text:
Diwu Qi

Diwu Qi (第五琦) (712 or 713 – September 19, 782 ), courtesy name Yugui (禹珪), formally the Duke of Fufeng (扶風公), was a Chinese economist and politician during the Tang dynasty who served briefly as chancellor during the reign of Emperor Suzong, but was more known for his influence on the economic policies that Suzong enacted throughout his career, including his advocacy for the state-run monopolies over salt and iron.

Background
Diwu Qi was born in either 712 or 713. His family was from the Tang dynasty capital Chang'an and traced its ancestry to the legendary Emperor Shun and the royal house of the Warring States state Qi. He lost his parents early, and it was said that he respected and obeyed his older brother Diwu Hua (第五華) dearly. After he was grown, he showed good administrative skills and ambition to enrich the empire and strengthen its armies.

During Emperor Xuanzong's reign
Late in the reign of Emperor Xuanzong, Diwu Qi served under an economics-minded official, Wei Jian (韋堅). After Wei was removed from office in 746 (and later killed) due to the machinations of the chancellor Li Linfu, Diwu was demoted, and eventually served as the secretary general for Xujiang County (須江, in modern Quzhou, Zhejiang). He was respected by Helan Jinming (賀蘭進明), the governor of the commandery that Xujiang belonged to, Xin'an Commandery. After the general An Lushan rebelled at Fanyang Circuit (范陽, headquartered in modern Beijing), Helan was made the governor of Beihai Commandery (roughly modern Weifang, Shandong), and he recommended Diwu to be his managerial officer (錄事參軍, Lushi Canjun). At that time, An's forces had captured five nearby commanderies, and Helan was unable to counter. Emperor Xuanzong, displeased, sent a eunuch emissary to Beihai in order to scare Helan — by stating the instructions of, "If Helan cannot recover the territory, cut off his head." Helan was fearful, and Diwu suggested expending the money from the commandery storage to retain an assault corps; Helan agreed, and the assault corps thus retained were able to help him to recapture Xindu Commandery (roughly modern Hengshui, Hebei).

During Emperor Suzong's reign
After the victory, Helan Jinming sent Diwu Qi to report the victory to Emperor Xuanzong. By that point — summer 756 or thereafter — forces of An's new state of Yan had captured Chang'an, forcing Emperor Xuanzong to flee to Chengdu. Emperor Xuanzong's son and crown prince Emperor Suzong did not follow him to Chengdu, but fled to Lingwu instead, where he was proclaimed emperor (as Emperor Suzong) — an act that Emperor Xuanzong recognized when news reached him. Diwu met either Emperor Xuanzong or Emperor Suzong — his biographies in the Old Book of Tang and the New Book of Tang conflict in that regard, with the Old Book of Tang indicating that he met Emperor Xuanzong and the New Book of Tang indicating that he met Emperor Suzong, and the Zizhi Tongjian trying to harmonize the conflict by indicating that he met Emperor Xuanzong and then Emperor Suzong — and was able to persuade the emperor that the primary task at hand was for the imperial treasury to be replenished with funds from the relatively wealthy Yangtze River-Huai River region so that soldiers could be retained. The emperor agreed and put Diwu in charge of the financial matters of the Yangtze-Huai region. Diwu created an official monopoly over salt and iron and recruited people willing to work in those industries, using the profits to replenish the imperial treasury without increasing taxes. Soon, the Henan region (i.e., modern Henan and Shandong) were added to his region of responsibility, and he was additionally made the deputy minister of census (戶部侍郎, Hubu Shilang). In 758, with prices for goods rising heavily and the realm lacking coins, at Diwu's suggestion, Emperor Suzong ordered that special coins titled Qianyuan Zhongbao (乾元重寶, Qianyuan being the era name at that time), with each Qianyuan Zhongbao coin being worth 10 ordinary coins.

In 759, as part of Emperor Suzong's reorganization of his chancellors, Miao Jinqing and Wang Yu were removed from their chancellor positions, and Diwu, along with Lü Yin, Li Xian, and Li Kui, were made chancellors, with the designation Tong Zhongshu Menxia Pingzhangshi (同中書門下平章事). After Diwu became chancellor, he further minted special coins with double circular edges (重輪錢, Chonglun Qian), worth 50 ordinary coins. At that time, food prices rose precipitously, leading to much hunger and starvation, and there were also many forgeries of the new coins. The popular sentiment blamed Diwu for the misery, and many accusations were filed against him. In winter 759, Emperor Suzong demoted Diwu to be the secretary general of Zhong Prefecture (忠州, in modern Chongqing). Diwu's old superior Helan was accused of associating with him and was also demoted. After Diwu left Chang'an, there was another accusation that Diwu had accepted 200 taels of gold in bribes, and Emperor Suzong sent the imperial censor Liu Qiguang (劉期光) to chase Diwu down to interrogate him. Diwu responded, somewhat sarcastically:

"I was a chancellor, and I could not have always carried 200 taels of gold around with me. If you could find that someone had paid, and someone had received it, please go ahead and carry out judgment according to law."

Liu took this to be an admission of guilt and submitted a report indicating that Diwu had admitted guilt. Diwu was removed from his official rank and exiled to Yi Prefecture (夷州, in modern Zunyi, Guizhou). Not until 762 was he recalled from exile and made the prefect of Lang Prefecture (朗州, in modern Changde, Hunan).

During Emperor Daizong's reign
Diwu Qi was said to have governed Lang Prefecture well, and was eventually recalled to serve on the staff of Li Kuo, the son and crown prince of Emperor Suzong's successor Emperor Daizong. In 763, when Tufan forces launched a surprise attack on Chang'an and forced Emperor Daizong to flee to Shan Prefecture (陝州, roughly modern Sanmenxia, Henan), Emperor Daizong made the general Guo Ziyi the supreme commander of Tang forces in the Guanzhong region, putting him in charge of recapturing and pacifying the Chang'an region. Guo used his authority to make Diwu his deputy, in charge of logistics, and soon also made Diwu the mayor of Jingzhao Municipality (京兆), the special municipality that included Chang'an. After Emperor Daizong returned to Chang'an, Diwu was put in charge of financial matters again and was created the Duke of Fufeng. It was at his suggestion that in 765 that, after a good wheat harvest in the Guanzhong region, taxes were increased to 10% of the wheat harvest. In 766, Emperor Daizong divided the financial affairs of the realm into two halves — with Liu Yan, then the minister of census, in charge of the eastern half and Diwu, who was again made the deputy minister of census, in charge of the western half. Later in 766, with the people fleeing the Guanzhong region to escape the heavy taxation that Diwu imposed, Emperor Daizong issued a general pardon and abolished the taxation that Diwu had suggested. Also, around these times, with many generals making demands on the silk stored in the imperial treasury, Diwu could not meet all of the demands, and tried to make sure that the demands would cease by instead transferring the silk collected as taxes all to the Daying Storage (大盈庫), inside the palace, with the eunuchs in charge. (This, however, brought a serious side effect — as the eunuchs were not required to handle detailed bookkeeping, it became impossible to account for the silk collected. This system was eventually abolished in 779 after the suggestion by then-chancellor Yang Yan. )

At his post, Diwu was in charge of financial matters for more than a decade. In 770, after Emperor Daizong executed the powerful eunuch Yu Chao'en, Diwu was considered Yu's associate and was demoted to be the prefect of Kuo/Chu Prefecture (括州/處州, in modern Wenzhou, Zhejiang). He later served as the prefect of two other prefectures, before he was recalled — but not to Chang'an, but instead to the eastern capital Luoyang — to serve, titularly, again, on the staff of the crown prince.

