This is an archive of past discussions with User:Ianmacm. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hi, I reverted your revert of my own edit at Internet censorship in Australia, because I believe that the statement was cited from a reliable source, and this seems to be OK according to WP:CRYSTAL. I've added a note on the talk page of this article, which is where discussion should probably occur. cojoco (talk) 10:45, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Archimedes and the Lever
Hello, your revert points to a talk entry that does not bear on the issue at hand. Regardless of who actually authored 'Mechanica', the fact remains that it not only predates Archimedes birth, but that it also contains a rigorous definition of the principle of the lever. Therefore, the (unsourced) claim that Archimedes authored the first rigorous explanation is undeniably incorrect. I am therefore adding this to the article talk page and removing the unsourced claim. Please respond on the article's talk page if you disagree. Thanks FellGleaming (talk) 03:55, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Lady Gaga revert
I am not sure why but when you look the revision prior to your revert, there is an inline citation (#37) that cites Pulse 87 correctly. The citation does appear in the preview window but in the article (for unknown reason). I almost reverted it too. The citation goes to this link. Could please review this and revert yourself if it checks? --Morenooso (talk) 07:34, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
It would be more accurate to say that the edit is not supported by the cite given. The NY Daily News story says "Pulse was credited with helping popularize a number of new artists – notably including, says program director Joel Salkowitz, the red-hot Lady Gaga." This is not the same as "The first radio station in the United States to play her first single was Pulse 87 in her hometown of New York City." Also, this is more about Pulse 87 than it is about Lagy Gaga, so there is a WP:TOPIC issue.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)07:55, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
The cite at [1] says "The station was also instrumental in jump starting the career of hometown loony tune Lady Gaga", which again does not support the specific claim made of being the first radio station to air Lady Gaga.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)08:18, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
You're dancing, splitting hairs and you know it. hometown loony tune is an axiom for a homeboy or someone from that local area. Looney tune infers crazy. --Morenooso (talk) 08:21, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
A good editor, shown the error of his ways, would follow User:Jimbo Wales/Statement of principles, and seek to improve the article. A great editor would acknowledge that with a revert that improves the article with whatever citations needed. Don't be ashamed - do the right thing. --Morenooso (talk) 08:26, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, no dice. Nobody is disputing that Lady Gaga comes from New York. Please find a reliable source backing up the claim that Pulse 87 was the first radio station to air her first single. This is why the revert was made. Neither of the sources given says this. It is a personal interpretation of the sources, not what the sources actually said.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)08:31, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
You provided two citations not supporting what was originally reverted, then accused me of being a dick. Weird stuff, even for Wikipedia.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)08:52, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
hey there
just because someone disagrees with the sheeple, doesnt make them a troll, you should open your eyes
You have already been blocked for making the same points without listening to the replies of other users. Please find some hard evidence that the plane crash was a deliberate act, because Wikipedia is not a forum for unsourced speculation.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)21:31, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Talk:2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:35, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, but the template above has been applied incorrectly. Removing clear violations of WP:NOTAFORUM and WP:SOAPBOX is never edit warring. The two IPs who keep adding this stuff have been advised repeatedly by other users that off-topic screeds not related to article improvement will be removed. This will happen regardless of how many times the material is posted.
Also, I see that the talk page was semi-protected at 23:47 on 13 April [6] so the admins must have agreed that the edits were unconstructive. It is unusual for a talk page to be protected, but we cannot spend every few minutes removing nonsense from people who refuse to take no for an answer.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)06:49, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Re your removal of the reactions section. This is in violation of the AfD, which was not closed as delete. I'm sure you're editing here in good faith so you need not fear any administrative action from me over this. I've made a few comments on the talk page, trying to find a way out. Your views there are requested. Mjroots (talk) 08:46, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Hey Ian I know you always work hard on the Mj article and so I know you and a few others should have a say on the talk page whether the section legacy and influence should stay the same or be trimmed or removed. The Almighty King (talk) 17:03, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Crikey!
You have a creepy face coming in on the left of your screen! o_O Had to "show" your entire key in order to scroll down far enough for it to appear. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies06:38, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
"The article is tagged because parts of it are written like a personal essay rather than an encyclopedia article. It could also do with more citations, as there are numerous statements that require verification."
