Talk:ePSXe

first release

The first inital release of ePSXe was Saturday, October 14th 2000 [1] and the first screen shots of ePSXe were initially shown on Emulatronia in August of 2000 [2]

Removed "Trivia" section

25/10/2006 - Removed "trivia" section. There are nutjobs trolling on project forums everywhere. The "fake discontinuation" incident of ePSXe couldn't have been very important, none of us have heard of it. Just a stupid post by a lame one-post wonder troll. Trivia should be important stuff... e.g. Easter Eggs included in the emulator, the devs all code while under the influence, or something significant like that. Not a stupid forum post, a dime a dozen occurances. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.95.45.111 (talk • contribs)

Sorry, but "couldn't have been very important, none of us have heard of it" is an absolutely horrible rationale on more than one level. And that particular post was not a "dime a dozen" as it caused some real commotion in the emulation scene. Since I didn't add it and don't care one way or the other I won't be reverting your change, but I just thought I'd add my two cents on your reasoning. --Kamasutra 15:22, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Trolls ? Nutjobs ? Mahadi, this concerns ePSXe's very develeopment status actually. There might be some rationale in regulating that section, shortening it or reword in (in a short paragraph), but that still doesnt change the fact ePSXe is NOT updated any longer, for wathever reason it is (be it legal or technical, but this uncertainty was mentioned anyway). That section could've been a little longer than it'd have deserved, but that fact still requires to be mentioned in the article, to make it clear it is DISCONTINUED, as in "not updated any longer". --Omega Said 14:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

_Demo_ himself addressed this post by hushypushy on Jan 26 2007 and stated it to be false[3]. For now I will just be removing the false statements, since five words by a developer (who hasn't posted in over three years) isn't very much to derive anything from. PaulToompas 00:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

This section should be removed, calb has confirmed it[4]. -hushypushy

fansite tag

I wanted to go ahead and clean up some of the article's wording, but I'm not an expect on this subject. I went ahead and added this tag to hopefully draw some attention toward the issue. 74.242.99.30 11:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I did the first clean up and replaced fansite tag with howto tag. Carlosguitar 21:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

PS1 PS2

is this for play station 1 only or play station 2 as well? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.13.92 (talk) 22:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

It is only for the original PlayStation, the only PlayStation 2 emulator that I am familiar with is PCSX2, and many games are not compatible with it earle117 (talk) 01:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:EPSXe.png

Image:EPSXe.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

subjective content

the opening paragraph says "It has been described as the best freeware Playstation emulator available." Sourced or not, this line is completely subjective, has no place in a Wikipedia article, and I'm removing it. I'm sure I could find a source saying its the worst freeware Playstation emulator available, but that doesn't mean it belongs in an encyclopedia. Canine virtuoso (talk) 03:42, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

content irrelevant to Wikipedia removed

Took out a segment in the Compatibility section listing all the changes from version 1.6 to 1.7. That belongs in the software documentation and the homepage's changelog, not Wikipedia. Canine virtuoso (talk) 02:49, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