During Emperor Dezong's reign
After Emperor Daizong's death in 779, Li Kuo succeeded him as Emperor Dezong. He believed Diwu to be capable and in 782 recalled Diwu to Chang'an, ready to promote him. However, Diwu died shortly after arriving in Chang'an, and was buried with honors.

title: Diwu Qi


text:
User talk:Android79/TalkArchive008

no heading
Please assume good faith it is not nonsense pleae also leave me alone I dont know you just if you want to talk to my self ask Lucky 9.6 or go to that R.F.C. on "Wiki Brah" and talk there but dont bother me aggin Wiki brah 03:03, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, no, it's offensive nonsense. I will check out the RFC. android  79  03:05, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Our friend is back
'Droid, as you can see, Wiki is back and up to his usual nonsense. If you know of an admin we can go to, please let me know -- I'd be happy to help.

Thanks. klenk 03:25, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Lucky's not around, eh? I'll poke around for another admin. android  79  03:26, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Here I iz...attracting the "unique" users as only I can! You and Klenk are real comedians, you know that? :) - Lucky 6.9 19:09, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Any chance you can just block this clown for a nice, long time? While I agree with the sentiment, this just ain't pretty. It's pretty obvious he's going to refuse to play nice, no matter how many people talk to him. android  79  19:15, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Scimitar and his user page difficulties
Hey again, thanks for the screenshot. If you get a chance, could you let me know if my userpage displays correctly on your browser?--Scimitar parley 22:47, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Brah saga resumes!
Am I ever glad to hear from you. I've never participated in an ArbCom much beyond weighing in on a matter. So...what do you need me to do? - Lucky 6.9 20:15, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Neither have I – I've only presented evidence – but I've been watching the main RFAr page for some time, and have a pretty good idea of how things go. The important things are to write a concise summary of the problem with the user, and to provide rock-solid, easy-to-read evidence so the arbitrators don't have to waste much time figuring out what to do. I'd make a copy of Requests for arbitration/Template in your user space somewhere. android  79  20:25, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

I'll do that. Thanks. If this account gets deleted once and for all via an RfA, I sure won't feel guilty. Talk to ya...signing off. - Lucky 6.9 20:47, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

About my RfA
Hi Android79. You chose to be neutral on my RfA, but I appreciate the fact that you made your concerns public. I just would like to assure you that I will still work my best on Wikipedia, in order to prove wrong any fears you may still have about me. Best regards, Sam Hocevar 08:55, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

RfA
I have nominated you for adminship. Please sign your acceptance or declination. Thanks. — J I P | Talk 12:46, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

And I am on my way to support you with all the support that I can muster. Good luck!!!! - Lucky 6.9 03:17, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

American Indians vs Native American
With all due respect, I do believe as a member of the Comanche tribal roll, I know which term is preferred. The term "Native American" is offensive, as it is yet another way that white men try to erase our history. I know that some do this from ignorance, but some do it out of pure racism! I don't know which you fall into. I like to be called a Native American as much as a black person likes to be called a Negro.

Please see the following: a 1996 survey revealed that more American Indians in the United States still preferred American Indian to Native American..

and the following:

''Some American Indians have misgivings about the term Native American. Russell Means, a famous American Indian activist, opposes the term Native American because he believes it was imposed by the government without the consent of American Indians. [17] Furthermore, some American Indians question the term Native American because, they argue, it serves to ease the conscience of "white America" with regard to past injustices done to American Indians by effectively eliminating "Indians" from the present. [18] Still others (both Indians and non-Indians) argue that Native American is problematic because "native of" literally means "born in," so any person born in America is "native" to it.'' GOP904

Re: American Indians vs Native American
No problem at all. This will be a battle that takes me way beyond wikipedia. Those who started the term Native American probably had good intentions. I believe it was done to help white people forget the "savage ways" of American Indians. Now it is being presented as a politically correct term to show sensitivity to Indians. It actually has the opposite affect.

How do I start presenting my case on wikipedia? GOP904

Green Skull vandal
Ah, indeed...if only. Looking real good so far on that RfA! As far as this other nut job is concerned, he's been blocked by Redwolf24. Only for three days, though. I will be keeping an eye on this monkey. Thanks for thinking of me. - Lucky 6.9 03:47, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I figured you were around, you seem to edit at this time of night. And yes, the RfA is going amazingly well. Not that I think I've made any serious enemies that weren't trolls or vandals, but I figured someone would have at least voted Neutral by now. Knock on wood... android  79  03:52, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

ulayiti's RfA
Hi Android, and thanks for your support and the kind words you left at my RfA. I'm an administrator now, and I hope that I'll live up to the community's expectations as one. Your vote of confidence is much appreciated. - ulayiti (talk)  16:11, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the support on my RfA. I was very pleasantly surprised to see so much support throughout the week. Please do keep an eye on me and my logs, especially while I'm learning the ropes with the new buttons. Thanks again, and the very best of luck with your own RfA. You will make an outstanding admin and should have been promoted a long time ago. -Splash 23:53, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Your RfA
I like how ppl call you The machine. I think avnative should have said Wikidroid. :)

As for mine, I understand why ppl oppose. Perhaps next time. :) --Admiral Roo 03:30, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

My RFA
Hi, thanks for voting for me in my RFA. I was really touched at how many people voted for me! --Angr/undefined 22:47, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations
You're an admin! Please read the advice, and use your new abilities to help create a great encyclopedia. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:44, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Congratulations, Android79. Of course, it's just a mop... but enjoy! -- BD2412 talk 16:02, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Congrats! Andre ( talk ) 23:07, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

 * You're freaking welcome. :) Jobe  6  [[Image:Peru flag large.png|20px]] 23:08, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

 * You're a freaking admin! Booyah!  Our backs are covered!  I knew you'd get it!!! - Lucky 6.9 23:35, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Congratulations! You're quite welcome.  Glad to add a bit of levity to the voting process, knowing you'd understand it's all in Wikilove.  Now go read my Desert Rat "article" sometime to find out what I'm really capable of in brilliant prose!  --avnative 01:23, September 13, 2005 (UTC)  PS: Yeah, I admit to being a member of the top secret Luckycabal. . . but don't be too hard on me for it!  (tee hee)

 * The baboon was happy to assist. Good luck and congratulations!--Scimitar parley 14:26, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Congrats Android! If you fancy a quick chuckle, check my 4,000th edit. Good luck with the new buttons and stuff! Alf melmac 15:57, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Hearty congratulations and firm slap on the back and all that stuff. You're going to do great. :) Fernando Rizo T/C 17:30, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Hey - I didn't write those kind comments... it must've been one of my cats! Seriously, congrats - you'll be a great admin. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. Grutness...  wha?  00:43, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

My RFA
Thank you very kindly for your support of my nomination. I promise your trust hasn't been misplaced; I will only be slightly buzzed with power, but never drunk. ;) · Katefan0(scribble) 21:24, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Popups tool
Lupin|talk|popups 23:55, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for your support in my recent RFA! All those extra buttons might not be a big deal, but getting all this positive feedback sure is, please let me know if you have any problems or comments regarding how I use all these shiny new levers and cranks! Rx StrangeLove 00:38, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

All the best

 * It was my pleasure to support you. Actually I was watching the process and always felt nice watching the support base growing. I wish you all the best in your new role. --Bhadani 15:56, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Ditto. Hey man, it was a pleasure (my first RFA vote!). Good luck with the adminship, all the best from Banes! Regards Banes 16:59, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

 * I think i would have woted against you if i knew about this but unforutunately i have been out of this teown for a while and not uing it so much tahnk you ogood morning.Wiki brah 17:49, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia Problems
I've recorded some of my thoughts and ideas about problems within Wikipedia, and some possible solutions here. I'd like your thoughts, and whether or not you think I'm crazy. Thanks.--Scimitar parley 17:30, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

re:wtf?
I figured that since everyone's been so serious and a little high strung regarding vfd/afd I'd have a sense of humor about it and maybe even make a few editors laugh before it got reverted, granted even though it's a high traffic page I didn't expect it to be reverted so quickly. Good job for being alert. :) Jtkiefer  T - 01:16, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Obviously, my reaction was "WTF?" 'cuz I don't have the faintest clue what "everyone" is so "serious" and "high strung" about. If you didn't have a username I recognized, you'd have gotten a nice vandalism warning. :-P android  79  01:19, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I was actually wondering whether anybody would give to a wikipedia administrator.  I would have laughed if you had decided to.  Jtkiefer  T - 01:23, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Better? :-) android  79  01:28, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Please take a look at repeated reverts on Ray Nagin
I have reported the abuse but it continues

The IP address is a sockpuppet for a user User:209.247.222.89 who was meant to be banned for 24 hours for vandalizing another page. Instead he reverted the Nagin article 15 times in the past 24 hours or so. The report gives the 8 reverts to one particular version he uses. The user has ignored all discussion on the talk page and has a history of sneaky edits such as turning First responder into a piece attacking the response to Katrina. He has also been abusive, calling other editors liars and 'National socialists'. The site is behind a NAT so he has several aliases. --Gorgonzilla 14:53, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I'll do what I can, but Wikipedia is moving realllllly slooooooow for me this morning (probably happening to you, too, given the multiple postings of this message here). Try WP:AIV if my response is too slow. android  79  15:05, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Wanna see about a temp block?
User: 209.66.200.61 has made three vandal edits today, and several more in days/weeks past. Maybe you wanna use those new levers of yours to do that? Your call. . . Thanks! --avnative 05:02, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
 * He seems to have stopped. If he acts up again, just holler. android  79  11:02, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm hollerin' for ya again. Already reverted one edit just now on Absolute pitch, the other three of late already reverted.  Thanks. . .  --avnative 03:57, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Blockdafied. You caught me when I was out. If I don't respond, try WP:VIP or WP:AIV. Unfortunately, I can't be everywhere at once. ;-) android  79  04:59, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Android! True, you can't be everywhere at once.  Sorry if I seemed you were.  Just took a tour of WP:VIP & WP:AIV - both look great!  Thanks for the tip.  --avnative 11:40, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Nothing but vandalism coming from 208.182.75.11. Three more edits so far today - they need a slap on the wrist, wouldn't you agree? Jbetak 16:00, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Request
I am asking past editors of the Karl Rove page to weigh in on a survey. If you can spare a couple of minutes, please visit this page: Talk:Karl Rove/September Survey, read the introduction, and answer the three questions that have been posed. Thank you. paul klenk 09:18, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

New JSD
You're right. I thought they had taken something to do with Java Server Pages (since they talk about JSP) and funnied it. But one of the ghits even points out that the Jackson in question is not the singer, so I've restored it and passed it off to AfD to decide on. Thankd for letting me know. -Splash talk 12:58, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
 * PS: You're braver than me on all the nn-bio's that were in there! -Splash talk 13:01, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Brave? Nah. Stupid? Maybe. ;-) android  79  12:34, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Best idea ever
CSD A8: "Common sense deletion of an article that will certainly receive unanimous support to delete at AfD". I like it. :-) Friday (talk) 22:48, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Best idea that'll never happen. :-) Unfortunately, common sense ain't too common when it comes to speedies. (Works both ways, of course – "Speedy this article because I think it sucks" on valid stubs is just as annoying as protesting the valid speedy deletion of nn-bio.) android  79  12:33, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the idea will go nowhere, but you may be interested in Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion. Friday (talk) 14:12, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Articles for deletion
Sorry, I thought all articles for deletion had to have the delete tag attached. My apologies--Light current 23:35, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

The article Battle of Drøbak sound was (I think) wrongly deleted. It is part of the WikiProject Battles and the series about Nazi occupation of Norway (Template:Campaignbox Nazi occupation of Norway). It was intended to be expanded by me today and since the event is so important I suspect others would have contributed as well. I also think at least one of the arguments I made on the talk page shold have counted for something. It is a hugely important event in Norwegian and European history(because it made it possible for the King and government to escape, enabling it, Norways gold reserve and large merchant fleet to fight for the allies), and of course it is the most important event of Oscarsborg Fortress. But the article about the fortress has to be seperate from the article about the event simply because the two things are different... I know the two articles are very similar now, but that will change. Please let me and others continue to edit it.Inge 15:46, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Okay, I only deleted it because it was a straight copy from a section on another article. Happy editing! android  79  15:51, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Huge thanks!
I'm in your debt for your reverting that vandalism to my user page. You need it...you got it. - Lucky 6.9 18:00, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Kurt
Kurt is a long-standing troll in IRC, mostly prone to either spamming the channel with random songlyrics or by being a vicious and trenchant Randroid with a negligible relationship with fact. (The point when he declared that Godel's Incompleteness Theorem was false was a particular treat.) On IRC, he's got a zero tolerance policy, whereby he is kicked the moment he irritates anybody. He was a fairly minor contributor to Wikipedia, but appears to have decided to adopt a parodically hardline inclusionist position and to be a troll about it. Snowspinner 19:50, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info. I smelled a troll when he defended the joke article Escalator Productivity on AfD. Hopefully he will not continue this behavior. android  79  19:53, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

rfd
Redirects to deleted articles don't need listing at RfD. They can be speedied. I deleted the ones that were. android79 16:32, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
 * so i just list it for speedy? i thought only admins could "do" speedy deletes/ Nateji77 16:36, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's what I meant. :-) Just do or somesuch.  android  79  16:44, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