Which statements, specifically, require verification? Also, if possible, what is required to verify those statements? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.113.210.130 (talk) 16:34, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Stephen Kaplan falls considerably short of the requirements for verifiability and neutrality, and has done for quite a while. Many statements are hard to verify, and some read like they have been lifted from official biographies rather than third party sources. Sourcing should, where possible, be taken from mainstream media sources, and avoid self-published sources which may lack reliability or neutrality. The "Awards" section in particular is a worry, since it is completely uncited and some of them look like dubious paper mill qualifications. See reliable sources for more information in this area.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)16:59, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but the point could have been made more politely. There was thinly veiled sarcasm in the Barnstar, which is not how they are meant to be used.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)17:40, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but actually threatening the entire funding source of the wikipedia over a handful of line drawings that probably aren't even illegal- that's pretty special.- Wolfkeeper17:48, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for File:Big country moross.ogg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Big country moross.ogg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:50, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, by the way, I don't like the HTML5 version of YouTube at all, and soon went back to the Flash version. Definitely some way to go before the current Flash dominance is threatened.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)13:59, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Hey Ian, I figured it might be something like that, but without an edit summary I am somewhat distrustful. Besides, the first time that the IP removed it they also removed some formatting, so I didn't have complete faith. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:35, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
2010 Polish Air Force crash
Re your reversion, the statement is supported by the source, and Russia Today meets WP:RS. As you are no doubt aware, the MAK have released a preliminary report into the accident. I've asked a Russian speaking editor for assistance in improving the article from that source. It looks as though RT are reporting on the prelim report. Mjroots (talk) 08:50, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, the RT report was yesterday, and the WSJ report makes it clear that pilot error is now considered to be the cause. I was concerned that the RT report was based on an off the record briefing, which is why it was removed from the infobox. The infobox could now say "pilot error" without any problems.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)08:57, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:George and Kathy Lutz.jpg
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:George and Kathy Lutz.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).
PLEASE NOTE:
I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.
Thanks for uploading File:Amityville advert.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).
PLEASE NOTE:
I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.
Very good. But it's a struggle to be "balanced" when all that can be said (let alone sourced) about this guy is negative. I sourced my quote (I believe I even linked to a video where he said it). I also didn't want to turn his Politics section into a coatrack (which is why I _attempted_ to create a Controversy and Criticism section). Nobody has anything positive to say about this guy.
Before I edited I checked his wiki page, it was strangely devoid of any mention of the numerous controversies surrounding him. In my attempts to give a more balanced and complete account of his career, I might have come across as being a bit of a critic. I am very annoyed at the suggestion that to create a "balanced" article, some negative content needs to be removed. Why sacrifice completeness for "balance"?
Lastly, in the spirit of full disclosure, do you have any connection to the current acting government of Australia?
No, I live in the UK and don't get paid for any of this. It is always disappointing to be accused of bias for upholding WP:BLP, but the edits to the article amounted to coatracking because they were largely negative and some of it came across as personal commentary, eg suggesting that Conroy did not understand how the Internet worked. The ACMA blacklist proposal has been controversial, but there is no need to overload the article with criticism. I removed only one section and left the rest, and was not trying to edit war.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)12:12, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm not accusing you of bias. I explained why it was mostly negative. I tried to only have what was sourced there, obviously in same cases I failed. There is no edit war here. The web filter has been controversial, however I have been careful to limit my discussions on the page to what is personally applicable to Conroy. There has been numerous occasions where he has "put his foot in it". I have been careful to try and ensure that all statements have been attributed to sources. If the truth paints a negative picture, then so be it. But fine, for now I won't revert the text back. I'll wait till he does something positive, and I'll report on that if that's what makes it balanced enough to be able to include more "negative" information. Gregory.currie (talk) 12:37, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
The only section that was removed was in this edit, because I felt that the style and tone were unencyclopedic, and the sourcing not notable enough. Ideally, criticism should be capable of being sourced from a range of mainstream media sources, so that its notability can be established. The part that was removed is sourced from a magazine and a YouTube video, which are not ideal for a Wikipedia article.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)12:48, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Freeview
Hi Ian! I must admit to being slightly confused at your repeated removal of text from the Freeview article on the basis that 'Wikipedia is not a set of instructions or advice'. I think you may be misinterpreting what the paragraphs are saying. The point being made is that viewers are advised by Freeview, and by the transmitter operators, to buy new boxes or contact certain companies, etc etc etc. The article itself is not giving advice or instructions and that is clearly not the intention. If you're unhappy with the text would you like to try improving it rather than just deleting it? I do think it makes an important point and has value, so shouldn't just be unilaterally removed without further discussion. Bonusballs (talk) 19:34, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
The article needs to point out that older Freeview boxes are obsolescent, but the section is becoming long winded and unencyclopedic. This source comes from a blog and fails WP:SPS. This part of the article needs an overhaul to stay on topic and have reliable sourcing.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)19:55, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Fair point, I've replaced two of the sources with more heavyweight and definitive links including the BBC itself. Suggestions welcomed if you feel that issues remain, obviously. Bonusballs (talk) 20:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.
When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.
