User talk:Mikus

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

Contents

Welcome[edit]

Hello Mikus, 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! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 19:27, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Aleko[edit]

Great to see another fan of this cool car, this is the one of mine (JS's Aleko:-)


Image Tagging Image:AZLK svjatogor.jpg[edit]

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:AZLK svjatogor.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Longhair 09:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Simca 1308.jpg)[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Simca 1308.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 'image' 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 "Image" 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. BetacommandBot 07:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:JVC GZ-MG555.jpg[edit]

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:JVC GZ-MG555.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 19:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Standard Vanguard[edit]

Can you provide references for the comparison to the Russian car ? RGCorris (talk) 08:20, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits[edit]

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button Button sig.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 01:22, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Canon hf100 with memory card.jpg[edit]

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Canon hf100 with memory card.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 18:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC) --J Milburn (talk) 18:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Apologies for not replying, I don't generally watch the IfD pages. Everything you say is correct, and I do apologise if it seems like I have assumed bad faith or offended you in any way. It does look like a rather professional photograph (I guess that is a compliment) and my guess that it was taken from a website was obviously correct- in the vast majority of these cases, the images have just been casually stolen. I have closed the discussion and will remove the deletion notice from the image page in a sec. J Milburn (talk) 21:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Mod tod file format.gif[edit]

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Mod tod file format.gif. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sdrtirs (talk) 12:01, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

R-7 (missile)[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of R-7 (missile), and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: R-7 Semyorka. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 06:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Cut and paste moves[edit]

Information.svg Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to give R-7 Semyorka a different title by copying its content and pasting it into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is considered undesirable because it splits the page history which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other articles that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Please note that due to naming conventions, the original title would have been preferable, and in most cases it is better to discuss moves before making them. --GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 08:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Aleko 2141.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Aleko 2141.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 23:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


Image permission problem with Image:Souyz-2-fregat.jpg[edit]

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:Souyz-2-fregat.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the image (or other media file) agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

  • make a note permitting reuse under the GFDL or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
  • Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the image to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the image has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the image's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Images lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -MBK004 02:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


Image permission problem with Image:Soyuz-st.jpg[edit]

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:Soyuz-st.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the image (or other media file) agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

  • make a note permitting reuse under the GFDL or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
  • Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the image to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the image has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the image's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Images lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -MBK004 02:55, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Violation of Wikipedia rules and best practices: Pixel Aspect Ratio[edit]

Greetings, Mikus.

I'm calling in to inform you that we are irritated by your constant violation of Wikipedia rules and best practices in Pixel aspect ratio article. Me and my colleagues have worked for weeks to perfect the aforementioned article. While we are open to criticism and appreciate positive editing, you have twice added POV materials to it, disrespected us by initiating an edit war and failed to explain your misbehavior in the talk page. Please kindly report to the talk page and explain yourself. Fleet Command (talk)

We are still awaiting your explanation, Mikus. Please report in and resolve the dispute. I've fixed the link for you to point right to discussion thread. Fleet Command (talk) 07:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

HDV introduction[edit]

In your February 13th edit of the HDV video format introduction you changed the wording to describe it as an "entry level" format and wrote in your notes "Anything worse than it?". These are subjective comments which do not belong in an impartial discussion of the format, which is widely used for many professional purposes including broadcast television programming. And yes, there are HD variants which are "worse" than HDV, like AVCHD at low bit rates or other low-bandwidth HD solutions. Please refrain from any future edits of the HDV page which reflect a bias against the format relative to other alternatives, especially in the introduction section.Kwshaw1 (talk) 15:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't get hung up on comments, what counts is actual article content. Sony itself defines HDV as an entry-level HD standard, period. If you want, I can provide a reference. It was the cheapest and the lowest quality HD standard before AVCHD appeared. AVCHD is no worse than HDV, and no better, these are pretty much comparable standards. The fact that HDV is used for broadcast does not change the fact that this is one of the lowest forms of HD. Anything can be used for broadcast if content is interesting. BBC still considers HDV as form of standard definition video, if you did not know. But BBC is snobbish about that and breaks its own rules often. I am not saying that HDV is bad. I never expressed negative opinion about HDV. I own an HDV camera myself and if you have noticed, I made quite a few edits in this article to expand the information on the subject. Please refrain from any future edits of the HDV page which reflect a bias towards the format relative to other alternatives, especially in the introduction section. Also, do not litter the intro with information that is already discussed and linked to in the article body. Mikus (talk) 17:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Insisting on describing HDV as "entry level" seems biased to me, but for the sake of keeping things civil I'll leave that in for now. How Sony describes it for marketing purposes is irrelevant to an impartial definition, and you've also mischaracterized the BBC definition of HDV - which I have researched and corrected previously on the HDV page. And while AVCHD can be better than HDV at high bit rates it is worse at low ones, so with AVCHD you have to know the recording bandwidth to assess the quality level. I find it amusing that you quoted my advice to you about keeping the HDV intro impartial when you're the one using non-neutral terms like "entry level", but I took some of your recommendations into account in revising the text to combine our respective comments. Kwshaw1 (talk) 15:58, 27 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kwshaw1 (talkcontribs)

Soyuz-2[edit]

In response, I did not revert your edits because I do not like them. There are some policies that you violated with those edits. You can not just simply replace most if not all of the contents of an article with your version and expect that to stand. We work on a consensus-based editing philosophy. Simply put, if you want to make drastic changes to an existing article, you must discuss them first on the talk page with the editors who have and are actively involved with the article. Also, creating an article which closely mirrors or even duplicates the content of another article is also something that is not encouraged, especially since the information on Soyuz-ST could and was easily be integrated into the Soyuz-2 article. And finally, the images that you uploaded were copyrighted and are not permissible for use here. I believe that GW Simulations (talk · contribs) incorporated the cited and verifiable information from your edits into the article as it currently exists. If you have more information you wish to contribute to the article, please make a proposal on the talk page along with liberally citing your verifiable and reliable sources. If you wish to upload images, please be sure that they meet the image use policy. -MBK004 05:19, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Samsung BD-P1200[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

I have nominated Samsung BD-P1200, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sony BDP-S1. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Ejfetters (talk) 14:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

This article is not an advertisement like the S1. Quite contrary, this is supposed to be a collection of useful knowledge about the player. Do not even think about deleting it. Mikus (talk) 16:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is not supposed to be a collection of useful knowledge about the player, the player in itself isn't notable. See WP:NOTCATALOG

Articles for deletion nomination of Canon HV30[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

I have nominated Canon HV30, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canon DV 012. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Ejfetters (talk) 01:26, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Canon HF100[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

I have nominated Canon HF100, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canon DV 012. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Ejfetters (talk) 01:30, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Canon Elura 100[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

I have nominated Canon Elura 100, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canon DV 012. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Ejfetters (talk) 01:34, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Mikus. You have new messages at GW Simulations's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

GW 18:34, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Another one --GW 20:14, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Rocket Science (miniseries)[edit]

I saw this article, and it seemed like you wanted to use it as a temporary page to construct the article. If you want a place to use while you construct the article you can create it at your own personal sandbox such as User:Mikus/Sandbox. After you have finished making the article it may then moved into the article space. Feinoha Talk, My master 21:41, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of A Very English Murder[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

A tag has been placed on A Very English Murder requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:13, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

FYI[edit]

RE: Sony BDP-S1

You participated in the first AFD, there is now a third: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sony BDP-S1 (3rd nomination) Please take the time to comment. Ikip (talk) 02:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Was it the first one? Ikip (talk) 04:12, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Reverted at f-number again[edit]

Mikus, no problem if the material is sourced, but you've put it back again without citing your source, so we can't verify it. Next time, include a citation that shows those numbers, and it will be OK. Dicklyon (talk) 22:46, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. It has nothing to do with what I believe, except that I believe we should stick to policy when editing areas that traditionally accumulate a lot of junk otherwise. Dicklyon (talk) 23:08, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:Sprinter-01.jpg[edit]

File:Sprinter-01.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Sprinter light rail train.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Sprinter light rail train.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 05:57, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: The New Great Game[edit]

Hello Mikus, I basically already wrote what you're asking on the article's talkpage. I moved the quotes to wikiquote:The New Great Game because Wikiquote is a much more suitable place for a collection of quotes than Wikipedia. In Wikipedia, you should only write articles with your own words. Of course, it's perfectly fine to quote reliable sources, but the quotes should be integrated into the prose of your article. If it's just a collection of quotes, it's better to put them at Wikiquote and provide a link to the Wikiquote page in the Wikipedia article. You can see a Wikiquote template containing such link in the Additional Reading section of the article. — Kpalion(talk) 10:07, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: HDV[edit]

As previously requested, please try to keep your comments on the HDV page more neutral. For example, the use of the term "non-HD format" may be an accurate reference to some broadcast standards documents, but it's potentially confusing given that HDV *is* an HD recording format whether the BBC and PBS accept it as such or not.

