![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I expanded this article a bit and took off the stub since pretty much all the information needed is there.
68.237.128.69 / Jard Dooku / Jard Yan Dooku 01:50, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Why doe's thi's article have so many incorrect apo'strophe's? -- 89.243.185.148 ( talk) 00:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I thought these were CFBF files saved by OLE IStorage, but looking at the header for Vista ones with a hex editor it doesn't seem to match the magic number. -- bitplane 18:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
What does that mean??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.162.148 ( talk) 04:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi.
There seems to have been a dispute between User:Capmo and I in the article; a kind that is usually resolved very quickly but unfortunately more reverts than I hoped has occurred. It is one of those situations that one thinks "with this revert and explanation, everything will be okay" and suddenly it is not. Today, Campo made a very suspicious claim that EXIF thumbnails of JPEG files in Windows take precedence over thumbs.db ones. It was unreferenced and left many questions unanswered, so naturally I removed it per WP:V. But Campo did something that I didn't expect of a 9-years veteran: He counter-reverted with a pointy edit summary, "Ever heard of {{ Citation needed}}?" ( Sure. And I explained when I use it.)
The sources that are later given ( [1] and [2]) are questionable: First, they are self-published sources, i.e. posts in an open forum by a person called "Kresho123". Second, they do not talk about thumb.db's precedence; one of them is about Windows 7, which does not use thumbs.db files.
Of course, I didn't expect a counter-revert, but it came anyway. It reads "Sources are from the official Microsoft Support website, maintained by Microsoft personnel". It is false in two points: Microsoft Support Website is at
support
I invite a third person (or more; the more the merrier) to check my claims above. Hopefully, this issue is resolved quickly.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (
talk) 15:53, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
The both of you have points in your favour, but the both of you need to settle down before we need to take a trip over to AN/I. Some issues:
It's probably safe to add back that Windows will prefer thumbnail data already in a file over generating its own thumbnail to store, but not the claim that it'll ignore Thumbs.db in favour of in-file Exif thumbnails. However, the claim should not reference Microsoft Answers as a source. IF there's information on the actual Microsoft Support site, or on an MSDN blog run by someone who actually works/worked on the shell team for Microsoft, those could be considered reliable. Discussion forums, even if moderated by Microsoft employees (which, IIRC, MS Answers actually isn't), can't be considered reliable unless the identity of the person whose comments are being used can be proven to be an expert in the topic under discussion. And even then it's probably iffy. // coldacid ( talk| contrib) 20:23, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
I can vouch that..." Wikipedia is not interested in your vouching. Only your source..., so that I can tell you that they are still useless, because that's not what Capmo claimed. He claimed that EXIF metadata takes precedence over cache. This does not even appear in his own sources. There is a lot of WP:SYNTH here.
no Wikipedian usuallyassumes or acts on bad faith, you should visit the noticeboards more often. In any case, I see that my help or opinion is not wanted here, so I'll wash my hands of this article and the both of you. Have fun continuing to be incivil towards each other. // coldacid ( talk| contrib) 12:39, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm not going to take sides, saying one or both of you are in the wrong (or not) with the "truth" or insults (have only read the above quickly). I only "know" one of the parties (Codename Lisa), but I generally trust Lisa knows the rules better than I do. I value WP:V, but the truth even more and just noticed:
Hopefully stuff that is true isn't being reverted. In my own case ("a somewhat of a displeased remark") I didn't take it personally, and while I still *believe* what I put in, is the truth, I let it go, as some things are just very hard to verify beyond a reasonable doubt. If someone reverts, hopefully they really think you are wrong (or have a point/clarification, I tend to use reverts that way..). comp.arch ( talk) 13:37, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
[While "Verifiability in reliable sources" isn't speaking about the source code.. It is a question if it should have some value as a reliable source.. In case of "open source"/free software it is actually available (and "human" readable, strictly object code can also be..) to all.. Just running the code would not be 100% conclusive, but could it have some value?] comp.arch ( talk) 13:48, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Hey everyone! As Codename Lisa already described it, reverts shouldn't be taken personally or as something offensive. I've been reverted more than once, and in 95% of such instances it was that I've made a mistake that required to be rectified. For the next 4.5%, discussing the things in a civil way is the key. The remaining 0.5% goes to a few editors that actually haven't come here to build an encyclopedia. Actually, I like when I see that other editors are improving what I've put into articles, as that shows me that it isn't only me looking at the same lines. :) Becoming aware of one's mistakes is the only way to become better, at least in my humble opinion. — Dsimic ( talk | contribs) 23:42, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I expanded this article a bit and took off the stub since pretty much all the information needed is there.