Several unstated presumptions to obtain the number 17,152, the most troubling being that we reach for a Stomachion board proposed in a questionable translation of another text which does not match the Archimedes Codex. It is unclear where Dr. Netz ever comes
to grips with this problem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.217.37.24 (talk) 14:23, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately the source you are using is not reliable in this
case precisely because of tacit assumptions. To be reliable in combinatorial mathematics you have to state the assumptions.
The point about turning over pieces simply was not mentioned.
The numbers 64 and 4 which you have now edited out were obtained
by Bill Cutler who did the original research back in 2003.
Somehow, they have just never been mentioned. But why not check
with Bill Cutler at <billcutler@comcast.com>. If you really want
to stick with Dr. Netz, you need to edit out the phrase about
turning over pieces, because he never mentioned it explicitly.
That is why the source is tendentious and so less than reliable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by
150.217.37.24 (talk) 19:14, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
I have taken the liberty of undoing your edit in good faith while
accepting your edit itself was in good faith. The problem for
you is that what got formally published in 2003 was selective:
it left out qualifying phrases that make the published counts
precise; and it left out the alternative counts, when the
qualifying phrases do not apply. You will notice that later
on it is mentioned that there are three other boxes for the
Codex board, so there are at least six other counts. Bill
Cutler has those worked out, too, but they are not yet in general
circulation. Naturally, I am encouraging him to publish his
entire suite of results. Then they can be inserted, too. But
the 64 and 4 have been known for six or seven years.
As the saying goes, I don't make the rules around here. Wikipedia articles have to stick to what has been published and peer reviewed. The material added to Ostomachion is unsourced commentary, which is against guidelines. Other editors are justified in removing material of this kind. See also Wikipedia's guidelines on original research.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)20:15, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Calvi.jpg
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Calvi.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).
PLEASE NOTE:
I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.
Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Amityville 3D book cover.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Amityville 3D book cover.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.
Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Ataque de panico.JPG
Thank you for uploading File:Ataque de panico.JPG. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.
Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Ave satani.ogg
Thank you for uploading File:Ave satani.ogg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.
There have been several high profile cases where rows over this sort of thing dragged on at ANI and ArbCom, but not a huge number considering the millions of people with access to the English language Wikipedia. For legal reasons, it is an absolute no-go to make allegations on public parts of Wikipedia. This could trigger off a libel lawsuit, which would be jumping out of the frying pan and into the fire. This is why I am less than keen on a long debate about WP:PED, because in the final analysis no-one will be publicly blocked for doing this sort of thing.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)21:10, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
LOL! Look at the entry made by Ryan Postlethwaite in that first link, and read the block summary. He put a template to this effect on user and talkpage, but this got oversighted when I persuaded someone that there was an issue just as you have opined above. Mbizance has just put a similar edit summary into the block log for the user's account on Commons. All the more reason to take the discussion offline and shut this debate down, as I'm sure it can't be long before someone accuses one of the editors arguing with me, and that will tear it. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:23, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, naughty Mr Postlethwaite. WP:PED has clarified this issue, since it always recommends a neutral block notice. Anyway, I have already received this accolade from an IP, and did not rush off to enrich the legal profession. Some people would, though.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)21:31, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
How about the block summary on this [8]. I was the one who made the blocking recommendation by email (to Ryan earlier this year) but Iģ am still shocked by the way that Wikipedia shames people in this way. You begin to see why the apparently strange mechanisms of society and business have evolved. Things such as private meetings and so on. The whole concept of decisions being made in private at all. 109.154.116.24 (talk) 21:36, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia and Commons are in a no-win situation here. If they do not discuss the matter openly, they can be accused of operating a Star Chamber system of justice. If they make a public allegation and it all goes wrong, there could be a multi-million dollar lawsuit. ANI and ArbCom are way over my head, but we can all see some of the risks inherent in WP:PED. Great care is needed to prevent anti-pedophile witch hunts from turning into lawsuits.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)21:46, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't believe that there have been any conspiracies here. WP:PED has been a de facto policy for years, but it was only the recent Larry Sanger/Fox News brouhaha that brought it out into the open. Wikipedia has never faced a lawsuit after allegations that one of its editors was a pedophile, but there is always a first time.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)22:03, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
If Wikipedia is so much at risk for libel troubles, why hasn't Wikisposure been hit when they go so far beyond anything done here? I would think that by keeping the discussion to consideration of diffs, and opinions about them, that the risk could be minimized, especially considering that it is not individuals but accounts that are being tarnished. Wnt (talk) 15:22, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
With civil law issues, it is very much up to the individuals concerned. Some lawyers would do anything to make a quick buck, even if the case was obviously frivolous. Most people have more sense than to file lawsuits over immature Internet mudslinging, but it is important not to play into the hands of potential litigants with flame/troll material. Better safe than sorry, as the maxim puts it.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)15:28, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Rationale Standardisation
It's not a deletion notice, so can be safely ignored.
