User talk:Mulligatawny

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome!

Hello, Mulligatawny, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! , SqueakBox 04:06, September 11, 2005 (UTC)


I'm glad to see that someone takes the same position on that stupid debate link on all the open formats pages. Thanks. Fsiler 21:38, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Robert's Rules: edition[edit]

It's generally accepted in the parliamentary community that the text I cited from Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised is in fact authoritative, and does indeed reflect that the current version supersedes all previous editions, public domain or otherwise. The new book's copyright status is not material to that discussion. Jay Maynard 00:01, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I said that the 10th Edition of RONR is generally accepted in the parliamentary community as authoritative because it is. I am an active member of that community, and am awaiting final certification as a Professional Registered Parliamentarian from the National Association of Parliamentarians. (I have completed and, I believe, passed the course; I have not received the certificate yet.) If you ask any experienced parliamentarian whether any book that claims to be Robert's Rules of Order is authoritative, he will tell you it is not unless it's the 10th Edition. The same goes for any parliamentary organization. I believe it is less proper for Wikipedia to mislead people as to the acceptability of other books than it is to endorse one particular book. If we lead someone to use a non-authoritative source, have we done them a service? Jay Maynard 18:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Okkay, I'll buy that version. I may tweak the grammar a bit, but I'll leave the substance alone. Jay Maynard 18:43, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

MPEG-1 rigour[edit]

I'm happy to see someone making technical improvements to the MPEG-1 article, but I was specifically trying to make it approachable for an average person. I suspect their eyes will just glaze over when they start reading about "sinusoidal deviations", "statistical decorrelation", etc. I suggest simplifying your improvements a bit, explaining DCT in just enough detail as necessary to understand MPEG coding. The more-technical explanation is more appropriate in the DCT article, with just a link for those more highly interested. I also can't see the value in mentioning quantization in the DCT section at all, particularly since quant is the very next section. You could easily end up filling the DCT section with minor details of RLE, Huff, MVs, etc. as well. But, these are just a couple tips from a barely-interested WP ghost... You're welcome to use them, or ignore them, as you like. Rcooley (talk) 13:51, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the result of my edits being hard to understand. I was just trying to correct things that appeared wrong. I think the main reason that I wanted to put a mention of quantization in that section is that it included a discussion of rounding errors. It wasn't completely clear to me whether this was referring to rounding errors resulting from approximation of the DCT/IDCT processes or from quantization. I think it was referring to quantization since it referred to the rounding errors being sometimes large. I was trying to clarify that by adding a mention of both sources of rounding error. I also thought the opening of the paragraph seemed to be saying that the DCT was how things were encoded, but the DCT is just one step in the process of encoding the data. I suppose I admit that the result is less friendly to read. Sorry about that. I may try to simplify it if I can find the time and inspiration. Feel free to do it if I don't. -Mulligatawny (talk) 01:21, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

MPEG-2 external link removed: why?[edit]

I see that in mpeg-2 you have removed an external link to http://mpegforum.org. Why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fpoto (talkcontribs) 22:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I believe that link was a spam link trying to attract interest to a site that currently has essentially nothing on it. That link was added to the page in a rapid-fire series of similar edits made by an anon IP user 203.91.193.50 on 11 November 2008. The anon user added the same link to many pages on Wikipedia, providing no edit explanations. If you look around at the site found at that external link, you'll see that there's almost nothing there. It is certainly not a well-established resource for useful information. Maybe the person who added the link thinks that the site could become a useful resource someday, but helping other people attract traffic to their sites is not what Wikipedia is for. —Mulligatawny (talk) 22:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
A further look at that site also reveals that most (perhaps all) of the content that is there was put there after the links to it were added on Wikipedia. I suspect that the site didn't even exist until around that time. There is very little there, very low page view numbers, etc. —Mulligatawny (talk) 23:32, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Clearly your analysis was deeper than mine. I was not prepared to this type of false content, so I did not made those checks. Good work. --Pot (talk) 08:30, 10 December 2008 (UTC)