Talk:Casio F-91W

message: If the watch was introduced in 1991, how could the Mexican president have started wearing his in 1988?
This specific model was introduced in 1991. The Casio F Series has been in production long before that, 1984 to be exact. So it is possible that he was wearing an older model of the F Series. U1Quattro (talk) 17:01, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: have you just completely ignored the RFC happening on this page, or was this meant to be a joke comment? –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 05:15, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

text: It says it was dated to 1989 which is what the IP is essentially talking about here.  –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 17:22, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have said what I said. I wouldn't waste my time in this fruitless discussion.U1 quattro TALK 18:02, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well... okay then. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 18:33, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time machine? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Casio F-91W. 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/20060731000000/http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/detainees/csrt_mar05.pdf to http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/detainees/csrt_mar05.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) 06:31, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I know there’s a debate going on about whether the watch was released in 1989 or 1991. I found the F91W in an Argos catalogue from 1990:
https://issuu.com/retromash/docs/argos-no34-1990-autumnwinter/2?ff
On page 53, number 25 (leftmost watch second from the bottom) is clearly an F91W, so this pretty much invalidates a 1991 release. Kerg1 (talk) 21:37, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Similarly, The Akron Beacon Journal has an ad for 4 June 1990 that features the watch, as does The Honolulu Advertiser for 17 June 1990. --tronvillain (talk) 21:18, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

text: * I do not understand why the abovementioned source regarding PacParts cannot be utilized as a reliable citation. It adheres to WP:AFFILIATE. It is a secondary source as well. Also, may I remind you to keep WP:EGO in mind. It is incontrovertibly apparent that the source is reliable. GerifalteDelSabana (talk) 07:13, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

text: For what it's worth, the 1989 date sounds quite likely, and the aforementioned news articles very possibly used Wikipedia as a souce of the 1991 date. Despite this, it goes against Wikipedia's policy of consensus to make a statement on the talk page and then immediately edit the article accordingly (as was done here). We should give other voices a chance to be heard, and that means leaving them a reasonable amount of time to respond. —Rutlandbaconsouthamptonshakespeare (talk) 17:06, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: *+1 —GerifalteDelSabana (talk) 23:55, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

text: My apologies on jumping the gun here. I am new to wiki and its practices/procedures - just a huge fan of Casio and its history. I will read more into the proper procedures. Thank you for letting me know.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Casio F91W-1 (talk • contribs) 18:09, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

text: not denying that pac parts is not a parts distributor of Casio. I was pointing to the fact that the email doesn't highlight the relationship as stipulated by Casio F-91W.  Also,  pac parts doesn't meet the WP:RS criterion.U1 quattro TALK 00:48, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

text: I have reverted the change, because a consensus is still not reached with . J0kerNL (talk) 11:57, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  nope. Especially when the IP is "assuming" things with no solid reason of backing up the claim. Unless the IP has a good reason to assume that the BBC (or every other article on the web right now about this watch) is a consequence of citogenesis, the changes made by the IP can't stay.U1 quattro TALK 15:17, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  With contradicting dates from the BBC and PacParts isn't it reasonable to say that PacParts is likely the correct source here being a partner of Casio? Also it's become a question of mine if this argument is about the truth or about rules. ElongatedMusketeer (talk) 19:04, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Adding onto that, didn't  point out already this could be a case of citogenesis, as seen at the beginning of this debate? In this case, there are also several IP users involved in this, and thus I think WP:IAR should be considered in this exceptional case J0kerNL (talk) 20:34, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

text: * With all due respect, from a newcomer's perspective, it seems that they have already posited enough substantial proof and disregarding them as "assumptions" is rather unprofessional. It would seem quite bitey. Cheers. GerifalteDelSabana (talk) 01:45, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not biting the new comer, I'm disregarding the behaviour of the IP which has been nothing short of rude. The proof doesn't comply with the WP:RS guideline and when the IP has been involved in breaking rules, I wouldn't ignore them.U1 quattro TALK 02:10, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  does this qualify for a published source indicating the release year being 1989 then? https://news3lv.com/around-the-web/the-case-of-an-iconic-watch-how-wikipedia-and-writers-create-false-facts-from-thin-air Jacepulaski (talk) 07:43, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  maybe. Because I only see bashing about this site in the article. It seems to me one of the new users (or an IP) involed in this discussion has read the article and posted their greviences. What one needs to do is to reach out to BBC and ask about their sources of information about the article on this watch before anyone could assume this as a case of citogenesis.U1 quattro TALK 10:35, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:   I am not referring to the article's discussion of the possibility of citogenesis, I specifically asked about that article in relation to its mention of release year. Jacepulaski (talk) 10:41, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  yeah, that confirms to WP:RS. I have reached out to BBC about their comment on the situation as well. However, it should be mentioned that the watch was released in June 1989 in Japan, as Casio has confirmed that the release date may differ according to the region.U1 quattro TALK 10:47, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

text: While it is worth being aware of, nowhere and from noone does it specify "in Japan." Casio's Europe, America and Japan divisions all said the release was in 1989.Casio F91W-1 (talk) 12:56, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  the email says the Casio F91W-1 was released in 1989, however the release date might differ accroding to regions. This all started with a Japanese F91W which the owner claimed was released in 1989 so this points to Japan.U1 quattro TALK 05:04, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

text: Commenting on this, as stated earlier, an e-mail does not comply with WP:RS. See above comments on the e-mails from Pacparts, Casio Japan and Casio US. J0kerNL (talk) 20:06, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm trying to get CASIO onboard to write a press release explaining this issue. As far as I know that would be in compliance with WP:RS— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pero196 (talk • contribs) 18:50, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Release year debate 

