User talk:DSTKSC


 * }

File source and copyright licensing problem with File:FPD Link ID 15Feb12.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:FPD Link ID 15Feb12.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status and its source. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously.

If you did not create this work entirely yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. You will also need to state under what licensing terms it was released. Please refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file.

Please add this information by editing the image description page. If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is [ a list of your uploads]. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ww2censor (talk) 19:21, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

File source and copyright licensing problem with File:FPD Link ID 16Feb12.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:FPD Link ID 16Feb12.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status and its source. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously.

If you did not create this work entirely yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. You will also need to state under what licensing terms it was released. Please refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file.

Please add this information by editing the image description page. If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is [ a list of your uploads]. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ww2censor (talk) 19:21, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Free for use!
For File:FPD Link ID 16Feb12.jpg, in the upload summary you wrote: "This image is copyright of Texas Instruments, but free for use", so you will need TI to verify that the image is actually freely licenced as you claim and/or show us the source webpage, so we can check the copyright status. Most companies own the copyright to their own images under restrictive licences. While we don't want to disbelieve you, your say so is not enough evidence. We take copyright status very seriously and like to get free images but must have proof of the status before we can keep them. Let's hope you can provide the necessary information. Otherwise these image you uploaded wold seem to be easily recreatable without being exact copies and someone making a similar drawing could freely licence them or you could make a request on the image requests page. ww2censor (talk) 22:11, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

License tagging for File:LVDS & MLVDS Topology 22Feb12.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:LVDS & MLVDS Topology 22Feb12.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 21:06, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

File source problem with File:LVDS Schematic 24Feb12.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:LVDS Schematic 24Feb12.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a [ list of your uploads]. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 23:11, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

File source problem with File:LVDS & MLVDS Top&Term 24Feb12.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:LVDS & MLVDS Top&Term 24Feb12.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a [ list of your uploads]. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 23:11, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

File source problem with File:FPD Link ID 24Feb12.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:FPD Link ID 24Feb12.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a [ list of your uploads]. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 23:33, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:FPD-Link evolution to FPD-Link III.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:FPD-Link evolution to FPD-Link III.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the media description page and edit it to add, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 23:38, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:FPD-Link evolution to FPD-Link III.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:FPD-Link evolution to FPD-Link III.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 23:38, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

DisplayPort advantages
I actually agree that this section needs a lot of work, especially the portion you referred to. It currently reads like a marketing advertisement - it needs more balance by listing some disadvantages which in turn would require a different title for the section. However, keep in mind that the industry consensus appears to be in favor of DisplayPort. The view is that the advantages outweigh the disadvantages, hence the reason why the technology is catching on. Changes to this section should reflect that.

The reason why I undid your edit before had to do with placement and phrasing. The opening paragraph is making an unbiased statement that was reported in the news. Talking about the "free" nature of legacy technologies doesn't seem to belong there (although it would be fine elsewhere in the section). Also, try to avoid phrases like "To be fair" which sounds more like commentary than it does encyclopedic. Instead, you could have just started with "DVI, VGA, and LVDS are all open standards..." to make it sound more like you're stating fact. GoneIn60 (talk) 08:40, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I disagree with the statement that a press release from Intel, AMD, etc. constitutes "industry consensus". Since there is no “news” in the press release unless you call a prediction for an event to happen a few years in the future news, the reason for the press release appears to be influencing editors to say the industry is moving in the DisplayPort direction. The fact is that DisplayPort has success in a few applications, but it is also fact that DisplayPort promoters issuing a press release does not constiture industry consensus that DisplayPort will be ubiquitous. To the contrary, it seems to me the DisplayPort promoters felt they had to issue this press release because DisplayPort was lagging in all the predictions of its success.


 * I agree that statements like, "to be fair" are not fitting for the encyclopedia context and will refrain from using. Thanks for the feedback. DSTKSC (talk) 23:00, 12 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I wasn't trying to tie the "press release" to "industry consensus". The consensus I was speaking of can actually be found in the products being manufactured and sold today.  While it is true that DVI and VGA are still prevalent in many products, the trend of having both available on the same product is in decline.  Instead, it's more common now to see DisplayPort coupled with either DVI or VGA - not both.  Even some products are now being released with only DisplayPort.  And because DisplayPort can be adapted to other interfaces (HDMI, Single-link DVI, Dual-link DVI, and VGA), the "industry" is finding DisplayPort technology to be an easy transition.  That is one of the biggest advantages it has over the rest (DVI is close, but cannot carry sound when it's converted to HDMI).  Also if you read more about Dual-link DVI, you will find that the technology is stretched to its limit.  The number of pins required to support the high resolutions makes it tough on manufacturers who are looking to reduce cost and even reduce weight in new products, whether it be a video card or monitor.  The trend of the industry is more than a press release - it's actually happening!  My apologies for any confusion.  It definitely makes for an interesting discussion!  I'm interested in any other thoughts you may have.  GoneIn60 (talk) 15:26, 13 March 2012 (UTC)


 * It seems you are talking only about the notebook computer world and equating this to "industry consensus". Because if you include the much larger display world of consumer TVs and monitors, media players, and home networking then DP is a very small part of that world. In fact HDMI is replacing DP on new notebook computers because customers complain that dongles are not user friendly devices. It is an unconvincing argument to say DP is the trend when devices with DP ports need to have adapters to connect to 99.9999% of existing or new displays. I still think this is the reason the DP promoters published the "...DP is still coming..." press release. The industry has not been "falling into step" with the DP promoters as much as they would like you to believe.


 * I wonder if your perspective on the trends is from more than the media coverage. Do you work in the industry? Is so then you may remember when Intel heavily promoted Rambus as the next big thing that will replace all DRAMs. This was another example of Intel making press releases about industry trends that resulted in Rambus signing up lots of companies to license their technology. Yes Rambus does have a niche market that it serves well, but it never did meet the expectations touted by Intel. The reason is the incumbent players in the market had better ideas for the future of memory.


 * A more recent example of Intel's "press releases to promote industry trends" is WiMax. WiMax was going to be THE broadband mobile technology that was going to replace all the 3G networks. However, the incumbents in the market did not agree and fervently created LTE, which could be a better technology than WiMax. Even if it is not a better technology, it is winning because it serves the market and customers well. In addition, the incumbent players have retained their market stewardship and rebuffed Intel's advances.


 * Please do not assign the "Intel basher" label. Intel is a great company that serves their customers well with the products that they make better than competitors. DSTKSC (talk) 16:28, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:How LVDS Works 22Feb12.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:How LVDS Works 22Feb12.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 23:09, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:LVDS & EMI Noise Control 19Mar12.jpg


A tag has been placed on File:LVDS & EMI Noise Control 19Mar12.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Eeekster (talk) 01:56, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:FPD Link Generations 19Mar12.jpg


A tag has been placed on File:FPD Link Generations 19Mar12.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Eeekster (talk) 01:56, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:FPD-Link Evolution & Product Generations.jpg


A tag has been placed on File:FPD-Link Evolution & Product Generations.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Eeekster (talk) 01:58, 20 March 2012 (UTC)