Jump to content

Talk:PlayStation Portable homebrew/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

This is a strange paragraph.

On September 23rd, 2007, 3.71 M33 was released. Dark_AleX revealed that he was, in fact, the main member of Team M33 along with four others. He has also delivered a universal unbricker for both fat and slim PSPs, which can install the PSP firmware v1.50 which allows for the running of homebrew, and also the custom firmware 3.71 M33 which implements the same features as the 3.71 official Sony firmware, but can also run 1.50 homebrew applications, as well as illegal pirated PSP and PS1 (sometimes referred to as PSX) games. For 3.71 M33 there is a 1.50 kernel (now 1.50 version 2) which allows the running of 1.50 homebrew applications.

How many times does it have to be explained that having games on your memory stick does not specifically mean they are illegal? Redsox7897 (talk) 16:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Redirect?

Maybe this article should redirect to PlayStation Portable homebrew just like Fanjita does. This article was deleted before, and now is tagged for deletion again. EXTER7 (talk) 03:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


Keep decision

I'm really chuffed that the decision was to keep this page - a previous version was deleted and this page was recently speedy deleted as it shared a name with the original. I appealed against this and it was kindly reinstated so that a deletion discussion could take place, the result of which was a keep. However, there is still work to do as the page could do with having some parts re-written. The suggestion to redirect to PlayStation Portable homebrew is interesting. While I am against the suggestion (as Dark Alex himself is too important for that in my opinion), we need to make sure this page doesn't just become a list of his firmwares. Skip1337 (talk) 19:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

That is an interesting idea indeed, but I think the small tag at the top "For more information see (insert article name here)" is a better idea.TheSilenceOfNoOne (talk) 16:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

JAXda and acccc's edits

JAXda has recently made significant edits to this article, cutting out the breakdown of several different custom firmwares. I think this is very sensible as it successfully focuses the article on the biography of Dark Alex, rather than reciting everything from the history of PSP hacking. acccc revirted this back it would seem. Personally I preferred the version JAXda left us with so I'm going to try to change it back. It would be good to get some dicussion on THIS talk page about which version people think is best, rather than repeatedly swapping between the two. Skip1337 (talk) 21:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Repeated vandalism by 82.36.164.218

Looking at the history of the article it is clear this user is repeatedly vandalising the page. Well done to those that have followed this up (including a bot haha!). If anyone sees an edit on this page by this user that looks wrong, please use the undo feature. Genuine updates or useful edits are great, but the user is clearly a time waster. If, like me, you haven't been using wikipedia long you might not know you can view previous versions of the page by clicking article, then history and then the date. Skip1337 (talk) 20:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Sick Spider

I've deleted the line about sick spider as it was unverified, I've never heard of this AND it was gramatically incorrect. Feel free to add it in again if you can source it. Skip1337 14:36, 25 May 2008

I leave below a couple of links that may help to defend the relevance of the article:

The second one is in spanish. It came from Público, one of the most important newspaper in Spain and it says they were talking with Dark Alex himself about the controversy it was when the Dark Alex´s article was deleted in the spanish wiki. I hope it could help. --83.45.46.194 (talk) 19:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I have incorporated the MTV article - it was previously used but someone deleted the reference on 12 January 2008 for no given reason except that they were 'tidying'. I would love to also use the Público article, but are we allowed to use references which are not in English? Skip1337 (talk) 21:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Another reference I´ve found to defend the relevance of Dark Alex: Will the PSP-3000 Defeat Homebrew? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elemaki (talk • contribs) 17:10, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Info about PSP Homebrew Games

we need to make a section about PSP homebrew games such as PSP quake, Counter Strike, doom, psp dungeons, etc. There are tons of homebrew games being developed. Just look at this website showing tons of PSP homebrew games: http://dl.qj.net/General-Games-Homebrew-Games-PSP-/catid/195 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Apollo777 (talk • contribs) 21:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Information almost unreadable

I'm not used to PSP homebrew and this strange area. I don't know much about hacking any games console. I cannot read this article very well. It is almost a place for Homebrew Hackers to learn more.

I agree, it is impossible to understand the information without previous knowledge. Starting with something I´m looking: what the heck is a Pandora Battery? Suddenly it talk about it but no clue about what it is, or how it is used.--ometzit<col> (talk) 14:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

should something like this stay in wikipedia?

i don't think this should stay in an enciclopedia article...:

said the guy who couldn't spell. enciclopedia should be encyclopedia. and yes, this should stay. Homebrew was and continues to exemplify the height of human intelligence in their ability to crack machine generated code and then manipulate/alter the device they have hacked to perform in ways they want. Shouldn't something like that stay in an encyclopedia? --HermXIV (talk) 20:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Personally I think it should be deleted and replaced with an article that is completely accurate. Not to mention how horribly it's written and formatted.
-- Your friendly neighborhood PSP hacker Nightrose (talk) 01:41, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

PSP homebrew is dead, let it die —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.108.124.22 (talk) 03:24, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

So says the head of Sony computer entertainment. The scene is alive and well, the only thing that is dead is official PSP software. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.209.214.62 (talk) 18:44, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:V, WP:RS and WP:EL & Rewrite

