User talk:Jhawkinson/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Athena User Interface

Do you remember what caused you to add "Athena User Interface" to the AUI (disambiguation) page back in Sep 2004? (diff)
I don't think the term was ever used outside of a narrow scope at MIT, and only in the context of a short-lived project (cf. Talk:AUI#Athena User Interface). Did you find references to it somewhere?

For something that far back, I can only speculate that I added it in for the sake of completeness of the disambiguation page. I wouldn't suffer any heartburn if that entry were removed, however. — RJH (talk) 19:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Stastistical

Thanks for the correction - it might have been right :-)

Rosser —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosser1954 (talk • contribs) 22:34, 10 March 2007

Bad Reversion

Hi.

Looks like your bot/script caught a race condition and reverted my rvv of "HI MOM' from Polyester. It was this edit link. I'm going to revert your reversion since it seems obviously wrong. Hope that's ok. jhawkinson 12:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

You're right, of course ;-). Feel free to revert it. I'll record it in my mistakes. Snowolf (talk) CON COI - 12:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


Removing the term "piracy"

Hi, Guy!

What's your basis for labeling "pirate" a biased term and removing it from so many pages? Also, in some cases, you made other changes (not always trivial) along with your specified rewording. I think it would be good to indicate that in the edit summary. I originally posted in Talk:Coded_Anti-Piracy#"piracy" as a biased term? but maybe here is better. Thanks. jhawkinson 07:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi John, thanks for your comments. I've replied with my views on the use of that term at Talk:Coded_Anti-Piracy#"piracy" as a biased term?. It's true that I do often make some changes which I don't include in my edit summaries. I generally just summarise what I think were the most important changes I made, to avoid having to write a really long edit summary. That doesn't seem to cause many problems what I can tell, because people can always check exactly what changes I made using the History page. But if you know of any official Wikipedia policy on what edit summaries should include, which means I'm doing something wrong, and you can point me to a page which explains it, I'll be glad to read that. Guyjohnston 14:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Guy. Please remember that User pages are not the same as User Talk pages, and that you should use the latter for communication. User pages are a user's public face on Wikipedia, and aren't the place to leave messages (you left your reply on mine; see WP:USER for details). I agree, let's talk keep the discussion on the word piracy on the CAP page. With regard to edit summaries, WP:ES talks about them, but doesn't give huge detail. I'm not suggesting you're in violation of a policy, just that I think people would appreciate it if an edit summary didn't appear to be comprehensive, but actually omits some changes. Maybe saying something like "and more", "+eds", or "etc.," would help to make it more clear? Looking back now, I don't see which example I had been thinking of, so it's not a big deal, or maybe I over-reacted? Perhaps it was removing the wikilink to Anti-piracy from the CAP page. All the best! jhawkinson 16:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi John, sorry, that was a pretty stupid mistake to write those comments on your main user page rather than the talk page. I do normally make comments on the right pages. Guyjohnston 18:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

2^11:3 pulldown in Telecine

Hi there. Thanks for reverting vandalism in Telecine, but 2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:3 pulldown is the actual correct term. See Talk:Telecine#2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:2:3 pulldown for more details. jhawkinson 00:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi there - sorry about reverting that edit to Telecine - I learn something new every day! Lou 00:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Linking dates (Quadzilla99)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. In your recent edit to Projectionist, you added links to an article which did not add content or meaning, or repeated the same link several times throughout the article. Please see Wikipedia's guideline on links to avoid overlinking. Thank you. jhawkinson 09:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:DATE
Please learn what you are doing, see here. Also it's considered vandalism by many to give warnings to established users. If you need anymore help see the references sections of featured articles such as here, here, or here, or refer to the help desk. Thanks. Quadzilla99 11:36, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay in response; I didn't want to get too emotional. Thanks for the education. It seems somewhat problematic that none of the documentation on the use of Citations, Refererences, or Footnotes mentions this practice, or even gives examples of it (cf. WP:CITE, WP:CITET, WP:FOOT). I agree that WP:DATE seems to unambiguously suggest this practice, though it doesn't give mention of references either (I was aware of WP:DATE, but it always seemed "obvious" to me that it did not apply to footnotes--more fool I. Before your examples, I had not encountered any pages that linked dates in references.). Anyhow, perhaps someone on your side of Wikipedia:Date_debate should consider updating those pages? I don't want to since I personally rather strongly dislike the effect. Thanks. (p.s. I don't think labelling a well-meant note "vandalism" is the best expression of "good faith"...) jhawkinson 22:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Motion picture film scanner / Telecine merger

Whoops. I left the following note on the talk page for the IP address that did some of the edits, and I missed the fact that you were logged in for one of them:

