User talk:Be..anyone

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Hi, this is my talk page; I've archived some stuff manually: 1 2.  Feel free to add a comment to a section indented with an additional colon below an existing paragraph.  You can start a  ==new topic== with the new section button, or do it yourself at the bottom.  Please sign your text with  ~~~~ or similar.

Czantoria Wielka[edit]

Czantoria lies only within Cieszyn Silesia Euroregion. May I ask where does your interest in that particular mountain stems from? I live close to it and if not for the today's foggy weather I would have been able to see it from my window. D_T_G (PL) 10:48, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

On commons there are "featured picture" and "quality pictures" projects, the featured pictures end up as picture of the day and the currently running picture of the year contest for all Wikimedia projects. I don't exactly recall how I stumbled over Slezské_Beskydy_-_Rytířská_stezka_(cesta_Nýdek_-_Velká_Čantoryje).JPG, maybe on the "quality image candidates" page.
I liked it and used it as guinea pig for various purposes, learning geocoding (object location on maps), planning a featured picture nomination (handled by the author before I was ready, next year it will be a picture of the year candidate), adding the picture on the corresponding enwiki + dewiki pages, figuring out what the Beskides are (I'm over 50 and never heard of it before), checking the interesting history of the region, the works. TL;DR: Just for fun and (my) education.Face-smile.svgBe..anyone (talk) 01:32, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
I kind of do not like asphalt roads in the mountains, it spoils the atmosphere :P Beskids are actually far bigger than many think they are, as they stretch beyond the border with Ukraine. The name Bieszczady (beautiful mountains, better preserved) has the same etymological origins as Beskidy, it's just pronounced in the Rusyns' way. BTW, I recall you asking for euroregions, I've just found this maps: Cieszyn Silesia & Beskydy euroregions within the Czech Republic. Cheers, D_T_G (PL) 18:49, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

about "votes" in AFDs[edit]

Hi, Be..anyone -- I hope you don't mind that within this diff at the IGOPP AFD, I removed your 2nd "!vote" in that as you !voted further above already. Hmm, some editors hate when others seem to edit their comment(s), i didn't mean to change any meaning of yours, but perhaps I should have asked you here to change your comment instead. Anyhow you can revisit it and adjust how it appears if necessary. sincerely, --doncram 15:51, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

No problem. I'm not sure how voting, which is of course no voting at all, is supposed to go on after a "relist", are still interested folks expected to confirm or update their opinion, or should they ignore a "relist" if they have nothing new to say? –Be..anyone (talk) 16:06, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Whew, thanks, good. I see what you mean, after a relist. What I've observed is that the practice is that no one adds a new "vote", but if there's new info or arguments provided it's common for a person to provide a response or update or affirmation their view hasn't changed, perhaps in a reply (indented) like yours or out at the main level with a leading "*Comment: starting it off. Your comment, indented, was a reply to my statement and your position is quite clear, obviously reaffirmed. What i often do, especially after a lot of new info or opinions, is add a Comment that broadly responds perhaps, maybe adds some new info, and I say at the end, before my sig, something like: "I !voted Keep above." Also I see that many editors do well by speaking just once. And "Delete" or "Keep" appears more influential than "Strong Delete" or "Strong Keep", iMO. Again, thanks for not having a cow. At that AFD, by the way, you're right I didn't provide any info, just gave a pretty much unsupported opinion, although in fact I am informed in some ways on the general topic (which doesn't matter really). Anyhow, I may do some work and add more info later, if/when i have some time. Cheers, --doncram 18:18, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

CutePDF[edit]

Hi Be..anyone, Just a heads up I've Speedy Kept the AFD - Technically I'm obviously not supposed too but I'm sure Ignoring all rules once in a bluemoon isn't going hurt :), Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 23:35, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

"The result was speedy keep. per SK1 (Nom withdrawn)" actually meaning "per ignoring SK1" sounds like fun, maybe it was your bold day.Face-smile.svgBe..anyone (talk) 01:33, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
Hahaha 100% correct! Face-grin.svg, I think at times i'm too-bold but meh it's better than not being bold at all I guess Face-grin.svg, Thanks and Happy Editing :) –Davey2010Talk 01:52, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Vitruvian Barnstar Hires.png The Technical Barnstar
For your continuing efforts to assist editors in need when it counts the most! Thank you. Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way 04:05, 17 April 2015 (UTC)


FFV1 article edits[edit]

Hello. You've recently made quite a lot of changes to the FFV1 article. Most of them are good and make sense, but there are some I'd like to discuss:

  • "External links: unclear 2007 link untested + removed"

Why did you remove the link to the MSU lossless codec comparison that features FFV1?

