Talk:Yamaha DX1

Old discussions
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
DX5/DX1 Why are the DX5 and DX1 listed in the same heading, yet this article's title is only DX1? Badagnani (talk) 06:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC) Especially as there is a seperate article for the DX5... 83.108.109.16 (talk) 21:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC) Yes I believe they were but the Yamaha DX-1 is twice the synthesizer than the Yamaha DX-5. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.128.11.122 (talk) 01:48, 22 December 2009 (UTC) There needs to be a picture on the DX1 on here, it is quite a synthesizer.--24.205.238.10 (talk) 05:26, 24 September 2010 (UTC) Capitalization Shouldn't DX be capitalized? Badagnani (talk) 06:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC) Text copying from vintagesynth.com Someone keeps copy-pasting in text from the DX1 review on vintagesynth.com. Please don't add this in as it's in the style of an advertisement, not an encyclopedia article. Arekku (talk) 04:02, 20 December 2010 (UTC) No that is NOT true - I am a contributing editor for Vintagesynth.com and Vintagesynth.com is not an advertising site, it is an information site only for vintage synthesizer information. I wrote those sources and I photographed my original Yamaha DX-1 on this article to view the snyth on this article; that's my Yamaha DX-1 you see here, that's not a copyright I own those photopraghs and I edited the content myself as I wrote the original material on the DX-1 for Vintagesynth - look under Resources as my name is listed as contributing photographer & content editor for Vintagesynth.com under Yamaha DX-1 because I created the material for information, not to sell a DX-1. Only 140 of these synths exist, none exist for sale currently even if you tried to find one for example. This is an article for information, not to sell a DX-1. I agree with the picture it gives the image a full scale diagram of the keyboard. There is nothing wrong with using your own camera pic to post since you own one and know about them. I do not think this is advertising act and if it was there is nothing here that says where you can buy one anyway. I like the history said about the dx1 and I like the fact Depeche Mode still uses their dx1 and other famous musicians.--24.205.236.249 (talk) 00:18, 21 December 2010 (UTC) Photographs have been corrected.--Globalstatus (talk) 22:58, 21 December 2010 (UTC) Leave the front image on the center as the overview of the DX1 After looking at the center larger image I am happy with that image as it stands now. The right view makes it is harder to get the overall look of an actual DX-1. The center view is much more easier to see especially for the first time seeing one. Since the DX-1 is a massive synthesizer it should be viewed as one.--24.205.236.249 (talk) 05:35, 13 January 2011 (UTC) I was the one that changed the image layout of the article. While I agree it is an impressive looking synth , Wikipedia's image style guide states that the lead image should be less than 500px wide, and in the infobox. The massive image makes the article very difficult to read on lower resolution screens, and does not match up with other articles on Wikipedia. If anyone wants to see the image in it's full glory, they can just click on it! --Danjewell (talk) 09:12, 13 January 2011 (UTC) I think also the larger image is better and better to see the wide shot. No one complained about anything until you changed the photo and I object. Style of images does not always have be under 500px wide anyway. I have no difficulty reading the article so the picture stays.--Globalstatus (talk) 09:28, 13 January 2011 (UTC) I still disagree, it's not how a Wikipedia article should look and people with older computers would have difficulty reading the article. However, I don't want to start an edit war, so I won't change it back. --Danjewell (talk) 09:41, 13 January 2011 (UTC) I have both old and new computers from Windows 95 to Windows 7 both are fine on the screen. I concur with 24.205.236.249 that the DX1 is big and shouldn't be classified as a small synth since there is only 140 of them out there then how many people know how big they are. A DX7 is no where near the size of a DX1 for example.--Globalstatus (talk) Yamaha DX1 article cannot be abused Master_Bigode changed content on Yamaha DX1 by eliminating important content[1] without any discussion, eliminating the synthesizers history, discription, pictures and true importance on information explaining everything about the Yamaha DX-1. This is an information article about the DX-1 it is not a place to abuse the content.