User talk:Danhash/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

September 2011

In a recent edit to the page WebP, you changed parts of the article from one international variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.

For a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to another English-speaking country, such as Canada, Australia, or New Zealand, use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the original author used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any questions about this, you can ask me on my talk page or visit the help desk. Thank you. Fleet Command (talk) 11:18, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I see that you are doing it on alot of articles. I warn you, this type of obsessive editing might get you into trouble and you may lose your editing ability. Fleet Command (talk) 11:30, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I changed hyphens to en dashes, moved a reference link to after a comma (which I thought was the proper style?), added a link, and added a comma for clarity. What national variety of English did I change the article from and to? I don't see where your accusation is accurate. --danhash (talk) 13:10, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

If you are referring to my addition of a serial comma, which I assume because of your recent revert on the iMacros article, there was already another serial comma in the article, so my added comma improved consistency which is a stated goal of the policy on serial commas. I try to maintain consistency in the articles I edit, but if there is an article in which I haven't, please bring it to my attention. I will continue to strive to be careful in my edits, however your accusations on the WebP article are unfounded. I see you reverted an edit I made to iMacros which added clarity, but on second examination I see that I missed another comma separated list later in the article, so in that instance the addition of just one serial comma did not increase consistency, and I will be vigilant in the future to not cause the problem again. --danhash (talk) 13:39, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I mean do the evil serial comma, also known as Oxford comma and Harvard comma. In Wikipedia, it is an acceptable. What is not acceptable is changing from one acceptable form of style to another.

Mind you, there has been three scientific magazines which went under fire from linguists and grammarians around the world because of sanctioning the use of these commas. (Funny, but I don't understand what grammarians have to do with this -- it is a matter of style, not grammar.) In our university, linguistic professors threaten others of bloody murder for use of Oxford comma, or not using it, depending on which camp they are in. (Well, I am exaggerating.) But we don't want these fights in Wikipedia, do we? No. Wikipedia is all about maintaining the original style. Both styles are acceptable. Just don't change them.

I might also add how stupid these fights are. We do not have a fight over using fall or autumn but we have had fights over using such trifles as commas, which has led to Arbitration Committee to rule out all changes in style. Fleet Command (talk) 14:25, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

As I said before, there was already another serial comma in the article. There were two lists that could have had a serial comma—one had one and one did not. Hence, there was an inconsistency in the article. If either style is acceptable, which according to policy it is, then I had the choice of either removing the serial comma already there or adding a serial comma to the sentence without it. To fix the inconsistency, I had to make a choice, and my choice was to add a serial comma, which is acceptable. I merely created consistency, and I did not change the style of the article. As I have said, I will be more careful in the future in my edits regarding this issue. But in this case my edit was constructive. Commas are not trifles either, they are an important part of grammar. I try to respect regional variations of English and generally do not make edits changing one regional variety to another, but that issue has zero relevance to the edit in question. --danhash (talk) 16:03, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Was the article predominantly using serial comma? If so, you were correct. If not, you should not have added serial comma. And, your argument that "comma is not a trifle" does not concern Oxford comma, which are redundant anyway. Oxford commas are style, not grammar. Fleet Command (talk) 16:15, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Did you even pay attention to what I said? There were two instances where the serial comma issue applied: one sentence had the comma and one didn't. There was no predominant use of or absence of the serial comma. I'm not going to argue with you about whether serial commas are redundant or not, we obviously have a difference of opinion. But I did nothing wrong and it is obvious. Furthermore, your initial notice on my talk page was totally irrelevant --danhash (talk) 16:21, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I am perfectly hearing you and I am perfectly hearing my professors who claim I am not hearing. They too, say I have a difference of opinion. (But they also mention in forceful tone what I must do with that opinion.) I have said all I should say and perhaps this is the last time you ever see me around. Have fun. Fleet Command (talk) 16:32, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

You are not hearing what I said, and you did not examine my edit before carelessly adding a warning to my talk page. If you had examined my edit or listened to what I just said in my previous post, you would know that there was no predominant usage established in that article. Throwing warnings around carelessly starts the kind of controversy you have claimed to want to avoid. --danhash (talk) 16:39, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I just fixed another comma issue on John the Ripper. Yes, I added a serial comma, and yes the article was predominantly using them: all three other instances of comma-separated lists had serial commas. Please don't revert any more of my grammatical edits without a valid reason. --danhash (talk) 18:32, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