I continue to wonder why you put so much emphasis on the negatives of HDV without posting similar comments for other recording formats like AVCHD - which also doesn't satisfy the BBC and PBS HD standards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kwshaw1 (talkcontribs) 14:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Notices[edit]

January 2010[edit]

Information.svg Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add content (particularly if you change facts and figures), as you have to the article DirecTV, please cite a reliable source for the content you're adding or changing. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. Take a look at Wikipedia:Citing sources for information about how to cite sources and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. --hulmem (talk) 01:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Information.svg Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button Button sig.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. Jasmeet_181 (talk) 21:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

BBC HD, HD Lite[edit]

The BBC is a broadcaster not an service provider/operator. They have reduced the bitrate of BBC HD on Astra 2D themselves, there has never been a reduction in resolution or re-transmition. The BBC does not cite limitations of existing HD video cameras, different shooting style and improved codec as reasons to reduce the bit rate, they say that it is because of the introduction of new transmission encoders.[1] - Jasmeet_181 (talk) 07:35, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

BBC HD has been at 1440x1080 since it began as a trial service, the resolution is within European Broadcasting Union guidelines for HD broadcasts.[2] If you have a source to back up your claim that it has changed, then cite it, the burden of evidence is with you. Yes, I have read the article and some of the things you have said (HD cameras and shooting style) are cited as reasons that the picture may not always be sharp or can give poor results but not why the bitrate has dropped. From one of Andy Quested's own posts "But in this case (and because some of the posts had asked for the results) we did because we were making a comparison between two devices using the same codec through the same path."[3] Negating you claim of new codecs. I don't find comments from the general public to be acceptable sources, I will specifically refer you to this "Posts left by readers may never be used as sources."[4] I see that you've also now added that the BBC wish add more HD channels, what is this other channel? "The BBC is not launching BBC One HD early next year on Freeview - as one newspaper report has suggested."[5] A different platform (digital terrestrial television) and a denial. Admittedly, I am not familiar with the term HD Lite but in this case the source (BBC) has reduced the bitrates by themselves, through an advancement in technology (new transmission encoders), rather than an operator intentionally altering and re-broadcasting the channel at a lower quality. - Jasmeet_181 (talk) 21:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Replacing good edits with rubbish[edit]

Your edit to the article AVCHD has been reverted. Check with the Panasonic specifications before you replace material with your rubbish.

The HDC-xx700 series camorders support true full HD progressive video recording in 1080/50p in Europe and 1080/60p in the US. The Panasonic specification for the camcorders (now cited from the article) says so and the real camcorders also say so. The video is written at 28 Mbps (double the 17 Mbps for the interlaced format - the data rate would be the same if the progressive were to be encoded into an interlaced frame). The resultant AVCHD format is proprietary to Panasonic.

It would be quite impossible to format 1080/50p or 1080/60p video using a progressive segmented frame technique as it would require the video to be carried in a 1080/100i or 1080/120i signal respectively. Such a signal format does not exist and no display that I am aware of supports it. 86.176.155.137 (talk) 16:49, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately,it is you that needs to learn about the subject. You claimed that the 1080/50p mode was PsF in your edit summary which it most certainly isn't. Also do not remove citations which are mandatory in wikipedia. I will conceed the point on 1080/24p which obviously has to be PsF. I regard it as a totally pointless format in a camcorder anyway.
86.176.155.137 (talk) 13:23, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Your change reverted and corrected. Rather than correct, you just delete an important point. It didn't strike me as right anyway. Still a totally pointless format in any context.
Quote from your edit summary "50Hz model still uses PsF, 60Hz model uses 24p-in-60i pulldown, just like the previous models." Both statements are quite wrong. You seem hell bent on removing the statement that these camcorder models operate to full the 1080/50p and 1080/60p format (respectively) suggesting that you do not accept it. In which case: produce a valid citation that supports your position and proves that Panasonic know nothing about their own products.
Also for your information: Windows Media Player is not a linear editing package despite your claim to the contrary.86.176.155.137 (talk) 06:51, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Once again you have removed the words 'Full Specification' from the article AVCHD. Once again you have failed to provide a valid citation as to why the camcorder models are not full specification 1080/50p or 1080/60p respectively. You are unlikely to find such a citation because like it or not the camcorders are full specification 1080/x0p.
I have to point out that simply removing other people's contributions without providing a valid citation as to why is vandalism under Wikipedia's editing policy (See WP:VANDAL) 86.183.27.13 (talk) 13:17, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Persistent Vandalism[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to List of Panasonic Camcorders, you will be blocked from editing.