--Globalstatus (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:57, 23 January 2011 (UTC). This content reads like a review, and wikipedia is no place for that. It's also not WP:NPOV. You may feel free to re-add that content if you reword it to make it sound a little more encyclopedic. - Master Bigode (Talk) (Contribs) 14:41, 27 January 2011 (UTC) Excuse me but that is not a sales review, the content was written by several editors together, gathering content and I contribed sometime ago as well. Do you own a DX-1, what is your review? This is not a place to abuse the content as you have already done so.--Globalstatus (talk) 20:31, 27 January 2011 (UTC) The part I'm removing was added by you. You seem to be somewhat confused as to what is acceptable as content in this wiki, so I recommend you to take a look at the other articles and at the style guidelines before trying to revert my edit again. Do you see any other article in this wiki with a huge image at the top of the page ? Do you see any other article literally telling the reader to remember and/or expect something ? - Master Bigode (Talk) (Contribs) 02:03, 28 January 2011 (UTC) Yes I do, I see in fact a lot of articles maybe articles you don't play interest in with large images and written in discription on something for example. What I see here is I see someone refuses to accept the truth about a DX1 and what it is. I have reviewed the guidelines but you also erased content by several other editors as well which is more than I can say is wrong. Again do you own one? Probably not but what information do you have than erasing what you think it according to you? Lets see your insights on a DX1 and what it is. So far I have seen nothing writting from you on anything on this article.--Globalstatus (talk) 20:17, 28 January 2011 (UTC) Whether I own one or not is irrelevant to this discussion. Whether I've ever edited this article before or not is irrelevant to this discussion as well. And again, the part I'm reverting was written by _you_, which is essentially just the lead part of the article repeated in a review tone, plus info that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Seriously, did you even try to read other articles like I suggested you to do ? Take a look at Roland SH-1000, it's by no means a brilliantly written article, but it should give you an idea of how an article on a keyboard synth should look like. - Master Bigode (Talk) (Contribs) 01:26, 30 January 2011 (UTC) Asking if you own a DX1 is relevant because 60% of the information on a DX1 is not on the internet, part of it is in the synthesizer and the other half is not published for example. If you were to search everything on a DX1 tell me what information will you find on it besides on the 1 page of Google (or more) that I already know about? For example do you have a clue of information where to buy a single part on the DX1 (besides a power cord, memory card & manual)? Big deal if you ask, as I have over 400 pages of information on the synthesizer (which hardly any of that information is not online since I bought mine from a original DX-1 engineer from 1983 during its construction phrase) and no one else does except a few DX1 owners. Inside the keyboard Yamaha there were several documents inside (not all of them though), kind of like a prize inside a Cracker Jack Box for information. Knowing the full details of its schematics is a big deal but had I not own a DX1 this would be a different story posting irrelevant information on the synthesizer, just not available. So to tell me its relevant or not, sorry but I am not buying that. Nothing which I find repeating itself nor do I find myself or the other editors stating something irrelevant to the content to the DX1. The Roland SH-1001 which I own as well is completely different and nothing a DX1 will ever be. I think the article on the SH-1001 is horrible on its description and explains nearly nothing what it is all about as I am embarrassed to read it. However to compare a DX-1 they are completely different from each other. Some of the DX-1 community is located here[2] but the site does not post everything available but I am known within the DX-1 community here. I however I will post information on the DX-1 in more detail later but I do not want to post everything on it as I feel it is worth being an owner to get that information to appreciate it as every DX1 of the 140 to 210 there were built there is something special about every one of them and a few a little more as well. I would tell you to find a DX-1 yourself and write about it then, as it is irrelevant to what you have to say about it than not owning one.--Globalstatus (talk) 02:52, 31 January 2011 (UTC) Funny you say all that. Like I said before, the part I'm removing adds absolutely nothing to the article. - Master Bigode (Talk) (Contribs) 16:01, 31 January 2011 (UTC) And until you own one you will not have all the information on the DX1. The article works fine on its description on describing the synthesizer and many will agree.