CoA
I'm sorry, that's my usual proceeding in wk.pt... dunno that here it’s inaccurate... --Brian Boru 01:13, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

 * All those images but one were uploaded by pt.users in march-april 2005, with no further alterations... So i guess it is ok... --Brian Boru 01:25, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Your Votes Davien Crow delete & undelte Sin Star, and Mind Pollution

 * You don't seem to be voting delete for a real reason, what leads you to beleive this is a vanity page. I can easily confirm who I am as the owner of this fan site. I dont expect you to like me, accept the rudeness of Sin-thetik, but I would like to politely ask you to review the facts I have outlined in the discussion and reconsider changing your votes. I am willing to accept feedback and civily discuss this matter with you. You must understand how infuriating this is to me knowing all 3 meet the guidelines by 1 or 2 requirements in several areas of WP's rules.

 * Look the point summarized is I am willing to work with you guys on why these were deleted but until now noone has given us any feedback and has even lied about stuff trying to get it deleted. All 3 of them meet the sufficient amount of requirements for WP:MUSIC, the guidelines in WP:Criteria_for_inclusion_of_biographies, Importance, Notability (the fact that suicide girls, gidget gein, and marilyn manson are involved and can be verified in those links should proove that), Fame_and_importance mainly the part stating "There is clear proof that a reasonable number of people are or were concurrently interested in the subject (eg. it is at least well-known in a community)" If you can't tell the community of Myspace.com and Livejournal.com alone are enough to meet this criterea you are blind. If you do google searches, go to forums and search their names, or visit internet archives you can find un-disputable information on the band from reputable sources, first hand accounts that are years older than these discussions, and intangible archives kept by internet archives. IF you want more detail read my above rant, your right I do sound mad about this, because I can't see how you can say they do not meet criterea or that this is a vanity page. Please accept my apologies for anything you have taken to be rude and please re-consider changing your vote. What Harm could it do ? BTW I am not trying to bully anyone, I can show you the location of the people threatening to come here and vandalize the hell out of Wikipedia. But I do not want that to be part of your decision at all. (please reference the large rebuttle on the discussion page itself)

I have posted this, I hope that some of you will consider looking for my information and reconsider your vote for now. A lot of people are simply responding to the rudeness of user:sin-thetik and some things I said are being misconstrude as threats. I am simply upset because of all the time it took to write these 3 articles, knowing they fit the guidelines, only to have somone delete them with the proof and verifiable facts right in front of them .. just their un-willingness to read them. Please think it over, I appreciate your time. I'm just a fan girl trying to be the first to get an article up about them since I have been running a fan site about them for almost 2 years now.

PLEASE THINK IT OVER G4DGET 04:49, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

 * I read your rebuttal. My votes stand. android  79  11:00, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

VFD
I'm starting a new process to get rid of unwanted votes. --SPUI (talk) 22:22, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Then give it a new name. android  79  22:22, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
 * What else would it be called? Everything is foo for deletion. --SPUI (talk) 22:27, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Ask at the VP maybe. I don't really care what you call it, but the VfD redirects need to remain. android  79  22:33, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

user 217.65.157.2 and AIAV
I noticed your edit summary on AIAV was "no more vandalism from that IP in some time". Uh, well, I just fixed some stuff that had been done today, and it looks like everything within the past month was just stupid stuff... how long is "some time"? (link: ; I checked most of the September stuff and it looks like it was all trash.) JD 12:40, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Lists of songs
I am writing because you contributed to the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/Lists of songs. I have made a policy proposal at User:Wahoofive/Lists of songs and would welcome your comments. —Wahoofive (talk) 03:43, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for Abusing the Newbie
I just wanted to thank you (sic) for speedily deleting my new article "Wikipedia Attention Geas". In the talk page I clearly stated it was my first contribution ever, and I also stated it was a protologism. You could have left a stub with comments about neologisms or transmedia or something helpfull for a person using Wikipedia for first time, but instead you left nothing. Also if you had bothered to check my user talk page I have a space for messages about things like this.

If the article was inappropiate in any way a small message about why might help me to not make the same mistake in my next 20 contributions.

Wiki Tiki God 04:32, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

See, a few links, a little blurb about why im a nubcaek, and all is well thanks! Wiki Tiki God 18:50, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I must thank you also
Thank you for moving my entry. Lesson learned for me. I picked a bad way to try to learn WIKI Stuff. I guess if you're going to break a pillar, you might as well start at the top. I'll move my learning to the sandbox I hope I'm doing this part correct. Thanks again. John

Dealing with recurring vandal?
See User talk:170.76.20.253. This is a recurring vandal. How does one deals with this? ≈ jossi ≈ 18:48, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 * This guy could be listed at AIV, no problem. I'll just block him now. android  79  19:01, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Reply from Wiki Tiki God 19:50, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Man this is almost as bad as IRC. If you could dump my article ("Wikipedia Attention Geas") into my User:Wiki Tiki God/Storage that would be swell. I thought if it was rejected I would have a day or two in order to make a copy. I don't think I'll be making too many submissions from here on out (but will still be an avid reader). Mostly I like language things like idioms, neologisms, coloquialisms, slang, techno jargon ecetera. None of these seems to be appropriate here (nor in Wiktionary.org either). I was so looking forward to writing articles on Kool Aid Drinker, Christo Fascist, and Sheeple. (NPOV baby!)

Canada, eh?
Did you mean to rollback your own rollback on Canada? "32 270 507 millions" is a bit of silliness if you ask me. android 79  14:52, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it was just a typo with a missing decimal point. At first I thought it was nonsense vandalism too, and since I'd already gone to the user's contributions and found a string of country edits that looked like a a vandalism spree judging just from the history list, I mass-reverted them while loading up the diffs. A little careless of me but the server is tediously slow today (not that that justifies it). After the diffs came up I realised my mistake and mass-reverted myself again. The canada edit does need a little tuning though. Not sure if the number should be rounded or just decimal-pointed. Is there any guideline or manual of style angle to the matter? --fvw *  14:59, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd say we should leave it be (the original estimate and not FRED's edit) unless a source is provided. Population estimates are pretty rigorously fact-checked, IIRC, on United States and Canada, at least. I guess it's a matter of poor English and not silly vandalism – "32 270 507 millions" is 32,270,507,000,000, and since an anon had made similar edits earlier I only assumed the worst. android  79  15:04, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Vital Information quotes
Hi, I was wondering if I could get a copy of the deleted text from List of quotes from Vital Information (glad you nuked it, wish you'd waited one more day though) to move to Wikiquote. Thanks! CaptHayfever 20:38, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Check your email. android  79  22:02, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Many thanks. CaptHayfever 23:56, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Deleted redirect
Hi, maybe I'm missing something, but I didn't think Kiddie Rape really fell under any of the criteria in Criteria for speedy deletion for a speedy; I suppose the closest would be vandalism, but I don't think it was, really. (Don't get me wrong, I think it should be deleted, but I felt this was out of process.) Noel (talk) 17:04, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