Blogs and forum postings all fail WP:V. They're self-published sources, which unless written by a recognizable expert in the field who has been recognized as such and published as such can't be used. The only time blogs pass muster is when they are used as a primary source in an article about the author of the blog or when the blog is a blog only in name, e.g. when a reliable news organization creates a "blog" to cash in on the trendy name and style yet gives the blog postings the same editorial oversight and backing that they give any of their regular articles. I don't see that remotely being the case with any of the sources I've removed. As for WP:EL, we're not a web directory which is what the external links section was basically being used as. To be fair I removed all entries. The only fair resolution which I've seen on many other articles is to link to 1 external site which does its own indexing of psp homebrew/hack sites. As pointed out above, the article needs massive rewriting. In order for it to be written though, it has to come from reliable sources. Before any rewriting is attempted, the sources should be found. While any editor may know many things to be true, the threshold for inclusion on wikipedia is verifiability and not truth. Which seems to always come to a head with certain topics.. (communities, websites, internet topics, etc). There are sources out there, recently sony was commenting on how homebrew and piracy is fueling psp sales. As reliable sources cover this they might add some other info to the articles which may be of use in building this article. My current recommendation is to stub it and start over. It is an out of control mess.--221.143.25.19 (talk) 08:07, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Just as an example I'm going to toss out these reliable sources which all talk about homebrew and can be used to write content off: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. That is all of a result of about a 30 minute search. Reliable sources do exist, but it probably means the giant list of firmwares with all the comments on them is going to have to be removed and a history and description more consistent with what is being reported in reliable sources put in.--221.143.25.19 (talk) 10:06, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
As an update, I'm going to use the available sources to stub this article. I realize there is a lot of information in this article, but if you have any doubts feel free to read WP:V. The information isn't lost, if someone wants to go back and grab it and take it to user-space in the event something more can be taken from it and properly sourced. I don't think the article needs redirection but as it is, its an unwieldy mess of unsourced material that just can't stay on wikipedia in its current form. For reference here is the version prior to my stubbing it [8].--221.143.25.19 (talk) 12:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't disagree but the section of mine you just took out was the one piece of "motivation" as to why the topic is even noteworthy at all. My intention was to act as a "straw man" so those more in the know than I would work on it. Martin Packer (talk) 13:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I have saved an initial version of the rewrite using just 3 of the 7 sources I've found. The wired source[9] about running NES games on the PSP might count as an 8th source since it is wired, but I'm not sure what can be taken from it. There is far more history given in these articles to expand what happened after the first summer (We can talk about firmware 2.0, as well as a lot more stuff from the BBC source, I barely scratched the surface with that).--221.143.25.19 (talk) 13:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Looking vastly improved. I'll see what I can do. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I guess I should start taking credit for this.--Crossmr (talk) 02:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I actually found the previous (long) version very much useful and enjoyed reading it. I don't see why because one or two people feel that it's unencyclopedic that we should take out a whole stretch of information. Atleast move it somewhere else (e.g. wiki book perhaps?) and provide a link if you are going to rewrite the whole thing. Uhyonc (talk) 02:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

It isn't two or three people. Wikipedia policy requires all material to match these policies and guidelines, information which didn't was removed. There aren't any exceptions made because it is "useful". Forums, blogs and other self-published websites don't meet WP:V.--Crossmr (talk) 12:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

WIKILOVE, please!

There are a few incendiary comments on this talk page. This should not happen. Don't criticize others. It's immature and it will not solve any problems at all, instead, it creates them. Don't criticize others, for example on spelling, especially on talk pages. If it's on an article, fix it! That's why Wikipedia is editable. Perfection, even for the admins, is not a policy on Wikipedia, but it can be a goal. In closing, spread Wikilove, not hate. Please.

Copy editing, not deletion

This article is in dire need of copy editing. Substantial amounts of information would be lost if this article was deleted, so copy editing would a better option. Dragon 280 (talk) 01:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll work on it. I did the History section yesterday; I'll do more when I have time. Nightrose (talk) 06:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
An article having a lot of information in it doesn't save it from deletion. If it can't conform to policies and guidelines that information can't be here. Currently a lot of the citations seem to fail WP:V. We don't give this article a pass on proper citations just because it has a lot of info in it.--221.143.25.19 (talk) 07:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


whoa! whoa!! whoa!!! people, its great we all want sources that are trust worthy and reliable but the page in question has loads of information within it.! I am not a hacker or developer but i check back (every now and again) into the page to look at how the homebrew scene started and is going!! Are all the information removed going to be organised and put back or are you just gonna go "hmm...that doesn't look right!....its the bin for you!"?? I loved how the page looked but i welcome change!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.172.59 (talk) 23:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Unless reliable sources report on that information, no. It won't be put back in. Please have a look at WP:V and WP:NOT. All information that is contained in articles must be pulled from sources which meet WP:V. Any information which doesn't can't stay here. It is binding policy for all edits. We don't keep unverifiable information because someone finds it "useful". The threshold for inclusion on wikipedia is verifiability not truth. Wikipedia isn't a primary source which means editors have to be able to check sources which the community has decided meet a certain threshold of editorial oversight and reliability to verify any information contained on a page. Forums, blogs, other self-hosted and self-published websites don't meet that level, which is where all the previous information came from. I've tried to find some further reliable sources, but those are all I've managed to come up with, at least in English. There may be some more useful information on those sources, which people are free to add to the article. Any unsourced information, especially that which is unlikely to ever be covered by a reliable source, will be reverted if added to the article.--Crossmr (talk) 01:37, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Which of course is an utterly ridiculous criteria here. All the "reliable sources" for video games are performing self-censorship, so you never will hear much from them about any details of homebrew beside some vague anecdotes. The reliable sources in this case are the forum posts, blogs and all that stuff, because they are the only sources that are free to report on this topic. And when it comes to verifiability, anybody is free to take a PSP and just try it out. PSP homebrew isn't some black magic, tons of people are doing it and leaving it out just because the mainstream press isn't allowed to talk about it would be ridiculous. The article in its current state is a serious joke, providing basically no usable information whatsoever. The article from a few weeks ago, while maybe a little to long, was *far* better. -- Grumbel (talk) 12:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
No reliable sources come from professionals on the subject, the only "professionals" here are the hackers who take their time to make this software. There is never going to be any "official" sources, as everybody thinks "homebrew" and "piracy" are synonymous. In the PSP homebrew community, or any homebrew community actually, information is true when lots of people verify it, not only when an "expert" says so. I agree, this page is a joke. 75.181.72.227 (talk) 22:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
This topic doesn't get a pass on policy because we like it. In order for a self-published source to be usuable it has to come from someone who is recognized as an expert and has been published as such by reliable sources. For example, if Dark Alex was often cited as an expert and news paper, or magazine got him to write some columns about psp homebrew, his personal self-published page could then be used as a reliable source in any article about PSP homebrew. As far as the mainstream press not being able to talk about it, there are several reliable sources in the article now from the mainstream press who do talk about it. They just don't talk about it in the detail level you would like. As for people being able to try it out, that's original research which we have a strict policy against. The BBC article for example was fairly extensive. This article is an encyclopedic article on reliable information about a subject, it is not an exhaustive collection of every fact ever uttered about a subject. Unsourced, original research is never "better" for wikipedia articles. Perhaps you feel wikipedia is something which it is not.--Crossmr (talk) 00:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

