User talk:Maikmerten

Theora Quality

That quote from Monty you inserted makes absolutely no sense in the context of the Theora article. Unless a reader has already read through the 2005 Codec Comparison AND Monty's paper, they will have no idea what "losers" or "lower-performing codecs" are. I thought the wording you removed was both quite accurate and a succinct way to put it (it was not my own wording, either, BTW). Rather than just reverting your change, I'd like to know why you object to the statement, and what you would suggest to replace it, in-lieu of Monty's quote. Rcooley (talk) 03:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, hello. Well, I feel that "substantially lacking" is too unspecific and leads to wrong conclusions. "substantially lacking" can be translated IMO to "unusable" or "not competetive with other codecs", while the paper by Monty clearly states that Theora with this one single change already competes with at least the not-so-great other codecs in the comparison. Thus I prefer to directly quote instead of giving a direct judgement. If things are unclear the user can have a look at the original paper. --Maikmerten (talk) 15:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Before I revert your reversion... What source disputes that VP3 and Theora are "approximately comparable to H.261"? Rcooley (talk) 11:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

First of all you need a credible source for your claim. No, a position paper from a guy working on MPEG standards and working for a MPEG company is not automatically credible. And even then you cannot just insert it as a fact but at the very best say that "party A claimed that...". Second, that claim has been disputed by mainstream media: http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/100380/ - on the Theora talk page there's a translation. --Maikmerten (talk) 12:00, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Saying "party A claimed that..." all the time is not only unnecessary, but in direct opposition to wikipedia policy. Potential conflict of interest is also not automatically disqualifying. Given the heise article, however, I've made appropriate changes. Rcooley (talk) 13:01, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Personally I think we can leave it that way. It's interesting to see, by the way, how our struggle for consensus improved the structure of the article ;-) --Maikmerten (talk) 11:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad we finally agree. The arguing was certainly getting old. But considering the rough history of the Theora article, don't be surprised if a bunch of anonymous users keep coming along and removing it, none the less. Rcooley (talk) 16:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Nexuiz-game-logo.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Nexuiz-game-logo.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC)