|Welcome to Dewritech's talk page. I will generally respond here to comments that are posted here, rather than replying via your talk page (or the article's talk page, if you are writing to me here about an article), so you may want to watch this page until you are responded to, or let me know where specifically you'd prefer the reply.|
Why did you delete my corrections this is a federal offence I have a federal trademark on hollaback also the content that is represented here has nothing to do with what the hollaback name stands for . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kebo1234 (talk • contribs) 22:57, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I have made the relevant changes, and removed all peacock language. Is it better now? And can the errors be removed? Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by RohansoodH22 (talk • contribs) 16:39, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Regarding my changes to the Spatial anit-aliasing page
Hello Dewritech, you wrote: >> I noticed that you made a change to an article, Spatial anti-aliasing, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! <<
I don't have a citation. The page I edited had a code snippet that I tried to use but it didn't work. I debugged the problems myself (which is why I have no citation) and updated the page with what I found. The two problems I found were:
1) without the "1 - " that I added, the algorithm was saying that a point at 5.3 for example is 30% close to 5 and 70% close to 6 which is backwards. Without my changes, you can notice unsightly discontinuities in the result. With my changes, the output looks as it should.
2) the second change I made is explained in the Note I added so I won't repeat the explanation. Quite simply, you can't allow points that have small components at a given pixel, wipe out the large components that are already there due to other points. If you do that (as the original algorithm instructs), you end up with a very dark, completely wrong picture.
I don't know how to contact the original authors of the page, but I would bet if you ran my changes by them, they would agree.
Regarding Spot Fish / Spot Croaker - speedy deletion tag
You have tagged the corrected page Spot Fish for speedy deletion, The reason I created Spot Fish page was to correct the name of the fish, It is not in any way shape or form known as a croaker, i have submitted information supporting this yet you blatantly ignored this information. I have listed the reference information below
http://www.mrc.virginia.gov/vswft/Angler_Guide/angler_web_guide.pdf - PAGE 73 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheatspace (talk • contribs) 21:14, 27 February 2015 (UTC) http://vafwis.org/fwis/booklet.html?&bova=010246&Menu=_.Taxonomy&version=16493 (linked from the Virginia Wildlife Game & Fisheries main website) http://www.chesapeakebay.net/fieldguide/critter/spot (Chesapeake Bay Foundation) Brought this from spot croaker page where I have been removing falsehoods and correcting facts. Please reference official state owned or university owned pages or books where any information added was taken from.
Official references for the reason of removing Spot Croaker page and updating as spot fish are listed below
http://www.sms.si.edu/irlspec/Leiosto_xanthu.htm http://vafwis.org/fwis/booklet.html?&bova=010246&Menu=_.Taxonomy&version=16493 http://www.chesapeakebay.net/fieldguide/critter/spot http://www.mrc.virginia.gov/vswft/Angler_Guide/angler_web_guide.pdf http://www.dnr.sc.gov/marine/species/spot.html http://www.ncbeaches.com/Features/Sealife/Fish/ - see Spot
(IN NONE OF THESE IS IT CALLED A CROAKER - IT DOES NOT CROAK) To lable this fish the Spot Croaker is to incorrectly list the species.
I will continue to add more facts and correct incorrect data from previous article
Contested deletion This article should not be speedy deleted as being recently created, having no relevant page history and duplicating an existing English Wikipedia topic, because... (your reason here) --Cheatspace (talk) 21:02, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
The original page labled Spot Croaker was full of incorrect information, Spot fish are not croaker's they are a type of Drum. I have included official state / federal documentation supporting this on the talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheatspace (talk • contribs) 21:08, 27 February 2015 (UTC) Cheatspace
Just an update
If the article is deleted I will bring this up with some of the fisheries in Virginia on the Chesapeake bay, which i have personal friends which own several of them. I will make sure that Wikipedia is seen as removing corrected information on marine life and replacing with inaccurate information, And worst yet by someone who has never had the ability to even see the species.
I have 20 years experience with this species. I grew up on the rivers of Va where this species was the #2 catch next to #1 croakers. If anyone is qualified to make this change I would say that I am.
Also to follow your guidelines I have sourced several reliable websites of which 1 belongs to the Smithsonian, Others belong to the respective states in which this animal / fish is native to.
(talk) 22:37, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
I reverted the article to the author's preferred version, notably deleting your db-test tag. Although the article had a few test elements, it seemed to me to be a serious article. The author removed the tag with the test elements, but the removal of the tag prompted another editor to revert all the changes. —teb728 t c 03:01, 28 February 2015 (UTC)