Hi. Regardless of how strongly you believe Telecine and Motion picture film scanner should not merge, would you please express yourself on the page where discussion is directed (Talk:Motion picture film scanner) or pertinent talk pages(you did put the same note on both the designated talk page, as well as at the end of an unrelated merger discussion still on Talk Telecine; the latter might cause some confusion, and also putting the discussion in 2 places is a recipe for confusion. Perhaps instead a link to the discussion from one talk page would suffice?), rather than by removing one of the two proposed merger tags, as you did in Telecine? The merger tags exist to let editors know a merger has been proposed, and to weigh in on both sides of a debate.
Would you please restore the merge tag to Telecine and attempt to prevail in the debate on the merits? I don't want to engage in unseemly reversion of your edits, so I'll wait a day before doing it myself.
Thank you. jhawkinson 12:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Telecine (SDTV&HDTV) work and Scanner work (making DPX files) are not the same. I am not the only one to point this out. Please drop this merger topic.Telecine Guy 07:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Lets keep discussion on the merits on Talk:Motion picture film scanner. Since you clearly read my note and did not comment on the request to restore the merge discussion tag, I've done so myself. Please don't remove it until the discussion has reached concensus or a reasonable time (a month?) has passed. You say, "I am not the only one to point this out" but I don't see any comments from anyone else, so I wonder what you mean? (Also, remember that a merger between two topics is merited not only if they are the same thing, but if they should be covered in the same page, e.g. if there is substantial overlap. But let's keep that conversation on the discussion page.) jhawkinson 12:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Reply is on Talk:Motion picture film scanner. I also updated Motion picture film scanner, so it is clear why it is not a telecine. I agree it was not clear before. Telecine Guy 17:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Film leader

The "universal" part irked me as well from the article's creation, but I had just never had the energy to bother before. I've never heard it called that ever before, and I've worked professionally in both projection and camera. As soon as I noticed your suggestion, I figured that was enough for me! :) It wasn't really a controversial move, IMHO. Btw, you've been doing some great work for the Filmmaking project! Wish I could be as active right now. Girolamo Savonarola 17:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Doing my best... jhawkinson 05:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

16mm film

Isn't 16mm considered an obsolete television origination format in some non-European countries? I'm not sure your recent edit makes sense. jhawkinson 02:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

16 mm film is still almost always used for dramatic television series in Canada, as 35 mm is often too expensive (we're a bit lower budget here). The reason I said some European countries is to satisfy the person who put in the original statement about the format being obsolete (if you look at the wikicode version of the article, someone slipped a comment in about Hungary). 16 mm is still commonly used in North America and some European countries (such as France, where most television stations won't accept dramatic shows not originated on film after bad experiences with video). A bit of a long-winded answer, but hope it satisfies your query. Green451 03:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Addendum: Yes, 16 mm is considered an obsolete format in some non-european countries, but I was trying not to be specific or generic. If you want, "some countries" would be just fine with me. Green451 03:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I've reverted this back to "some countries". Even in the US, 16mm is still a popular origination format, though perhaps more for indy film than for television. jhawkinson 05:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

User talk:85.28.83.179

Aren't tarps made of polyethylene and not polyester? jhawkinson 23:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

hey john,

you left this message on an anonymous user page. You were refering to an article that i adapted when i wasn't logged in, and i presume you were refering to me. your original remark was: Aren't tarps made of polyethylene and not polyester? jhawkinson 23:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

some tarps are indeed made of polyethyleen, one of those tarps are refered to in the article as polytarp. The word tarp on its self says nothing about the composition of the tarp, it is just discribing it's fonction. Like a bottle is an object that can contain liquids, and not nececarely an object that is made out of glass. greets, --Rotor DB 00:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Err. The edit in question, [1], says that polyester is used to make tarps. I know that polyethylene is used to make tarps, but polyethyline is not a polyester (is it?). Is polyester in fact used to make tarps? If not, then the edit should be reverted. (BTW, you left a message on my user page rather than my talk page...watch out for that...) jhawkinson 03:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Polyethylene is not a polyester, no. But it is used to make tarps yes. If you want to verifie, check out this link http://www.google.be/search?hl=nl&q=tarpaulin+pvc+polyester&btnG=Google+zoeken&meta= --Rotor DB 13:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Surround sound

In reverting an edit I made, you wrote:

rv. "Both" implies 2 speakers, but the number is not so limited. "mono" is misleading here: Any 1channel is always mono, but the back surround is 1 of 3 surround channels. The name is "back surround"

So now go and change all the other sub-sections on Surround sound. 6.1 Channel Surround (digital partially discrete: Dolby Digital EX)) is now different from the rest. 216.123.197.26 20:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