--Globalstatus (talk) 18:54, 3 February 2011 (UTC) Excellent point - those who own a DX1 have more to say than those who don't. I can't find hardly any information on them as I have searched and searched on more detailed information on a DX1. Till I buy one I just may have more to say.--64.69.155.2 (talk) 07:01, 8 February 2011 (UTC) The text you're posting is still in the style of a review, laden with weasel words, and is quite unencyclopedic. Two, you've gathered information that you've researched on your own, written on your own personal site, and copied it into here lock-stock-and-barrel. I suggest you take a look at the Manual of Style, specifically Words to Watch, along with NOR and NPOV before you continue editing the page again. Wolftengu (talk) 07:48, 11 February 2011 (UTC) I undid the content you oppose Wolftengu as I see the article in context to the synthesizer - matching the history, discription and so forth. I quite like the article as it was.--71.84.3.109 (talk) 09:08, 11 February 2011 (UTC) Yamaha DX1 article being abused The Yamaha DX-1 article has been attacked by Wolftengu who apparently eliminated all the detailed information and photographs claiming the article is unencyclopedic saying the content is word writtten & hearsay. I have no idea where this came from to make such a statement but Wolftengu doesn't know what he is talking about on a Yamaha DX1. The article has been gathered by several people who all contributed useful sources to explain important information about the DX1; not erasing giving no details. There's no evidence of fact that Wolftengu has to say the article is or from on a personal site, and copied it into here lock-stock-and-barrelon is completely misleading & mind baffling. Where then? And saying weasel words in creating an impression? This is not brag article, it is a discription on a Yamaha synthesizer for pete's sake and the editing community contributed to it's content & sources. This is about educating people about a rare synthesizer that is mearly impossible to gather information, it is that rare and to respect the contributers who help build that content to discribe it so the educating world has an idea what the DX1 is, not a mystery. Eliminating that information is purely abuse and should be discussed first (so others have there opinions about the content) before doing so.--71.84.3.109 (talk) 19:21, 11 February 2011 (UTC) I personally like the article with the center photo and information on the DX-1 in long length, currently there isn't enough info on this synth. It needs much more content and more pictures too.--24.205.236.249 (talk) 07:11, 16 February 2011 (UTC) Please see MOS:IMAGES#Images and Wikipedia:LAYOUT#Images for proper use and layout of images in an article. Specifically, from MOS:IMAGES#Images: "Infoboxes, images and related content in the lead must be right-aligned." ...and from Wikipedia:LAYOUT#Images: "You should always be watchful not to overwhelm an article with images by adding more just because you can. Unless clearly better or more appropriate images are available, the existing images in the article should be left in place. Images should ideally be spread evenly within the article, and relevant to the sections they are located in. All images should also have an explicative caption. An image that would otherwise overwhelm the available text space on a 800×600 window should be shrunk, or formatted as a panorama. It is a good idea to try to maintain visual coherence by aligning the sizes of images and templates on a given page." Even though this is a freely-editable encyclopedia, it doesn't mean you can do whatever you want as for article content, there are ways of doing things here. The main points are right below the edit box, under "Please note:." I'll link them here for you: Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_an_encyclopedia Wikipedia:Verifiability Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view Wikipedia:Copy-paste If you truly do care about improving the article, I suggest you read those and work on understanding how things work here. In the interim, don't personally attack me because I'm reverting your edits; if you're not abiding by the policy then expect people to call you out on it and revert your edits. Most importantly, content here is licensed under the Creative Commons license. Don't submit your content here unless you agree to these terms. Wolftengu (talk) 11:13, 16 February 2011 (UTC) I found the article originally fine before you removed it; the center photo gave the article a better look but making the article smaller than the picture is too big but if the content is lengthy then the original picture shouold go back at the center top. The synthesizer is big, bigger than the average so the picture should show the viewers that. The DX1 deserves a long discription and more photos of it.