Talk:Universal Image Format

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Universal Image Format article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

Archives Proprietary Format Discussions

[edit] MagicISO Proprietary Format

On 7 Jan 2007, the article was rewritten about the IETF standard based on this discussion. Discussions concerning the previous article format and content have been archived in /Archive1. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 17:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Without a Trace

(This section has been removed per WP:NPA violations. I am sick of hearing it.) — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 02:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

And fair enough. Good work on the trim, I was working to a similar result but got hit by "unexpected real life". :/ I think we now have basically everything there is to say on the subject that can be substantiated. ― GrimRevenant 03:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

For those of you (still) watching this page, please add UIF to your watch, the same person (I assume) is pushing the MagicISO links there now and I won't want to go over three. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 02:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Hrrm... while I appreciate we don't want rampant advertising, the Google test for "UIF" suggests it should be mentioned there, at least as part of the definition for Universal Image Format. —GrimRevenant 05:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I like what you did - mentioned MagicISO but no EL. Thanks. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 11:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I figured, "One link per line - them's the rules!" ;) And I think it works decently. Cheers. —GrimRevenant 07:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] @ RevRagnarok -> do NOT ignore other editors comments, arguments and their work

YOU are NOT God! nor anything else... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.73.254.65 (talk) 16:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC).

This is the same argument that we've already been thru, noted in the archive. You come in, you try to bias the article towards a product that (a) you sell or (b) you really enjoy. Then every other editor disagrees with you. We (not just me in some kind of personal vendetta) get semiprotect. You create a puppet account (Uifan (talk • contribs • logs)). Then you go away for a few months, and now you are back, yet again ignoring the rules. I assume it is the same person based on the useless edit summary comments - if it is actually another person, please read the archives referenced above. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 17:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Anon IP – if you assert that the MagicISO format is the most important one, back up your assertion!

As it stands, the article features three little-used formats: one of is part of an official IETF standard, one is a proprietary disk image format which is attempting to compete with the open ISO 9660 standard, and the last is an arcane WordPerfect format which I don't think anybody knows the use for.
Consensus of a number of editors – not just RevRagnarok – has been that the official format is the most notable, and it is thus the main focus of the article. Why, in your opinion, is the disk image format more notable? If you can clearly state that, maybe we can move this discussion beyond personal attacks and reversion, and come to a productive consensus. —GrimRevenant 07:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Why does you completely ignore my arguments?

(IETF 'standard' based on 1 slide statement -> downgraded priority!)

(i've read it! - read 1st my comment! before rv like a vandal!)

and to all others except RevRagnarok: He bullshiting us and Wikipedia! for raising his edit-count... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.73.254.65 (talk) 12:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC).

You are not being "ignored." You made the argument, nobody else agrees with you, and we (myself, FayssalF, Grim Revenant, Jesup, etc) are now stuck reverting your vandalism. (Note to any other outside editors viewing this for the first time: (1) please review the archive and (2) see Uifan (talk • contribs • count • block log) which was this IP editor's attempt to get around the semiprotection. You can also find stuff about it in the 3RR logs.) — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 12:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

What the hell is RevRagnarok constructing about me!! STOP bullshitting us!! and do NOT ignore others argument!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.73.254.65 (talk) 16:25, 22 March 2007 (UTC).