In the Aero article, of the seven or eight instances where Oxford commas could be used, only two were present. You added four more. If there was a predominance towards one usage or the other, it would have been towards not using them, so the thing to do would have been to remove the two that were present in the first place. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:05, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

It was a pretty short article with multiple editors—some had used them, some hadn't, oh well. I wanted to fix it. Not going to keep arguing with you. --danhash (talk) 15:33, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	For making good formatting calls on the FL Studio page. MusicLover650 (talk) 00:41, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Windows To Go USB Flash Drive.png

I've reverted your removal of the replaceable fair use tag. This is a utilitarian object, and as such it can be photographed by a Wikipedia editor and released under a free license. We don't have to have a non-free image to depict this thing. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:51, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Sure it could be, eventually, but do you have one? No sense removing it till we have a better one. I'm not even sure these flash drives are available to the public yet, so it would likely be very hard to get another picture for some time. Also the description shouldn't say not replaceable if it is replaceable. —danhash (talk) 15:54, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

According to the template, this should be taken up at files for deletion. —danhash (talk) 15:57, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

• It's important to understand WP:NFCC #1. The question isn't whether I have such an image, or one is available. The question is, could one be made? Since this thing exists and is viewable to the public, the answer is yes. That creates a failure of WP:NFCC. There's really no wiggle room on that. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:51, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Your request for rollback

Hi Danhash. After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war.
• If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
• Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Swarm ^X 02:08, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Ordo Supremus Militaris Templi Hiersolymitani Speedy Deletion

Require explanation of why you think the OSMTH wiki page needs to be deleted. I am awaiting clarification on a few points before updating them. I ask again what the grounds for removal are? 80.238.1.135 (talk) 15:47, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

The article was improperly titled, improperly formatted, and looked like gibberish. It was redirected to Ordo Supremus Militaris Templi Hierosolymitani and the speedy deletion tag removed, so it doesn't matter any more. —danhash (talk) 20:29, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

HTML comments

Hi, Danhash, regarding your HTML comment Why is this SPAN here on Form follows function--normally such comments should go on the talk page--adding HTML comments inline does nothing to improve the article, and normally will not be seen. I've removed it, but feel free to add it back to the talk page. I can't read minds so don't know for sure, but a good guess based on the presence of the 'id="MAYA" ' attribute would be that it was placed there as the target of a fragment link from another page. Mathglot (talk) 21:58, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the info :) —danhash (talk) 22:41, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Highly accelerated stress screening

Hi Dan,

I would never copy and paste text from a copyrighted source, so maybe someone replaced the text of the page with copyrighted material? I'm not an admin, so I can't check the history of the page. I also don't know whether I created it in the first place: I didn't list it on my user page with the other pages I created, and I can't find it in my list of contributions (maybe because it's deleted?) I'll replace it with a redirect to highly accelerated life test in the meantime. --Slashme (talk) 06:36, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

My apologies! I sent a message to the admin who deleted the page here with an explanation. I will be more careful with speedy tagging in the future. —danhash (talk) 14:21, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

No problem. HAST and HALT probably need to be merged in any case. Keep up the good work! --Slashme (talk) 05:56, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

PTSD - thanks for recent technical editing!

I have just finished review the series of very recent edits you have made. Thank you for some fine technical editing. I focus on content and don't always catch punctuation problems, especially in sections I haven't worked on. Your attention to the article is VERY much appreciated. I hope we will see repeat visits as time progresses. This sort of clean up s surely needed, but doesn't always get done. As with all things Wikipedian, there is no substitute for a good team! - Tom Cloyd (talk) 18:35, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Tom! I'm glad somebody noticed :) I really enjoy this kind of clean up, so if you see any other articles that could use these types of fixes, or if you noticed something else in the PTSD article that needs attention, let me know. Glad to know somebody is watching over the page. —danhash (talk) 20:32, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I'm definitely watching. It's my pet project.