68.237.128.69 / Jard Dooku / Jard Yan Dooku 01:50, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Why doe's thi's article have so many incorrect apo'strophe's? -- 89.243.185.148 ( talk) 00:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I thought these were CFBF files saved by OLE IStorage, but looking at the header for Vista ones with a hex editor it doesn't seem to match the magic number. -- bitplane 18:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
What does that mean??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.162.148 ( talk) 04:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi.
There seems to have been a dispute between User:Capmo and I in the article; a kind that is usually resolved very quickly but unfortunately more reverts than I hoped has occurred. It is one of those situations that one thinks "with this revert and explanation, everything will be okay" and suddenly it is not. Today, Campo made a very suspicious claim that EXIF thumbnails of JPEG files in Windows take precedence over thumbs.db ones. It was unreferenced and left many questions unanswered, so naturally I removed it per WP:V. But Campo did something that I didn't expect of a 9-years veteran: He counter-reverted with a pointy edit summary, "Ever heard of {{ Citation needed}}?" ( Sure. And I explained when I use it.)
The sources that are later given ( [1] and [2]) are questionable: First, they are self-published sources, i.e. posts in an open forum by a person called "Kresho123". Second, they do not talk about thumb.db's precedence; one of them is about Windows 7, which does not use thumbs.db files.
Of course, I didn't expect a counter-revert, but it came anyway. It reads "Sources are from the official Microsoft Support website, maintained by Microsoft personnel". It is false in two points: Microsoft Support Website is at
support
I invite a third person (or more; the more the merrier) to check my claims above. Hopefully, this issue is resolved quickly.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (
talk) 15:53, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
The both of you have points in your favour, but the both of you need to settle down before we need to take a trip over to AN/I. Some issues:
It's probably safe to add back that Windows will prefer thumbnail data already in a file over generating its own thumbnail to store, but not the claim that it'll ignore Thumbs.db in favour of in-file Exif thumbnails. However, the claim should not reference Microsoft Answers as a source. IF there's information on the actual Microsoft Support site, or on an MSDN blog run by someone who actually works/worked on the shell team for Microsoft, those could be considered reliable. Discussion forums, even if moderated by Microsoft employees (which, IIRC, MS Answers actually isn't), can't be considered reliable unless the identity of the person whose comments are being used can be proven to be an expert in the topic under discussion. And even then it's probably iffy. // coldacid ( talk| contrib) 20:23, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
I can vouch that..." Wikipedia is not interested in your vouching. Only your source..., so that I can tell you that they are still useless, because that's not what Capmo claimed. He claimed that EXIF metadata takes precedence over cache. This does not even appear in his own sources. There is a lot of WP:SYNTH here.
no Wikipedian usuallyassumes or acts on bad faith, you should visit the noticeboards more often. In any case, I see that my help or opinion is not wanted here, so I'll wash my hands of this article and the both of you. Have fun continuing to be incivil towards each other. // coldacid ( talk| contrib) 12:39, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm not going to take sides, saying one or both of you are in the wrong (or not) with the "truth" or insults (have only read the above quickly). I only "know" one of the parties (Codename Lisa), but I generally trust Lisa knows the rules better than I do. I value WP:V, but the truth even more and just noticed:
Hopefully stuff that is true isn't being reverted. In my own case ("a somewhat of a displeased remark") I didn't take it personally, and while I still *believe* what I put in, is the truth, I let it go, as some things are just very hard to verify beyond a reasonable doubt. If someone reverts, hopefully they really think you are wrong (or have a point/clarification, I tend to use reverts that way..). comp.arch ( talk) 13:37, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
[While "Verifiability in reliable sources" isn't speaking about the source code.. It is a question if it should have some value as a reliable source.. In case of "open source"/free software it is actually available (and "human" readable, strictly object code can also be..) to all.. Just running the code would not be 100% conclusive, but could it have some value?] comp.arch ( talk) 13:48, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Hey everyone! As Codename Lisa already described it, reverts shouldn't be taken personally or as something offensive. I've been reverted more than once, and in 95% of such instances it was that I've made a mistake that required to be rectified. For the next 4.5%, discussing the things in a civil way is the key. The remaining 0.5% goes to a few editors that actually haven't come here to build an encyclopedia. Actually, I like when I see that other editors are improving what I've put into articles, as that shows me that it isn't only me looking at the same lines. :) Becoming aware of one's mistakes is the only way to become better, at least in my humble opinion. — Dsimic ( talk | contribs) 23:42, 9 April 2015 (UTC)