--24.205.236.249 (talk) 08:30, 17 February 2011 (UTC) It doesn't matter what the machine "deserves." Did you actually read what you've been linked every single time someone has an issue with your edits? You seem to have a personal interest in keeping that content on the article. Wolftengu (talk) 11:53, 17 February 2011 (UTC) I brought back the center image at 500 by 400. That will cover it as what I reviewed on Wikipedia's policy but it can be bigger depending on the article.--Globalstatus (talk) 11:33, 2 April 2011 (UTC) Here we go again, time to consensus the Yamaha DX-1 article on undo's without proper knowledge and refs Master Bigode has being undoing and undoing the article but taking no involvement in the discussions. He dislikes the center image & side image, dislikes the content, dislikes Youtube as a source (even through Youtube is used in 1000's of Wikipedia articles) and etc. I asked Master Bigode if he owns a DX-1 and he said no ()clearly matters as the DX-1 has content inside the synthesizer about number made, contents and etc information on them not published). I asked him to supply information about references and content, which he has not done so but has only undid everything in his path to undo the article instead. If the article is posted and those are trying to update it and providing information, if you don't like the content then use the discussions tap to discuss the article first as I have clearly done before editing. If you want to add to it than post in the discussions what you wish to add so other can see the update. If you have posted the update content and no one has replied then I am fine with you modifying the article after a few days. You help imforming people what you wish to add to the article and modify without discussion. So I am being this matter to discussion. 1. I pledge to have the center image remain on the center of the article, instead of the right side and two use the back side image in the left side of the page. If you have disagreements on the images I need to see why to debate this. Remember the center image and back side is my DX-1 images which I have donated to use. 2. The content, if you don't like the content then you need to consensus the content you wish to use but know since there is hardly much information on a DX-1 good luck providing the material. I happened to have a lot of paperwork on the DX-1 which I have not posted online. I pledge to use the same content from before [3] February 22, 2011 but I will correct some of the sentences from before. Since I am pledging to use the same as before I also will add more content to add more about the synthesizer in detail. 3. Youtube video's, since Youtube is used on a lot of article than I will search for other video feeds on the DX-1 to use. If I do not hear any disagreements overtime than I will edit the article and notify adminstrators on my discussions first if the article is abused without proper discussions first. I will post a pre content edit before I add the content to the article to verify so others can view the content first.--Globalstatus (talk) 00:23, 25 February 2011 (UTC) Do you even read the policy and guideline links posted for you? If you did, you would understand why your edits keep getting reverted. Go ahead and notify sysops, see how far that gets you. Wolftengu (talk) 01:14, 25 February 2011 (UTC) We're talking about the article not abusing it. This is consensus about the article.--Globalstatus (talk) 21:18, 25 February 2011 (UTC) Consensus with whom? Your sockpuppeting? YOU are the one abusing the article, and you're clearly ignoring anyone who tells you different about it. Wolftengu (talk) 21:28, 25 February 2011 (UTC) I am not going that route, you seem to be angered by something not sure (you don't own a DX-1 as you have said, so your involvement in this article does not make sense). This is a discussion on the article, I am not paid to edit Wikipedia nor do I spend all day & everyday on wikipedia editing all day for a living[4], I have important things to do. I am talking about a synthesizer that's the discussion for this topic. If you want to argue this is not the place for that. This discussion is about the Yamaha DX-1.--Globalstatus (talk) 09:47, 26 February 2011 (UTC) Are you dense? There is no "consensus" over your edits. There are no exceptions to the rules, regardless of what you know or what you may possibly own. This is why your edits keep getting reverted. You have absolutely no clue how Wikipedia works. If you continue to post your edits here, I'll be reporting you. Wolftengu (talk) 15:56, 26 February 2011 (UTC) I think you are being rude and making this an issue, I am not going there. I will be updating the article with new information by discussin it first. I understand you oppose upgrading this article according to you. I am not a person who makes a living on Wikipedia reverting edits all day long. I understand wikipedia is your career profession but I am only informing the article, I have no desire to make money on wikipedia or harass people for a living. So this dicussion is about fixing the article on consensus only for example (sources, pictures, discussing view points and etc). I know what talking is about on consensing the article so please do not make this another issue of harassment.