Once again you have vandalised a Wikipedia page in that you have removed the contributions of another. If you have not already done so then review the vandalism policy at WP:VANDAL. Citations have been added for my restored comment - and from Panasonic no less. 86.179.109.42 (talk) 15:15, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Further Vandalism and now Abuse and Ownership of Articles[edit]

Stop hand nuvola.svg This is the final warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits.
The next time you delete or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did to List of Panasonic Camcorders, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

You have once again deleteted properly cited and important material. Fortunately restored by another editor but that does not excuse you actions. If you vandalise one more article, you will be reported for suspension of your editing rights. I have now counted no less than five instances of vandalism in just the last month.

Stop hand nuvola.svg This is the final warning you will receive regarding your disruptive comments.
If you continue to make personal attacks on other people, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people.

Your false allegations of vandalism in the article edit summary is abuse of another editor (not close to as I.B.Wright suggests). If you do it again, you will be reported for abuse and your editing rights will most likely be revoked. It is all the worse as your response is a repost to your own vandalism.

Nuvola apps important.svg Please stop assuming ownership of articles. Doing so may lead to disruptive behavior such as edit wars and is a violation of policy, which may lead to a block from editing.

You do not own any of the articles that you persistently vandalise (as you hint at in the discussion page and have practiced in at least 2 articles - the ones I know about). You are not the arbiter of what belongs in an article and what doesn't as you seem to have appointed yourself. If just 2 people vote that it is irrelevant to the article, as seems to be the current case then you are out voted and your content does not belong. Content is by consensus.

As you clearly have not yet done so, I suggest you review WP:VANDAL without delay before you lose your editing rights. 86.181.52.243 (talk) 07:19, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

You've been warned[edit]

You have now been formally reported for vandalism; abuse and taking ownership of pages.

Your recent vandalism of AVCHD for blanking a whole section of material that you had no right to delete is the last straw. It is clear that you acting as arbitrator as to what may or may not appear in articles which is resolutely dissallowed. I trust your editing rights will be permanently revoked. 86.176.155.85 (talk) 16:25, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

"Dude, if you cannot discern vandalism from normal editing process than I cannot help you."
How you can possibly believe that deleting a whole section (Compatibility between Brands) complete with 2 paragraphs of material is normal editing is anybody's guess. Under the Wikipedia rules it is vandalism. In spite of what you may believe, you have no right to decide what others put in articles. Ownership of articles is also expressly forbidden. 86.176.155.85 (talk) 16:38, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
How you can possibly believe that deleting a whole section (Compatibility between Brands) complete with 2 paragraphs of material is normal editing is anybody's guess. Under the Wikipedia rules it is vandalism. In spite of what you may believe, you have no right to decide what others put in articles. Ownership of articles is also expressly forbidden" -- This is editing, not blanking. I moved the info into relevant sections, corrected it and removed unverified claims. If you don't appreciate the change, put the old stuff back, and if I still want to make my change I will discuss it with you like in a civilized manner. Instead you are reporting me as a vandal. Geez. Mikus (talk) 17:55, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
The emboldened part above is your self confession at vandalism. Verified or not, you have no right to just remove any content whatsoever. That's 'blanking'. It's also ownership of articles - also expressly forbidden. You clearly still haven't read the material on vandalism. Much material on wikipedia is 'unverified' in that it doesn't include a citation (even some whole articles). However, the contribution stands by concensus. Just because you as an obvious 'knowitall' doesn't happen to know one bit of information doesn't make it untrue. Your vandalism has been reverted with a citation. 86.176.155.85 (talk) 07:33, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
"Verified or not, you have no right to just remove any content whatsoever. That's 'blanking'." -- Do you understand what you are saying? That articles can be only added to, not edited? You have some perverted idea of blanking. Mikus (talk) 23:05, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia's rules not mine.
You still haven't read the rules have you? You can add content. You can edit what's there (provided you improve it). What you can't do, is delete someone else's contribution just because you don't want it in 'your' article - or the know it all in you doesn't know it after all. That's vandalism. It's also ownership of articles, both of which are forbidden. How would you like it if I started deleting all your contributions? 86.176.155.85 (talk) 15:14, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

A further example of your persistent vandalism and ownership of articles has been restored - and refered to the administators as further evidence of your persistent vandalism despite the final warning above. Your above confession has also been refered. 86.176.155.85 (talk) 14:39, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I B Wright – what's up with that guy?[edit]

Hi. After a rather unpleasant, grueling experience with I B Wright (and what currently seems to be his alter ego, 86.182.66.217) on my talk page and elsewhere, I decided to take a look at the history of his talk page and and wasn't too surprised to find that he clashed with many other users in the past, you among them.

And while I think it was wrong of some of you to threaten him with being blocked (for tendentious editing, personal attacks, harassment or whatever), he's really damaging Wikipedia, putting falsehoods in article after article (I'm still not sure as to why he does what he does: Is he really serious, or is this all some kind of a very bad joke? Or maybe he's got some, um, "other issues" to deal with?). Isn't there anything that can be done short of revoking his editing rights (which already had been tried once before)? Couldn't it be arranged that his changes must be approved by someone higher up before they are applied? Oh, well, that's probably not feasible, still, it's comforting to see that I'm not the only one who's had a close encounter of the third kind with this unnerving guy... Thanks!

By the way, did you ever read the self-description on his user page?

"[...]he has a wide ranging knowledge on some often surprising subjects.

Note: I B Wright is not his real name, but an apposite if modest description."

It doesn't get much more disconnected from reality than that.

Regards – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 21:49, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Tragic new developments on my talk page. Regards – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 12:33, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Hey, Mikus. I just wanted to let you know that, should you decide to take steps against I B Wright (who's still lying low, it seems), I won't be able to chime in until the end of July, as I'm goin' travelin' some. Would be great if you could check my talk page for vandalism by our mutual "friend" every now and then (and maybe tell Ginbot86 where I am, in case he should ask); DON'T feel in any way obliged to do so, though.
Regards – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 10:53, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
After two months of silence, the sage continues here and here. – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 14:34, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

AVCHD[edit]

Hi. Why you keep insisting on the example with 18Mbps? 18Mbps is the maximum, the average will be lower. 12Mbps average is reasonable.--Ancient Anomaly (talk) 23:17, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it was me who put down 12 Mbit/s number. I thought I did not pull it out of thin air. Indeed, I checked all DVD-based models ever produced (not that many), and they are all capped at 12 Mbit/s (Canon, Sony) or 13 Mbit/s (Panasonic). So I modified the section on DVD media, and wanted to make the same change you just made to justify this number in the "distribution" section. I hope this works for everybody. Mikus (talk) 23:42, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure if you understand why I think that 12Mbs is a better example. Material intended for distribution is usually not encoded with maximal or any other constant bitrate, but for roughly constant quality. So if the maximum is 18Mbs, the average will be lower. (likely even below 12Mbs)--Ancient Anomaly (talk) 12:30, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
It really does not matter whether you think 12 Mbit/s is a good figure or not, it was out of context, and I tried to put it back into context. Values should come either from specs or from real-life bitrates. What about a BD rip on a DVD disc with 4 Mbit/s rate? Is it too low? It can still look very good depending on material. YouTube uses 2 Mbit/s for 720p, which still looks pretty good. So let us not use arbitrary numbers pulled out of thin air and let us not make conclusions of how high or low average bitrate might me, and let us not treat readers as being so dumb that they cannot multiply or divide whole numbers. Anyway, I hope that the current state of the article works for you. Oh, and by the way, Panasonic's 13 Mbit/s rate is CBR, I am not sure about 12 Mbit/s rates from Canon and Sony, I will check sometime later.Mikus (talk) 21:07, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
What do you mean out of context? Now you claim that even 4Mbs can look good (and I agree) so why you think we should use the maximum that is very unlikely to be used?
Video from camcorders is CBR, of course.--Ancient Anomaly (talk) 22:06, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

