ISOGuru

I don't dispute your effort, but it has been misapplied. You refuse to support the proper values with anything other than your opinion, which not all of us share. Had ISO or CIPA anticipated speeds greater than 10,000, they well might have extended the series as you propose. But they didn't, and Canon and Nikon apparently decided to double the highest speed ever used, 6400. Accordingly, those values are the de facto standard. If for some reason you think you have standing to override Canon and Nikon, please convince us—but don't simply change accepted values and insert your personal opinion in the article. Continuing to do so makes you appear like an obstinate child and does a great disservice to readers who find a table that's at odds with the only devices that have speeds in that region. If you have convincing reasons for using other values, or adding a note, or whatever, please present them on the talk page rather than continuing to make defiant edits. JeffConrad (talk) 23:03, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Before I put this on the admin board, I will once again point you to Wikipedia policies for reliable sources and neutral point of view, and repeat the question, “What is source for the “proper” values that you mention in Film speed?”

I mention neutral point of view because absent a specific prohibition of the values Canon and Nikon have chosen to use, words such as “proper” and “corrupted” are pejorative, and would be inappropriate even if the values you purport to be proper were supported by a reliable source. Their use is much of the reason why I termed your edit a “rant”.

Unless ISO 12232:2006 extends the range past ISO 10,000 (which I suspect it does not, but must defer to someone who has a copy), the claim of a greater ISO speed is arguably improper, though that's getting pretty picky. Nonetheless, a footnote to the effect that Canon and Nikon have extended the scale to values not officially given by ISO might be appropriate.

I believe your edits were well intended, but Wikipedia policy requires that material be supported by a reliable source, and I ask you again to provide one. JeffConrad (talk) 06:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Suspected Restoration of Problematic Content

As the correction was made by an anonymous user, I am not sure if this was you; but given that you have made previous corrections to the projectionist article, please forgive me for raising this here if it was not. Some content, which in my view is problematic both in terms of POV and factual accuracy, has been restored to a rewrite of this article I recently did. I've raised this here . If this was you, please could you have a look, and if you believe that I have a point, consider moving and/or rewriting this material? Many thanks. LDGE (talk) 15:12, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of SFW-XL

The article SFW-XL has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Original research; referenced Kodak .pdf files do not mention Seattle FilmWorks or 'SWF-XL'.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 20:11, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Double Exposure, Ltd. Laboratory

The article Double Exposure, Ltd. Laboratory has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable company and original research - referenced sources are irrelevant to this article's subject.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 20:33, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:XXLtdLab Logo.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:XXLtdLab Logo.jpg. 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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 00:22, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:XXLtdLab Logo.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:XXLtdLab Logo.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 17:38, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Double Exposure, Ltd. Laboratory for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Double Exposure, Ltd. Laboratory is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Double Exposure, Ltd. Laboratory until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 02:48, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello, ISOGuru. You have new messages at Baffle gab1978's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Baffle gab1978 (talk) 05:18, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:XXLtdLab Logo.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:XXLtdLab Logo.jpg. 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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 12:33, 6 March 2012 (UTC)