 * from a user whose only other contributions were vandalism .. given the other contributions, I felt it best to nuke the user's entire contribution history: Well, as they say, even a broken clock is twice a day. I certainly would concur that a pattern of vandalism merits blocking, but even then I try and treat each edit separately. If you feel it's a useful redirect: No, as I said "Don't get me wrong, I think it should be deleted"; i.e. I agree it's not worth keeping. I just didn't think it merited speedying is all. Thanks for taking the time to respond to my concern. Noel (talk) 00:48, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

My RfA
Droid-- Thank you for the kind words and support concerning my RfA. Although I fear this may be headed toward "no consensus", I hope you will think about supporting me again in the future. You were right, Gabrielsimon brought out the worst in me, and I hope to never be that way again. Thanks again. -- Lord Vold e  mort  (Dark Mark)  20:27, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Check Michael Jackson discussion page
Android79, it looks like you haven't being keeping with the times. It has long being decided that the "King of pop" & "wacko jacko" tags will not be mentioned in the introductory section on the main article. The reason being they are minor 'stuff' and subject to POV.
 * I see no such recent discussion. android  79  13:55, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

 * It was at the point where the MJ page was something like [| this]. The[| Journalist] came along and summarised the intro of the article. We all decided that the we all not add any more info the intro & any more additions will be added to the latter sections, including the name tags. If you have any doubts, which u seem to have speak & confirm with [| Journalist].

 * Yes, I said ''it looks like you haven't being keeping with the times. It has long being decided that the "King of pop" & "wacko jacko" tags will not be mentioned in the introductory section on the main article. The reason being they are minor 'stuff' and subject to POV."

I couldn't find it in the discussion page as I first thought. Either, It's there in the discussion page but I can't find it or I saw it somewhere else. That's why I said!

''It was at the point where the MJ page was something like | this. The | Journalist came along and summarised the intro of the article. We all decided that the we all not add any more info the intro & any more additions will be added to the latter sections, including the name tags. If you have any doubts, which u seem to have speak & confirm with | Journalist.''

CONFIRM WITH THE JOURNALIST, IF YOU HAVE ANY DOUBTS!

Enough with the caps. I just asked Journalist, but he's not around, apparently. If it's not on the MJ discussion page, and never was, then it doesn't reflect consensus on the MJ article. android 79  15:03, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi, just got you message, Android79. I cant seem to remember discussing anything with User:161.74.11.24 (talk • contribs). I dont even know this user, and I haven got a clue where he/she got it from.

There was this one time, however, when User:Nightscream (talk • contribs) had tried to shorten the article but mistakenly messed it up —he deleted some important info: here, and I reverted his changes, and rewrote the ontro (but as you can see, Wacko Jacko and King of Pop are both included). That was the only time I had ever made any major contributions to the article, and I cant seem to remember discussing anything with this user. Maybe he has me confused. →Jo urna list  >>talk<<  18:47, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Z-Unitt
This content is all true, if not well-known. I volunteered to submit the rap ensemble, Soup and Crakers into wikipedia. They are very well known throughout North Carolina. The dali lama comment is a joke from one of their songs, its for the fans. Thanks for the warnings, I'll clean up the page zackiscool

Removal of speedy tag on orphaned "fair use" image
You removed a speedy tag,, that I placed on Image:3AImage010.jpg , with the comment "not a CSD, take to IFD".

Please acquaint yourself with CSD #5 under Images and Media WP:CSD:
 * Copyrighted images uploaded without permission of the copyright holder, or under a license which does not permit commercial use, which are not currently used in any article, if more than seven days old (so-called "orphaned fair use images"). Reasonable exceptions may be made for images uploaded for an upcoming article.

There have been several notices pertaining this image policy at WP:AN/I in the past two weeks. I am reinstating the tag. --Tabor 20:04, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Piconjo
Ok I made the article over at Piconjo/Temp 64.251.182.80 aka 206.176.119.180

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: User talk:Android79/TalkArchive008


text:
Talk:Vanity 6

Movie title
Was the movie title "Girl 6" a derivative of this band's name since one of V6's songs was in it? --SuperDude 01:18, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Possibly, it could be some six-sex connection. 惑乱 分からん 19:17, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Who dunnit?
Who wrote the songs on this record? I assume it was Prince (perhaps as "Jamie Starr"), but does anyone know for sure? The article is unclear. --JJP 3/15

A6 OutSold V6?
Is there any citation for this? I know Vanity 6 was certified Gold whereas Apollonia 6 was not -- however, that could just be bc WB never applied for the certification.

Bc of the Purple Rain phenomenon I can see how A6 would have sold more but V6 had the huge hit "Nasty Girl" to boost sales ... just wondering. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 152.2.175.113 (talk) 00:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC).

title: Talk:Vanity 6


text:
Talk:Cylinder-head-sector

Surplus Sectors?
The lines: "Most modern drives have a surplus space that doesn't make a cylinder boundary. Each partition should always start and end at a cylinder boundary. Only some of the most modern OSs may disregard this rule, but this can cause some compatibility problems, especially if the user wants to boots up to more than one OS on the same drive."

...seem a bit out of place, because there's a section on IDE drives immediately following.

It is talking about IDE drives, when it says "most modern drives," ...right?

I don't understand about the "surplus space" - doesn't Zone Bit Recording take care of that?

Or is it that, even under ZBR, there's a little bit of extra space on each cylinder?

Doesn't ZBR make the cylinder completely transparent, and you're basically just addressing sectors? How would a program know where the cylinder boundary is, since each cylinder has a different number of sectors? LionKimbro

 * No, this refers to the fact that under an operating system (such as DOS and most Windows(tm) versions) which requires its partitions to end on a pseudo cylinder boundary (usually of 255 heads and 63 sectors), there will almost always be some odd number of user accessible sectors on a disk that don't divide exactly into that geometry. Daniel B. Sedory 00:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

"Only some of the most modern operating systems"??? Hasn't Linux always (i.e., for 15 years, as of 2006) allowed any kind of partition boundaries?
 * The History section here is obviously a bit out of date, since CHS tuples haven't actually corresponded to disk hardware in a very long time! Other than that, yes, Linux has been using different boundaries than DOS ever since it could; probably to mitigate the difference between the pseudo-geometry used and the number of surplus (unused) sectors left at the end of the disk. Face it: Any OS that's based on pseudo-CHS values (even Linux), rather than individual sectors, will likely have SOME sectors that can't fit into its partition boundaries for whatever arbitrary values you choose! Daniel B. Sedory 00:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no trusted source for this statement:

"For operating systems such as Microsoft DOS or Windows (before Vista), each partition must start and end at a cylinder boundary."