--Globalstatus (talk) 23:13, 26 February 2011 (UTC) I don't oppose the center photograph from before as the right side image is too small to view.--Bimotacycle (talk) 05:22, 8 March 2011 (UTC) Click on it. - Master Bigode (Talk) (Contribs) 23:55, 10 March 2011 (UTC) Picture will updated but content update needed. Changed "was" to "is" on article as the DX1 still remains the top DX of the DX series.--Globalstatus (talk) 22:59, 19 March 2011 (UTC) Looking at original picture for center page of article, looking to get some favors and hear some opposition before I change over to change or not for example. Send your comments on center picture from last month instead on left side photo please. Planning to adjust picture back on discussing it here first, original center picture does not violate rules on photograth as photo is verified. So that said I am discussing this first here to get an over view before I change over.--Globalstatus (talk) 06:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC) Read this. Images in articles may be no bigger than 500x400, it looks bad and it's against the style guidelines. - Master Bigode (Talk) (Contribs) 17:28, 29 March 2011 (UTC) I brought back the center image at 500 by 400. That will cover it as what I reviewed on Wikipedia's policy but it can be bigger depending on the article.--Globalstatus (talk) 06:27, 4 April 2011 (UTC) The DX-1 500 by 400 image was erased without consensus again. 500 by 400 meets the guidelines for Wikipedia and rear picture is important to leave on the article too as it meets the guidelines because the size of the DX-1 is important to know the controls in back of the keyboard look like. The back is tall and says DX-1 quite clear not many people have seen a DX-1 as only 140 exist so its rare to imagine the synthesizer without a few important photographs.--Globalstatus (talk) 11:01, 21 June 2011 (UTC) I've undone your revert, and if you try to revert me again, I'll ask for admin intervention. People have been trying to make this article conform to the standards since late 2010, but you revert their edits every time to make the article look like you want it to. Jesus, talking to you is like talking to a door. Want consensus for the picture at the top to be reduced and put into the infobox ? Do what have told you to do months ago: take a look around. No, seriously, TAKE. A. LOOK. AROUND. Click the random article button on the left and try to count how many articles you can find that have such a big picture before the article's intro. Couldn't find any ? Why do you think this article should be any different from the others ? The 500x400 limit is meant for other uses such as landscape pictures and the like, not for pictures that are used merely for illustrative purposes. As for the other picture, the back of the keyboard isn't clearly visible, but even if it was, what's the point ? It's not like there's anything back there that isn't available in other keyboards. Again, you have 2 choices: listen to me and leave this article alone, or revert my edits and have the admins repeat everything I have already said and risk being blocked again. - Master Bigode (Talk) (Contribs) 16:23, 21 June 2011 (UTC) You did not consensus first, you made an edit without discussing the matter first. You apparently want the article to look how you want it look and you have not consensus the article before doing so, you made the edit on your own. Your acting above the law as there are pictures of articles with center images at the top. You happened to disagree from you misinformation. I will clarify this with Adminstrators on your un-approved editting.--Globalstatus (talk) 20:03, 25 June 2011 (UTC) You keep trying to use my own words against me, but so far you have failed to prove any of my points wrong. I can do the same, though. I say you happen to disagree with me because you're misinformed, and don't know how wikipedia works. Go ahead, tell the admins about my "un-approved editing". - Master Bigode (Talk) (Contribs) 17:24, 26 June 2011 (UTC) It says under policy Master Bigode and you have stated yourself that 500 x 400 images was max right here [5] on March 29, 2011 but now you don't agree afterwards on 500 x 400. You seem to disallow the rule on correct images [6] which makes you above the law. You are violating policy by your edits. First you edit without consensus, then your reply nothing on the discussion afterward over the subject but after the fact. Makes perfect sense that you apparently want to rein the article for other viewers. Second the back image, you also make no argument to place that either, style guidelines, it is within image