User talk:Pixel8/Archive2

Bingo!

Hi,

Thanks for the excellent pictures. I have to admit to wondering at first glance if they'd been plagiarised from manufacturer's literature... once I noticed the lack of printing artifacts on the full-scale images, I realised that they weren't!

It's odd, because before I read your user page I'd been thinking *exactly* the same things about the images on Wikipedia.

Having tried setting up, lighting and taking similar shots myself (and failed!), I realise that it's far from easy to get something that looks professional even at normal photo sizes.

For this reason I don't (and never did) expect everyone to meet those sort of standards (especially myself!). Yet I found myself wondering the same as you did; namely, if it's worth including (and taking) a picture, why don't they spend a few extra minutes doing it properly?

Case in point; how long would it have taken to either throw the distracting background out of focus (if possible), or (better) move the device so that it was against a more neutral background? Why wasn't the photograph taken straight-on? How hard would it have been to clean the green snot from the slot; or at least Photoshop it out? Couldn't something have been done with the flash? All but the final point would have been relatively easy to fix.

Might still be editable by another user, but they'd be working with the compressed (possibly shrunk) uploaded version, not the source. *sigh*

Anyhow, I replaced the picture on this version of "microcomputer" with yours. I don't know the circumstances under which that shot was taken, so perhaps there was a good reason for the general setup not being brilliant, or the keys being manky, but I'd at least have liked to have seen the background Photoshopped somehow. Since there was a better candidate available, I replaced it.

Keep up the good work!

Fourohfour 00:00, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments Fourohfour! Glad to know someone shares my views about pictures on wikipedia. Pixel8 15:00, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hoverfly Photo

Hi!
I've uploaded a much tighter crop of my hovefly photo, could you please hvae a look and maybe reconsider your vote? Thanks!
Btw, your photo of the Fuji F10 is fantastic! You have exactly the same idea of a background as I have, and I hope to soon build a whitebox to do that kind of "product" shots which are so usefull for an encyclopedia. I mean really, you can't get a more illustrative pic. Perhaps you could share your thoughts on the talk page of the english wiki's FPC under the "removal of elements" section. --Fir0002 23:43, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Airwolf model image

I don't believe that was an image of the model. It was probably a shot of the real helecopter. If it is the model it's a damn good one. Usually the model images were from the last season and those you could easily tell were fake.Cyberia23 17:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is definately a model IMO, which was used from season 2 onwards I believe. If you look underneath the ADF pod, pic you can see two black half circles either side of it. That isn't on the real helicopter. But the most obivious indication is the rotor shaft, it lacks all complicated mechanical linkages of a real shaft. (Plus it looks really plastic!) — Pixel8 17:43, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, maybe you're right. Looking at it more closely, there doesn't appear to be windshield wipers (which I though Airwolf had), and the rotorblades do look like molded plastic. I don't know if that was a video screenshot or a photograph. I'd have to see the show again. It could look fake due to motion blur. Cyberia23 18:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Airwolf Logo

I cannot see the SVG logo in Firefox 1.5.0.1 or in IE 6.0.2900.2180. (I could once, now I just see a white rectangle) Is the SVG not working or do I need to install something? — MJBurrage 19:01, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot see the logo either, both in FF and IE (same versions). My other SVGs are working fine, and the Airwolf one was fine with the same versions of FF & IE. I think the mediawiki software which was upgraded recently (V1.5.6 2006/01/19) is not rendering some SVGs properly. If you download the logo to your computer and run it with FF, it works fine. — Pixel8 20:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amstrad CPC 464 Photo

Hello, I hope you don't mind that I used your Amstrad CPC 464 image in a news post for the website I work at, www.RFGeneration.com. We recently added the console to our database and your picture was visually perfect, though large in comparison to most news post images. I wasn't exactly sure how I should credit you so I just said: "And a special thank you to Bill Bertram who supplied the photo." If you so desire you can visit the site you can read the entire post and make your desicion if you want me to remove your image or not, or if you would like me to credit you as Pixel8. Sorry for not asking before I used it, like I already said I hope you don't mind.

Izret101 23:14, 9 March 2006

There is no need to ask me for permission, all the license requires is to credit my name, which you have done. I'm happy you found one of my images of use, and thanks for letting me know! — Pixel8 16:14, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very cool. Thanks for taking it upon yourself to supply people with such awesome pictures by the way. Izret101 15:56, 10 March 2006

thanks!

Thanks for making your photo of the printed circuit board available! I've used it in my online textbook Electricity and Magnetism, on p. 107. You are of course properly credited in the photo credits in the back of the book, and the licensing information is given. The book is dual-licensed under GFDL and CC-BY-SA.--Ben Crowell, crowell06 at lightandmatter dot com

edit conflict

re: Commodore 64- Did you see the word Iterim? Thanks for the edit conflict.FrankB 19:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well it's your own fault for not completing your edit first. It looked far too rough to be there in the first place. —Pixel8 19:56, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

F10

Thanks for the Fuji F10 pic! It's magazine quality =) Krymson 17:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :) —Pixel8 21:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How 'bout some respect?

At least you own up to being POV oriented on your user page. But it's customary when fixing up some text you find awkward to attempt in good faith to include the hard work of others , even when playing with a personal project. Don't you think today's readers happening into the article 'randomly' ought to know something about it's relationship to the PC family that has shaped the world? Do try an put some of this back together. I'll grant you there was a sentence that could be split, and even one or two awkward phrases, but the job of an editor is to fix such in the spirit of collaborative writing, not hover over articles like a mother hen owning them all. Your reversion record is abysmally bad to say the least. I've never seen anyone's contributions like yours save for an admin reverting vandalisms. FrankB 04:19, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course the PC should be mentioned, I have absolutely no problem with that. My issue was your sloppy edit, which you seem to admit to yourself. Not only was the language hard to read, it was also factually incorrect. For example, what was the "32-Bit architecture" referring to? Niether the PC or C64 were close to being 32-bit! In addition to that, it was also far too long to be in the intro section. The intro should be talking about the subject in hand, rather than diverting the reader's attention with another, no matter how significant it is. A sentence or two yes, but paragraphs is simply too much. It should have been placed in the history section. Anyway, I'll will rewrite and put it in the history section where it belongs. As for my revision record, did you really go through every single edit to make that determination? Of course you didn't, otherwise you would know that wasn't the case... My contribs are not in question. Just because I say I like Commodore on my page, does not automatically make me biased! But again, if you had really gone through my edits, you would know that. —Pixel8 18:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A4000

Oh, sorry. Should have noticed that it no longer redirected. :-/ Fourohfour 15:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem :-) I should have mentioned it in the edit summary. —Pixel8 20:13, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox @ nn

Sorry for being abrupt, just didnt want a lot mess to fix. I've already tried that method, there is something weird with that template allthough I cant see what is wrong with it and have merely given up anyway. If you wanna have a go at that template you are most welcome. Your probably alot better infobox coder than me, Id guess :) --AndersL 00:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've checked your sandbox, and yeah the text is a big problem. I'm trying to find info about the class="infobox", that's probably the key to solving the text alignment problem. I'm no expert at infoboxes/tables, just lots of trial and error invloved... —Pixel8 00:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, If you have too many trials without progress then I could try talk to some of the local guys who knows our templates better. But its turning the wrong time of the day here, so its the last message from me for some hours. Good luck and thank you very much! --AndersL 01:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah it's getting late here too. If I come up with anything I'll post you a message asap. Good luck to you too, we'll probably need it! —Pixel8 01:09, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like the infobox got fixed now, after someone moved the <br clear="all" /> tag abit. --AndersL 08:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to hear its fixed, thanks for the update. —Pixel8 10:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Photographer's Barnstar

Outstanding work on uploading all those Commodore & console related photographs, they actually do make a difference to the articles!, therefore I'm awarding you with this barnstar. Thank you! ▪◦▪≡Ѕirex98≡ 11:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the award Sirex98! - Pixel8 19:27, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work

Hi Bill, I just ran across your user page, and I'd just like to say nice work on the photos; they look really good and are a great addition to Wikipedia. Cheers, Cmdrjameson 13:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind words Cmdrjameson, it's nice to know my work is appreciated. — Pixel8 15:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Micro Mart Commodore 64 usage

Hi. We are using one of the Commodore 64 pictures on the front cover of Micro Mart, issue 949.

We are giving credit as per the licence. If you have any enquiries about our usage of the pic, please email the editor via the Micro Mart website at www.micromart.co.uk

Thanks

Martin Anderson Micro Mart Editorial

PS Have just added another of your images to the cover, the ZX Spectrum.

ZX Spectrum Motherboard

Hi, just to let you know the BBC have used your ZX Speccy Motherboard image on an article on their website: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6572711.stm - they have provided credit to you as the alternate text of the image. AlexJ 10:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks AlexJ, just had a quick look at the page, but it seems they only credited one image. They used my 48K Speccy image, but no credit on the alternate text there, ho-hum... Pixel8 14:03, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to mention this too, but it seems that AlexJ got there first. Is a credit solely in the "alt" text acceptable anyway? I doesn't show up under normal browsing conditions. Maybe they thought they could get away with the first one because it's a (deliberately) generic PR-style photograph at a smaller scale and thus harder to prove it's a scaled version of yours (though an overlap would probably do the job).

BTW, did you know that Wired also used one of your images? They gave you credit for that one, though they didn't mention the license (is that required?...) Fourohfour 11:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea if the alt text method of crediting is acceptable, but I would rather have it in the article itself. The Alt text did not work using Firefox, so it isn't a very fair way of crediting work. Anyway, I don't really care because they butchered the pictures! I didn't know about the Wired article, which is funny because I was looking around there yesterday and found they used the Speccy image for one of their blogs, but yet again no credit... That picture never gets credited properly, which is strange, hopefully Micro Mart will break that streak. Anyway, thanks the heads up on the Amiga article Fourohfour. Pixel8 19:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Alt text shows up in firefox if you right-click on the image and click properties. Most of their press & stock photos have Getty/PA/Reuters whatever watermarked onto them. Even NASA photos (which I believe are public domain) usually have a NASA watermark. I have a feeling thought that Alt tag crediting might be acceptable to the word of the licence, although it definitely doesn't keep to the spirit of the licence. Still they must have had access to stock photos of the speccy, and decided that yours were of a better quality. AlexJ 16:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool photographic work

I just saw your additions to Pentax K10D - great work. I'm glad that someone is producing professional-quality, freely licensed images for uses like this. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Matthew! —Pixel8 08:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Super Nintendo Entertainment System

I have reverted your recent "mebibit -> megabit" changes to Super Nintendo Entertainment System, because mebibit is technically correct for those measurements and because the current Manual of Style guideline for binary prefixes says in part "editors should refrain from changing prefixes from one style to the other".

BTW, I see you are a photographer based in the UK. If you have access to a PAL-region SNES cartridge, I would appreciate it if you could look at my image request on the talk page. Thanks. Anomie 19:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I reverted again because the MOS also states "stay with established usage, and follow the lead of the first major contributor to the article." As for you request, I can take a picture of one my PAL SNES carts for you. I'll upload asap. —Pixel8 19:30, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the image!

As for the binary prefixes, I still have to disagree with you. The referenced "National varieties of English" guideline gives a number of subguidelines. Before "first major contributor", it specifies "has been consistently in a given variety for a long time". The measurements in question were changed by User:Sarenne on March 4, 2007 per the guideline at the time, and there do not seem to have been any complaints for this edit (as there were for others, which resulted in the current version of the policy). The section in question was completely rewritten on April 27, again using the mebibit style. Is 85 days with 247 edits including a complete rewrite of the section not enough to meet the "consistently in a given variety" criterion? Otherwise, "first major contributor" requires we go all the way back: I notice that the article used KiB in the original unit-mentioning edit on April 26, 2002, and continued (with two later inconsistencies) until March 5, 2004. Anomie 20:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting to note that KiB was used first all the way back in 2002, so I guess the firsts major/established rule is out. However documentation and sources of the time will be in kilo and mega, not the IEC standard. Articles about retro computers and consoles should use what was the standard at the time in order to be consistent with sources. A number of editors (myself included) have been reverting the changes made by User:Sarenne (now banned), who was on a one man crusade to change everything to the IEC standard. I haven't kept up with debate on MOS, but it seems to be going against the usage of the IEC standards. Anyway, I personally prefer everything in KB/MB, with KiB/MiB next to the first instance of KB/MIB etc, that seems to be the fairest solution IMO. —Pixel8 21:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not convinced, but the more I think about this the more I realize I really don't care all that much. (: Shall we compromise? I suggest "Mb (Mibit)" style for the first use per section/infobox, and "Mb" (note the wikilink target) for subsequent uses in this article. That should make the intended measurement clear while using the abbreviations you prefer. I'll even volunteer to do the work on this article if you agree. Anomie 22:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't it be "Mbit (Mibit)" rather than Mb (Mibit)? Anyway the compromise sounds fine to me, so go ahead if you wish. —Pixel8 23:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MOS Technology Agnus

Hello Pixel8, To name the Agnus 512 KB as Agnus (slim) is not correct because the chips 8370 and 8371 are Agnus 512 KB but made as 84-contact PLCC Fat Agnus package.
So 8370 and 8371 are Agnus 512 KB by capability and Fat Agnus by package. The Agnus 512 KB exist as Slim Agnus (8361; 8367) and as Fat Agnus also (8370; 8371) also. This is the reason why I made two section (Chips by capability and Chips by package)
You can see the 8370's 84-contact PLCC Fat Agnus package here: http://amigahardware.mariomisic.de/display_photos/agnus8370plcc.jpg

I have read an Amiga 600 (Agnus 2 MB) service manual and it is say "Fat Agnus" so I think Super Agnus and Fatter Agnus are not official names. If you find somewhere a Commodore source (user guide or manual) I will change my mind. --Gona.eu 10:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"KiB" and "MiB" vs "KB" and "MB"

I saw you reverted my change to the Commodore 65 page. In case you think it's vandalism, please let me assure you it is not. If you don't know, "KiB" and "MiB" are abbreviations for kibibyte and mebibyte. I use them instead of "KB" and "MB" because the latter terms have become ambiguous, because of the hard drive manufacturers who advertise (as opposed to "specify") the capacity of their products using "kilo", "mega" and "giga" in the decimal sense. So, for example, when they say gigabyte, they mean 1000000000 bytes, as opposed to 1073741824 bytes. The binary prefixes ("kibi", "mebi", "gibi" etc.) were born in response to this ambiguity, to make it clear that the quantity is expressed with a power of 2 and not with a power of 10. I felt the use of binary prefixes helped the readers of the article to know exactly how much RAM the C65 has. Devil Master 18:48, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]