YouTube[edit]

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)

Orphaned non-free image File:Dvcpro50 mark.png[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Dvcpro50 mark.png. 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. Courcelles 03:30, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

H.262/MPEG-2 Part 3 ?[edit]

Hello, your creation of the article "H.262/MPEG-2 Part 3" is totally wrong and misleading:

  • H.262 does not define an audio compression. H.262 defined only the video compression. [6]
  • MPEG-2 Part 3 is not about MPEG-2 NBC / MPEG-2 AAC - a.k.a. MPEG-2 Part 7. (How can an article about "Part 3" describe the "Part 7"? [7]

Please, correct all the incorrect information or remove the whole article. --89.173.67.254 (talk) 22:18, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

The article was moved to MPEG-2 Part 3 after my Request for move. I also nominated the H.262/MPEG-2 Part 3 article for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/H.262/MPEG-2 Part 3.--89.173.65.121 (talk) 13:07, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Panasonic AG-HMC150P.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Panasonic AG-HMC150P.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

  • make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
  • Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. –Drilnoth (T/C) 21:13, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of JVC GZ-MG555[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article JVC GZ-MG555 has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

per WP:PRODUCT

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 09:35, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of JVC GZ-HD7[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article JVC GZ-HD7 has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

per WP:PRODUCT

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 09:36, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Sony 60p 24p.gif[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Sony 60p 24p.gif. 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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 04:21, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of JVC GZ-MG555 for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article JVC GZ-MG555 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JVC GZ-MG555 until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:13, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

File:2-2pulldown.gif listed for deletion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:2-2pulldown.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:12, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Capacity of DVDs[edit]

You reverted a sentence in the article on AVCHD claiming that the capacity of DVDs had reached their limit, with the observation that it was perfect English. I was not challenging the English. However, the factual accuracy of the claim is in question. DVDs have not 'reached' the limit of their capacity, because the capacity was never less than the current capacity of 4.7 GB (single layer) or 8.5 GB (dual layer) and so haven't reached anything. AFAIAA, dual layer were released at the same time as single layer.

The claim that DVDs have reached their limit is also not true as it is perfectly possible to create 3 (or even more) layer DVDs with correspondingly greater capacity. I grant no one is likely to do so at this stage of the game because of the lack of compatibilty with existing DVD video players but that doesn't make it impossible (but that may be just a matter of a firmware revision).

Indeed, if you eliminated the gaps in the layer 1 track (2 per revolution where the layer 0 track crosses it), it would result in a 9.4 GB dual layer DVD.

As the statement is unsourced, I have deleted it again. Should you wish to restore it please ensure that you include a verifiable citation in accordance with WP:VERIFY DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 14:37, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

In fact it already has been done - in 2006. Not just 3 layers, not even 4 (I sound like a market trader!) but 10 - yes ten layers (I make that 47 GB if they don't include the gaps). So proof that it hasn't reached its limit see here, but I don't accept their claim that it trumps blu-ray. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 15:01, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Discussion continued on my talk page, since that is where you responded. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 12:51, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Three-CCD camera [edit]

Information.svg An article that you have been involved in editing, Three-CCD camera , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. 109.157.161.93 (talk) 17:10, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I noted that you seem to have kicked the discussion off. 109.157.161.93 (talk) 17:10, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Multi layer optical discs[edit]

In view of our recent exchange on the development of optical discs, I thought you may be interested in a recent development. I refer in particular to my point that the introduction of extra layers in a particular medium is just a matter of a firmware update. It's rather strange how these coincidences seem to occur together, but around a week after I made the point, a firmware update for my 2 year old blu-ray disc burner became available. The update includes support for triple and quad layer discs. Since I can't actually find a source of blank discs (in the UK), I haven't actually applied the update - yet. The only question that I have (and I don't suppose you know the answer - but you never know), is why the triple layer format has a 100GB capacity, but the quad only manages to expand that to 128GB? DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 17:15, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Optical disc based camcorders[edit]

You suggest that I check my facts first (about blu-ray camcorders)?

Then why did you post this on the AVCHD talk page: "1.4GB per one single-layer 8-cm disc is surely a disadvantage. No wonder that currently no company offers camcorders that record onto optical media. Even Blu-ray discs are not viable now when 32GB memory cards are ubiquitous"? Perhaps you should check what you have claimed before critisising others when they agree with you.