NOT Vandalism

Discussion more about user conduct than directly about improving the article

So the admins said to continue this discussion at the article's talk page from [5]. I ONLY removed those three references because I reverted your edit that didn't explain why my edit was vandalism and I didn't know they were added, so then I stopped removing them. But oh, you still kept reverting my edits! I DID NOT revert other edits by you other than the table to show the full names of the months and the date formats; seriously, why not show the full names of the months?! The dates in the article were originally in the format MM/DD/YYYY, so yes you DID change the format! And I DID NOT order you to put in an "Android releases" table, I was saying that's what would be better. The other guys are right, you're just acting like you own this bloody article! I can edit it as well, and you cannot justify reverting my good faith edits without providing a valid explanation, which you STILL haven't done! And for the love of Christ, I see you once again accused me of being a vandal: "My additions were just blindly reverted by a person who is known for vandalizing." WHEN WILL YOU GET IT THAT I AM NOT A GODDAMN VANDAL?!?!?!?!?!?! HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO SAY IT?!?!?! I AM NOT A VANDAL! I AM NOT A VANDAL! I AM NOT A VANDAL! IS THAT ENOUGH FOR YOU?! Like I said before, the IP address User talk:198.7.62.204 was blocked because someone else made those edits, not me; it's a shared IP. Look at the administrators' noticeboard, they don't think I'm vandalizing. You can mention your precious little admins who stupidly blocked me, but the fact is some admins agree with me too! Now seriously, stop this complete and utter BS because my edits are NOT damaging the article in any way, shape or form! I am now going to reinstate my edits; see if you can find a single removed reference or ANY form of vandalism. You won't find any, so if you revert it again then I know you're just purposely annoying me! --Mister Potato 47 (talk) 18:40, 23 August 2013 (UTC) you're just acting like you own this bloody article! And you don't? Seriously? I add content to it. You just destroy content – random content under the disguise of a single aspect you destroyed. You destroyed references under the disguise that you don't want a single sentence in the article. You destroyed the developer infobox entry under the disguise to date formatting. All you did was delete my additions. Thanks to your edits the table is now way too wide (Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Dates clearly says that short dates are OK for tables). And if you think the Android version should need its own table: Write it yourself! I won’t write it. If you won’t write an Android table, leave the entry in. It’s that easy. I certainly have no motivation to cope with you – always reverting something I wrote – anymore. So either you continue to extend the article with an Android release table, further references, etc. or let me do it. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 20:50, 23 August 2013 (UTC) I'm not at all acting like I own this article! I always explained my edits, but you never explained why you reverted my edits! "You just destroy content". I have NOT destroyed anything in this article! You still don't get it do you? I AM NOT A VANDAL! The biggest piece of content you've added to the article is the releases table; have I destroyed that? NO! Also, in my most recent edit, I didn't destroy any reference; I left them all in! And what the hell do you mean by "you don't want a single sentence in the article"? The only sentence I removed was the sentence about ePSXe 1.9.0 being released in the "Development" section because it was not needed. The 1.7.0 and 1.8.0 releases should be mentioned because they were released after a very long hiatus. Reinstating the original date formats is NOT destroying the developer info box! And no, the releases table is not way too wide; it doesn't even take up a quarter of the width of the page on my screen! I suggest you buy a new monitor. "And if you think the Android version should need its own table: Write it yourself!" Oooooh, YOU'RE ordering ME around now! Hypocrite much? Anyway, no I will not write it because frankly I've got better things to do and there's been too many updates of the Android version anyway. Also, there probably aren't any references that show every update and their relevant changelogs. Regardless, it still shouldn't be included in the current releases table because that should only show the PC version updates. The "Development" section also clearly states that the Android version was released on August 30, 2012. I don't know why you disagree with my edits so much. I personally think they're improving the article, and they're certainly not damaging it! I don't think your edits are damaging the article either, but your reasons as to why mine are are rather pejorative. --Mister Potato 47 (talk) 06:15, 27 August 2013 (UTC) The only edits you ever made to this article were removals of contents I added to the article. You never ever added any content but always acted as you have final authority to decide how the article ends up (“no, the releases table is not way too wide”). And no, you never deleted only a single sentence. You wrote in the edit summary that you only removed the one sentence but instead you removed lots of references as well. I have some content in the pipeline but will not waste my time with you staying around to revert my edits. If you “got better things to do” anyway, just leave me alone. Will you leave me alone or will you continue to mess up my edits? Decide. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 14:51, 27 August 2013 (UTC) I told you the reason I removed those references was because I didn't know they were added! I reverted back to my revision after you reverted it, and I didn't know those references were added, so then I stopped removing them. Also, my most recent edit hasn't removed any content (except the Android version in the release table, but like I said, it's not needed as its release date is clearly stated in the "Development" section}. Seriously, add your content that you want to add. I have not fully reverted any of your edits. Look, the release table is still there; all the references are still there; the "developer" and "original authors" in the info box are still there. You added all these, and I think they're good edits. Yes, I haven't added any content, but I haven't destroyed any of the content you added either. How is putting the full names of the months in the table destroying it? And the article's date formats were originally in the format MM/DD/YYYY. Look, I apologize for getting angry, but I really don't know why you disapprove of my contributions so much. --Mister Potato 47 (talk) 05:53, 30 August 2013 (UTC) I don’t care for your excuses anymore. The fact remains: You never ever added content, just removed some (even if that was just “abbr=yes”) and under such circumstances I’m not willing to cooperate. So decide: Either you extend the article or I do but I will not add a single line to it with you sticking around because you somehow feel to own the exclusive rights to decide on the date format and whatever… --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 11:13, 30 August 2013 (UTC) Oh for the f*cking love of Christ, FINE!!!!!!!!!!!! I've put the abbreviated month names back in, the date formats back to DD/MM/YYYY and the Android version back in the releases table. There, happy?!?! You STILL haven't said how my edits damaged the article (removing "abbr=yes" is NOT vandalism), but I've had enough of this! Also, I take back that apology, since you're still treating me like I'm a criminal! I'll never revert your edits or change content you added on this page again, I'll simply fix typing errors (that is, if you're okay with this). I hope you're bloody happy, because I'm certainly not! I only removed unnecessary things with a valid explanation and put date formats back to what they originally were (I don't feel I own the exclusive rights to decide on the date formats, MM/DD/YYYY was the original format on this page which is why I put it back in), and then I'm treated like I murdered a bunch of people! This is not the first time this has happened to me, and I'm sick of it! Remember what User:Toddst1 told you, nobody owns any articles and anyone is free to change content as long as they aren't vandalizing! But go ahead, add your new content; I promise I won't remove it, or even alter it. Jesus f*cking Christ! --Mister Potato 47 (talk) 17:55, 30 August 2013 (UTC) I stopped caring whether you're happy or not when you started insulting me. I don't collaborate with raging mad men like you. If your feelings are hurt by that, too bad. Learn to behave instead of expecting that everyone is extra special nice to you after you insulted them. If you continue to edit this article (no matter how small) I won't work on it any longer. I'm happy do leave you alone with it if you feel you can do a better job… --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 16:15, 2 September 2013 (UTC) INSULTING YOU?!?! Jesus f*cking Christ, I have NEVER called you an insulting name, because I know Wikipedia doesn't allow that (although you are lucky, people who piss me off this much usually do get insulted, and you are INCREDIBLY lucky we're not having this conversation face to face)! I even tried to be nice in my third reply, but nope, you still treat me like I'm a murderer (which IS insulting to me)! Yes, I am mad (or livid rather), because you just feel I shouldn't edit this article at all when I have NEVER vandalized it! So even if I correct a spelling or grammatical mistake on this page, you won't edit it anymore?! Who made you boss of this damn article?!?!?! I even reinstated your preferred version of the article and said I won't change any more of your contributions, and yet you're STILL not happy?! Also, I always behave unless I'm being treated like sh*t for doing nothing wrong! You're acting like I'm worse than Hitler, when all I've done is made minor changes to the article that DID NOT damage it! If you had explained in your first revert why you removed my edits, this stupid debate would never have happened! No, I don't feel I can do a better job; I admit I'm not that good at adding new content with reliable sources, although I AM good at improving content and correcting errors. So like I said before, add whatever content you like. But the fact that you won't edit this page anymore simply because of me being around is ridiculous, insensitive, deplorable and inexcusable of a high order! I cannot even f*cking put a capital letter at the start of a sentence in the article without you whining! That is f*cking bullsh*t! Now for the love of God, add your content, but I have a f*cking right just like everyone else to edit ANY f*cking article on this f*cking website! --Mister Potato 47 (talk) 21:57, 2 September 2013 (UTC) Yes, you have any right to edit this article, just as I have the right to freely decide not to edit it any longer. I’m not a social worker or a psychiatrist. I don’t have to cope with you and I won’t. It’s that simple. You have all the power to decide if I should leave this article. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 10:05, 3 September 2013 (UTC)