  • "Applications supporting FFV1: external links outside of references removed"

You've removed almost half of the applications supporting FFV1 (26 => 14). Why?

  • "Suitable as preservation codec: external link in body removed"

You've removed many external links without any replacement. For example "PACKED" (Belgium), etc. Why?

The rooker (talk) 13:10, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Checking, PACKED was an external link in the body (outside of references), that's WP:EL, as noted in the edit summary. And there was and maybe still is a good reference for PACKED. I've removed applications in the table with only an external link, and kept wikilinked applications (= with an article to check what the table says), that's also per WP:EL, or in other words despamming. The MSU lossless reference #4 is still there, including the homepage http://compression.ru/video/index.htm. The 2007 external link wasn't used for anything and is listed on the compression.ru homepage, that's another case of WP:EL.
External links attract spammers is the main rationale of WP:EL from my POV. It also attracts link rot, it's an ordinary maintenance requirement. If you think that something should be mentioned that's perfectly okay, just add it as text with a reference instead of an external link, there are 38 examples in the references section, how this works. An almost minimal model could be <ref>{{cite web |url=http://example.org |title=example page |publisher=[[IANA]] |accessdate=2015-04-20}}</ref>, url+title are required, author+date+publisher are usual. –Be..anyone (talk) 19:17, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Alright! Thanks for clearing that up. I always thought that references should only be used for citation of text/content, not for "just links" to external sites. I'll change the external links to e.g. PACKED and applications supporting FFV1 to text+ref.
What about the link to the MSU codec comparison paper? I could have that as reference too, but I would also put it back under "See also".
Have a nice day :) –The rooker (talk) 20:40, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm happy that you take references for "applications supporting FFV1" seriously. Yet, the applications you've removed do support FFV1, simply by the fact that they build on FFmpeg/LibAV libraries and FFV1 is always built-in by default (I've tested it myself). I would also love to have them mentioning FFV1 support explicitely, but some just don't bother (e.g. AMD), yet they still can process FFV1. For now, I've re-added KEMscan (with reference to datasheet) and Archivematica (with reference to their format policies). I'm in personal contact with developer of Shotcut(MLT), Shotdetect and QCTools, and I'll ask them if they can mention FFV1 officially, so we can point to a reference :)
Is that okay with you? I definitely don't want to give the impression of a hostile editor-war :)
About some Archivematica page not loading in Chrome: I'm sure Archivematica will want to fix that. Could you give me details about what didn't work? –The rooker (talk) 10:27, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Everything that somehow mentions FFV1 or libavcodec is possible, e.g., the new KEMscan reference is clear, and it looks like a relevant product for archival purposes. For Shotdetect my vague impression was "some project in the direction of Mediainfo or FFprobe with a notability of zilch", maybe relevant on the Shotcut/MLT pages, but not on FFV1, where Shotcut/MLT are already covered. As of today Archivemetica works for me, they installed a new certificate issued on April, 27. The UVD and Avivo pages don't mention anything in the direction of FFmpeg, and with my "Mobility Radeon for VAIO" I gave up on trying to install Catalyst (bypassing their Sony etc. blocks) years ago, new versions didn't work on my box. I also don't recall ATI/AMD on the hall of shame when it still existed, have they really copied FFmpeg and "forgotten" the credits + GPL? –Be..anyone (talk) 21:50, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Template:oldprodfull[edit]

Hi Be..anyone. FYI, you only should add {{oldprodfull}} if you remove a prod or if it was restored following a WP:REFUND request. Adding it when you add the prod is unnecessary. --B (talk) 21:30, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Sadly nobody ever does this, and I arrived several times at a point, where my new PROD with old prod full was ready, and I stumbled over an older PROD on the user talk page for a PROD courtesy info. Which would in theory force me to undo the whole exercise and maybe reconstruct the missing old {{old prod full}}. At the end of the day there will be a documented contested {{old prod full}}, because I add the con details later if necessary, or the article is gone. No harm done, IMO. Folks removing a PROD never find clear instructions in {{old prod full}}, because they don't know it, apparently. –Be..anyone (talk) 22:02, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Album cover[edit]

Hello, Be..anyone. On May 2, 2015 you deleted my 300x300 version of the cover for Misplaced Childhood and said that there's "no obvious reason in the fair use rarionales why 300x300 should be better than 600x600." But on this page it's clearly stated that covers should ideally be 300x300, at least not exceeding 100.000 in total. The explanation of use of low resolution is indicated in the "Low resolution?" section: "The copy is of sufficient resolution for commentary and identification but lower resolution than the original cover. Copies made from it will be of inferior quality, unsuitable as artwork on pirate versions or other uses that would compete with the commercial purpose of the original artwork." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vlattenham (talkcontribs) 05:38, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

That's a template, not a policy. Once an image with the convoluted "fair use rationale" was accepted by a reviewer repeating the exercise for a smaller image would be pointless. But I don't recall if that was the case for the two affected covers, and just assumed that it was an error to delete the older (maybe reviewed) dupe instead of the newer (unreviewed) dupe. The timeout should be still ticking, if you think it's an interesting general issue maybe flip one dupe per pair to an ordinary deletion debate for more feedback. –Be..anyone (talk) 06:05, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

May 2015[edit]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at KMPlayer shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Please wait until the issue has been resolved on ANI. You are causing unnecessary edit warring based on edits no one seems to agree upon. Callmemirela (Go Habs Go!) 23:07, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Check out Talk:KMPlayer#Malware, chime in if you feel like it, and above all revert your insertion of an unnecessary—at this point in the article—Potentially Unwanted Program link, this can't be what you really want. –Be..anyone (talk) 23:26, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
I am not involving myself in this mess. You, and the other users, should give it a rest until the issue has been resolved at ANI. The reverts you do will only guarantee you a block. Take a break. If anymore reverts are made, I will ask for RPP, because it's getting out of hand and causing drama. Nobody is respecting WP:Consensus, WP:DISPUTE or WP:3RR. Malware or not, wait until it's been resolved. All rules are being disrespected and that is never good for anybody with any user rights. Callmemirela (Go Habs Go!) 23:36, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Well, there's certainly nothing I still can revert, but the one and only D of the BRD essay was Talk:KMPlayer#Malware, before it hit ANI, because it wasn't clear when the other contributor would be online again, and intentionally leaving potentially dangerous links hot on a page is not my style. –Be..anyone (talk) 23:46, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Invitation to comment on VP proposal: Establish WT:MoS as the official site for style Q&A on Wikipedia[edit]

You are being contacted because of your participation in the proposal to create a style noticeboard. An alternate solution, the full or partial endorsement of the style Q&A currently performed at WT:MoS, is now under discussion at the Village Pump. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:31, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Your edit to Epoch (reference date)[edit]

In this edit] you used a book by Cowlishaw to support the claim that ISO 2014 uses January 1, AD 1 as an epoch. In the Wikipedia article, a computing epoch is described as " The time in these systems is stored as the quantity of a particular time unit (days, seconds, nanoseconds, etc.) that has elapsed since a stated time (usually midnight UTC at the beginning of the given date)." Would you please provide a quote from Cowlishaw to explain how January 1, AD 1, meets the articles description of a computing epoch? I can't find a copy of ISO 2014, but brief descriptions of it seem to indicate dates are indicated in the format 2015-07-07 (for today). That is not a quantity of a time unit since an epoch. Jc3s5h (talk) 11:53, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

The 3rd column "rationale for selection" states, why "notable uses" in the 2nd columm adopted an "epoch date" in the 1st column. The "base date" option for REXX-function date('B') counts days since 0001-01-01 based on the ISO 2014 yyyy-mm-dd notation. The later ISO 8601 did not yet exist when Mike Cowlishaw created REXX. It's a proleptic Gregorian calendar base date as explained on Talk:Epoch_(reference_date)#Rationale_cell_for_January_1.2C_1. The "standard" option date('S') returns yyyymmdd. Pseudo screen-shot using a feature introduced in the ANSI REXX standard:
[REXX] parse version V; say V
REXX-ooRexx_4.2.0(MT)_64-bit 6.04 22 Feb 2014
[REXX] say date('S') date('B') date('B', 00010101, 'S') date('S', 0, 'B')
20150709 735787 0 00010101
Be..anyone (talk) 06:08, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
OK, REXX uses January 1, AD 1, Gregorian as an epoch. REXX satisfies the article's definition of a computing epoch because it counts days since the epoch. But Cowlishaw doesn't make a statement that ISO 2014 uses January 1, AD 1. Cowlishaw doesn't say ISO 2014 specifies a notation that counts days since January 1, AD 1. Since there is no evidence that ISO 2014 specifies a notation that counts days since January 1, AD 1, or any other date (except perhaps the beginning of each year) ISO 2014 does not have anything that meets the article's definition of a computing epoch, so ISO 2014 should not be in the table. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:35, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
The row as it is now is fine. Page 93 offers ISO 2104 for the "standard" option, page 92 explains "base" (in essence the text on the talk page from the IBM online source), and page 177 states that "base" replaced a former "century" to (quote) count days since a theoretical base date of 1 January 0001 (unquote). –Be..anyone (talk) 15:48, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
OK, if the REXX book says ISO 2014 was a factor in deciding on Jan. 1, AD 1, then it is OK in the rationale column. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:21, 9 July 2015 (UTC)