User talk:Tagremover

Welcome and I beg a favor
Hi Tagremover! I saw your intro at the Teahouse and. . . I wonder if you can help me out with something? I got involved with trying to help a new Wikipedia user named Cchallag save his/her article on PureView Pro. Unfortunately I am utterly non-techie and couldn't rewrite it myself, but it was ultimately saved in his/her userspace: it's now here. Could you possibly help the editor to fix this up so it can be moved back into mainspace, or use the material in it (such as the diagram) to improve the article on the phone that you are working on? I have no idea which would be better - as I say, I am incompetent in the area of knowledge. I'll happily advise on things like how to add the references and how to make the wording neutral, and I'm sure the folks at the Teahouse will too. But it seems to me that the two articles belong together and could benefit from joint effort. Yngvadottir (talk) 00:13, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The used image is the same as in the Nokia infos, if not fair use, probably copyright violation. The other parts are nothing more than a description, which could be better read in a Nokia info itself (but usually Wiki repeats that). I am trying to bring some additional background info, because its a new, groundbreaking technology in the sensor and the optic.
 * I saw you are a language genius ! My respect. Tagremover (talk) 01:07, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Heh, hardly a genius, but thanks :-) I suspect Cchallag may be the author of the diagram, or have permission to use it; there is a process for granting official permission that would enable us to continue using it in either case. I did note that he/she had amassed some potential references in that last version of the article (it was restored in user space as it had been right before it was deleted); I hope you can either use them in your article or help Cchallag learn how to use them in that article. Sounds like you think it better just to have the article on the phone? Either way, let me know if I can help; I did get the impression that, as you are saying, this is something genuinely new enough - and that has received enough 3rd-party attention - that it should be covered here. But I stuck that massive template above (I apologize for its size) because I see you are still relatively new and so there are the links to all the policies and procedures in case you need them. Usually I try my hand at rewriting a new article myself, but this hits way too far into my big educational gap. Yngvadottir (talk) 01:24, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The sensor is a new Resolution processing image sensor, which is capable not only to deliver parts of its pixels, but to interpolate its resolution by having its own image processor, highly reducing external processing needs and data rates and image noise when lower resolutions (also at HD-video) are needed. Additionally very high image resolution.
 * The optic is a 1-group lens, here a unit focusing lens based on a shiftable fixed-focus lens, additionally an aperture-less lens and consisting of highly stable, cemented all-aspherical lens elements. Simply: Extreme precision.
 * Also the results even in the Nokia 808 are amazing, this technology has much reserves. Its the future (my guess). Tagremover (talk) 01:50, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

 * Oops, I probably should have left you a burger =) But, I hope you like cookies too... Sarah (talk) 22:40, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I love cookies too. Thats what i eat: Everything with meat, lots of ice-cream (walnut/pecan/caramel), cookies, spicy potato chips, chocolate (especially the white or darkest ones), sometimes wine-gums or something like that and lots of coffee (espresso style) and juice. To compensate some effects, sometimes a vitamin-pill. So, absolutely healthy? With this wonderful diet surely i will stay the fittest and healthiest. ;-) Tagremover (talk) 03:04, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * LOL. You sound like me! I swear I add the occasional vegetable in there...generally a tomato on a burger though ;-) Sarah (talk) 03:06, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh no. sometimes corn or peas, thats all. Nearly no green or "light" stuff. And then i have to run, to get rid of all the calories, and sometimes just stop eating. Until now, it works, and probably next year i will run one more marathon. Tagremover (talk) 03:19, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

trademarks
I see I mis-typed my edit summary here. I meant MOS:TM. Cheers. Dicklyon (talk) 06:27, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Its ok, doesn´t matter. I gave up edits on RISC for not wasting my time in edit-wars, but your revert had no reason: My structure was a lot better. Tagremover (talk) 06:31, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I didn't look at your structure, just your tag removal. Dicklyon (talk) 06:33, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Then include your few section-tags in my version. Thats your task now. I made my work. Tagremover (talk) 06:34, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

WikiThanks
Thanks for your recent contributions! 66.87.2.193 (talk) 16:35, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Requesting your opinion on a photo
Hi. We really need your opinion on which of these photos would make the best Infobox portrait for the Rick Remender article. Could you please offer your opinion in that discussion? The most recent subsection of that discussion is here, so you can just chime in there if you don't want to read the whole thread. I really appreciate it. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 17:08, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Template:DSLR_cameras_with_movie_mode Pentax high end
http://www.thephoblographer.com/2010/11/05/pentax-k-5-beats-out-canon-5d-mk-ii-7d-nikon-d700-d300s/ to have a summary of just sensor quality.

Built quality is surely better than Canon and Nikon's mid-line. There are plenty of tests on the web showing what k-5 can withstand.

Where is it not high end enough for this list?

IQ wise? Feature wise? Built-quality wise?

Not of system bias, market share or popular perception of course, i assume.

Those may not be best cameras on the market (and i'm sure never were) but they easily trade blows in comparisons with "high end" i.e. d300s or 7d.

Also that contradicts http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Pentax_DSLR_cameras which shows them as High End.

88.156.220.218 (talk) 17:00, 3 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Classification within Pentax is not comparable to classes of other manufacturers, in Pentax it has to be "Flagship" or a not available class above highend. But when listed in a template like this, there has to be a comparison. The classification here is 50% price (because its mostly justified, the most easy criterion and least contested), 30% camera technology and competitors and 20% lenses and other accessories available for this class.


 * 1) Of course i know the results of DXOMARK, which are talked about. Read the source, which talks about the betraying of the customer and falsifying of the automated measuring by using noise reduction in the RAW files, which aren't "raw" anymore. AND: Compare its sensor to its competitors, the Nikon D7000 or even D3200, which deliver real raw.
 * 2) Built quality better??
 * 3) D300s is in high-end partly of the revolutionary predecessor D300 and listed in the famous "Nikon Professional Service", 7D because it is the competitor.
 * 4) Compare it to the Leica, which has no autofocus or stabilization, is slow, highly demanded and outsold with a delivery time of nearly a year. Difficult? See rules above.
 * OK? Tagremover (talk) 19:15, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

50% price? You sober man? So having good marketing department and lemmings buying stuff at inflated prices will make my product high-end? I didn't know it's about consumer electronics. Thought it's about a little bit more "niche" and professional stuff.

Accessories? Is this list comparing systems or cameras? Cause if we're talking about systems this little list won't do anyone justice. Lenses? http://www.pixel-peeper.com/lenses/ Pentax may not be first pick in popularity, but isn't bottom feeder. Build quality. Pentax cameras are known to be sturdy. http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=pentax+k-5+water

Also putting k-500 and k-50 in different brackets, yet k-5ii and k-50 in same is laughable considering differences between the three.

The flagship category for Pentax is more about "MY SENSOR IS BIGGER THAN YOURS" than anything...

edit: forgot bout NPS: http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/2696124 it certainly needs other brand to provide at least bearable service, cause it's normal workshop service can't be described in words without "beep", haha. 88.156.220.218 (talk) 12:36, 6 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Now, your evaluation seems to be emotionally biased. If there are buyers for a device, it obviously justifies its price for them: Even if the (initial) price target wasn't correct at all: see Sigma DSLR price drop.
 * "MY SENSOR IS BIGGER THAN YOURS": Obviously some see value and are buying a slow, uncomfortable, heavy, quite featureless 645D even without video: top class device.
 * K-30/50: I agree, they are more (upper) entry-level, comparable to Canon 100D.
 * NPS: The single example you listed is about a probably very small/short time Nikon Professional, who:
 * Haven't registered its device
 * Claims immediate service for a device, which he has no single proof that its belongs to him
 * Additionally its device was bought in a country far away. I do not like this country limiting, buts its now common in many areas, see "Samsung phone lock".
 * A friend of mine i just asked, is a single, independent registered professional since 20 years, bought several prof. cams and lenses, and has NO problems at all getting immediate service for not registered, even cheaper devices, also getting the ability to rent quickly needed devices in normally under 24 hours.
 * This unexperienced guy had done everything wrong: And additionally if he cares about the small rent for needed devices for its professional use, he is probably not a professional photographer at all.
 * Cherrypicking technical details: Try to find competitors and buyers to understand total value. Like you said: Pentax is comparable to Nikon (D7000/D7100) and some Canons, not better. Tagremover (talk) 04:22, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 11
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nikon NASA F4, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lockheed (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:31, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

register bank switching
Many months ago, you insisted that Wikipedia should say a few words about register bank switching. 

I agree, but to avoid controversy at the bank switching article, I created the register file section in the register file article.

Perhaps someday people will add enough information to that section to justify splitting that section out into an independent article. --DavidCary (talk) 16:15, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:EXPEED Milbeaut M42.gif
Thanks for uploading File:EXPEED Milbeaut M42.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:26, 12 June 2018 (UTC)