And yet again - you just caught a vandalized reference which I'd missed. THANKS! Tom Cloyd (talk) 04:37, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Request for comment

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Dissociative identity disorder#Status of this article - clarification of my position. Tom Cloyd (talk) 20:32, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:CANVAS, I would prefer an uninvolved third party. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 20:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I am uninvolved. I had already been planning on commenting on the talk page after my own review of the discussion and edits in question. I am glad Tom has asked for my opinion, but FYI, his request for comment was not needed, as I was already intending, independently, to join the discussion. I will join the discussion if and when I am ready and have time, and Tom's request that I do so is not inappropriate. (In case you missed it, I made 2 recent edits to the article before Tom invited me to join the discussion.) —danhash (talk) 21:11, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

AN posting notification

Administrator's noticeboard posting. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:27, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

[1] WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:43, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

thank you for what you said on the talk page for DID. I hope you enjoy this kitten.

Unitybicycle (talk) 21:15, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Source for TV Show

You removed my edit for the Dibs page stating that I needed a source. How do I go about sourcing a quote from a TV show? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.110.31 (talk • contribs) 18:33, 13 February 2012

As with everything else on Wikipedia, information about TV shows needs to be verifiable; in other words, it needs a citation from a reliable source. Policy pages can be a bit much to take in all at once, so you may want to check out the new contributors' help page for help with where to find a reliable source for a TV show quote. If you're up for a bit of extra reading, you may want to check out the "Content" section of the "In popular culture" content essay. I removed the warning from your talk page; thanks for asking for help! Let me know if you have any more questions. —danhash (talk) 14:54, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

The Script and Danny's page

Hi Dan Hash,

I work for The Script, they're a client of {{Essence Digital]] UK PR company. I saw you reverted changes I had made instructed by the band that were correctly referenced. Could you advise me on your reasoning for doing this, and give me any help or hints to processes to ensuring the content stays up there?

Cheers,

George — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheScriptOfficial (talk • contribs) 11:01, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

George, the problems with your edits and with your username have been pointed out before. You cannot edit Wikipedia for promotional purposes; please see Wikipedia:Promotion. Your username must reflect yourself and not another entity or group of people; please see the sections of our username policy entitled "Company/group names" and "Sharing accounts". No band, company, or other group of people own any article on Wikipedia or have the authority to dictate its contents; please see Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view; please see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not censored i.e. information will not be removed because you do not like it; please see "Wikipedia is not censored" on the what Wikipedia is not page. Since you seem to have a conflict of interest (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest), you may make an edit request if you would like to edit an article which you have a monetary or other incentive to edit. Speaking from experience, it is very likely that you will be blocked very soon (I very well may report you to the Administrators' Noticeboard myself). You must change your username to one that represents ONLY yourself and does NOT represent The Script, Essence Digital, or ANY company, business, or other group of people. You have been told many of these things before on your talk page, at Talk:The Script (see sections "Official Script Message" and "STOP ADDING MY TOWN!"), and at Sitush's talk page. Please take a good look at Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. I have again removed the promotional material you added to Danny O'Donoghue and have issues a final warning on your talk page. If you have any questions feel free to reply here or to post at the Help desk. —danhash (talk) 18:59, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Invitation to events: bot, template, and Gadget makers wanted

I thought you might want to know about some upcoming events where you can learn more about MediaWiki customization and development, extending functionality with JavaScript, the future of ResourceLoader and Gadgets, the new Lua templating system, how to best use the web API for bots, and various upcoming features and changes. We'd love to have power users, bot maintainers and writers, and template makers at these events so we can all learn from each other and chat about what needs doing.

Check out the Chennai event in March, the Berlin hackathon in June, the developers' days preceding Wikimania in July in Washington, DC, or any other of our events.

Best wishes! - Sumana Harihareswara, Wikimedia Foundation's Volunteer Development Coordinator. Please reply on my talk page, here or at mediawiki.org. Sumanah (talk) 15:57, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Danny request of edits

Dan I simply need to know how to add the information you have undone and removed and request for My Town not be listed. If I change my username is this possible? Thanks for all you help so far. As far as I'm aware the article info I've written is within WIKI guidelines? George — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.217.117.150 (talk) 10:32, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

You need to understand that Wikipedia is not for promotion. It is not a marketing outlet, and you do not get to control what is on Wikipedia in order to manipulate a "public image". What is your reason for not wanting Mytown to be listed on pages about the band? You need to change your username because "TheScriptOfficial" indicates that you are editing on behalf of the band. Your Wikipedia user account may only represent yourself. I have given you links to policies, newbie guides, and explanations of all of these things; I do not think you have really read or understood our rules here. Even if you change your username, you still have a conflict of interest if you are editing on behalf of the band or if your job includes editing Wikipedia for The Script. Regardless of your username, you will be blocked for repeated censorship of information or addition of promotional material. Your edits that I reverted read like a press release which is the very definition of promotional material. Generally speaking, you are only allowed one username. I notice that your IP address (83.217.117.150) is one that has previously removed Mytown from the Danny O'Donoghue article. Have you used any other accounts or IP addresses to edit Wikipedia? —danhash (talk) 15:51, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Pinterest copyright

