User talk:Imroy/Archive 1

Itanium copyvio

I was in the middle of the edit when you so eagerly reverted it resulting in merge error. I fully intended to add proper citation, credit, and linkage as well as correct the example image. - unsigned message from 65.102.172.33.

As I mention in the Itanium talk page, that's still copright violation. Didn't you see the big fucking copyvio warning message that Peyna put on the page? Wikipedia takes that sort of thing very seriously. The information was already in the IA64 article anyway, and worded better than an online magazine. Dipshit. Imroy 14:14, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Colour changes on DX encoding

Hi, nice to see someone finally touch the page after I put so much work into the tables. But why did you change some of the color attributes? Were the short triplets (e.g #fff) not working with your browser? They should. I used them to save space since I was only using very simple colours. Imroy 10:54, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Everything was solid black for me. I suspect that Opera only supports the short form in styles, not in things like the "bgcolor" attribute. --Carnildo 19:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

2003 invasion of Iraq

Hi there, when trying to go over the discussion at 2003 invasion of Iraq I saw it has become a big mess. If I see it correctly there was a conflict between an anon and others and now the page has been blocked. I think the anon had a point that an encyclopedia article about any military conflict should not be written exclusively by three members of one the conflicting parties, in this case Pookster11, Swatjester, and Dawgknot who according to this comment all belong to the US military. I therefore suggest to get more people into the boat, that should take the wind out of the sails of bias allegations. As I saw you also edited on that page, would you be willing to help out? Get-back-world-respect 22:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Photographic film

I see you made some rather swift changes to my edit of photographic film (under ip 82.36.112.35 sorry.) I feel the removal of the conversion table was unwarranted as the film speed article is more technical about film speed and may be confusing, and also includes a rather less complete table. It also uses different (and in my view incorrect) nomenclature to the photographic film article. In any case I feel my table was of greater merit in the context of the article. If you don't have some hard and fast reason for not including the table then i would like to re add it. --Pypex 23:14, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your smart detection of my numerous typos :) (I read this sentence 4 times to avoid another one) --Neshatian 13:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Close-up lenses

(moved from Talk:Macro photography)

My camera has no lens mount (Panasonic FZ5). That must be why the salesman suggested these lenses. They are threaded, and mount like a filter. They are very helpful with focusing waaaay up close. I think it is the dioptre correction you suggested before. --W0lfie 15:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Underscores in wikilinks

Your Smackbot just screwed up a bunch of links in Top Gear. While it's good to remove underscores from wikilinks, don't do it in the anchor part i.e after the hash (#). The anchors are given specific names, which includes the underscore. All of those links to sections now simply go to the top of the article. Fix it. Imroy 19:37, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Er, no it didn't. The link anchor was wrong - to Emmy Award#The International Emmys instead of Emmy Award#International Emmys. The link to the Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution#Evolution VIII was fine. Rich Farmbrough 20:43 17 March 2006 (UTC).

Turion / Amdboard.com

Hi, just letting you know I reposted your message at User talk:82.226.172.163 to Talk:Turion_64 and responded there. This way we will avoid more links to the site on the main page without a consensus. Kslays 16:46, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

0waldo

Please don't remove my useful link in OPENGL. Thanks Waldo. 0waldo 15:30, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank for leaving my link Old Roy Dog food at Walmart in pet supply section :) 0waldo 16:15, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Photography

No problem with your changes to the Digital v Film debate. Although I use both digital and film, I continue to have (serious) reservations about digital hence the possibly over-strong comments ! Velela 16:21, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Suggestions and Civility

I refer to this edit, and also to this discussion. Thank you for your suggestions, but please try to be more civil in your comments. --Profero 02:44, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I read your latest reply to my request on the discussion about Photo Manipulation, and also took a quick glance through this page of yours. Please, for the sake of Wiki, try to stick to relevant facts and leave out words like "Fucking", "Dipshit", "Smackbot", "Screwed, "Huh", "Yeesh", "Wow", etc., as words like these are considered slang and mostly vulgar or childish. Remember Wiki is used all over the world, and should be used with wisdom in an, as educated manner as possible. If you have any comments to this point of view or anything else that is relevant, you are also welcome to use my discussion page in a polite way.
We all make mistakes, don't we. That's a part of the game of development. They who use contemptuous language sometimes give an impression that they have not understand that yet. --Profero 09:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Fast CGI

Hmm, interesting problem. I've fixed up that page, but the general solution is harder, perhaps we need a stop list for some of these functions (still not perfect I know). Thanks for letting me know. Rich Farmbrough 11:33 14 April 2006 (UTC).

T1 -- looks good

good edit on the t1

Justforasecond 15:01, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

HDR images

Hi there. I didn't want it to get into an edit war on the page but I still feel that the image I removed adds basically no value to the article. It is a very poor example of HDR because it is an image that would probably contain just as much information (and probably look BETTER!) if taken with a single exposure. As it stands, the image is just soft, noisy and lacking in contrast. If you disagree, please let me know! ;) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 08:56, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

AGP revert

I'm not sure I agree with your revert of the claim that no boards were made with more than one AGP slot. I tried to verify this edit as well, and I couldn't find any obvious examples. In the AGP talk page I recorded a couple of links from the linux-kernel list where this was discussed and no-one there knew of such boards, either, which is where my own search ended. Examples? That would help to settle this. I preferred the way it read when it said none than vague hand waving about the rare and impossible to pin-point. If they did exist, how did they work? What chipset supported this? What OS supported this without major hosage? MaxEnt 16:01, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I looked more. Many people say "dual AGP" meaning AGP with dual-head support. There was one speculation that Intel might make a Merced chipset with dual AGP support, but AFAICT this never came to pass. I'm dubious that dual AGP products exist, because there wouldn't be any viable OS support for a niche that small unless some visual workstation vendor like Intergraph had a hand in it. MaxEnt 16:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I commented on your links on the AGP talk page. My take is that the AGP article should state that dual AGP was demonstrated in hardware conceptually, but never commercialized in a product with mainstream OS support, or something to that effect. I'll leave it to you and stonehead to decide how the text should read. Not my edit war. MaxEnt 16:42, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Starship Trooper (GIMP article)

