Talk:Preview (software)

From Sajun.org

From Sam: I have made several attempts to fix the Preview article just to have it changed by people who have no idea what preview is or how it works - it is a interesting how this insignificant set of programs, including Preview, have actually been entered as articles in Wikipedia by someone. Unfortunately with Apple Employees and people like GrahamUK introducing erroneous information and illegal photos in to this article, the credibility of Wikipedia as a reliable source of information is at stake. Unlike the other "writers", I have repeatedly posted the references for my article and presented it as non-original information, according to the rules of wikipedia, just to have it Vandalized by these punks (namely Amelia Hunt, GrahamUK, Jpgordon, Rhobite etc.) It is interesting that non of these people are capable of using the Discussion pages to back up the sources of their false info. I, on the other hand, have provided references to public records of the State of California as well as certain employees who will back up all information posted.

Technical Facts: Preview's "performance" can never really be noticably "improved", because it is a very simple rudamentary piece of software with a few lines of code that relies almost entirely on features built into "Cocoa" in the OS. The performance improvements were in the OS, which to a novice, might make it seem like Preview has been improved. Also, there were NO bugs in Preview prior to the time it was handed over to high school dropouts after Apple's ethnic cleansing campaigns, where engineers who were of ethnic groups were terminated and replaced by these high school dropouts. If there were any known bugs, please list the bugs and your source of information, or shut up.

Just because you have a problem with the truth doesn't mean you have to erase the article and replace it with one that's 100% false both technically and factually.

PS: Regarding hiring an attorney to take on Apple, that is my business. The defamatory information against me is being accepted and posted, from certain Apple Employees, by Wikipedia. I don't know about you, but I would say that is a problem with Wikipedia accepting unverified information without any verifiable sources in its articles. Here are some of my sources: swen@apple.com avie@apple.com California Department of Fair Employment and Housing

Yes, that is your business, so why do you insist on keep bringing it up on the page about the software? In itself this has nothing to do with Apple's hiring/firing policy, which I readily admit I know nothing about, but which by any reasonable person's standards has no place in THIS article. If you want to start an article called "Apple Computer's hiring and firing policy" go ahead, but I doubt if it would be considered encyclopedic either. This article contains no "defamatory information" about you or anyone else - why do you think it does? No-one has said anything about bugs in the software either, though your assertion that there were NO bugs in the software is impossible to prove in any case, by you or anyone else. The day that can be proven about a piece of software is the day that Turing and Godel are discredited. Your so-called "sources" are simply email addresses to a couple of high-ups in Apple, and even assuming that the addresses are valid, no-one is likely to get a reply from them, so they are not sources, but in fact black holes. The other "source" is just the name of a public department - that is not a source, it's a title. You'd need to do a lot better than that, even supposing what you are trying to say is relevant, which is highly doubtful. It also matters not one iota whether or not Preview gets its performance from Cocoa or some other part of the OS, the perception is that Preview got a lot faster. The article already states that it derives from improvements in Cocoa, but so what? Finally, I did not introduce an "illegal photo" (whatever that is) into the article - I took a screenshot on my own machine of Preview viewing an open source specification document. Show me in what possible way that is "illegal". This is getting very old - you have psychological problems my friend. You are failing to distinguish reality from fantasy, and grossly overestimating the place of this encyclopedia article in the world at large. You're paranoid and delusional. Get help.Graham 22:37, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Moron, I think you are the one that needs to take a pill. Your friend John Calhoun may be the designated author of Preview even though he has no training in computer software or mathematics or any other technical field (and you obviously don't either), but there is no need to start using Wikipedia for defaming people that you have never met. The source of the bugs is available, goof, and I beleive you know that even you pretend you don't. You just have to access it through the Apple developer group and I am sure there are other ways. By they way, if there is no known source for bug listings anywhere, like you claim, then why are you repeatedly claiming that "obvious bugs were fixed by John Calhoun" in the article. You are making a fool of yourself -- Really man take a pill, and consider another hobby. You are a liar, a cheat, a mongoloid, a stalker, and you are the one that is delusional since you have convinced yourself that you are in posession of knowledge without source or reference and feel that the useless garbage you keep reposting is worth sharing with the rest of the world! Please die.
PS -- What you are doing can get John into trouble, so stop and think before continuing this BS, or maybe its better if you stop thinking - whatever works.

Sam 02:40, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

What is wrong with you? I do not know John Calhoun, I have never met the guy, I don't know what you're talking about. The current article revision doesn't mention him, nor any "obvious bugs". I have plenty of training in many technical fields; in fact I'm a Mac programmer of almost 20 years' experience. Despite that I have no access to the source code for Preview, so I have no way to check for bugs myself even if I wanted to, which I don't. However it's irrelevant, since THE ARTICLE (remember, the thing that we're talking about) does not need to mention this, and indeed does not. I am not defaming anyone, I'm merely making the article encyclopedic, which means removing any personal vendettas, biases and other questionable statements from it. Please stop adding them, you will be continually reverted.Graham 05:05, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)


Stupid Edit War

To Sam999, and all of his aliases, sock puppets and anon IP addresses. This is an ENCYCLOPEDIA. It's not a sopabox for airing your grievances against Apple or whoever - those who are reverting you are doing so to preserve the integrity of the article, and only that. As far as I can tell there is no "agenda" - I certainly don't have one, whereas you most ceratinly do, and it has no place here. If you feel you have a grievance against Apple, then take it up with them, get a lawyer, whatever. If you want to publicise this then this is not a channel which will do so effectively - why not contact your local newspaper? Even if your changes here ever stuck, do you honestly think that this will achieve anything? And of course your changes won't stick, because everyone here can recognise something inappropriate to an ENCYCLOPEDIA when they see it, and that is why you're being continually reverted. Give it up, and find a better channel. Whatever you think, this is not a conspiracy against you, we are simply writing an ENCYCLOPEDIA. Get over it. And incidentally, I am not user:curps, we are two different users (among numerous others) who just happen to both find your edits inappropriate. If you think this is a conspiracy, then you're wrong - but if you STILL think that, then you're probably suffering from paranoid delusions, and should probably seek professional help for that. Graham 00:34, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think it's clear that Wikipedia needs the version without the unsupported and potentially libellous accusations, which conveniently is also the version that doesn't misuse the word "simplistic" or misspell the word "its". - Nunh-huh 03:20, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Boy holding dildo

Should the article discuss the reason why the Preview application's icon shows a boy on a beach holding a dildo? Is it in fact a exact molding of Steve Jobs' cock?

File:Preview dildo.jpg

In such a tiny photo it is impossible to tell what the object is. So the answer to your question would be no. -- Curps 20:44, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Always looked like a bottle to me. -- Cyrius| 15:34, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)