policy. Is Wikipedia according to you here? Do you own a DX-1 one? Yes or No. If yes what model number is it then? If not have you ever seen a DX-1 before? What is your involvement in the Yamaha DX-1 article? Are you using 2 ip addresses under Wikipedia or a proxy editing on Wikipedia? Yes or No You spend a lot of time on Wikipedia[7], are you paid to edit or is this a hobby for you? What information are your trying to educate to the Yamaha DX-1 community here? Are you claiming you have all the information on a Yamaha DX-1 that you are an expert on this synthesizer? Are you willing to be informed by Yamaha that if they need an expert on a DX synthesizer you would represent them by your edits on here? What is your accreditation on the Yamaha DX-1 or DX series or certificiation on the DX-1? --Globalstatus (talk) 20:40, 26 June 2011 (UTC) I've already answered all of those questions in my previous posts. Seems like you are walking in circles. Again. And... you've been here for over 6 months, and yet you still question if people are paid to edit. I think this is enough evidence that you haven't read what I told you to. - Master Bigode (Talk) (Contribs) 19:28, 27 June 2011 (UTC) Seems you are not making clear sense and not willing to admit the information here. It says under policy Master Bigode and you have stated yourself that 500 x 400 images was max right here [8] on March 29, 2011 but now you don't agree afterwards on 500 x 400. You seem to disallow the rule on correct images [9] which makes you above the law. You are violating policy by your edits. First you edit without consensus, then your reply nothing on the discussion afterward over the subject but after the fact. Makes perfect sense that you apparently want to rein the article for other viewers. Second the back image, you also make no argument to place that either, style guidelines, it is within image policy. Is Wikipedia according to you here because you are not making clear sense. I will repeat it again because you have not answered: Do you own a DX-1 one? Yes or No. If yes what model number is it then?? If not have you ever seen a DX-1 before?? What is your involvement in the Yamaha DX-1 article?? Are you using 2 ip addresses under Wikipedia or a proxy editing on Wikipedia? Yes or No You spend a lot of time on Wikipedia[10], are you paid to edit or is this a hobby for you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Globalstatus (talk • contribs) 23:22, 27 June 2011 (UTC) Going to replace the back image of the DX-1 image back on the article, making consensus to talk about the image before I apply back on. No image on the article except for small image. Second consensing 500x400 back on the main page. Sense there is no clear rule that the picture is not bigger, Wikipedia's policy allows an image of this size to place on the article. I am consensing this to address the views for Adminstrative policy to discuss images first.--Globalstatus (talk) 21:58, 28 June 2011 (UTC) I'm sorry, but you will never achieve any kind of "consensus" in your favor. Anybody who has used this wiki at least once will tell you that your idea for a layout looks more like a poorly designed personal webpage than an article coming from an encyclopedia. - Master Bigode (Talk) (Contribs) 02:00, 29 June 2011 (UTC) Your not answering the question: I will repeat it again because you have not answered: Do you own a DX-1 one? Yes or No. If yes what model number is it then?? If not have you ever seen a DX-1 before?? What is your involvement in the Yamaha DX-1 article?? Are you using 2 ip addresses under Wikipedia or a proxy editing on Wikipedia? Yes or No You spend a lot of time on Wikipedia[11], are you paid to edit or is this a hobby for you as your involvement is questioned? You are not making clear sense and not willing to admit the information here. It says under policy Master Bigode and you have stated yourself that 500 x 400 images was max right here [12] on March 29, 2011 but now you don't agree afterwards on 500 x 400. You seem to disallow the rule on correct images [13] which makes you above the law. You are violating policy by your edits. First you edit without consensus, then your reply nothing on the discussion afterward over the subject but after the fact. Makes perfect sense that you apparently want to rein the article for other viewers. Second the back image, you also make no argument to place that either, style guidelines, it is within image policy. Is Wikipedia according to you here because you are not making clear sense. --Globalstatus (talk) 06:52, 29 June 2011 (UTC) Learn to read, I've already answered your questions. And why on earth would you want to know if I use multiple IPs ? I[14] do[15] know[16] you[17] do... Anyway, I'm fed up with your slowness, don't bother me again until you have figured out how wikipedia works and properly read everything that has already been said here. Also, stop looking for loopholes to support your opinions, it makes you sound like a criminal. - Master Bigode (Talk) (Contribs) 16:09, 29 June 2011 (UTC) It seems you have no intent to answer the information and also you have admitted the size was within rules but you decided to otherwise make what you assumed it right over wrong. I will repeat it again because you have not answered: Do you own a DX-1 one? Yes or No. If yes what model number is it then?? If not have you ever seen a DX-1 before?? What is your involvement in the Yamaha DX-1 article?? Lastly this is a discussion, you edited on it that means you take responsiblity for your actions.--Globalstatus (talk) 17:06, 29 June 2011 (UTC) Yamaha DX1 article has been abused by user Master Bigode from Brazil Making a discussion on the Yamaha DX-1 article which has been abused[18] by Master Bigode[19] profile[20][21][22] for not following the rules on images. The rules allows 500x400 size images[23] and that the fact Master Bigode admitted himself that 500 X 400[24] was the max size to be allowed for using an image in an article but also erased even the back side image in the middle of the article too[25] without consenus. Why the public can't view the back side as well? Who else opposes it? The article requires more insight on its images but for user Master Bigode to decide without consensus to make what he thinks is best but does not own a DX-1 and probably has never seen a DX-1 nor do I think he works for Yamaha either, since he refuses to answer because he thinks it is not important. The article needs more photographs and it is ashame that Master Bigode is abusing the article by disallowing images within the rules of Wikipedia. 500 x 400 is allowed for the article and this image can be accepted as an image to display the DX-1 and even the back image to show the public what the other half of it looks like. Again if Master Bigode had owned a DX-1 then what good is it if he has no proper knowledge on the synthesizer of looks, electronics, data, made and etc. Why is it revelant? Again if you own a DX-1 their is rare literature inside the synthesizer that Yamaha did not provide to the public but to the owners. Try searching that information online and you'll find nothing (but inside contains small brochure of images, extra nuts, screws, data material layout map, material used and made from, production made number, name of specific engineer built synthesizer all inside the DX-1). The article needs a discussion on fixing the images from size, placement and images of discription. However with user Master Bigode creating a problem for the article here, there needs to be a consenus from other editors to discuss fixing this mess. What you see on the article currently is what Master Bigode thinks it should look like[26] which is wrong. Consensus is needed to fix this error--Globalstatus (talk) 18:08, 29 June 2011 (UTC) I agree with Master Bigode. Wolftengu (talk) 18:16, 29 June 2011 (UTC) If you agree with Master Bigode then what about rule for 500 x 400 images[27] and what about the back side image (that was erased without consensus)? He never discussed the back image, he erased it out of the blue[28]. What if I went on your user homepage Wolftengu and I said that picture on your homepage is too big but within guidelines and I removed it, placed it somewhere else and I also removed another image, would you agree with someone doing that to your homepage or would you be outraged? However Wolftengu you seem to be playing unfair cop here[29] by notifiying 2over0 as if a discussion is wrong on the Yamaha DX-1 discussion page. What is your point? Do you own a DX-1 or if not yet what is your involvement to disallow a 500 X 400 or any other DX-1 500 x 400 image and even any other image of a DX-1 in a smaller form? A discussion is needed to address that problem I have seen what Master Bigode has done and refusing to discuss it and address the issue I have seen done without merit.--Globalstatus (talk) 19:31, 29 June 2011 (UTC) All problems were addressed months ago. If this article ever had a problem, it was you. I'm done here. - Master Bigode (Talk) (Contribs) 20:53, 29 June 2011 (UTC) Master Bigode you admitted that 500 X 400 here[30] was the max size to be allowed and you did not even second guess the second image here[31] but erased it off the map. There is a problem with this and this topic is to fix the issue on discussing it. Editors are needed to consensus the images.--Globalstatus (talk) 21:03, 29 June 2011 (UTC) Well, looks like I'll have to spoonfeed you. Here we go. Please learn to read. - Master Bigode (Talk) (Contribs) 21:12, 29 June 2011 (UTC) I'm not 18 from Brazil but your information is based on your opinion that does not help the article. You said The 500x400 limit is meant for other uses such as landscape pictures and the like, not for pictures that are used merely for illustrative purposes. Ah so that is what you say as I read from before but now your saying landscape pictures you didn't say that on March 29, 2011 though. Your crossing your information here[32] which puts you in a box what your trying to do here. First too big, then not so matchy and now its landscape articles. 