Done. I had been loathe to touch the non-cinema formats, because I am not intimately familiar with them, but I think I can safely make this change. 7.1 still needs some help, I think. jhawkinson 21:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Cue Sheet -> Cue sheet (computing)

I have posted a comment about the entry about cue sheets at the article's talk page. You moved it to "Cue sheet (music software)" and I would move it to "Cue sheet (computing)" but cannot, as I do not have an account.--24.9.103.45 04:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Immortal (Highlander)

Thanks, you're quite right. That change was a result of renaming Cues to Cue (theatrical) and then changing all the references, but it really didn't make a lot of sense. I should have stopped to read this one a bit closer. jhawkinson 16:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

That's okay. I didn't know before what a theatrical cue was, so I've learnt something in the process, which is good. Have a nice day. Rosenknospe 07:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Template KiB

per your request, I've added links to the relevant pages. -- Shmget 20:01, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

135 off-by-one error

Thanks for the note about 135 film perfs. I wholly agree with you. See my reply. Caltrop 19:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

B-Line

Hello... thanks for the note. As per the guideline you highlighted, disambiguation pages are intended for use in selecting between Wikipedia articles. They aren't really meant for listing all possible uses of a term, and generally shouldn't contain items without articles unless there is a good chance of an article being created. That, in part, is why external links are to be avoided, so that we don't end up with directories. That aside, there is an existing Wikipedia article on Cooper Industries. I've adjusted the B-Line text for "Cooper B-Line" to incorporate a link to that article. (That page includes an external link to Cooper's web site, which includes a link to the "B-Line" products.) Hope this helps. --Ckatzchatspy 17:33, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Technicolor

Hi...if your edit to Technicolor is correct, shouldn't you remove the phrasing about "erroneously" from the prior sentence? Thanks. jhawkinson 21:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I thought about that. But it would still be "erroneous" to say 3CCD cameras film in "Technicolor". So I left it in. Stephen Luce, 18 June 2007

Misplaced modifier

Hi. I should have been clear here. I wasn't complaining about a split infinitive. (There's no infinitive in that sentence.) I was complaining about a misplaced modifier. "By far" modifies "dominant", not "has". --P3d0 11:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Filmmaking Announcement

A PROPOSED PROJECT MERGER with WikiProject Films is under consideration. All opinions and questions are strongly encouraged! Girolamo Savonarola 01:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Souveniring

OK, do you dispute that souveniring happens? That it is a problem? That a frame undamaged enough to function as a slide should not be taken out? I typically repaired rips in prints, but actually I rarely if ever had them because I always repared any broken sprocket holes first :-) Guy (Help!) 20:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Guy. Please see my reply at Talk:35_mm_film#so-called_.22Souveneirng.22. jhawkinson (talk) 01:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Guy (Help!) 11:10, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Twentieth Century

I don't think AD vs. CE constitutes vandalism...please consider not using "rvv" for that case. Thanks. jhawkinson (talk) 19:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

You're correct, I should not assume that an anon editor would be familiar with the MOS or the extensive AD/CE discusssions that have taken place in MOS talk. Rvv was a poor choice of description in that respect. Groupthink (talk) 23:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

to gradually fill

I'd probably have written that phrase as you did, and i don't object to your edit. But i would suggest that you research whether our network of MOS pages has taken a stand in either direction on the split infinitive, and refer to "[[split infinitive]]" in your corresponding edit summaries that change it. IMO this will help reduce wasteful and potentially inflammatory reversions from split-infinitive opponents. And in any case, please don't engage in even slow-paced edit wars over such minor points of style -- unless you find a clear mandate for that, in which case i hope you'll share knowledge of it with me, of a situation that i'll be very surprised by.
--Jerzy•t 20:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