You've asked... Illegal according to what laws? Copyright law plain and simple. They don't own rights to almost all the images on the site. This is why content creators are raising this issue. Who says that no copyright owners give permission to reuse their images? The fact that Pinterest insists in their terms that users only pin images they have rights to shows that they know they have no right to start using others work. Who says the images are even copied to Pinterest's servers at all? - It has to be this way as otherwise Pinterest's pages would have missing images when images are removed from the original source. Who says that even if they are copied without permission that this is illegal? Of course it's illegal. Even Pirate Bay and others ensure that they don't host the content as it's not theirs. It will be interesting to see how this whole thing pans out. What would the music industry make of an audio version of Pinterest where users could pin songs, with the original songs then copied to the site for others to listen to? Tigershoot (talk) 19:53, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

The point is that information MUST be verifiable. It does not matter what you think is true; we need citations to reliable sources. Additionally, articles must be written from a neutral point of view, which means no matter how "wrong" or illegal you think Pinterest's business model is, you must write about it in a neutral way. You have been told this on the talk page, but you apparently didn't hear it. I will not discuss Pinterest's business model further with you until you abide by these policies. —danhash (talk) 20:06, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Today I added credible sources and information about Pinterest including references. This included information on an IP lawyers total failure to get a response from Pinterest. Everything was eventually deleted and existing information deleted too. Each day more information is available over copyright violation issues with Pinterest. If you feel I can add nothing to the article's copyright section, then can I ask that you do?Tigershoot (talk) 17:29, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I tried to give rationales in my edit summaries for why I made the changes I did. I removed the sentence "Requests by journalists and an Intellectual Property lawyer to confirm the company's process for removing copyrighted content have met with no response." after looking at the citation because the sentence is rather misleading, it is not sourced well enough, and it is too general. This sentence: "Pinterest has a notification system which allows copyright holders to request that content be removed from the site." was changed to "Pinterest claims it has a notification system..." (emphasis added) seemingly without a good rationale or a reliable source with a concrete objection to the statement that Pinterest actually does have a notification system. Also, the citation for that material took for granted that there was a notification system in place; this could certainly be improved with a more direct citation, but I believe that it is supported in other sources, and in any case it seemed like a stretch to state only that Pinterest claims to have a notification system. Feel free to remove that or any other sentence you feel is not properly sourced. I removed this sentence: "The Boston Business Journal announced that, due to the broad scope of Pinterest's terms of use, it was ceasing to use the service to avoid being sued for copyright infringement." because it leads the reader to believe that Pinterest's terms of use leaves users open to being sued but does not actually cite a reliable source for that assumption; also, some random company's fear of being sued is not especially relevant. I removed "In an article entitled 'How your business could get sued for using Pinterest', journalist Galen Moore noted that Pinterest's terms give it the right to sell images that users upload, and that Pinterest could claim protection from infringed third parties but not individual Pinterest users who are exposed to possible litigation." for a couple of reasons: the cited article's title is not relevant information for the text of the Pinterest article; the sentence is poorly written, because it is hard to read and rather ambiguous; and we need more than the opinion of a journalist before stating that a Pinterest user can be sued. We need sources that are more reliable and concrete before adding these kind of negative accusations to articles about current companies. I improve the article as I have time, but it is up to the editor who adds information to an article to make sure it has a proper citation to a reliable source. I encourage you to do some more research and find sources that are more reliable, and then improve the article from a neutral point of view. —danhash (talk) 15:14, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Dan,

I completely understand, and will follow the processes sent over previously. For now can you remove the 15m pound deal off the page and leave My Town? The deal is utter rubbish and there is no sources backing this up. The band management and label are all happy to send any info over to STOP this being posted. Apologies for the piece reading like a press release, everything in there was based on facts which I backed up following wiki referencing guide lines. Would you be able to include some of the info I posted in your edit. This would be a huge help to The Script team and would mean that we could stop editing the pages from a brand perspective all together.