So it's been sometime, have you gotten anymore info or you've moved on to "Edit" some other page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.97.143 (talk) 00:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

No one has provided, nor have I found any other reliable sources which talk about PSP homebrew.--Crossmr (talk) 01:26, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Another reference

Another reference I´ve found to defend the relevance of Dark Alex: Will the PSP-3000 Defeat Homebrew?. By the way, I think we should keep the article. Dark Alex is important enough by himself to have his own article. He has been the main responsible in the losses (million dollars) some producers have had so I think he is not just another hacker. --Elemaki (talk) 17:17, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Ah, no this doesn't. [10], this doesn't sound like terribly reliable. It seems like nothing more than a glorified group blog. Our interpretation on how notable we think he is is irrelevant. While he may be very notable inside the community, he doesn't really have anything other than a BBC article to hang his hat on. That isn't enough to justify a whole article on. These random minor psp sites who throw a few blog posts up about him don't do anything to contribute to his notability. They don't meet WP:RS and can't be used for that purpose. --Crossmr (talk) 17:21, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
What part of WP:RS do you think this source fails? It's not a site where anyone can add their own articles, and that policy only states the author should be "generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand". I don't understand why a couple of editors are saying there is only one source for Dark Alex, when there are four which have survived in the main article on him. Skip1337 (talk) 19:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't see that text anywhere on the about page. And their description of the site still sounds like a group blog. I see no assertion of editorial control or fact checking, or any evidence of who "Kris" is and what his qualifications are to write about the subject. They also make a point of mentioning that they cover news other sites don't care about, which would indicate that the stories they cover aren't necessarily notable to the rest of the world.--Crossmr (talk) 22:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

What's The Point Of Homebrewing?

While this article is long on history and technical details it is very short on the motivations for homebrewing. If it's just intellectual curiosity etc the article should say so. If there is actually useful software that can be made to run this way THAT should be discussed. Martin Packer (talk) 10:22, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Or, rather, it should go in the article on homebrew (software), not in this article. It's not like the PSP is the only platform with homebrew. Λύκος 18:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
We have specific citation relating to why some PSP hackers have decided to hack it, so I think we can include it here.--221.143.25.19 (talk) 14:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, there are no cheat devices planned for the PSP, thus homebrew is an excellent jewel for the cheating communities. Most people don't cheat, but there's still a large group that does. I only do it because I tend to go for a story within a game, and SOME of the gameplay (IE: RPG Battles). But this is NOT a forum. Discussion for this should go in a forum, as there are many opinions for this. 66.168.19.135 (talk) 02:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Action Replay

Shouldn't the Action Replay that recently came out for the PSP be listed here in the article? 66.168.19.135 (talk) 14:25, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Provide some information/source so that it could be discussed. I'm not familiar with it.--Crossmr (talk) 16:43, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Check it out here. 66.168.19.135 (talk) 05:32, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Ah, its a cheat engine like a gameshark? It seems to be a commercial product. Is this actually homebrew?--Crossmr (talk) 06:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
I would say yes, because it talks about a special memory card and a "battery enabler". All signs point to some form of homebrew. - Wysprgr2005 (talk) 12:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Well we'd need some coverage on it. I've asked around WP:RS before and product pages aren't enough to source anything on it.--Crossmr (talk) 14:58, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

its a cheat engin not homebrew... a company made the action replay.... not some guy sitting at his computer playing around with firmware...this is factory brew not homebrew —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.186.138.31 (talk) 00:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

(Action replay is an unofficial cheat device allowing users to get unlimited ammunition, unlimited lives, infinite money etcetera without modifying the psp at all. It is made by Datel, who have released the same thing for DS, Wii, PS2 and PS3 is in development. It is technically commercial, though it is still an unlicensed product - Eddabed (talk) 17:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC))

Dark Alex merge

I'm suggesting this merge based on his notability. Another editor expressed concern about it and after a few cursory searches, I can't turn up any evidence that he is notable outside the PSP community. He is covered for a large section in a BBC article about homebrew in general, however notability requires multiple significant coverage which doesn't exist. This article is all I can turn up. this warrants him a section in this article, but that is about it. He is notable only inside the context of PSP homebrew, not outside of it.--Crossmr (talk) 15:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I think this merge makes sense. His website shows signs that he might get into PS3 homebrew, but all the rest is PSP related. Λύκος 22:02, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm against merging them. I agree that, so far, he is mostly known for his PSP work, but we don't put all sports stars under their chosen sport do we? I can't see the difference here. The Dark Alex article has successfully seen off TWO deletion attempts and has come out both times as deserving to be an article in it's own right. Furthermore, when Dark Alex moves onto his next format, it would be a shame to have to rewrite his biography yet again. So I say we keep them as separate articles. Skip1337 (talk) 17:57, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
A quick look at those deletion attempts and the reasons given, amount to WP:ILIKEIT comments. A lot of people claiming he meets WP:BIO but a few paragraphs in 1 article doesn't amount to significant coverage. No one provided any further links. The second deletion attempt seemed to be more based on the fact that it was so soon since the previous one. I don't deny that he is well known in the PSP circle, but WP:NOTE is rather clear. I see no evidence he meets that on his own. As far as his "next format" unless its covered by a reliable source, we can't cover it here. The only thing we can cover about Dark alex is what is cover in the BBC article. Comparing him to a sports star is a non-starter. Professional Sports stars are on TV dozens of times every year, as well as additional coverage that may occur due to trades, or something in their personal lives. Dark Alex is not. He was actually deleted the first time around as well, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dark_AleX, this was even after the BBC article was present.--Crossmr (talk) 01:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
I have restored two more references which were deleted on 12th January 2008 when an unnamed user did some 'tidying'. Three separate references from three separate and well-established sources (BBC News, Engadget and MTV) is enough to justify notability. The fact that Dark Alex has been deleted in the past is irrelevant because the article has been completely rewritten since then and it is the newer version of the article with has been nominated for deletion twice and the wikipedia community has decided to keep it both times. I wasn't claiming his future work was a reason to have an article on him - his PSP work is enough to justify this by itself. I was simply mentioning it as just an extra reason why we shouldn't consider him only as part of the PSP homebrew scene. I admit I don't contribute to wikipedia enough to know which policies to quote here, but WP:IAR says that rules should not get in the way of a good article. The notability discussion has already been had twice and the community has spoken. There is really no need to have the same conversation again. Skip1337 (talk) 21:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
They don't add a lot, but they add a little bit. The MTV source really just a couple of lines in a 17 paragraph article, this is little more than a name drop and as far as establishing notability goes would constitute trivial coverage. The Eurogamer article at least mentions him in 2 consecutive paragraphs. The engagdet source isn't much of a source. An online blog quoting user reports. I'm not even sure the community considered sites like that reliable last time I checked (and in reality it doesn't say anything the MTV source doesn't). Really the only two sites contributing to notability are the BBC article and the Eurogamer article.Which is an extremely tenuous hold to notability for someone who has been as active as him and whom several editors claimed was undeniably notable.--Crossmr (talk) 23:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't be so fast to discredit engadget - wikipedia itself claims engadget has won a number of awards and this wouldn't happen if it were unreliable. The MTV article mentions Dark Alex in both the first and the last paragraphs. This is far more than just a casual name drop and if all references to Dark Alex's work were removed then the MTV article would lose a lot of its content. Four references, albeit two of which you seem opposed to counting, is a long way from the "extremely tenuous hold to notability" you refer to. The nature of PSP hacking and the legal issues surrounding it (it is not illegal, but Sony have tried to imply that it is and a lot of what people do using his tools is illegal) mean that most of the PSP community find out about new developments from sites hosting user content, which is why there are fewer references in the kind of media that wikipedia deletionists are willing to accept as reliable than there otherwise would be. However, Dark Alex is so important that even huge, well-established non-gaming sites such the BBC and MTV are writing articles about him (or partially about him). I don't know of any other pages on wikipedia that have successfully survived two deletion attempts and still have editors trying to get rid of them (merging would mean getting rid of the page itself). Skip1337 (talk) 08:46, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
You keep saying this as if there's going to be some huge mass of information that's going to be lost in the merge. We're not proposing that he only be named in this article, simply that the information on him be put in this article. Saying that having an article that has information on him that's more than just a name drop merits its own article is absurd, though. I could take all of the news articles on, say, the Illuminati exploit (there are a lot out there, even on noteworthy sites, like Engadget), and saying that that merits its own article. Except it doesn't. Dark AleX, at least as an online entity, really only exists in the world of PSP homebrew. To make the analogy to a sports player is also absurd because there's a lot more noteworthy information about sports players, and they're far more prominent in the world than a PSP homebrewer. Things must be in proportion. Do you propose we start an article on Fanjita too? Perhaps on N00bz, as well? Λύκος 16:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I would love there to be a separate article on Fanjita (he was the hacker behind the GTA exploit, right?), but I don't have the time and energy to create one and find sources for it that wikipedians would deem reliable. If you write one then I will support it if anyone proposes it be deleted. Skip1337 (talk) 18:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
The original hacker behind the GTA exploit was Edison Carter. The SECOND GTA exploit (i.e., the same exploit, but on other portions of the savegame) was found by the N00bz! team, which Fanjita headed until he left the scene. Back on topic, though, I think it would make more sense to have a "notable people/groups in the scene" section on this page, and if it gets big enough, split where appropriate. However, for now, I think it makes sense to have everything in one place. Λύκος 18:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
It's possible that people are mixing up Dark Alex with the more prolific GBA\DS\Pokemon Mini hacker\misanthrope Dark Fader. That might explain why some might not be interested in merging these two articles. --Thaddius (talk) 14:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Haha! I had never heard of Dark Fader, something for me to research! I am opposed to merging the articles because I believe Dark Alex is notable in his own right. I also believe that the previous two deletion discussions, both resulting in a keep, should be enough for the page to stay rather than people having to repeatedly defend it when there are no new arguments for deleting or merging it. Skip1337 (talk) 17:59, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Just because an argument was once had doesn't mean it isn't worth having again. Far too often have I seen AfD closures and arguments based on reasons from WP:ILIKEIT (and the other arguments given there) when in reality it isn't inline with the policies and guidelines of wikipedia. I've seen people call an article "well referenced" in an AfD, but upon closer examination found that 99% of the citations in the article all failed WP:V and had to be removed. Just because Dark Alex is notable within the PSP homebrew community it doesn't mean he has any greater notability outside of it. There was (and may still be) a section in notability which discussed this and subjects which were notable only within a certain community but had no real notability outside of it. The guy has had a the equivalent of about 6 paragraphs and a name drop in all media for all the years he has been at it. That doesn't exactly speak to a greater notability that the world at large would really know that much about him.--Crossmr (talk) 05:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm against merging the articles. dark Alex is notable in his own right, as the references show. I was looking for information on dark Alex and dark Alex alone, and found it to be a useful article. Dom762 (talk) 11:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)— Dom762 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
"Just because an argument was once had doesn't mean it isn't worth having again." - does that mean that if the decision is to keep the articles separate, as I hope it will be, then in a couple of months we are going to have to go through all this again, and then again two months after that? Our time would be better spent writing new articles and improving existing ones rather than being deadlocked in keep/delete/merge disputes. Programmers are generally not in newspapers every time they write a new bit of code, so the references given ARE substantial. There is no need for you to remind me that WP:V doesn't strictly allow most of the sites I would like to use - if it did there would be literally hundreds of articles to refer to; googling "dark alex" gives 761000 matches, compared to "skip1337" which gives just 3. I just hope that whichever admin has the fun task of determining the outcome of this debate has the sense to look at those AfDs (under Dark Alex) as well as this discussion. Skip1337 (talk) 13:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm all for the merger. As far as I know, Dark Alex has made little to no contributions to anything outside of PSP hacking/homebrew. I definitely think the merge is warranted, though I'm with Oni above, who suggests a section on notable persons in the scene instead. Also, referencing the previous AfDs isn't really relevant - this isn't a discussion on the removal of Dark Alex content, it's simply being transferred to this page instead. Fin©™ 13:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I second the merge, not because he isn't notable, but because his page gives basically no information on his person, but instead only on the firmware releases and documentation on what PSP related homebrew stuff is out there should be on the PSP Homebrew page, not on the persons side that created them. -- Grumbel (talk) 16:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I beleive in a partial merge, basically meaning i beleive it should mention Dark_Alex, but also say "main article Dark_Alex" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.207.93.145 (talk) 01:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
There is no such thing as a partial merge. That would be giving him a subsection in addition to an article. His single piece of coverage doesn't really qualify him for an article or given enough information to build an article on. Its unlikely that reliable sources are going to add that much coverage to him. Only part of a single article in 3 years doesn't exactly scream "well known individual"--Crossmr (talk) 04:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
"Only part of a single article"... there are hundreds of articles on him, sadly most can't be proven to be relaible, but four of them ARE usable and cited. Skip1337 (talk) 20:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Actually I meant to remove the engagdet one its clearly user submitted thanks to everyone who sent this in, the eurogamer article is a name drop and is trivial coverage and doesn't establish notability. Same with the mtv article, 3 or 4 sentences is not "significant coverage" as required by notability.--Crossmr (talk) 22:00, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, keep all the old PSP Homebrew pages and merge the Dark Alex stuff. Its a pool of knowledge for those who are curious and want to learn some strong history of the PSP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.228.86.245 (talk) 06:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree at least partially, since without that list of firmwares, his article is very brief, and it will be deleted anyway since it has a questionable notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Miquonranger03 (talk • contribs) 04:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Agree There's nearly no information about this person in this article, not even his real name or age. All that we know is that he is spanish although no reliable source corroborate it. Also it's weird to have an article about a nickname. After all, how do we know he (or she?) is just one person? For all we know, it could be a group of developers. The core of the article is about the firmware and plugins he developed, and all that can be easily merged into the PSP Homebrew article. Laurent (talk) 14:39, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
We know that much from the couple of paragraphs he got in the BBC article, but for all the years this guy has been at it, that is all he's managed to attract.--Crossmr (talk) 02:07, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