FYI - Same user vandalised lots of open source / unix / unix vs microsoft type articles. I've reverted 90% of his recent edits. Regards, --Oscarthecat 14:54, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up re the new sock puppet. I'm keeping an eye on the relevant pages. --Oscarthecat 19:54, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Mein Teil

Look at the last line in the last chorus. It's: "Yes it's mein teil". Sabbre

Thanks

Thanx for reverting vandalism on my user page Gaurav1146 05:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Reply

>Please do not remove content from Wikipedia; it is considered vandalism. If you want to >experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Imroy 13:00, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi, what vandalism are you referring to? If you could tell me specifically what I've done wrong, I could recognise my mistake and correct my actions in future.

203.10.77.190

>::To me, you seemed to be simply removing content from random pages with little or no reason. A few of >your edits were marked 'npov', 'biased rubbish', or 'fan blather'. But I >couldn't see much of a problem with the text you removed. If you had a problem with the content, especially in such >significant quantities, your should have taken it up on the discussion/talk pages of the articles. That's what they're >there for. Perhaps the content was 'POV', biased, or fancruft. But instead of just removing the content, >it could have been rewritten or rephrased in a more neutral tone - either by yourself or someone else. Try to be more >contructive in the future, not destructive. Imroy 14:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC) Sorry but you haven't specified the articles that I edited that you have a problem with. If you could please quote the edits I have made on which articles and why you believe they are wrong then we could discuss the merits of your argument further. 203.10.77.190

Complacency

What was wrong with it? The Globe was begging the question there, not being at all open to the reality of the situation. MSTCrow 23:12, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

If you are referring to this edit to The Daily Show, it looked like editorializing to me. Considering you had recently been banned for making personal attacks, I thought you were a trouble-maker and did not hesitate to revert your edit. Imroy 23:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Mistake, if you'll notice, the admin who did that did so under false pretenses, and has had their actions "fixed" by other admins in the past. Unfortunately, the Wikiearucracy haven't gotten to it this time, as it's under several layers of red tape. I can understand how you could have come to the wrong conclusion, though. As for editorializing, it really is an honest question to ask as to why they completely dismissed the converse out of hand, I think. Perhaps also telling.

MSTCrow 02:02, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

It may be an honest question, but Wikipedia isn't the place for you to respond to the quote (which I think is what you were doing). Either find a source where the question is raised (e.g a rebuttle or response to the quoted print article) or find a relevent Wikipedia article where the general topic or issue is raised. Imroy 02:49, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

References in PHP

I have noticed that you have removed some links in article about PHP. [1] You are right that Wikipedia is meant to be encyclopedia and not programmer's reference, but Wikipedia currently has PHP article and the article claims some statements that has to be backed up by references. Links to authoritative resources allows editors to check article corectness, prevents disputes about PHP deficiencies etc.

The article may be too techy for an average reader (but keep in mind that average reader of PHP article has programming background), then it would be appropriate shorten the in-depth parts and reduce the article to well-known facts. This will make external links useles and worth removal. --Alvin-cs ✉ 14:58, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Some links? Some? I have no problems with a good selection of external links at the end of an article. But a person had linked to individual pages in the PHP manual from the different sections of the article. There were even tips about remembering to unset magic-quotes and such. I thought that was entirely unecessary and against the goal of Wikipedia. The PHP article should have information about the language, but not be an in-depth language reference. If someone wants that level of information, there's the existing PHP documentation which is linked at the bottom of the page. And having all of those external links felt a little too much like link spamming, even though it probably wasn't. Imroy 00:23, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Daniel Lee Xiao Jing

Actually if you google the name "Daniel Lee" you will find it to be the first name to appear on google. I am not Daniel Lee but was a student of his and he mentioned in lecture that his images were free to use in our projects as long as we gave due credit. I am not sure which licensing or copyright that would be. As one of the early pioneers of digital art / photography, his name has appeared in countless digital art media sources.

As for "clumsy self-promotion", I could see why you might have thought it could have been promotion. I felt that Clinton's face "manipulated" into a beat-up boxer, which was also the cover image of Mother Jones magazine, would have fit under the category digital manipulation. But I understand and respect your opinion.

I am fairly new to wiki and I have been struggling with the guidelines and tools. However my purpose is to contribute articles that I feel should be included, since they seem like common knowledge to my peers.

Thanks Imroy for your help. I will work on the changes.

wai 17:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Ilford

I am very pleased to see that you've started an article on Ilford (company). However, I'd strongly oppose renaming the main Ilford article. There are hundreds of Wikipedia articles about towns and locations where the article name is just that of the town. It would be absurd to rename say Brisbane to Brisbane (town in Australia). Good luck with the article. --Runcorn 19:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Discussion moved to Talk:Ilford. Imroy 21:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Blanking

Sorry about that, its the third time its happened and not been caught by me. I think firefox sometimes stops loading the page during edits, and thus when I save an edit it is only saving the upper portion. It wasnt an intentional blanking, if that counts for anything. Rangeley 12:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Making maps

Thanks Imroy,

I will practise with the maps.--Daanschr 18:00, 26 June 2006 (UTC)