Info we need is:

Age: Origins: Work with other producers: Awards:

Thanks,

George — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheScriptOfficial (talk • contribs) 16:56, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I believe you are talking about this series of edits you made to Danny O'Donoghue? I took another look just now, and while some of your information is sourced, enough of it isn't sourced, and parts of it are poorly written to the point where reversion still seems like the best option. I don't have the time to significantly improve the article, but if you place an edit request on the talk page with the information you would like added to the article, that would be a good way to get the article improved even though you have a conflict of interest, because other editors can look at your edit request and decide on the most neutral way to improve the article. To make an edit request when you have a conflict of interest, use the {{Request edit}} template on the talk page; specifically, make a new section on Talk:The Script and type "{{Request edit}}" (without quotation marks) along with the information you would like added to the article. —danhash (talk) 14:44, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Dan

Thanks fr all your help I'll put in an edit request now :) George — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrGeorgeWiki (talk • contribs) 15:25, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Shortcuts

Hi! Could you explain what exactly was screwed up so that you had to revert me here? I really, really hate the shortcuts here on enwiki, they have gotten way out of hand. According to Wikipedia talk:List of shortcuts#How many? (from two years ago!) there were around twelve thousand shortcuts. That's just ridiculous. And in that page it was especially bad, since they were spelled out without any explanation, which meant you had to open approximately fifteen-twenty tabs just to have any idea about what stuff was referring to. Jon Harald Søby (talk) 16:03, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I believe I was referring to the YouTube section of your edit (take a look at the second bullet point). Also, expanding "WP:" to "Wikipedia:" on all of those links makes the page harder to read. I agree that too often people type shortcuts in caps, often not even linked, instead of actually making a statement or argument (WP:WTF? OMG! TMD TLA. ARG!), but I think that in certain places, like policy pages, it's helpful to see shortcuts for multiple reasons: 1. it's often easier to remember a shortcut than to remember the exact spelling/punctuation of a page title, 2. it's often easier to type a shortcut even if the exact page title is remembered, and 3. shortcuts tend to have a naming structure/pattern which is helpful to understand and helps users quickly navigate to pages where the specific shortcut might not be immediately remembered but can be inferred from the page title (for example, I was looking for WikiProject Computer Science earlier today and typed in WP:WPCS which redirected me there—a shortcut I had never used); referencing the shortcuts when it is reasonable to do so helps users learn them quicker, which helps with becoming familiar with Wikipedia and MediaWiki faster.

Perhaps a solution would be to use the shortcut as the link title but have the link target be the full title, like this WP:CITE. But this issue may better be address on the talk page. —danhash (talk) 16:56, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

SOPA - censorship

Hi Dan--

Please see my post following yours at User talk:Alan Liefting#Removing censorship categories. Before he got around to "cleaning up" categories, Liefting went on a rampage with every glossary page he could find, many of which are now being reverted and restored to their original page titles. Look at all the rest of the stuff on his talkpage. I'm not familiar with WP's procedure for reinstating a removed category, but if you are, you should just go ahead and do it now. Milkunderwood (talk) 03:34, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Irrelevant
Ooooh! Last name basis am I?? Please, enough of the inaccurate language. "Rampage"? "every glossary page he could find"? Please don't exaggerate! As for reinstating a removed category you, and all other editors, are quite free to do it. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 03:43, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Milkunderwood. I don't really feel like arguing with him on his talk page any more; I've had quite enough of contentious editors to last me a good while. Perhaps there is a better category for SOPA; I'll look at it again. Ultimately though it's more of an article talk page issue than a contentious editor's talk page issue. I would have just reverted his removal of the category, but since he did it to multiple pages I thought I'd get an explanation first. It seems I now have one (he makes broad edits without consensus and likes to argue). But it's the BRD process in action. It's often easier to get people's involvement in a discussion by going ahead and making the change (which he did), and if someone doesn't like it they will make sure you know (which I did). And FYI, adding categories is as simple as adding [[Category:NameOfCategory]] to the bottom of a page (generally before the interlanguage links but it doesn't really matter). And there is always HotCat (which you can enable as a gadget in preferences) which allows for easy editing of page categories. —danhash (talk) 14:58, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Image tag reversions

Originally posted to User talk:trlkly.