It's been nearly six months and still nobody proved that Dark Alex needs to have his own article, or tried to provide citations for the unsourced material. In my opinion, the Other hombrew part of the article can be deleted, since there's not a single source for it. Most likely the only "sources" that can be found are anonymous posts in obscure forums. The rest of it are just three sentences about Dark Alex that can easily be merged into the main PSP Homebrew article. If he ever become hugely famous then we can recreate the article but till then I think the article should be merged. Also, at least two of the reasons mentioned in WP:MERGE apply to this article:

  1. "it is very short and is unlikely to be expanded within a reasonable amount of time" (the article has been here for 18 months and hasn't grown much)
  2. "it requires the background material or context from a broader article in order for readers to understand it" (most people won't know what "homebrew" or the "M33 firmware" is, that's why it needs to be put in context, in the main PSP Homebrew article)

So should we go ahead and do the merging? Laurent (talk) 11:02, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok I've merged Dark Alex into this article. I've saved what could be saved (i.e. the very few sourced statements) and deleted the rest. Hope there are no objections. Laurent (talk) 16:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Is it still possible to view the deleted article? Skip1337 (talk) 10:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Sure, you can see it here [11]. It isn't deleted, just merged. Should reliable sources ever start giving significant coverage to him it can be unmerged and an article can be written about him. Last I checked the only thing of any significance on him was the BBC article.--Crossmr (talk) 14:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

removed downgrading

Yet another guide masquerading as article content. The link [12] in question doesn't even approach WP:V, its a blog to start with, but its only a couple lines. The comments are never admissible even in the narrow circumstance where a blog might be. Please find sources which meet WP:V and WP:RS if you want to add content to the article.--Crossmr (talk) 15:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