Or is it that you just had to restore your own material to an article that you think you own. Oh yes, and you conveniently (and probably inadvertently) provided proof of your perceived ownership (See AVCHD talk page for further information) - especially about your false view that because you have heard of 'AVCHD disc' it must be a commonly used and universal term - It isn't. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 09:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

You stated that Blu ray based camcorders are, "not viable". Perhaps you should check the definition of, "viable".
viable: adj;  Capable of becoming actual, useful, practical etc. [Collins English Dictionary]
Thus 'Not viable' means 'NOT Capable of becoming actual, useful, practical etc.' Thus you claimed that blu ray camcorders were incapable of becoming practical and actually stated that there are none (... currently no company offers camcorders that record onto optical media), and then critisise me when I stated those exact points. You need to make your mind up which argument you wish to persue.
I accept your revision over the 'AVCHD disc' by the way. As far as I am aware, it is not a formal term, as it seldom turns up in any documentation on the subject, but just occasionally enough that it would seem informal (much from Sony). Some engineeres that I deal with use the term and some don't (probably around 50:50). Those that do tend to work together. It is quite probable that it may become a more formally accepted term used in the future.
I note that you have not answered the allegation of WP:OWNERSHIP, but prefered to supply even more evidence. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 13:39, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
"There WERE BD camcorders produced, for example by Hitachi. But they turned out to be NOT VIABLE." If Hitachi produced them then they were viable (in that they became actual). If Hitachi did as you claim then they were most likely an economic failure but that in itself does not make them non viable (though some might argue that they were 'economically non viable' but that would be a misuse of the word (from the dictionary definition). Try and use English the same way as the rest of the planet. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 11:34, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Ghosting caused by field blending during deinterlacing.jpg[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

Thanks for uploading File:Ghosting caused by field blending during deinterlacing.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

  1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
  2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Fut.Perf. 18:22, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Salute to a legendary space artist 01.JPG listed for deletion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Salute to a legendary space artist 01.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Cloudbound (talk) 21:48, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

A page you started has been reviewed![edit]

Thanks for creating Swiss railway clock, Mikus!

Wikipedia editor Fabrice Florin (WMF) just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Hi Mikus, nice work! You may want to add some categories and a bit more information about the history of this clock.

To reply, leave a comment on Fabrice Florin (WMF)'s talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Files missing description details[edit]

Dear uploader: The media files you uploaded as:

are missing a description and/or other details on their image description pages. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the images, and they will be more informative to readers.

If the information is not provided, the images may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Theo's Little Bot (error?) 09:21, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Display resolution[edit]

"is usually quoted as width × height, with the units in pixels". Number of pixels is one number (that you get by multiplying, right). I kind of agree to your what you're saying, or used to, but reverted it for consistency (wasn't even within the article): http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Comparison_of_tablet_computers&diff=557901495&oldid=557637568

comp.arch (talk) 00:30, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of General Mathematics[edit]

Hello Mikus,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged General Mathematics for deletion, because it appears to duplicate an existing Wikipedia article, [[:{{{article}}}]].

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Benboy00 (talk) 01:05, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Ways to improve General Mathematics[edit]

Hi, I'm Benboy00. Mikus, thanks for creating General Mathematics!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Page needs many more references, and those that are there seem to be broken. There doesn't seem to be much evidence for notability anywhere on the page. The page is also very short for so grand a title.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. Benboy00 (talk) 02:54, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

September 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to AVCHD 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:
  • XDCAM EX]]<ref>http://www.dvxuser.com/articles/article.php/25 XDCAM-EX vs. AVCCAM, by Barry Green]</ref><ref>[http://provideocoalition.com/index.php/awilt/story/review_canon_vixia_hf11_avchd_

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:16, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about General Mathematics[edit]

Hello, Mikus,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether General Mathematics should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/General Mathematics .

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

Thanks, Benboy00 (talk) 12:22, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:Slacker-logo-black-official-2015.png[edit]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Slacker-logo-black-official-2015.png. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free 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 tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:20, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:Slacker-official-2015-web-station-tree.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Slacker-official-2015-web-station-tree.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free 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 tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:22, 1 February 2015 (UTC)