My personal experience: at least since Win98SE theese non cylinder boundary partitions and partition tables can be read, although their partitioning programs don`t create non cylinder boundary partitions. Only Symantec/Notrton Partition Magic 8.x won`t handle such partitions. Non of you ever had mixed linux and windows installations on a single harddrive? Nerver used GParted for creating windows partitions? 89.58.155.42 (talk) 18:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

 * I find this to be absolutely true. Partitions that don't begin and end on a cylinder boundry work just fine.  It would seem that since modern systems use LBA anyway, using archaic CHS values is rather pointless.  I especially hate cylinder boundries on memory cards where for examle I had a 64MB Compact Flash that had 1.5MB of unallocated space.  I have not found a formatting program yet that allocates all the space.  Thank goodness for PTEDIT32 and hex editors.  I am able to get all the space out of my cards now.  Such edited cards drive Partition Magic bonkers, but otherwise I never had a problem. 66.114.93.6 (talk) 06:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

 * Change from PTEDIT32 to Beeblebrox Partition Editor ;-) 89.58.158.188 (talk) 09:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

 * I would never trust a device which breaches the golden rule that all partitions must be aligned with a cylinder boundary! While it is certainly true that some partitioning programs will (recklessly) permit the creation of invalid, i.e. unaligned, partitions it would be rash to suggest that this amounts to a validation of that type of partition, because such claims are typically made on the mere basis that it was possible to create the partition. The acid test is not in creating it, but in filling up the partition, to the last byte, and then analysing it for data corruption errors. I have come across many claims that rest on the mere fact that a partition was created unaligned; but few of those claims had actually been put to the test by writing data to the device in the (doubtful but critical) final cylinder. Stephen Poppitt (talk) 13:17, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

 * I'm finding there are special memory card formatting programs that allocate all of the space. Most are written specially for the chipsets in various USB card readers.  I now have three inexpensive card readers that each work with three different formatting programs.  Also for most people you can just format in a camera or other suitable device.  But part of my original problem was I was using cards only on a computer, and one device that does not have a built in formatter. 66.114.93.6 (talk) 05:50, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Two heads/platter: Not always!
I'm aware of drives (the current 5200RPM Hitachi 2.5" drives) some of which have an odd number of heads (the 20GB drive has one platter with one head, the 60GB drive has two platters with three heads). I suspect that this is rather common.

I'm sorry I can't log in at the moment but ... The above may be true for the drives that were made in the 1980s, for the original IBM PC. The values now, make no particular sense that is applicable to all drives from every drive maker. The manufacturer is responsible for making the presentation of the physical disk medium to a place where someone writing operating system level code, can reliably address it. This requires some cooperation from the BIOS folks who have traditionally been responsible for reporting the correct disk size, to the OS. As of the Vista version of the Windows OS, Windows will began to assume some of the responsibility for obtaining information from the BIOS. (There was a time when no BIOS had a setting that pertains to a PnP OS). Linux has ignored BIOS settings for quite some time. These things aside, it is clear that some contributors do not even know. A track and a cylinder are definitely /not/ the same thing but I just saw text that says they are. In addition, the drawing of the platters for this entry should show the platter stack from an oblique angle so that the drawing is not misinterpreted to say the same thing. To add to this, since a floppy is always a single platter, the number of cylinders is the same as the number of tracks (as the definition I read and changed stated) if the platter can hold data on one side, only. Probably the only thing that persists is that there is one head per writable side of each platter. The point to make clear is that the heads are not part of the disks, or of the disk stack, although they are part of the drive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.40.35.153 (talk) 04:35, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

CHS count
This article might want to mention something about how the cylinders, heads and sectors are counted. I was just reading about the classical PC (DOS) partition table and how the first sector is located at cylinder 0, head 0, sector 1 (CHS 001). This is where the master boot record (MBR) is stored. However, the address CHS 000 seems to be illegal. Are all CHS addresses ending in 0 invalid, or just this first one? --Jwinius 15:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

 * In case anyone else wants to know as well, the answer is that all CHS specified locations must conform to a few range rules to be valid (legal). The allowed values are:

1. Cylinder: 0 - 1023 (for a maximum total of 1024). 2.    Head: 0 - 254  (for a maximum total of 255). 3.  Sector: 1 - 63   (for a maximum total of 63).

As one proceeds through LBA counts of 0, 1, 2, etc., the following are a few corresponding CHS tuples that may be very helpful in understanding their relationship (for drives that have 63 sectors per head):

LBA 0 = CHS 0,0,1 LBA 62 = CHS 0,0,63 LBA 63 = CHS 0,1,1

Likewise, for drives that have a pseudo-geometry of 255 heads per cylinder (which may be determined by your operating system these days; e.g., many Linux installs are based on only 16 heads/cylinder, whereas the same physical disk might have 255 heads/cylinder under a Windows OS), the following would be true:

LBA 16,002 = CHS 0,254,1 LBA 16,064 = CHS 0,254,63 LBA 16,065 = CHS 1,0,1

And the maximum LBA sector that CHS can provide a valid corresponding tuple for is at: CHS 1023,254,63 which is equivalent to an LBA of 16,450,559 for 16,450,560 sectors, total; which was passed when hard disks began to exceed a size of 8,422,686,720 bytes, (about 8.42 GB; or 7.84 GiB). Daniel B. Sedory 22:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

NOTE: All of the above and more has been added to the article since Jwinius asked about it. Daniel B. Sedory 27 November 2008.

 * If CHS 0,0,0 is invalid, how does one write a MBR?--DustWolf (talk) 20:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

 * Please clarify the question, "how does one write an MBR?" Do you mean how does a utility program or OS know where to find or write it? If they use a function call that requires CHS notation, it would be CHS 0,0,1. If the function uses LBA instead, then it would be LBA 0. Daniel B. Sedory (talk) 04:26, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

 * While the rule that CHS addressing starts with sector 1 (that is CHS 0/0/1) applies in general (on IBM PC compatible machines), I'm wondering, if this rule still holds true for non-standard formats such as the 640 KB format on the BBC Master 512 under DOS Plus 2.1. In this specific floppy format, the low-level physical sectors in a track start with sector #0, not with sector #1, as is common almost anywhere else. I wonder, if the convention to assume CHS 0/0/1 as the first physical sector is merely a result of the fact that normally, the first sector in a floppy disk track is sector #1. If so, CHS 0/0/0 could be a valid address in this 640 KB format. However, it is also possible, that we have to add another (normally invisible) translation layer here and the sector numbers for CHS addressing are assumed to be renumbered low-level sectors. I think this question can be answered by checking how floppy controllers work and are programmed by the BIOS in IBM compatible machines. While I can look this up, I thought I bring it up here as well. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 12:21, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Merging Disk sector into this article
Just a quick note here to mention that I'll be slowly merging the small amount of material at Disk sector into various sections here. Any comments would be appreciated. Daniel B. Sedory 19:27, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

