over primary sources because they provide verifiability. roguegeek (talk·cont) 23:13, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I prefer a direct link to a company's press release than blog posts (autoblog, jalopnik) about that press release. Since the article makes "no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source", I think it's okay to reference nissannews. If a secondary source just writes "[primary source] has announced.." then it's not really secondary after all. --Vossanova ^o< 13:26, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Of course it is. It verifies the primary source. Personally, I like to provide both a primary and secondary source when possible. I've done this with the 370Z article. roguegeek (talk·cont) 16:09, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Vossanova. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.