The reason for requesting 'standardising' rationales is so that the automated tools/reports being used
to find image that are genuinely lacking can skip over images which already have perfectly
adequate rationales. (In this instance the report can skip anything with {{Standard-Rationale}}
on it.
If you'd like to suggest a form of words such tools could reliably skip images such as yours
which have perfectly adequate rationales, I'm open to suggestions :)
I'm also open to suggestions as to how the wording on the template could be improved :)
Hi, sorry to bother you, but I was wondering if you could change some info on the Chipmunk / Prairie Dog page. It was my friend Kris ( http://www.youtube.com/user/magnets99 ) who created and uploaded the infamous 5 second clip - and it was on b3ta.com and youtube before Collegehumour got hold of it. I would edit the wiki page myself but I'm not exactly ofay with the wiki rules.
I've asked for further corroborating evidence, but by simply checking the date of posting, you can see magnets99's was posted nearly two weeks earlier:
It is a fair point that sites like CollegeHumor often post material that they have found elsewhere. The Dramatic Chipmunk video dates from June 2007 or thereabouts, but the specific claim to have created it would need a reliable source. There is a parallel here with the spoof Hitler rant videos.[9] There have been various claims about who invented these, but the origins are lost in the mists of time.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)11:01, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for helping me. I don't care for TMZ and I don't like the guy that owns it,Harvey Levin but they are usually first to report something and they are usually correct about what they post. I mean if you think about it,whats the difference between TMZ and the CNN gossip section webpage? And I notice when I'm watching breaking new about someone dying or something on TV,the station I'm watching CNN or Foxnews etc,they always say "According to TMZ". Also please don't think that I am ranting at you about this. I'm not. I know you have to follow Wikipedia's rules I was just wondering why Wikipedia doesn't think TMZ is a good source. Again thanks for your help.--99.177.250.140 (talk) 19:23, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia Goldbach's Conjecture Page - Simplicity Instinct
Hi Ian
I see that you removed the external links I had added. I am an amateur mathematician and have been able to make some contributions to this problem. The scatter plot can be broken down into 4 discrete bands with sub-bands but to do this one needs to understand what I call the Prime Number Channels and the patterns of alignment as two chains of numbers (one increasing and one decreasing) are moved against each other).
I have worked outside of the mathematics mainstream for several years due to the comments I received from local mathematicians that the work I was doing was interesting but of no importance. So I carried on and the links I posted all make significant contributions to understanding this problem.
The following links, link to PDF files. Start with the third one and then go to the first one. The second one has a reference to a simple mechanism for understanding this problem and also has a graph of prime number distribution that you will not have seen anywhere before.
I am sure that you will agree that this page should have a link to a paper that explains the scatter plot, unless you think this is of no interest whatsoever.
Wikipedia is not an academic research journal and cannot publish material that has not been peer reviewed. It is common for people to add their own self-published papers to Wikipedia mathematics articles, but this is original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Please discuss this at Talk:Goldbach's conjecture for further input.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)06:25, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Hello Ianmacm. Re the anon IP's editing on the Mark Lester article you might be interested in this item User talk:MarnetteD#Edits from Banned User HC and IPs that I received over two years ago. You will note that the IP that you have been communicating with falls into the range used by Harvey Carter. This "age 8 or 9" edit is one that HC has been making for many months now. You might already be aware of this but I thought I would fill you in just in case. Please feel free to copy the IP ranges involved to your own talk or sandbox page. Thanks for your vigilance on Lester's article and cheers. MarnetteD | Talk14:39, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. As a rule, I don't mind any suggested edits as long as they are sensible. The 8 or 9 years old thing with Mark Lester is getting a bit boring, so without further sourcing, the article should stay as it is.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)14:51, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Bloodbath book.jpg
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Bloodbath book.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk03:24, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
It's a matter of WP:V which yes, it also includes WP:PAYWALL ...this isnt necessarily WP:NPOV...I'm concerned with this practice of quoting POV's from *experts* ya can't even verify per WP:RS (because it's implied that the text resides in a pay-to-read article) . Even though AES.org is a reliable source, the content is not properly supported (cited). They also have lots of people making a whole lot of claims on white papers but i ain't getting into it. The criteria for inclusion in these cases should be strictly to material we can properly verify and cite WP:CITE. Jrod2 (talk) 17:49, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
I have assumed good faith in the AES 2007 study, and also that the source cited does include the exact wording involved. It is no secret that the AES has poured cold water on the theory that audiophile discs sound significantly different from standard compact discs, and the article should not be afraid to tackle this issue head on. In terms of WP:NPOV, there are two citations disagreeing with the 2007 study, here and here. If you like, some of these criticisms could be summarized in the article.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)18:05, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Yo, I understand your position...my problem is, should WP be using quotes from pay sites which unless you buy the paper, there's no way to do WP:V. Feel me? My opinion on the matter is irrelevant. Jrod2 (talk)
As I understand it, WP:PAYWALL does not say an outright no to material that a person would have to pay to see. Some online archives require paid access, and in the real world this is inevitable. This particular quote is not absolutely vital to the article, but I would be reluctant to remove it without further guidance on the paywall issue. As suggested, this issue could be raised at WP:RSN.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)06:57, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
I think the links are good and should stay. The organization is recognized and respected. Not everything in the world is free and it costs money to host these white papers. If you don't agree with the papers, take it up with the organization. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.224.214.212 (talk) 11:32, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, the reason why I tend to agree here is that this is an obscure academic research paper. With major news stories it should be possible to cite CNN, BBC etc and skip anything that requires a payment. Research papers and university texts may have a paywall, but this should not rule them out entirely as citations in Wikipedia articles.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)11:39, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Pleez, realize that i am talking 'bout highly *contentious* material....this isn't something like
.