500 x 400 is the rule on Wikipedia but an opinion of what you want it to look like using landscape pictures. Are you trying to find answers to think of not using a center 500 x 400? You said As for the other picture, the back of the keyboard isn't clearly visible, But Master Bigode you said here too small is to just click on it, so your interfaring with your own mishop here [33]. So you now eliminate the the size of the center picture from 500 x 400 to 50 x 50 then you go and say the backside image of the DX-1 was not clearly visible but you take the size of the original image so small enough to say just click on it to see it, what about the side image, are you making your own determination by eliminating complaining you can't see it but when asked on the original image was too small and not as visible your input was to just click on it?[34]. That does not clarify for you to undo, you choose to erase the image on your own here, you also choose not to bring up another image vice versa it is was too small either, you made no replacement. You made the choice to eliminate any second image period. Are you representing Yamaha here or Kermit the frog? So are people suppose use the internet instead to find a picture of DX-1 on the back what the back looks like or what? Tell me, where on the Yamaha DX-1 does it says on the keyboard it says DX-1 in clear print? Tell me where for example? Do you know the answer? Answer it as it is important for the discussion of this article. You saidbut even if it was, what's the point ? It's not like there's anything back there that isn't available in other keyboards. Depends on the editors for every article, thats the choose if someone or people in another article wanted to post them or not. Yamaha DX-1 is the cream of the crop on the DX series so there's important facts that matter for something important. You saidAgain, you have 2 choices: listen to me and leave this article alone, or revert my edits and have the admins repeat everything I have already said and risk being blocked again. Are you telling me to sit in back of the bus[35] because I am black? I guess you like making threats, that is not a discussion issue but adminstrative complaint. .--Globalstatus (talk) 21:43, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Revert warring

A sequence of editors have been engaging in unconstructive practices.This needs to stop. Please read Wp:BRD. The principal is simple. Once either editor recognizes that a disagreement exists, the text goes back to its prior state and both parties have a discussion on the talk page until they can find a wp:consensus. Please check the attitudes and work on collaboration instead. LeadSongDog come howl! 13:55, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Placing true original price on DX1

There is $10,900 on the article page but the true original price was $13,900.00 for a Yamaha DX1 back in 1984.http://www.vintagesynth.com/yamaha/dx1.php#comments_anchor --Oxforduniversity1 (talk) 20:01, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Since when is VSE a reliable source? Quite the opposite.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Yamaha DX1. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110917223333/http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/sep01/articles/retrofmpt2.asp to http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/sep01/articles/retrofmpt2.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:57, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Analog vs. Digital

Recently someone modified the type of synthesis from Digital to Analog, which is... interesting to say the least. Misunderstanding of the technology? It is mentioned the DX-1 contains twice the DX-7's chipset. The DX-7 produces audio using sine-wave lookup tables for the generators and the like. References: https://www.gearslutz.com/board/electronic-music-instruments-and-electronic-music-production/970692-whats-inside-yamaha-dx7.html https://www.gearslutz.com/board/electronic-music-instruments-and-electronic-music-production/960511-digital-vs-analog-modulation-more.html

I would therefore vote to revert this change. UniversalNation (talk) 10:53, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Images

I would like to introduce at least one better article image, namely where the synth is powered on, its front panel illuminated. This would greatly help understanding all these individual displays. Pictures from the Wolf Collection are really nice, albeit i'm assuming they won't upload them / let these be used. UniversalNation (talk) 20:24, 2 November 2020 (UTC)