Please stop reverting {{Should be PNG}} tags added to images. There is nothing wrong with the filesize of images as PNG on Wikipedia. The MediaWiki software generates thumbnails for articles which works just fine; even if it didn't, uploading lesser-quality images would not be the solution. PNG is vastly superior to JPEG, especially for screenshots; JPEG should only be used for photographs (even then it sucks) or for images where no other higher-quality version is available. JPEG is a terrible format for images with straight lines and hard edges, which most screenshots have. In other words, my {{Should be PNG}} tags were perfectly appropriate; please do not remove them. Feel free to upload PNG versions and supersede the images if you want to. —danhash (talk) 21:49, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

No. Policy says that we do not replace JPEGs unless the file size is smaller, have visible artifacts, or they have lost transparency. And those that have visible artifacts go in a different category. Screenshots made from continuous color images will not produce smaller file sizes, so if they have no transparency, they stay JPEGs via policy unless they are "BadJPEGs."

I'm not some guy who has come in and just decided to mess around with things. I am a very large contributor to fixing up the category "Images which should be in PNG format." It is an overrun category, partly because many people who are unaware of how PNGs work, especially here on Wikipedia.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the PNG thumbnails are really bad here, and it's actually a bug that has been filed against Wikimedia for quite a while. The 24 bit PNGs I upload are often a factor of two smaller, and let's not forget that wiki will not use 8-bit thumbnails, thus making all resized 8-bit PNGs at least 4 times as large as they should be (which is why I have to upload them at the resolution used in the article).

If you continue to believe that the JPEGs I am unmarking have visible artifacts, you are free to add BadJPEG to them. They do not belong with Template:Should be PNG, as you'll read on that page's documentation, as well as elsewhere on the wiki. Wikimedia is not making some push to convert all images to PNG. JPEGs are an acceptable format. — trlkly 23:17, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure I made this clear, but I have been uploading PNGs. That's how I learned whether a JPEG will produce a superior image as a PNG. I don't just go around deleting tags for the fun of it. Believe me, if I could get that category cleared out by doing that, I'd be doing it all the time. It's kinda sad that it's backed up five times more than is supposed to be its maximum — trlkly 23:29, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Why did you move my comment from your talk page to mine?

{{Should be PNG}} says "This image was uploaded in a format such as GIF or JPEG and therefore has lost its quality. It is more suited to the PNG format, which supports full color support, lossless compression and transparency." which is an entirely accurate statement. Any image that originally was not a JPEG (this includes screenshots) that was uploaded as a JPEG by definition has lost its quality, and most images of almost any size can be noticed to have reduced quality by an experienced user with good eyes (i.e. a LOT of people). The documentation says the template should not be used for "Images for which only a JPEG source is available and will not become significantly smaller as a result of a conversion" (emphasis added). If there is a bug in the MediaWiki software related to PNG thumbnails (bugzilla link?), the solution is for that bug to be fixed; generally speaking editors don't have to worry about performance. {{Bad JPEG}} would be more useful if it accepted a parameter for which format would be better (like {{Bad JPEG|PNG}}), since screenshots should never be converted to SVG. —danhash (talk) 15:39, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

No, most people cannot tell the difference between a PNG and a lossy JPEG of sufficient quality except when dealing with line art and similar. The images I removed tags from include a screenshot of drum software that consisted of a photograph and some gradient UI elements, and an image from Apple's APP store advertising an app they no longer sell, which probably should have been a PNG, but that ship has sailed. I personally do not think either was a bad move, but if you think any individual image shouldn't have had the tag removed, I would think it better to discuss it on that image's talk page rather than tell me I shouldn't ever remove the tags.

As for performance problems--that essay deals with server side issues. We are specifically told to try to keep image sizes low, even to the point that we are encouraged to upload smaller versions of the same image if we can without losing quality. In fact, one of the reasons I contribute where I do is because this issue is pretty uncontroversial.

And as for BadJPEG, that's a pretty easy fix. I'll take a look and see if I can fix it up for you, assuming it isn't locked. Though, honestly, I seriously doubt there's much risk of someone trying to convert a screenshot to SVG.