"Dentists agree that if you don't floss your teeth, yow have a big chance of getting gum decease"...
Bingo! Here is a link to the AES 2007 report in full, and no need to pay for it. "Conclusions" in Part 3 does indeed include the exact wording of the quote. I am still puzzled about whether the objection is to the paywall (now removed) or the AES methodology itself. Anyway, I'll add the link to this PDF to the article so that people can read the full report and make up their own minds about the validity.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)15:45, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
You have passed the test with flying colors Ianmacm. U have brought up to Wiki standards a quote to a point of view which i already knew to b true.... so i just let you do what good wikipedians do, they exercise all due diligence. Also, this check and balances is what makes our encyclopedia one of the best. Take care brother. Jrod2 (talk) 16:07, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Forgot to mention (answer to your question) that the point is WP:PAYWALL works only in extreme cases when there is no other reliable source available, and when the material is not contentious, especially if living persons are involved. The burden of proof lies with the editor.Jrod2 (talk) 16:15, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
YouTube
As it happens, I do agree with you about the need to create modern video material in progressively scanned format as far as possible. However, this is beyond the scope of YouTube, because people will upload videos in a range of formats.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 15:25, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
I am pretty sure that more people will read this article on YouTube than YouTube's own guidelines, which, by the way, simply say that YouTube "prefers" deinterlaced videos, and do not spell out the details. While Wikipedia is not a user's guide, I still would like to draw a greater attention to deinterlacing issues. BTW, the NASA video that I linked in the talk page, looks fine at 480p, but shows combing at 720p, in the same player window 854x480. I don't know who performed the deinterlacing, NASA or YouTube, but the problem seems to worsen with YouTube going HD, because there is less room for vertical smoothing. Mikus (talk) 15:38, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Deinterlacing involves taking two images shot at slightly different times, and blending them into the same frame. Inevitably, this will involve loss of image quality for some types of material. This is not a problem unique to YouTube, and for average or slow moving material, it may not be a great problem. It has been suggested that for fast moving videos (eg sports) that progressive scanning is preferable. The European Broadcasting Union was very clear about preferring 720p to 1080i in its January 2005 report.[11] However, I don't make the rules at the EBU, and this is not specifcally an issue at YouTube. This is why I have tried not to become too involved here.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)15:52, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
"Deinterlacing involves taking two images shot at slightly different times, and blending them into the same frame." -- this is not the only deinterlacing method, and in fact, this is the worst one, it works for static images only. If you looked in the "Deinterlacing" article you would see that other -- and better -- methods exist. YouTube seems to use field blending as default deinterlacing scheme and it sucks. Many NLEs like Sony Vegas for example, allow using different methods, but use blending as a default one, and many users do not care to change it or they simply do not know/care about how exactly they deinterlace. Here: http://www.100fps.com/ and here http://www.avchduser.com/articles/watching_interlaced_video.jsp
"This is not a problem unique to YouTube" -- I never said it was unique to YouTube. I am saying that the problem is there and must be acknowledged.
"for average or slow moving material, it may not be a great problem." -- exactly, for slow moving material it is ok, but there is very little slow moving material in videos, especially in videos shot by amateurs.