message: I am requesting comment on the acceptability of having the release year mentioned in this article changed from 1991 to 1989. I believe the 1991 release year stated in the article is incorrect, possibly due to citogenesis. There is an article here and a parts listing here pointing to the correct release date being June of 1989. I have posted to RSN regarding reliability of the former source (news3lv) and have been told it's a reliable secondary source. The latter source (PacParts listing) was mentioned to be a usable primary source regarding release year in the same RSN response.
For full disclosure, this topic has been mentioned in a watch enthusiast discord that I(),  and  all participate in. I am very new to editing Wikipedia and have never done so before, and as such have had recent help from participants in WP:Discord to learn about contributing to talk page discussions but who also instructed me of their WP:CANVASSing concerns. This has not been my intention, and I have asked all members of the watch enthusiasts discord to either not participate in this RFC, or to self-identify as being a member of it.Jacepulaski (talk) 14:01, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: On a side note, I'd like to make a note of appreciation to  and colleagues for demonstrating due diligence in trying to understand and conform to our local policies and procedures, so as to keep this from being needlessly complicated by unintended disruption. Indeed, the RfC is impeccably well-formatted and neutrally-approached, and we appreciate the disclaimers about previous off-site discussion; whoever your Wiki-tutors are, they clearly gave you good guidance. I hope you'll all consider sticking around to help with other articles. Snow let's rap 05:41, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for comment regarding release year 

message: This has been added because it is relevant and appropriate. Mr Moriai is one of the leading designer for Casio and G Shock. He is a very popular man in Japan so he is quite relevant (adding this would not be relevant hence why I only included that he was the designer). U1Quattro please refrain from edit warring and leave your ego behind in this quest for creating a reputable knowledge base for the public. "Not appropriate" is not an explanation and is ironically not appropriate. Please stat an RFC to build a consensus to remove the designer name.Casio F91W-1 (talk) 14:46, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: U1Quattro did not removed it, just moved it from the lead to the Design section. -- ferret (talk) 14:52, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

text: Strictly speaking, everything in the lead should be somewhere on the article. The lead summarizes the article, it's inappropriate to have it in the lead alone. Just because the head section name is "Specification" doesn't change that the subsection is talking about the design, and its appropriate to mention the designer there. I'm reverting for now, please follow WP:BRD and see if a consensus for your edit is reached. -- ferret (talk) 15:38, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  you have a lot to learn about this site and how to use it. It's not about my ego, it's about rules and manual of styles. They will always prevail whether you like it or not. If you had seen where I moved the info you added, you won't be wasting everyone's time in this fruitless discussion. U1 quattro TALK 16:53, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Designer Name 

message: I think we should start List of consumer products favored by terrorists. In addition to this watch, there's Toyota pickups. What else? EEng 14:32, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Nutella, Tramadol. Toasted Meter (talk) 16:59, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: pants --Cornellier (talk) 13:07, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Not notable enough. The very fact that you thought about it is stupid enough. Just because this article hurts your fanboyism about the watch doesn't mean you go on to create a list of products used by terrorists.U1 quattro TALK 15:44, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A suggestion 

message: added a Peacock banner to this page today. If the goal is to improve the article then I suggest the criticism needs to be more specific. --Cornellier (talk) 14:50, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe it was due to this line  in the lead. Also statements like  and the reception section are contributing factors. U1 quattro TALK 17:14, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  is correct, it just generally sounds very promotive of the subject. There aren't any criticisms, it just talks about what is good about it. Wikipedia is not just somewhere to praise a product and we must maintain a neutral point of view, as mentioned in WP:PROMOTION. Bᴇʀʀᴇʟʏ • Talk to me∕What have I been doing 20:10, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Made a few edits. Changed lead to "popular for its low price and long battery life" which is ref'd even though it is practically WP:BLUESKY. --Cornellier (talk) 22:59, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: You basically used a controversial source as a reference.  U1 quattro TALK 10:52, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: If there's something wrong with it, flag it per Wikipedia policy. --Cornellier (talk) 11:08, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: There was a discussion on this very source last year with a source in this article calling the source unreliable as well. I don't think you need anymore evidence than that. U1 quattro TALK 12:30, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why peacock banner? 

message: After seeing videos of the fake and the real F-91W side by side here and here, I can say with certainty that the watch on the main image of the article is a fake. Another give away is the poor printing on the crystal, especially the white border on the crystal and the sharp looking matte case. The F-91W does NOT come with such a case out of the box as seen here, here and here. U1 quattro TALK 06:00, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The previous one didn't have a problem with the U, just differences that are not easily noticeable. Turns out how good the fakes have become. I would've ignored this but as this is an informative article about the watch, we cannot have an image of a fake item displayed on the infobox to mislead readers. U1 quattro TALK 23:50, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main image. 

message: Seems thanks to the "terror" link they are also popular with computer hackers.
Also some folks are modifying the backlights and other adaptations.
A popular modification is to reverse the LCD polarizer or simply replace the LCD
entirely with one from a similar watch to make a "blackout" or glowing digits variant.
Someone even added a custom alarm modification that uses the onboard piezo speaker with an
(IIRC) 10F222 storing fixed patterns in its internal memory.
Pretty sure there not popular with modders because of "a link to terrorism". They are most likely popular because they are dirt cheap and iconic. Also there is a difference between "computer hackers" and modders. Not sure why this needed a mention in the first place, people modify all sorts of things  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:248:8380:3340:863:B4C8:A883:BF7 (talk) 13:46, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hackers