 * I don't think a merge makes sense. The Disk sector article is about actual disk sectors while this article is about a hard-disk addressing method which uses physical cylinder, head, and sector to which the data is to be written as the address for the data. To merge these articles would be similar to merging House with House numbering. Sagsaw (talk) 00:50, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

 * First, the 'merge request' has been on these articles for a long time; I didn't place it here, but since I've spent much time editing both of these articles, thought I'd consider how to go about it and make a smooth transition. (It hasn't been a high priority for me though.) I'm not at all opposed to leaving them as they are; though I do see redundancy and that Disk sector is presently not much larger than 'dictionary-sized' entries rather than being encyclopedic. What I would really like is for one of the Wiki 'higher authorities' to make a judgment call on this. Daniel B. Sedory (talk) 04:06, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

 * It seems a bit weird that The Disk sector article is much smaller than The Cylinder-head-sector article. If a merge were to take place, I'd suggest CHS be a sub-part of the Disk sector article, since that's logically how things are. This would obviously take some careful planning and perhaps some paring down of the material on the CHS page (it seems to spend paras describing some terms where a wikilink should suffice). I'm not sure it is a good idea to merge them at present. I came to the Disk sector article to find out how large a disk sector was, and despite it being short, it's a concise article that told me exactly what I wanted to know. I wouldn't have wanted to page over loads of stuff about the largely historical CHS to get to that information. -- Jon Dowland (talk) 16:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

 * CHS addressing is not entirely historical. When dealing, for example, with common sizes of USB flash drives (also known as USB pen drives or thumb drives), they are nearly always smaller than 8GB, and so can be addressed using the CHS system. As they almost universally use FAT32 instead of NTFS, all of the original conventions of CHS addressing apply to them. When they experience data storage issues, an understanding of CHS addressing can be very helpful in fixing them. Stephen Poppitt (talk) 13:07, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Block vs. Sector (as smallest storage unit on an HDD)
When I started editing this article, its use of the term 'Sector' in CHS (Cylinder,Head,Sector) as the geometrical sector (or slice) common to mathematics, etc. was (and still is) rather compelling. So, I kept that usage as best I could even when adding content to the article Disk sector; based upon what I'd read here and in Circular sector. As a reflection on this topic, I'm asking (musing) whether or not block should continue being used here as the smallest 'chunk of data' one can 'read from/write to' an HDD through its interface (controller card), and how best to point out that 'Sectors' in CHS notation doesn't necessarily mean the same thing as Sectors in HDD capacity calculations. I'm still thinking this through but wanted to present some data and ideas concerning this.

One possible reason the use of "block" was replaced by the now more common term "sector," may be that 'block' was viewed as being somewhat artificially inserted into formulas for computing a disk's capacity: We know many of these formulas use the pseudo drive values of: "63 sectors" and "255 heads," but what units are associated with them? If we use a formula often found in simplified web presentations:, we can't help but notice both the 'head' and 'cylinder' units cancel each other out, giving us  ; apparently keeping all the units straight. But do these units actually correspond with reality?

Did the change from the real number of physical 'sectors' and drive 'heads' (perhaps when Zone bit recording became standard on all new HDDs?) signal the rise of 'sectors' vs. 'blocks'?

The formulas presented in this article arrive at drive capacity from some physically real units that still apply to floppy diskettes:  (where Side is equivalent to 'head'). The only way to resolve this result into a single unit is by defining another term as equivalent to "SectorSlices x Cylinders"; which this article does by stating:

blocksPerPlatterSide = (cylindersPerPlatter)*(SectorsPerPlatter)

which is directly related to its definition of block as: The intersection of a cylinder and a sector (SectorSlices x Cylinders). So, what's wrong with the first formula I presented here from popular web sites? I'll have to leave that for another time! Daniel B. Sedory 10:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

 * (Given the detail intended for this article, it seems a waste to make a generalization such as a given parameter is the smallest. Besides, science tried to do this with the atom, then turned out to be wrong. The point to take home is, "it depends" on your reference frame and this is usually based on your need at the time the information is sought. I can't imagine when relative size really does matter.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.40.35.153 (talk) 04:38, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

 * Whether we use the word block or sector, if you read the article (or read through any of the ATA specifications) you'd find this is a definition, not a generalization: "These blocks are the smallest geometrical breakdown of a disk, and represent the smallest amount of data which can be transferred to or from a disk (usually 512 bytes)." You will also note that the size of a block can vary depending upon the media (CD-ROM discs have a larger sector size than present hard disks) or some future technological change. Did the majority of scientists ever say there couldn't be anything smaller than an atom, or just that it was the smallest thing we knew about at the time? But the point here is this article has nothing to do with guessing what the smallest building blocks of nature might be; only what a particular technology's creators have defined something to be. Daniel B. Sedory (talk) 04:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

 * There is some semantic correlation between the terms 'block' and 'allocation unit', the latter being the expression used by the Windows operating system itself to define the smallest addressable space. Perhaps, therefore, there is some merit to the references to 'block' being changed to 'allocation unit'. Certainly, there is no correlation between 'block' and 'sector', as the interchangeable terms 'cluster' and 'allocation unit' are always used by the O/S to describe the disk addresses, for example when dealing with the File Allocation Table, in which the cluster addresses for each file are stored. 'Sector' (as a 512 byte structure) has no meaningful function as a term, where the smallest allocation unit is 4KB. Within the FAT32 filesystem the smallest allocation unit may be as large as 32KB on a partition exceeding 32GB. Stephen Poppitt (talk) 12:48, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Blocks and sectors?
Αcording to the book "Data Management Systems" 3rd edition, by Ramakrishnan and Gehrke, (pages 306-307): "Each track is divided into arcs, called sectors [...]. The size of a disk block can be set when the disk is initialized as a multiple of the sector size." This is a much different definition than the one given here. What are the sources for the definition of sector and block here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.148.60.152 (talk) 12:56, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

 * The point you make is valid, and corresponds to the distinction between 'sector' and 'allocaton unit' as used by the Windows O/S. The reference to a disk block which you quote is in point of fact a definition of the term 'allocation unit' as used by Microsoft. Stephen Poppitt (talk) 12:52, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

16,064 vs. 16,065?
The article says in section “Cylinders” that 255 * 63 is 16,064. At least this is the way I understood the wording. Actually, 255 * 63 is 16,065. So, where’s the mistake in the article? If there is a special reason to use 16,064 sectors per cylinder, more explanatory text around that should be added. If the number is wrong, it just needs to be changed.
 * –87.181.116.237 (talk) 11:21, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Somebody fixed that. Do you have a source for this alleged standard cylinder size? –82.113.99.139 (talk) 14:18, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Cylinder (disk drive)
Please merge the Cylinder (disk drive) stub into this article. –82.113.99.139 (talk) 14:18, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

 * Some older disk drives had numbered cylinders and heads but did not have sectors, e.g., IBM 1301, 2311, 2314, 3330. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul (talk) 17:52, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

 * Well, we could mention this detail in a CHS "cylinder" section. So far the most interesting part of the "cylinder" stub is its talk page. If that is a serious obstacle simply remove the merge tags added by me; otherwise I see no problem with one sector per track. –89.204.153.138 (talk) 03:32, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

In essence
Hi, Ocdex trimmed two occurences of "The in essence" something to "In essence" something in the Heads section, is that as it should be? I undid my "fix" of the 1st case when the 2nd case convinced me that this was an intentional modification. –89.204.153.138 (talk) 03:49, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Physical size of sector
Is the figure depicting a disk sector accurate? If one read this with the information in the article I'm having a hard time adapting this into a physical reality.

Using the figure:

 * Say a HDD platter side is divided into 32 tracks. Number 1 is nearest center, 32 is on the outer edge.
 * Take a graphical sector, (like the red in picture). Extract one disc sector1 from track 32 and one from track 1.
 * Stretch them out in a linear fashion you'll get something like:

+-+  |     |  Track 1 +-+

+---+  |                           |  Track 32 +---+

Are those two both supposed to hold the same amount of bits? E.g. 512*8?

Are they even larger then 512*8 due to the fact of what is described under disk sectors: "In disk drives, each physical sector is made up of three basic parts, the sector header, the data area and the error-correcting code (ECC)."

[1] Disk sector: "Thus, the disk sector (Figure 1, item C) refers to the intersection of a track and geometrical sector."

--Warumwarum (talk) 11:01, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Regarding your first question if both sectors hold the same amount of information: Your observation is correct, but, yes, they do, at least in this model. In reality, the length difference isn't that extreme, as the central portion of the disk, which does not hold any information, is much larger than in your sketch.
 * While this logical model is accurate for (most) floppy disks and old hard disks, there are exceptions:
 * Some floppy disks (for example in the Sirius 1) had a facility to change the rotation speed depending on the track read. They would be slower on the outer tracks, so that more sectors could be stored there without altering the data rate.
 * Modern harddisks (for some decades) also store more physical sectors in the outer tracks than in the inner tracks. For obvious reasons, they cannot change the rotational speed, but they change the data rate with which the information is read internally (faster on the outer tracks). However, since the ROM BIOS and operating systems could not cope with this, they will emulate a disk with a simply C/H/S geometry and translate this into their internal mapping and geometry. As this happens inside the drive, it is totally transparent to the outside.
 * Regarding your other question: Yes, while logical sectors typically have a payload of 512 bytes (sometimes other smaller or larger values are possible as well), the physical sectors as they are stored on the medium contain somewhat more information, they have IDs, checksums, lead-in and lead-out sections and there are certain types of gaps between those sectors.
 * --Matthiaspaul (talk) 14:36, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

 * Great read. Thank you. My main concern was if the physical size actually differed, or if the picture only was a way to view it. Used to think it was more like this, and that the CHS scheme was more of a way to explain it to mortals.
 * --Warumwarum (talk) 19:21, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Your "sliced cake" diagram is simplified (it does not show the gaps, lead-in and lead-out sections between the sectors, and it also assumes a sector interleave of 1:1 and a track sector skew of 0) but it is otherwise accurate for most floppy drives (where the physical C/H/S geometry and the logical C/H/S geometry is the same) as well as for hard disks prior to the introduction of zone bit recording.
 * The linked picture illustrates a hard drive which implements zone bit recording (a feature introduced in the early 1990s some while after the introduction of on-drive controllers) and some amount of track sector skew.
 * Track sector skew: It takes a moment to move the head from one track to another. A typical use case is that consecutive sectors are read. Without sector skew, the head might just miss the logically following sector after have switched tracks (or heads). Therefore the whole arrangement of sectors on a track is slightly rotated compared to the next track. The exact amount necessary depends on the time necessary to switch between tracks.
 * A similar measure named sector interleave (not shown) was used on old disks on slow systems; the logical sectors within a track were interleaved by a certain factor, that is, the physical order of sectors within a track was not consecutive. By adjusting the sector interleave to the system's transfer speed, the time necessary to wait for the next logical sector to be under the head when needed could be optimized. The slower the system or faster the drive, the higher the optimal interleave factor.
 * Sector skew and interleave factor were important to know or find out when low-level formating a harddisk (as was common before the introduction of on-drive controllers). End users no longer have to deal with this for some decades, as a drive's controller will emulate a suitable logical C/H/S geometry (or not even this when using LBA). Also, the operating system will not deal with physical sectors, but only with logical sectors.
 * --Matthiaspaul (talk) 22:24, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Cylinder-head-sector. 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/20110927024639/http://www.hitachigst.com/tech/techlib.nsf/techdocs/3D2E8D174ACEA749882577AE006F3F05/%24file/AFtechbrief.pdf to http://www.hitachigst.com/tech/techlib.nsf/techdocs/3D2E8D174ACEA749882577AE006F3F05/%24file/AFtechbrief.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110927024620/http://www.hitachigst.com/tech/techlib.nsf/techdocs/1F70FDFFB4DE1EBB86257538007E4CFE/%24file/TS5K500.B_OEMSpec_r12a.pdf to http://www.hitachigst.com/tech/techlib.nsf/techdocs/1F70FDFFB4DE1EBB86257538007E4CFE/%24file/TS5K500.B_OEMSpec_r12a.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110728081254/http://www.t13.org/Documents/UploadedDocuments/project/d0948r4c-ATA-2.pdf to http://www.t13.org/Documents/UploadedDocuments/project/d0948r4c-ATA-2.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120321035657/http://www.t13.org/Documents/UploadedDocuments/project/d0791r4c-ATA-1.pdf to http://www.t13.org/Documents/UploadedDocuments/project/d0791r4c-ATA-1.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110728081452/http://www.t10.org/t13/project/d1410r3a-ATA-ATAPI-6.pdf to http://www.t10.org/t13/project/d1410r3a-ATA-ATAPI-6.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110728081430/http://www.t10.org/t13/project/d1321r3-ATA-ATAPI-5.pdf to http://www.t10.org/t13/project/d1321r3-ATA-ATAPI-5.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:23, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Allocation units vs blocks vs clusters and other terms
This article should clarify that "allocation unit", "block", and "cluster" are all terms referring to the same concept on different platforms. And if I'm missing some subtle difference between some of these terms, that should probably also be made clear. Currently different paragraphs use one or two terms and it's not always clear whether or to what extent they are interchangeable. It might be worth noting that some historical systems even used other terms. The term in the TRS-80 world was "granule" and one OS on that platform, NEWDOS/80 even introduced another level of abstraction termed the "lump". — Hippietrail (talk) 02:59, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

"late 2000s"
It's a little early in the 2000s to be commenting on the "late 2000s" already. Can this be re-worded? I'm really not sure which time period is being referred to:

24.196.190.186 (talk) 13:24, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Cylinder-head-sector