You responded:
Thanks for the note, though I'm not quite sure how to interpret your remarks. I don't think the MOS takes a position on split infinitives, and referring to split infinitive isn't very helpful, since it doesn't dictate Wikipedia's style. I'm a bit puzzled by your reference to "slow-paced edit warring." I don't think reverting an es-less anonymous edit to improve readibility qualifies as an edit war. Yes, it was 3 days after the change, I was a bit behind. I think it would take some sort of statement from those in opposition to qualify as a "war." I'd say this was just Being Bold.
I worry that trying to pre-empt an argument by citing split infinitive would just have the appearance of throwing up weak arguments to support a bad position. In fact it's a subtle stylistic judgement on which people can disagree, and there's no one right answer. I wouldn't want to give the appearance of pretending otherwise. jhawkinson (talk) 20:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry to have been so unclear! In order you made your points:
  1. I agree that the MoS is unlikely to take a position, but if i were going to make an edit that did nothing but create a split inf, i'd want to be sure i wasn't on the opposite side of anything the MoS did say.
  2. My wording would have been something like "Keeping modifier with modified reads better in this case, and prohibition of split infinitive is out of favor." Mentioning it anticipates any rv that would say "Don't you know any better than to split an infinitive???", and establishes at your earliest opportunity that you may understand what made the other editor choose that wording. It has the side effect of avoiding the insinuation prematurely, that by saying "sounds better" you question their judgment on what sounds better, which invites a posturing contest re taste. Instead, you can suggest you presume they will agree that it will sound better, once they realize they don't have to slavishly follow a split-infinitive "rule", and can let themself listen carefully instead of ignoring the sound in deference to the rule. (Doing that ASAP may avoid the occasion for positions to "harden" as egos get involved (even if only on the other side) before the status of the "rule" is brought into evidence.)
  3. Nothing but a consensus-tested policy can dictate WP's style, but the guideline that is the MoS is based (as a style policy would be) mostly on the guidance of what careful writers currently do. And the relevant part of that outside-WP practice is one subject of that article.
  4. By "in any case" i didn't mean "In this case, despite the preceding considerations", but rather "Even if it turns out you can't convince the other editor."
  5. I'm afraid i failed to note the "rv" in your ES, and assumed you'd touched up a couple words in someone's extended edit, rather than reverting. Thus i'm not surprised that my misinformed statement sounded to you as if "please don't" meant "please stop" -- even tho i meant "please don't start."
  6. You appear to feel that by saying "slow" i deprecated you as less than diligent. The contrast i meant was between 3RR (an obvious sign of edit war) and a less obvious edit war that fails to violate that rule.
  7. It's not yet apparent that it is a slow edit war, but if the other editor sees it as being as important as you seem to, an edit war may ensue, and your respective first edits will turn out to be part of it. The focus of my remark is that it's not worth it -- tho it may be worth discussing further.
  8. My impression is that editing BOLDly is about fixing something that you may be the first to think of or have time for, without stopping to ask questions aimed at being sure everything you do is an improvement -- but not about rv'g other's visibly thought thru changes.
  9. The lack of summary by the other editor is at best unfortunate, but clearly it does not make the edit vandalism, nor IMO even suggest it is. The fact they were an IP lessens the significance of the lack of ES, and if you factored both IP & ES in, as reasons to do the rv, IMO you've bitten a newcomer.

Bottom line, tho, what i urge now is that if you notice a counter-reversion, let me know. I'll revert on the procedural ground that, as with Briticisms, it's usually procedure to keep the original editor's style, and that we would thus best leave it that way while we poll to see if this particular case justifies an exception.
--Jerzy•t 00:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

List of film formats

Read your comments on the aspect ratio discussion, and I'm glad to see that someone is looking at the formats table critically. Although I am the primary editor of the list, I agree that it has some issues, but...it's difficult for me to see them from my perspective. I am very much open to critique, however, and would welcome any suggestions on your part or even just further articulation at a conceptual level if you don't have any specific work in mind. Many thanks, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 09:05, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Template:Video storage formats

Hi – Fret no more about the above, I was meaning to get around to trying something similar and save some space. I've just tweaked it a little; hope nothing looks amiss. Thanks for your message, Sardanaphalus (talk) 00:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films coordinator elections

The WikiProject Films coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect five coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by March 28! Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 04:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Trailer (film)

I stand corrected! Sorry for the error. Annamonckton (talk) 15:43, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

David Soares

Thanks for the obvious fix. Bearian (talk) 20:18, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films March 2008 Newsletter

The March 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Cyan on Anything Else

Film-tech has discussed it a bit here - there were some high-magenta prints made for special usage. All general release prints were cyan. Hope that clears it up! Girolamo Savonarola 14:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem with striking the word "only" is that it makes it appear as if AE was the first cyan film, which is not the case, IIRC. But having worked extensively in both camera and projection, I will say that it is likely that most early married prints for any recent films would not be cyan. Just because a very small number are created differently does not constitute a mixed release. Back in 1977, Technicolor issued an IB print of Star Wars, but I would never claim that Star Wars had an IB release. When less than 1% of the prints aren't cyan, it's a negligible fact. Especially as none of them were intended for general use.
What I would be amenable to, however, is a modification to specify that only the US release was fully cyan. Girolamo Savonarola 19:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

A few more eyes is such a good idea

Happy to continue our collegial discussion of 135 still camera film frame advance length (1.4960 inches exactly, approximately 38 mm) at the talk page for 135. Caltrop 23:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC)