User talk:GrandDrake

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

Your rollback request[edit]

Hello GrandDrake, I have granted your account rollback in accordance with your request. Please remember that rollback is for reverting vandalism, and that misuse of the tool, either by revert-warring with other users, or simply reverting edits you disagree with, can lead to it being removed. For practice, you may wish to see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback. Good luck. Acalamari 00:55, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Title discussion[edit]

Hi. I noticed you're name at the talk page for WP:Article titles and was wondering if you could comment at this discussion regarding a website's trademarked stylization. Dan56 (talk) 22:21, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

UHDTV/IMAX note[edit]

In case you're wondering if mathematic calculation based on facts is considered original research, it simply is not: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SYNTH#Routine_calculations

Additionally, check the 70mm and IMAX articles for the basis of the film gate dimensions, do the simple math against 4k/8k scanning (dpi, 4k) and you'll realize the NHK reference provides not only zero data for how it arrived at said graph of comparisons but that it is also flat out wrong in the first place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.227.179 (talk) 07:22, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid your calculation is based on a misunderstanding. I've explained it at Talk:Ultra_high_definition_television#Comparison_with_IMAX. - Pointillist (talk) 11:57, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Your HEVC edit today[edit]

That was fast! –Mulligatawny (talk) 21:07, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I was reading the draft to see what changes had been made and decided to make updates to the article at the same time. The range extensions profiles shouldn't be changed after this meeting though there might be profiles that have not yet been added to the draft. --GrandDrake (talk) 02:40, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 19[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited High Efficiency Video Coding, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page High dynamic range. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 7[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Blu-ray Disc
added a link pointing to High dynamic range
Rec. 2020
added a link pointing to High dynamic range
Ultra high definition television
added a link pointing to High dynamic range

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:13, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 14[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited High Efficiency Video Coding implementations and products, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page High dynamic range. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

September 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to High Efficiency Video Coding may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • com/main/programs/HEVC/Documents/HEVCweb.pdf |format=PDF |date=2014-09-29 |accessdate=2014-09-29}}}</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:35, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to MPEG LA may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • com/main/programs/HEVC/Documents/HEVCweb.pdf |format=PDF |date=2014-09-29 |accessdate=2014-09-29}}}</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 03:40, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Stylization of the "common name"[edit]

In January 2013 there was a "RfC on COMMONSTYLE proposal" at WT:AT in which you expressed an interest. FYI there is a similar debate taking place at the moment, see Wikipedia talk:Article titles#Stylization of the "common name" -- PBS-AWB (talk) 12:17, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 29[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Daala, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bit depth (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 23 July[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:22, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

submission of Daala to IETF[edit]

How did you come to your statement that "On March 25, 2015, Daala was proposed to the IETF for their NETVC video standard"? From a quick look it doesn't seem like the cited sources mention Daala, submissions, proposals, 25th of March, ... at all. Officially submitted material so far only contains documents describing individual techniques, no complete format. All of these submissions happened after March. I'm gonne remove those parts from the article - right?..--Flugaal (talk) 15:45, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

One of the references changed since it linked to the current IETF meeting and I corrected that. Both references now mention Daala. --GrandDrake (talk) 01:48, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Still, no mention of Daala being submitted. And from what I can see in the whole collection of draft documents for NetVC so far, there's “only” a series of individual coding tools proposed, not a complete format. So I would say your wording (“Daala was proposed”) is wrong and the one I had introduced meanwhile was more precise.

Another thing: Do you think it's important to mention Opus again (with a whole sentence) in the NetVC section? It's already there in the history section.--Flugaal (talk) 10:11, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

The Tom's Hardware article refers to Daala, Daala was presented for NETVC at the March meeting, and I added another reference. --GrandDrake (talk) 02:42, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Still, again: That following sentence is not correct as it stands:

“On March 25, 2015, Daala was proposed to the IETF for their Internet Video Codec (NETVC) video standard.”

Your new reference also does not mention Maarch 25, it only mentions a talk on Daala and not it being officially proposed for the standard. There is the complete collection of submissions that I linnked (tools.ietf.org/wg/netvc), which clearly shows that only a series of individual coding techniques from Daala are officially proposed/submitted. Also, IETF does not "rubberstamp" (as they say) any one submitted format proposal, but instead freely develop something different out of the input they get. I'm gonna edit that sentence again, as it does state wrong or at least misleading things.--Flugaal (talk) 12:11, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Well they said in their IETF presentation that "We would like to contribute it as a potential candidate for NETVC" and Daala was the only thing presented at the March IETF meeting. --GrandDrake (talk) 12:53, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

The current wording is more appropriate, I think. Still, describing it as a "candidate" sounds exactly like a contest, where one "candidate" is chosen in the end to get this "rubberstamp". There seems to be a strong consensus against that.

Meanwhile they also have the Thor codec, which - unlike Daala - has been submitted as a complete format. And Daala devs are taking tools from it to improve their prototype. That's what it is so far: an unfinished prototype. They presented a version of it in March and moved beyond that themselves. That "candidate" they presented is obsolete. Those tools they proposed are not. They are the candidates. They will make it through the contest - or not.--Flugaal (talk) 20:52, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

The reference uses the word "candidate" so I am going by what the reference uses. --GrandDrake (talk) 02:58, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

“We would like to contribute it as a potential candidate”

Please note the use of the conditional mood in that sentence, which indicates that it is “a proposition whose validity is dependent on some condition, possibly counterfactual”.--Flugaal (talk) 07:25, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

That meeting was to decide whether to start work on NETVC and that would explain their choice of wording. Also the Cisco website states that Thor is not complete and that they are still developing it. --GrandDrake (talk) 02:45, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Request for comment[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion on the deprecation of Template:English variant notice. Since you've had some involvement with the English variant notice template, you might want to participate in the discussion if you have not already done so.Godsy(TALKCONT) 07:18, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 2[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Alliance for Open Media, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Amazon (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

[edit]

Have you noticed the print on the shirts that the Daala team wears when presenting on Daala or the title banner on the last progress update page? And the favicon for their continuous integration testing website https://arewecompressedyet.com/ ?--Flugaal (talk) 12:20, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 9[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited NETVC, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page High dynamic range (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:41, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 3[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Standard dynamic range, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page High dynamic range (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Rec. 2020[edit]

Dear GrandDrake: The diagram near the top of the article Rec. 2020 is a chromaticity diagram, not a color space diagram. Chromaticity spaces are lacking a dimension to be color spaces. The diagram shows the chromaticity coordinates of ITU BT.2020 primaries and white point, and does not show a color space. If you would like to refer to use the term "color space" in the caption, the diagram should be of a color space. If such a diagram is available, you may wish to replace the current chromaticity diagram with a color space diagram. Otherwise, the recent edit and reversion you performed there, which I believe you performed in good faith, should be undone. Thank you! Lovibond (talk) 23:15, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 10[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rec. 2020, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page High dynamic range (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:58, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Summary style[edit]

The High dynamic range article suddenly seems way out of balance with the new video section. In a summary-style article, short sections should be summarizing and linking more detailed content articles. Dicklyon (talk) 03:37, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

That is the main article on high dynamic range and no one calls it high-dynamic-range imaging video. --GrandDrake (talk) 03:40, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution[edit]

Information icon Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from High-dynamic-range imaging into High-dynamic-range video. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa (talk) 02:54, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, GrandDrake. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

HEVC - Patent Licensing reversions[edit]

Hi GrandDrake. The information I added was factual, well understood, and more accurate than the information it replaced. It was nowhere close to being promotion. For example, the article states that HEVC patents are owned by various companies. It is more accurate and informative to say they are owned by the companies that contributed to the standard. Do you disagree? The article states that patent license fees must be paid to use HEVC. This is not accurate. There are many cases where people or businesses may use HEVC without paying patent license fees. For example, using a device for which royalties were already paid by the manufacturer, or using HEVC software in countries that don't recognize software patents (like France). My edits were much more accurate and informative. I don't understand why you would consider any of my edits to be promotion. Can you explain? Thanks. Tvaughan1 (talk) 19:11, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

The first issue is that HEVC patents might be owned by companies that are not members of ISO/IEC and ITU. The second issue is that saying that patent pools are "organized for the convenience of both licensors and licensees" makes it sound like a press release. The creation of a patent pool is mostly about money since it helps with patent enforcement and extends the patent royalties to the last active patent owned by the group. An example would be MPEG-2 in which companies are still getting royalties years after their last MPEG-2 patent had expired since other companies had active patents. Also software patents are enforced by almost the entire planet so in terms of WP:WEIGHT it is accurate to say that HEVC requires payment of royalties. --GrandDrake (talk) 23:32, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. Obviously, we both want the most accurate description of the situation. Can you cite any source that indicates that HEVC patents may be held by any company that did not participate in the JCT-VC? I'm not aware of any such company or claim. I think it's much more accurate to say that companies that contributed to the HEVC standard may hold patents on the technology (until we have any indication that there are some patents that are held outside the contributors to the standard - which would be not RAND encumbered, so that would be very newsworthy). Second, all use-cases don't require a patent license or payment of fees, and the current HEVC article erroneously states.

The current article says "HEVC requires the payment of royalties to licensors of the patents, such as MPEG LA, HEVC Advance, Technicolor SA, and Velos Media". That statement is misleading on so many levels it's hard to know where to start. What if I buy an encoder from company A, and encode my video as HEVC. Do I have to pay royalties? Of course not. But reading this statement a typical reader wouldn't go near HEVC with a 10 foot pole.

Saying that patent pools are "organized for the convenience of both licensors and licensees" is factual, more accurate and informative. The average Wikipedia reader is not aware of this fact, but it's important. The point is that companies don't have to license patents through these pools, they can go straight to the individual patent holders (which is what the bigger companies tend to do, in part because they already have technology cross-license agreements in place with many of the patent holders, and in part because they have huge patent portfolios that they can utilize both defensively and offensively). Saying that "The creation of a patent pool is mostly about money since it helps with patent enforcement and extends the patent royalties to the last active patent owned by the group." is negatively biased towards patent licensing bodies and certainly not WP:NPOV. Would you expect small companies to negotiate separate license agreements with each and every HEVC patent holder? There is a reason why MPEG LA was scrutinized by the US Department of Justice Antitrust division when it was set up, and why the DOJ determined that patent pools are on the whole pro-consumer. https://www.justice.gov/atr/chapter-3-antitrust-analysis-portfolio-cross-licensing-agreements-and-patent-pools

I'm not in any way defending MPEG LA, HEVC Advance or any other patent licensor or license body. But there is far too much FUD and confusion out there around the patent licensing situation, and the clear picture needs to communicated and understood. The only remaining patents in the MPEG-2 pool, by the way, are a couple of system patents, not coding patents. Any licensor could terminate their MPEG-2 license if they weren't infringing these patents (if they were only encoding and/or decoding MPEG-2 video). Again, any licensee could obtain all necessary patents individually from the patent holders... they don't have to go through MPEG LA. Also keep in mind that the terms that these patent licensing bodies have offered are not the final word on the subject. Patent holders who contributed to the standard have a RAND obligation, and until the market agrees with their terms, no judge will agree that they've met that obligation. Any HEVC adopter could challenge patent holders, and a judge could declare what is reasonable (as was done recently for AVC patents in Microsoft v Motorola).

Software patents are filed in each individual country, or in the EU. It's not at all accurate to say that "software patents are enforced by almost the entire planet" with respect to HEVC. Software patents are not even recognized in many countries, and HEVC patents were not filed for in every country or region of the world. Ask the guys at VideoLan, in France, how they've managed to stay in business for so many years. Tvaughan1 (talk) 00:28, 1 June 2017 (UTC)