Talk:Pixelization

message: If I use Google Earth 4, there are some places that has pixelization (like the Netherlands. Why is it censored on the Google Earth Imagery? That might be a problem, right? 
----Invader SoapEvil JokesGir's DogFebruary 16th, 2007 (UTC)
Are you sure it has been censored, or is this just an area where Google acquired a lower resolution data set? Across the world, Google Earth has different resolutions depending on where you look. The edges between data sets show up as changes in the overall hue.Birdbrainscan 03:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Google Earth Question 

message: As a big fan of Hokusai's art, I'd be interested to see this modern reinterpretation. I understand if it is not available online due to copyright, but I could not find any reference to it with a moderate amount of Google searching and refining. Does anyone have a link to any info? Birdbrainscan 03:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here - vorpal.us --Hellahulla (talk) 11:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wave of the Future 

message: I think we should mention article http://dheera.net/projects/blur.php about possibility of information recovery from blurred/mosaic-ed image (note the photo of credit card used in this article). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.113.238.142 (talk) 00:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Security 

message: I removed the source link that pointed to a message board. Message boards are not considered proper sources as per Wikipedia source guidelines. Secondly, the statement regarding censorship of depictions of handcuffs and children's faces is vague and not sourced. Does the law require censorship of depictions of handcuffs in fictional cop shows, for example or only in reality or news shows? Also, would a children's program have to censor the faces of children that appear on it? Do news broadcasts have to censor all depictions of children's faces? We should really be more clear on what the law requires. --Cab88 04:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Japan and pixelization 

message: I saw a show on Dateline NBC called "How to Catch a Predator".  It was a sting where child-molesters were lured into a house by children they were supposed to meet and have sex with.  Instead, they got police and a reporter.  My question is: Why were they able to show the pervert's faces on national television and what are the laws regarding showing people's images on TV.  Don't people have to sign a waiver?
:I would guess that the footage is only aired if the offender was convicted. Zeldafanjtl (talk) 17:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question About People's Rights to Be Seen or Not Seen on Television 

message: Is the case of Christopher Paul Neil interesting in this article?  --Pilettes (talk) 12:40, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Digital swirl 

message: Why is my reference to films being left uncensored, when you state without qualification that nudity is "obscured", irrelevant you bloody idiot? I have REVERSED your change! You should say that images of nude genitalia, breasts and buttocks MAY be obscured where the person in charge of editing finds them inappropriate (eg tabloid newspapers, US network television, film posters etc.) or where their display would be illegal (eg Japanese and many Arab countries' media). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.157.122.207 (talk • contribs) 
:First of all, calm down, no need to be calling people names. Secondly, the only edit I can see you made to the article (from that IP) is to add the word "any" to a section which has been copyedited since. I don't see what that edit has to do with the rest of your comment. Maybe that's not the edit you mean, and you were using a different IP or username, but if so, I can't see which edit you are referring to. If you want to include something specific, please clarify what it is, and we can discuss it. Begoon talk 06:35, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok - I assume that the recent edit changing "a" to "any" was you, since the IP seems to correspond. I don't see any problem with that edit, implying, as it does, that there are multiple "pixelization" techniques, which there are. Maybe there's a better way to word it, but it seems fine to me until someone does that rewording. Now - was there something else we need to address in your first post - or is that all that you were referring to? Thanks. Begoon talk 07:47, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment from [[Special:Contributions/175.157.122.207|IP editor 175.157.122.207]] 

message: Censor bars (or boxes, or redaction swaths) predate pixelization and digital media itself by many decades. Inasmuch they were in common use both for sensitive texts and sensitive photographs back in the day, they can hardly have been said to have supplanted the digital artifact.  That said, they were ironically and widely used in the Protests against SOPA and PIPA as a graphic device.  kencf0618 (talk) 22:47, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Provenance of Censor Bars 

message: Pixelize is not a word. Pixelate is. — Wyliepedia 05:52, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Pixelize" vs. "pixelate"