List of homebrew

Hola gente, hola a todo el mundo: I hope somebody rewrote this article. It has almost no info on homebrew, other than very basic info. Please, please, please... Yo no se el suficiente inglés como escribirlo y además no conozco el homebrew de la PSP que es lo que estaba buscando. Again, please endurance this article and put in a list of notable PSP homebrew, his author and where it come from. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.217.109.103 (talk) 12:44, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

We're not a web directory or guide to homebrew. This is an encyclopedia article built on information taken from reliable and verifiable sources. Until one of those sources writes about notable homebrew versions, any list would be original research--Crossmr (talk) 14:04, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Article size

I remember at one time, back in 2005, when this article was massive, thorough, and detailed. I think it reached up to 29,000 bytes or something. Then came the new WP:OR rules, and now look at how small it is. Now, if we look through the article history and see the information that was present, could this be re-added if we are able to find credible sources? The old article had technical details, lists of software and important people, and a detailed timeline of exploits. I'm sure we could find sources for these. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email guestbook complaints 00:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

You won't find credible sources for any of those pieces of information. They're all covered on hobbyist, self published sites. They're not covered by sites which meet WP:V. Not to mention a lot of that was covered by WP:NOT. We're not a webhost, a technical guide to hacking your psp, etc. The amount of detail was far beyond what an encyclopedia shoudl cover. I spent weeks digging up every single source I could on PSP homebrew that met WP:V and WP:RS if new sources have presented themselves since then feel free to introduce them into the article but remember most of those sites like pspupdates, etc don't meet WP:V and WP:RS.--Crossmr (talk) 14:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
But then have a look at how detailed the Japanese Wikipedia article is; as far as I can see, they have no issues with sourcing, so if we are capable of maintaining some effort into searching for WP:Reliable sources, then all should be well. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 09:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Each wikipedia takes care of its own articles. Some languages have different standards. English Wikipedia requires that all content come from sources which meet WP:RS and WP:V. I've noticed a lot of other language wikis don't seem to have as heavy sourcing requirements as the english wiki as their articles are often unsourced or many fewer sources that this wiki if I click through. That doesn't mean you can skimp on the sourcing here. Any time a reliable source writes an article, book, academic paper, or runs a radio show, tv segment, etc about psp homebrew people are free to add content from it. This is an encyclopedic article about homebrew, not a guide to the minutia of how to hack a psp, or a list of all the custom firmwares out there, or anything else like that.--Crossmr (talk) 21:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Pandora Battery

I typed "Pandora-Battery" into the search and came here, but this article doesn't answer my question (and the question of some of the other people on this talk page). What IS a Pandora's Battery? How does it work? What can it do? I know it's something you can make yourself (as I googled before I posted this) but what does it require? If Pandora-battery is going to redirect here, at least give me the information I'm after.

I'd add it myself, but I can't find anything useful on the internet, just plenty of how-tos and not a lot of what-ares 203.206.183.48 (talk) 22:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a howto guide. This is all you'll find about a pandora's battery on the internet, and none of it comes from reliable sources. Unless a reliable sources writes up the history of the battery, it is unlikely there will ever be much added about it.--Crossmr (talk) 00:23, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
(Take info with a grain of salt, all just second hand information) A normal PSP battery contains an EPROM that contains an ID number, if that number is all zeros the PSP will boot not from its internal memory, but from the inserted memory stick, which in turn can then be used to run homebrew code. An Pandora-Battery simply is a battery with such an all zeros ID. Such a battery can either be produced by running custom code to modify the ID in the EPROM (a bit of a chicken/egg issue when you don't have a homebrew capable PSPS), by cutting a few pins on the actual hardware EPROM which will lead to it reporting all zeros or it can be bought from third parties, I think Datel is selling them, calling them "Tool Battery" or so. Not sure which PSP models support those batteries exactly. Either way, infos about the Pandora battery really should be added to the article, as its discovery was kind of a really big deal in PSP homebrew as far as I understand, as it allowed all PSP to run homebrew, independed of which firmware they where running.
The old artikel with good information on homebrew is of course still in the history. -- Grumbel (talk) 17:47, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately no reliable sources gave any attention to the battery, so there are none to pull any content from. "Being a big deal in the community" isn't enough for us to magically make sources and content off of.--Crossmr (talk) 23:56, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
There are plenty of reliable sources out there (homebrew scene), its just that unreliable sources are prefered here (classic self censored game press). Found some links that might qualify as "reliable" for Wikipedia, as Datel seems to be in a lawsuit against Sony over those batteries:
-- Grumbel (talk) 18:18, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Regarding the last link, Wikipedia does not accept open-content pages as WP:RS. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 01:59, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Dark alex?? Well, it is time he was on wikipedia

It's like saying David Beckham should be merged under football, or Real Madrid. Just because he is not officialy recognized at all, it does not mean he is not recognized by almost thousands of people sitting at their computers/psps. He is a major figure, but just in an underground world where no one can see him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eddabed (talk • contribs) 17:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

And you just contradicted your own point. He may be an important figure in PSP homebrew, but how important is PSP homebrew? How many people follow it compared to football/soccer? Not very many. How well established in Dark_AleX in the mainstream media compared to Beckham? Dark_AleX has had one or two articles on BBC. That's it. Beckham has had a lot more than that. Your point falls short. Λύκος 21:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Exactly and I think we've allowed more than sufficient time for anyone who wants to prove the unquestionable notability of dark alex to do so. There hasn't been anything remotely substantial beyond the one BBC article provided.--Crossmr (talk) 21:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Not only should we look at how non-notable he is, but are there any verifiable, reliable sources on him? No? Then I guess the nail is on the coffin then. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 15:49, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, he got a couple paragraphs in the BBC article, but other than that nothing. So there is enough to warrant a mention, but not enough for an independent article. If he gets a full blown article all to himself in a notable reliable source then it might be worth him getting an article here.--Crossmr (talk) 01:10, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Psp Emulator Video (N64 looking quite nice.)

<youtube>elGj5Z7gkuk</youtube> We could add this youtube clip, it shows off the psp is capable of emulating the N64 quite well! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.7.7.154 (talk) 03:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

How about no. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 15:50, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Emulators are NOT illegal. Console BIOS walk a thin line, but no emulator is, in itself, illegal. Not supporting the insertion of the video, though, as it only documents ONE homebrew app, and as a rule of thumb youtube videos aren't usable in wiki. BrickBreak (talk) 00:39, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Have a good read of Wikipedia policy on uploading media files before lecturing me about something that I don't really care about, junior. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 01:48, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
The part about the video was for the OP. I'm not here to lecture anyone, but it seems like I accidentaly touched a nerve, though. BrickBreak (talk) 02:26, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

refrences

I don't know how to get the references to work. I need help.there all over the page but hidden. I find this has a lot of usefull information but I don't know how to fix the references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.83.96.235 (talk) 20:01, 28 March 2010 (UTC) The chunck of information's from PSPwiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.83.96.235 (talk) 20:02, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Babkockdood and 70.83.96.235, this is your final warning. WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH is not permitted on Wikipedia. PSPwiki is an open-content website, and therefore is not a Reliable source. Additionally, copypasting information from other websites constitutes WP:COPYVIO. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 22:50, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe true, but BITING them isn't going to help. And unfortunatly your last few remarks have been little more than just that. BrickBreak (talk) 02:07, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Added some rather important missing info

If forum posts aren't "good enough" to be "reliable" sources (despite being around for years), I'm sure there are plenty better pages one find quickly on Google if they were so inclined. In any case the article was severely out of date so I added some things. Would be nice if people tried to fix bad references and so forth instead of simply deleting. 198.53.125.29 (talk) 07:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Then provide good references. We've been over this dozens of times.If you want to add the content, provide the references. What is and what isn't a reliable source has been brought up here several times. if you want to add material provide the sources which meet the policies and guidelines. WP:V The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. the burden is on you who wants to add content. Self-publisher sources never have been and never will be sufficient. Nor will hobby sites. Reliable secondary sources are sources which have a reputation for fact checking. Randomly adding links to various programs isn't a citation. Its a citation that that program exists, it isn't a citation that that program nor the information you're trying to base off it is notable or should be included in the article.--Crossmr (talk) 08:32, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, it has been brought up dozens of times, but the counter argument is just as bullshit as ever. A source doesn't get reliable when its printed on paper or is commercial, in fact in the case of homebrew those sources are easily to be shown to be either extremely incomplete or just plain wrong. True reliable sources (well known forums, blogs, webpages) on the other side are truly reliable and easy to verify (just need a PSP to run homebrew to check most facts). Sad state of Wikipedia that applying rules by the letter has become more important, then applying them by their indent. -- Grumbel (talk) 17:55, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
Wah. Go make your own encyclopedia. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 01:55, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Do not WP:BITE, he raises a valid point that finding traditionally reliable sources on an inherently underground movement that are not incredibly bias is extremely difficult.--UltraMagnusspeak 12:22, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
It isn't a valid point. We don't change the requirements for sources just because no one really writes about this subject. The fact that no one really writes about this subject tells us that we don't need pages and pages on it. We don't require readers to have a PSP running homebrew to verify what the forums say so they know they can trust the article.--Crossmr (talk) 00:31, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Horrible Summary

Whoever rewrote this article did it horribly. It has almost no info on homebrew, other than very basic info. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.143.148.172 (talk) 02:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the opinion. You think you could do better? Find some refs that pass WP:V and do it yourself. This is a wiki, after all. Λύκος 02:35, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I will help to add more content with references with more to come later. As I have been engaged in the PSP homebrew scene since June 2005, I can see large gaps and even statements that are factually incorrect -- "On June 15, 2005 the hackers distributed the cracked code of the PSP on the internet" -- though I admit the Business Week article is unclear and is for a large part hearsay. The big problem I have is finding links that are still active to back up any statements made. On a side note, as the article grows, I think we'll eventually need to separate homebrew-enabling (exploits, downgrading) vs. actual homebrew developments, but I guess we'll talk about that when the time comes. MarcoN (talk) 06:55, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
and unfortunately I'm going to have remove sections of it. All of it. The only reliable sources you included were the update pages, but they were only used to support lines of prose started on unreliable or no sources. The citation you included with business week didn't support what you wrote. We went over this during the rewrite, forums and other self-published blogs/sites, etc fail WP:V and can't be used for citation. Any unsourced statements like "The release of Hello World, which was purely a proof-of-concept, sparked the development of a wide range of homebrew for the PSP, mainly emulators: NES (NesterJ), Gameboy/Gameboy Color (RIN), SEGA MasterSystem (DGEN), etc." can't be put in the article. You've added mass sections of unsourced content about the inner workings of the homebrew and that can't be in the article. The threshold for inclusion is verifiability not truth.--Crossmr (talk) 11:42, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
In that case we'll have to preserve this part of history somewhere else (for now). MarcoN (talk) 16:29, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
I find it most ironic that it seems that generally kids are the ones that edit this article most of the time, as new accounts or IPs. "this part of history" - you speak as if it is on the same par as the Napoleonic wars or the European colonization of the Americas. This talk page is evidence that kids don't quite get their priorities right. </rant> -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 01:50, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Priorities right? You say it like people pull this out of their asses overnight. It does actually take knowledge to do this you know. 74.218.176.50 (talk) 12:13, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

But can it cure cancer? Or bring world peace? Solve the financial crisis? Be the solution for the Liancourt Rocks dispute? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 15:38, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
I think user Benlisquare should refrain from editing the article for a while. Bad temper, WP:IDONTLIKEIT issues, and zero constructive edits in a long time. BrickBreak (talk) 22:57, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
I was referring to how both aformentioned users claim that PSP homebrew must seem to be a very significant thing, as if world history is based around it. Misunderstanding a sarcastic rhetorical question is one thing, but overexaggerating something is another. "It does take actual knowledge to do this", as one editor has said, but do they give out university degrees on PSP homebrew? People are using the most absurd arguments to prove how important PSP homebrew is, and by burning poor arguments with fire, I'm everybody's plague I guess? BrickBreak, have a look at the history and you'll see that I've never significantly edited the article in over 3 months perhaps, apart from general reversions for vandalism and WP:POLICY upholding. So what's it to you? Kill the cane toad to save the locust? And I wonder who brought up a topic from the dusty shelves after it had long finished two months ago? -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 05:36, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
I may be wrong here, and I can take responsability for my words if I am. But what appears to me is that a perception of the subject's importance is preventing the article from growing and be improved. I am not, of course, going to say that PSP homebrewing is more important than any of the subjects you mentioned. But the importance of any matter is subjective. And as much as most people failed to assert it's importance, just pointing out facts that are more important isn't a valid way to dismiss those claims. Either way, there has been little to none breathing room in this article, mostly due to that.
My comment on constructive edits is just about that, contructive edits. Of course reversing vandalism and blatant policy violations is important, and we thank you for it. But if that were the only thing to an article, they wouldn't exist... No article is ever finished, and this one surely isn't. And people who think that are far from being an a plague. I just hope they can find sources where I couldn't. And that their morale isn't destroyed by then. BrickBreak (talk) 20:27, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, you are. what is preventing the article from growing significantly is the lack of reliable sources discussing the minutia that some people want. When I rewrote this article I googled long and hard to find acceptable sources on this subject and since then twice I've done it again to see if any new useful information has come up. Most of the other edits to the article have been policy violations of some kind. Drive by IPs trying to insert fan site level information, or other unsourced opinion and conjecture. Quite simply put any information that doesn't come from a source in line with WP:V and WP:RS isn't going to stay in the article. Per WP:V the burden of proof lies with the person who wants to add or restore the material to find the appropriate source. If you want people to help find sources for things, you can propose it on the talk page and ask people to help you source it. If there are questions about the sources those can be answered on the talk page before its sent to the article and reverted for not being appropriately sourced. The article used to be an unmanageable mess of a fansite before and not really an encyclopedic article.--Crossmr (talk) 01:01, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

PSP homebrew article from Wikipedia in spanish

There is a lot of spanish web pages from spanish fans in PSP, they edited PSP homebrew article from Wikipedia in spanish. Someone could translate it to english, please? I'm not trained or prepared to do it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonia Murillo Perales (talk • contribs) 06:40, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Unless it's sourced to sources which meet our policy requirements laid out at WP:V and the guidelines at WP:RS it doesn't belong here. If it's anything like the current stuff that's trying to be pushed into the article, we don't need it.--Crossmr (talk) 13:45, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Other pages are from creators of homebrew, this homebrew is not sold but free. Other homebrews are not made by one person but by several people in several countries. On the websites of some of the authors they give permission for others to modify their work.

The Spanish Law protects the rights against violation of copyright. This pages web referenced in article are spanish pages web, from Spain, against violation of copyright. You can to read it in english in the statutes for example of: http://psp.scenebeta.com/

Spain is a member of European Union. In addition, the article is translated from the Spanish wikipedia. These people that has created the applications do not sell products, not self advertise and many of them do not even transmit information of homebrew in a language other than Castilian. The article discusses how develop the capabilities of the PSP nonprofit and for own use. Personally, one of the things I admire from the creators of homebrew is the young age of many of them. A good portion are under age, around 15 years old and I know a application created by a child of 10 years. Also, most owner people who install homebrew on PSP are minors. For example, The idea of ​​installing a epub viewer in PSP through an emulator java, come from a child.

"Alimento para vuestras consolas PSP de Sony, preparad las Memory Stick. Intentamos cada día traeros el mejor contenido, aplicaciones y juegos de la scene homebrew para nuestras consolas PSP y PSP Slim de Sony traduciendolos al español. Además creamos tutoriales para que podais exprimir al máximo vuestras PSPs."


"El software, código fuente, logotipos y marcas contenidos en este sitio web son propiedad de sus respectivos dueños y están, o pueden estar, sujetos a derechos y/o licencia de uso. Los anuncios, banners y la publicidad son propiedad y responsabilidad de los anunciantes. Los envíos y publicaciones, salvo indicación expresa en contra, son propiedad y responsabilidad de quien los realiza. El resto de publicaciones, elementos gráficos y contenido es propiedad de "SB IT MEDIA, S.L.". SceneBeta.com, 2005 - 2011 Contactar con PSP.SceneBeta.com - Información legal, términos y condiciones de uso.

Todo el contenido excluidos software, código fuente, publicidad, logotipos, marcas y elementos gráficos, salvo indicación expresa en contra, está disponible bajo la licencia "Creative Commons Reconocimiento-No comercial-Compartir bajo la misma licencia 3.0 España" y puede ser utilizado de forma no comercial manteniendo el tipo de licencia y con las restricciones que establece dicha licencia siempre que se enlace su ubicación original citando la fuente y el autor." 95.120.185.55 (talk) 17:29, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

And this is relevant how? Please do not add unsourced content to the article.--Crossmr (talk) 22:52, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:PlayStation_Portable_homebrew/Archive_2&oldid=1154694116"