"It has been suggested that for fast moving videos (eg sports) that progressive scanning is preferable." -- Not exactly. Progressive video can be shot with say 24, 25 or 30 fps, in this case it will look like a movie and it will stutter badly if you try to shoot sports with it. Video shot with 50/60 fps is ideal, but very few consumer camcorders can shoot with this rate. So, interlaced video is to the rescue because it has 50/60 images per second rate. Consumer TV sets have no problems displaying interlaced TV feed. Please note, that even modern progressive-scan plasma and LCD panels have no "jaggies", because they deinterlace interlaced video using either complex motion-adaptive algorithms or simple "bob" algorithm, so why YouTube cannot do the same? Why it cannot convert interlaced video into progressive using "bob" or "single field" methods? Anyway, I am not writing this to attack YouTube, I just want to point out to the problem, and to possible solutions. I personally deinterlace my videos with "single field", I lose vertical resolution but I don't get jaggies or ghosting. It still looks great in 480p and in 720p. Should we advertise this method in the wiki? I guess no because this would be a HOW-TO. Should we stress out that bad deinterlacing makes videos look horrible? I believe that we must do this, and we must point out to specific issues like combing or ghosting, so that the readers/viewers as well as content owners were aware why some videos look like crap. Mikus (talk) 18:44, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Back in the early 2000s, there was a debate about which standard Europe should adopt for is new HD broadcasts, 720p/50 or 1080i/25. The EBU came down firmly in favour of 720p/50, but the result was not binding on national governments.[12] In May 2006 the BBC and Sky went for 1080i/25, which caused some controversy at the time. Web video is invariably progressive, but I can't really comment on the exact method that YouTube uses to deniterlace its videos prior to streaming. Any conversion process (deinterlacing, NTSC to PAL etc) usually loses some of the picture quality. All that it has been possible to source reliably for the article YouTube is that YouTube prefers deinterlaced videos to be uploaded where possible. That way, the uploader cannot complain if they do not like the way in which the deinterlacing was done for them by YouTube.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)07:55, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
I am aware of these developments. I want is to explicitly say that (1) both interlaced and progressive types of videos are accepted, and (2) deinterlacing may cause various artifacts. I will not list those artifacts, if you so much against it, but will link to Deinterlacing article. BTW, yesterday I uploaded three interlaced videos to YouTube, and they were automatically deinterlaced. I do not see combing, but I see ghosting, and as such the image is soft. Obviously, YT uses field blending. But I won't mention these details as this is OR per Wikipedia. Mikus (talk) 16:52, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Saying that deinterlacing may cause artifacts would have WP:OR issues without a reliable source. It is OK to say that YouTube will accept progressive or interlaced videos, but the only reliable sourcing is that YouTube prefers deinterlaced videos.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)17:01, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Geez, it is not OR, it is a known fact. The Deinterlacing article lists many of them, so I think it is fine to list the same ones in the YT article. I already provided you with links above, the www.100fps.com has probably most of the possible artifacts in one place. You want more? I can find more, but I don't understand why I should look for prooflinks for the YT article, these links should be presented in the Deinterlacing article, and I would merely use whatever info is spelled out in that article, because it is already supposed to conform to Wiki standards. Wikipedia would be a mess if there were no possibility to refer to other articles. Mikus (talk) 18:29, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
One of the main concerns has been to stay within WP:TOPIC for YouTube. There are many things about how Flash Video works that could be said in the article, but they are beyond the scope of YouTube unless they have significant notability. The article should try to avoid reading like an instruction manual for uploading videos to YouTube, and the only official statement that YouTube makes on this issue is that it prefers deinterlaced videos to be uploaded. By clicking on Deinterlacing, it is possible to look at this issue in much more detail.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)08:50, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
I agree, but there should be an incentive, a reason for a reader to click on that link. Simply saying that YouTube prefers deinterlaced videos does not urge a reader to read about the process. Mikus (talk) 15:42, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
I have been looking for something about this that relates specifically to Flash Video and is not from a blog or forum. This comes from the Flash Video Encoder User Guide and gives the standard advice that video should be deinterlaced prior to Flash conversion. However, it is not specific to YouTube, where it can be taken as read that YouTube will deinterlace videos before streaming them.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)17:33, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
It is not about Flash, it is about that deinterlacing can cause different kinds of artifacts, like blurring, ghosting (double-image), combing ("mouse teeth"), loss of resolution, etc. These should be mentioned to urge a reader to click on deinterlacing link for details. These are all well-known artifacts. As I said, many of them are mentioned in the deinterlacing article and as such I don't see why they should require prooflinks in the YT article. Mikus (talk) 18:37, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
About your link:
"Most broadcast video is interlaced, though emerging high-definition television standards" -- was this written 15 years ago and not revised since then?
"the upper field (or Field 1) contains all of the odd-numbered lines, and the lower field (or Field 2) contains all of the even-numbered lines." -- depends on video standard.
"In NTSC video, new fields are drawn to the screen approximately 60 times per second, which corresponds to a frame rate of approximately 30 frames per second." -- this is ambiguous, there is no real frame rate in interlaced TV, there is field rate. Telling people about frames does not help.
"Noninterlaced video frames are not separated into fields. ... both fields that make up a video frame are shown simultaneously." -- Huh? They just said that progressive video is NOT separated into fields, so where did "fields that make up a video frame" come from?
"a computer monitor displays video at 30 fps, and most video displayed on computer monitors is noninterlaced." -- Huh? Using a computer monitor at 30Hz would be a horrible experience. AFAIK, 60Hz has been the lowest refresh rate since 1980-ies. It is not 30fps, it is 60fps or higher.
"Typically you will always want to deinterlace video content used in Flash. Both the Sorenson Spark and On2 VP6 codecs used to encode Flash video can cause unwanted artifacts when encoding interlaced video." -- Sorenson Spark? Yeah, this was written long ago.
"There are instances when you may want to avoid deinterlacing: for example, if the source video doesn't contain too many interlacing artifacts (typically caused by horizontal pans or motion)." -- What they meant here is "weave" deinterlacing, because ANY process of converting interlaced into progressive is deinterlacing. They mudding the waters.
"When you deinterlace, you discard half of the video's vertical resolution." -- What they actually meant is that Flash supports (or supported at that time) only a simple "bob"/"single field" deinterlacing, no fancy adaptive stuff was offered.
"You may also want to avoid deinterlacing if you're reducing the size of the video substantially--to 240 x 180 pixels or less--because the pixel averaging that occurs when resizing video to a smaller size can cause interlacing artifacts that appear as a motion blur." -- Indeed, this is what I meant by "blurring" and "ghosting".
This document comes from the Adobe website, so it must have some "official" status. The main issue is that it must be several years old, because it mentions Sorenson Spark and On2 VP6, which are now less common than they once were. The other thing that caught my eye in this link is that it is possible to use interlaced scanning in a Flash video, although I have never come across one.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)19:04, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
I am sorry if this will sound rude, but is all that you care about is the "official status"? Can you draw conclusions yourself? Do you have your own personal experience? How many computer monitors with 30Hz refresh rate you have come across? This document is a bag of worms. First they say "you can use Flash Video Encoder to either maintain the interlacing, or deinterlace it during encoding to create noninterlaced video", this means that ANY process of converting interlaced into noninterlaced (a.k.a. progressive-scan) video is deinterlacing. On the other hand, they say: "There are instances when you may want to avoid deinterlacing: for example, if the source video doesn't contain too many interlacing artifacts (typically caused by horizontal pans or motion). When you deinterlace, you discard half of the video's vertical resolution", this means that by deinterlacing they mean using just one field from a frame ("single field" deinterlacing). They also say that for static images you may want to not deinterlace, but as I understand they don't mean the result is interlaced, they mean the result is deinterlaced with "weave", that is, by combining two fields into one frame to not lose vertical resolution. This document is ambiguous at best and erroneous at worst. Anyway, my original point was not about Flash, it was about deinterlacing. Flash is not the only encoder/company that does deinterlacing, does not it? I want to make a general statement about generic artifacts. I am tired arguing, I will make the change and will provide a ton of references if you insist on them. Mikus (talk) 20:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
I was only pointing out that it came from the Adobe website. I really can't comment on the specifics of deinterlacing because it is a specialized subject.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)20:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
This web page has enough detail to keep even the most interested video hobbyist happy. A lot of this is beyond the realms of the average user, but it does compare the advantages and disadvantages of the various deinterlacing methods.
Duh! I pointed you to this article two or three times already.
This is no news, but thanks anyway. You keep ignoring what I am saying as well as the links I point you to. I am saying that wikipedia should trust other articles. If deinterlacing article already has all the prooflinks and spells out the artifacts, then I don't need to look for prooflinks AGAIN in the YouTube article. Mikus (talk) 18:35, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