Finally, for why I moved this to your talk page, see my comment on my talk page. I already answered you there before I realized you were going to ask the question again here, and since you apparently do not like me moving things around, I will refrain from moving it here. — trlkly 06:13, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not against removing all tags. And I'm not against moving comments when appropriate; however, moving a comment by user A about user B's edits from user B's talk page to user A's talk page simply isn't the way discussion usually (ever?) works on Wikipedia. What "most people" can tell the difference between is not the point. JPEG sucks, even for photographs, and I am far from the only person capable of noticing the crappy quality of JPEGs, especially for screenshots. 10 or 20 years ago when bandwidth and computing power was much more limited, JPEG may have been a good compromise for photography and the internet. But it has always and will always suck as far as image quality is concerned. Again, it may have been a wonderful thing back in the day, but that day is long gone. Filesize simply is not nearly the issue that it once was, and many people have access to high quality, high resolution screens that make compression artifacts look even worse than they do on older monitors. As far as the policies or de facto standards you are referring to, especially the "uncontroversial" ones, could you point me to where they are explained? —danhash (talk) 18:51, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I already pointed you to the text of Template:BadJPEG which flat out says that JPEGs are an acceptable format unless they have large artifacts. I'm not going to do extra work when you aren't listening to citations I've already provided. I also pointed out that, if you think a specific image has artifacts that I didn't see, you can point that out on that image's talk page, and I won't get into an argument with you. I even started the conversation for you on the one image I found that had the tag reverted. I even went and fixed up the tag (BadJPEG) that's specifically about your concerns so that you could use it, since you complained about it. I even ate crow and found a PNG version of an image that I thought didn't exist. I've been doing everything I can to accommodate you, but it seems you want more.

Your opinion that "JPEG sucks" is just that, an opinion, and a rather uninformed one at that. Having actually edited these pictures, I've actually encountered JPEGs of 98% quality or higher and 4:4:4 chroma that were nearly pixel perfect, even on a 20-inch LCD monitor less than a year old at 800% magnification. Wikipedia as a whole is not on some crusade to convert all images to PNG, no matter what you personally think about the issue. If you want to get some sort of PNG crusade started that includes uploading larger files (something even the largely inactive User:PNG crusade bot never even did) that's something you can do in the appropriate places. (Though it will suck for the 40% of households that don't even have broadband) But I've already made every concession I am going to make on this issue. We are going to have to agree to disagree. Please let this issue rest. — trlkly 09:24, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey trlkly, I missed your change to {{BadJPEG}} since it wasn't on my watchlist. It's awesome! Thanks a lot for the change, I appreciate it. I missed your upload of File:I Am Rich sale screen.png too; thanks for finding a PNG! I would love to be more involved in the uploading of images, but I just don't have the time. I also missed your comment at File talk:Ezdrummer.jpg. Even though the images I tagged were on my watchlist, I missed your comment and your superseding image as I have a very large watchlist, the edits were over the weekend when I don't edit much, and I sometimes miss edits from my watchlist that I don't mean to. I thought your edit to BadJPEG was awesome when I saw it. I wanted to let you know that I wasn't trying to ignore citations you gave; maybe I should have been more clear that I was asking more for a policy page or even an essay, rather than just a template. If image policy is as you describe regarding file formats, I just wanted to make sure I understood and had a solid reference to look at to make sure I was following accepted standards; also, there are so many pages of policies and guidelines that it helps a lot to have a link to a specific section in question rather than trying to search through everything to find it. I haven't spent as much time working with files as I have with editing so my knowledge of the P&G in this area is more limited. There are places on Wikipedia though, and this may be one of them, where what is traditionally done isn't really codified in policy pages; if that's the case here, I'd love to help get the policy written down in an acceptable format. I sincerely apologize for stepping on your toes as I did—that was not my intention. As far as the files I had tagged, feel free to undo or change my edits as you see fit; you seem to have a better understanding of file policy than I do. As for JPEG quality, I won't argue with you here. I appreciate your contributions and your attitude of trying to work together. —danhash (talk) 15:02, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I definitely appreciate it. I have to admit that I got my idea of policy more via a feel working in this category than by what was written. It really does seem that we went through a phase of trying to convert all images to PNGs, but that we eventually backed off on that sort of thing, and it was mostly due to technical limitations and the bug I mentioned earlier. (I wish I could find that bug report.)

I have to also appologize for being a bit too testy at first. I've been having health problems that I don't really want to get into, and I'm pretty sure I took your comments wrong at first. I really appreciate that we were able to come to a mutual understanding. Thanks for giving me another positive editing experience, when I was expecting a rather negative one. — trlkly 09:24, 3 March 2012 (UTC)