User talk:Lidnariq
From NESdev Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Leaving anonymous edits open
In this revert, you asked: "Are we sure about leaving anonymous edits open?"
Look how quickly and easily it was reverted, and it didn't need an administrator's help. After you noticed vandalism, it took you three clicks to remove it: diff, undo, save. Then compare to how much work an administrator needed to do to get someone's account set up properly under the trusted/role account system. Also notice the lack of a working link to the vandal's web site because the editor couldn't solve the NES trivia question that the wiki presents to someone new who adds an external link. --Tepples 22:09, 12 October 2012 (MDT)
- Thank you for your help in fighting vandalism. But I've noticed a peculiar sentiment in the edit summaries for your reverts. Without anonymous edits, how would you recommend contacting someone in case of problems creating an account on or logging in to the forum or wiki? --Tepples (talk) 14:36, 19 February 2013 (MST)
- What if anonymous edits were allowed on one special talk page in particular? Users who are not logged in could be redirected there or given a link to it automatically if they try to make an edit. The entire wiki-talk doesn't need to be an emergency messageboard. To me, reverting the vandalism is less of a problem I think than just how the vandalism+revert pollute the recent changes list. Revering the changes is the problem of one person who finds it, but everyone who reads the RC has to read/parse this stuff. (Putting it all on a single page wouldn't help RC much though, but might make it easier to parse/ignore.) - Rainwarrior (talk) 00:29, 20 February 2013 (MST)
- Administrators and users with 500 or more edits can mark RC entries as "bot" so that they're hidden from the default view of Recent Changes. My practice here has been to hide spam, reverts, and other administrivia after two other users have made edits. The reason I left talk namespaces open is so that people could report problems with the content of pages. --Tepples (talk) 08:33, 20 February 2013 (MST)
- Ah, so in about 20 more edits, I'll be able to botify spam edits? Well, that'll be good. - Rainwarrior (talk) 13:22, 20 February 2013 (MST)
- Administrators and users with 500 or more edits can mark RC entries as "bot" so that they're hidden from the default view of Recent Changes. My practice here has been to hide spam, reverts, and other administrivia after two other users have made edits. The reason I left talk namespaces open is so that people could report problems with the content of pages. --Tepples (talk) 08:33, 20 February 2013 (MST)
- At least for me, people have been contacting me by PM on the forum in preference to anonymous edits in the wiki. However, I would stop complaining if a two-click-and-no-scrolling "get rid of it from the page and the changelog" option were available. But now the work flow is "click on diff, click on undo, scroll to bottom, click submit, go to S:RCC, click to hide my undo (which reloads the page rather than using AJAX to just change the field!), click to hide their edit", and that's just obnoxious. —Lidnariq (talk) 16:23, 21 February 2013 (MST)
- What if anonymous edits were allowed on one special talk page in particular? Users who are not logged in could be redirected there or given a link to it automatically if they try to make an edit. The entire wiki-talk doesn't need to be an emergency messageboard. To me, reverting the vandalism is less of a problem I think than just how the vandalism+revert pollute the recent changes list. Revering the changes is the problem of one person who finds it, but everyone who reads the RC has to read/parse this stuff. (Putting it all on a single page wouldn't help RC much though, but might make it easier to parse/ignore.) - Rainwarrior (talk) 00:29, 20 February 2013 (MST)
Test
Why can I not edit/create User talk:PostNES ? —Lidnariq (talk) 14:02, 24 October 2016 (MDT)
Lidnariq
Hey, mate! I'm struggling on one question. How long does it take for me to create my user page? How many edits/days? Are you an administrator/sysop/bureaucrat? How long have you been here? How many edits have you done? What is your purpose/main goal/achievements here? What are you trying to succeed? What is the purpose of this wiki? --VOrun (talk) 09:06, 3 October 2019 (MDT)
24-bit hexadecimal integers
are colours, not 'numbers'. ~`Piotr Grochowski (talk) 18:28, 6 September 2021 (UTC)`~
- What inane pedantry are you engaging in? —Lidnariq (talk) 19:31, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
- None... Where do you think the colour definitions belong then? Piotr Grochowski (talk) 20:24, 6 September 2021 (UTC)``
- The contents need to be substantially different from the table already in that section of the page, or in an image or other file format that's widely used by emulators, and any mention needs to fit naturally in the text of the article and not just be randomly inserted. Additionally, the source of the data should be cited, either from an existing generator or something like FBX's hand-tuned palettes. —Lidnariq (talk) 20:31, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
- An 'image' is not widely used by emulations. The only format I've heard of is the pal format, where the 1536 bytes are in the exact same order as the bytes of the 512 colours specified. And the colours did fit naturally in the text, as they were preceded by "defined by the following colours: ". Piotr Grochowski (talk) 05:37, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
- An 'image' is useful to the person who's using the wiki. A giant pile of hexadecimal constants is not. Inserting 30 lines of hexadecimal constants in the middle of a paragraph is not considered "fitting naturally". At the very least, it needs to be formatted, and as I already said, preferably it should be on a separate page altogether: it's just too much irrelevant noise to someone who's reading the page. —Lidnariq (talk) 17:59, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
- When the reader gets to "defined by the following colours: " they should naturally expect the colours to be listed afterwards. The "hexadecimal constants" is what sRGB colours are specified by, and do not need any formatting. How many 'lines' it ends up being has to do with your personal settings and is irrelevant. 45.33.131.32 04:32, 8 September 2021 (UTC)`
- You are the one who's choosing to put in the words "defined by the following colors". So don't. —Lidnariq (talk) 06:41, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, I chose to edit the article. So why wouldn't I? Piotr Grochowski (talk) 04:06, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- Because you're using your bad edit as an excuse to make an even worse edit. —Lidnariq (talk) 17:58, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
- No, it's a good edit. It actually lets users know what colours the palette is defined by. What are you talking about? Piotr Grochowski (talk) 13:14, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
- But the palette isn't defined by the RGB values you posted - it's defined by the voltage levels and signal phases generated by the PPU, and there are multiple ways of translating those into RGB values (which are themselves linked from that page). --Quietust (talk) 13:28, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
- The authentic sRGB colours result in the palette I mentioned. Piotr Grochowski (talk) 14:23, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
- Besides, there's no need to add a poorly-formatted list of hexadecimal values when there's already a nicely-formatted table of decimal values immediately below it (i.e. the one from blargg's Full Palette demo) --Quietust (talk) 13:28, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
- Are you being satire? sRGB colours are written in 24-bit hexadecimal integers and are not supposed to be formatted, and furthermore, the decimal palette isn't even the same palette and lacks emphasis colours, making it useless. Piotr Grochowski (talk) 14:23, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
- But the palette isn't defined by the RGB values you posted - it's defined by the voltage levels and signal phases generated by the PPU, and there are multiple ways of translating those into RGB values (which are themselves linked from that page). --Quietust (talk) 13:28, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
- No, it's a good edit. It actually lets users know what colours the palette is defined by. What are you talking about? Piotr Grochowski (talk) 13:14, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
- You are the one who's choosing to put in the words "defined by the following colors". So don't. —Lidnariq (talk) 06:41, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
- When the reader gets to "defined by the following colours: " they should naturally expect the colours to be listed afterwards. The "hexadecimal constants" is what sRGB colours are specified by, and do not need any formatting. How many 'lines' it ends up being has to do with your personal settings and is irrelevant. 45.33.131.32 04:32, 8 September 2021 (UTC)`
- An 'image' is useful to the person who's using the wiki. A giant pile of hexadecimal constants is not. Inserting 30 lines of hexadecimal constants in the middle of a paragraph is not considered "fitting naturally". At the very least, it needs to be formatted, and as I already said, preferably it should be on a separate page altogether: it's just too much irrelevant noise to someone who's reading the page. —Lidnariq (talk) 17:59, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
- An 'image' is not widely used by emulations. The only format I've heard of is the pal format, where the 1536 bytes are in the exact same order as the bytes of the 512 colours specified. And the colours did fit naturally in the text, as they were preceded by "defined by the following colours: ". Piotr Grochowski (talk) 05:37, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
- The contents need to be substantially different from the table already in that section of the page, or in an image or other file format that's widely used by emulators, and any mention needs to fit naturally in the text of the article and not just be randomly inserted. Additionally, the source of the data should be cited, either from an existing generator or something like FBX's hand-tuned palettes. —Lidnariq (talk) 20:31, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
- None... Where do you think the colour definitions belong then? Piotr Grochowski (talk) 20:24, 6 September 2021 (UTC)``
VRC7 Pinout
At the bottom of the VRC7 pinout, it says:
- “Also at least pins 2 and 47 somehow affect debug mode”
Your recent edit says that pin 2 is only part of an OR gate. So which statement is incorrect? Ben Boldt (talk) 05:36, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