I am convinced that the average YouTube user does not have sleepless nights over deinterlacing artifacts when they have uploaded a home video of a skateboarding dog. The main issue here is WP:TOPIC. The details of the issue are beyond the scope of YouTube, but the basics are currently mentioned in the article.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)18:39, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Four more words will not wander the article off the topic, but will raise reader's interest in specifics of deinterlacing. Mikus (talk) 22:09, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Here is some original research on the interlaced vs progressive scanning issue
After a rummage through the vault, I found the master copy of the Philips HDTV demo video Colors of Miami. This is often used to demonstrate Blu-ray Disc at point of sale in shops. It is a 1080i/60 video and plays at 29.97 fps. Here is the MediaInfo:
Format : MPEG-TS
File size : 769 MiB
Duration : 5mn 32s
Overall bit rate : 19.4 Mbps
Video
ID : 17 (0x11)
Menu ID : 1 (0x1)
Format : MPEG Video
Format version : Version 2
Format profile : Main@High
Format settings, BVOP : Yes
Format settings, Matrix : Default
Format settings, GOP : M=3, N=15
Duration : 5mn 31s
Bit rate mode : Constant
Bit rate : 18.4 Mbps
Width : 1 920 pixels
Height : 1 080 pixels
Display aspect ratio : 16:9
Frame rate : 29.970 fps
Color space : YUV
Chroma subsampling : 4:2:0
Bit depth : 8 bits
Scan type : Interlaced
Scan order : Top Field First
Bits/(Pixel*Frame) : 0.296
Stream size : 722 MiB (94%)
Audio
ID : 20 (0x14)
Menu ID : 1 (0x1)
Format : AC-3
Format/Info : Audio Coding 3
Mode extension : CM (complete main)
Duration : 5mn 32s
Bit rate mode : Constant
Bit rate : 192 Kbps
Channel(s) : 2 channels
Channel positions : Front: L R
Sampling rate : 48.0 KHz
Bit depth : 16 bits
Stream size : 7.61 MiB (1%) Here is a screenshot without deinterlacing, from 3:13 in the video, with clear comb distortion on the woman's hand and body where she has moved between fields. Someone has been kind enough to upload this video to YouTube already, and it is here. This means that it has been deinterlaced and can be watched at resolutions up to 1080p on YouTube. Personally, I could not see anything wrong with the deinterlacing of this video on YouTube, and the woman's hand at 3:13 seemed fine and did not have noticeable ghosting or blurring, as suggested in this edit. Incidentally, I don't know how YouTube deinterlaces the videos, it would be necessary to ask them.--♦IanMacM♦(talk to me)19:43, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Do you see a difference between "deinterlacing may cause artifacts like..." and "YouTube always fucks up your video, making it unwatchable"? Really. This is not about YouTube per se, and not about Flash. This is about deinterlacing IN PRINCIPLE and how in MAY affect interlaced video. Mikus (talk) 22:12, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Here is a version of the Colors of Miami video converted to progressive using HandBrake.[14]. MediaInfo for this file (82.7MB) is Format : MPEG-4
Format profile : Base Media / Version 2
Codec ID : mp42
File size : 82.7 MiB
Duration : 5mn 32s
Overall bit rate : 2 088 Kbps
Encoded date : UTC 2010-07-23 10:56:53
Tagged date : UTC 2010-07-23 11:09:02
Writing application : HandBrake 0.9.4 2009112300
Video
ID : 1
Format : AVC
Format/Info : Advanced Video Codec
Format profile : Baseline@L3.0
Format settings, CABAC : No
Format settings, ReFrames : 2 frames
Codec ID : avc1
Codec ID/Info : Advanced Video Coding
Duration : 5mn 31s
Bit rate mode : Variable
Bit rate : 1 735 Kbps
Width : 720 pixels
Height : 400 pixels
Display aspect ratio : 16:9
Frame rate mode : Variable
Frame rate : 29.970 fps
Minimum frame rate : 14.985 fps
Maximum frame rate : 29.970 fps
Color space : YUV
Chroma subsampling : 4:2:0
Bit depth : 8 bits
Scan type : Progressive
Bits/(Pixel*Frame) : 0.201
Stream size : 68.7 MiB (83%)
Writing library : x264 core 79
Encoding settings : cabac=0 / ref=2 / deblock=1:0:0 / analyse=0x1:0x111 / me=umh / subme=6 / psy=1 / psy_rd=1.0:0.0 / mixed_ref=1 / me_range=16 / chroma_me=1 / trellis=0 / 8x8dct=0 / cqm=0 / deadzone=21,11 / chroma_qp_offset=-2 / threads=3 / nr=0 / decimate=1 / mbaff=0 / constrained_intra=0 / bframes=0 / wpredp=0 / keyint=300 / keyint_min=30 / scenecut=40 / rc_lookahead=40 / rc=crf / mbtree=1 / crf=20.0 / qcomp=0.60 / qpmin=10 / qpmax=51 / qpstep=4 / ip_ratio=1.40 / aq=1:1.00
Encoded date : UTC 2010-07-23 10:56:53
Tagged date : UTC 2010-07-23 11:09:02
Color primaries : BT.709-5, BT.1361, IEC 61966-2-4, SMPTE RP177
Transfer characteristics : BT.709-5, BT.1361
Matrix coefficients : BT.709-5, BT.1361, IEC 61966-2-4 709, SMPTE RP177
Audio #1
ID : 2
Format : AAC
Format/Info : Advanced Audio Codec
Format version : Version 4
Format profile : LC
Format settings, SBR : No
Codec ID : 40
Duration : 5mn 32s
Bit rate mode : Variable
Bit rate : 159 Kbps
Maximum bit rate : 188 Kbps
Channel(s) : 2 channels
Channel positions : Front: L R
Sampling rate : 48.0 KHz
Stream size : 6.31 MiB (8%)
Encoded date : UTC 2010-07-23 10:56:53
Tagged date : UTC 2010-07-23 11:09:02
