User talk:Raeky/Archives/2010/August

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

It's no big deal, except that now the element pic in the middle looks awkwardly proportioned in relation to the outer two, and most people will be presented with a chopped off Ernest Borgnine and will need to scroll over (that was always my issue with the galleries. Can you explain, technically, what you mean by "extending the page vertically"? I'd like to learn more about image placement. Tony (talk) 16:25, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

well on my screen, which after thinking about it mine isn't normal, I use a 22" widescreen monitor and the text ends WAY before the images do, leaving those 3 dangling below awkwardly.. if that isn't an issue for most people then revert my changes, I was trying to fix that. — raekyT 16:28, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

The variation in image layout with readers' window size really concerns me. I'm only just learning how what we see as fine layouts can squash text badly depending on how much the reader boosts or reduces the default text size, and widens or narrows the windows that open in their browser. BTW, it is the window size, not the monitor size, that matters ultimately, isn't it? On my default window size for Firefox, and my default text size, the Borgnine pic came down to four lines into the "Choice of the week" para, which is comfortable. If I go one step larger in font size, the pic ends end of the Borgnine text entry. One step small smaller and yes, the pic overhangs a little. That's with a window width about 40% across my 27-inch monitor. Do you have very wide windows, or tiny text-size, or both? This is interesting. Tony (talk) 16:50, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure, I use Google Chrome stretched across the width of my monitor at 1680x1050 resolution and default font size for the page. And the end of all the text ends right before the tramp picture leaving those 3 completely dangling. — raekyT 16:53, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

That image above shows tiny tiny print. How do you read it? And I do believe most readers have less than half that window width, but I'd like to know more about common practice. I think the pics are much less effect at the bottom. It would be better if the element could go above, adjacent to the text, which would solve the problem of its very different proportion compared with the other two. That would also enable the other two to sit within the window in what I believe is the normal range of text size and window width. Can you explain, BTW, how "expr: (250 * 4216 / 2916) round 0" can be manipulated? What do the four-digit numbers stand for, and the zero? Tony (talk) 17:04, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I have horrid eyesight and I see it fine on my monitor, lol. Just don't know how standard it is, you use a 27" monitor? What resolution you at, the native resolution? The formula is at Template:multiple image and is as follows — raekyT 17:07, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

• For non-square images, use these figures to construct an expression for the |widthn= parameters, of the form:
  • {{#expr: (dh * ow / oh) round 0}}
• where
  • dh is the desired height in pixels (100)
  • ow is the original width in pixels (750 or 300)
  • oh is the original height in pixels (536 or 300)

OK, I'm taking a copy of this explanation, and will ponder it. Thanks. I'm going to ask a few people just what kind of arrangement they have. I think we're all looking at radically different screens! BTW, I just came across this amazing gallery. Tony (talk) 17:13, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

The word amazing doesn't do justice to those photos, they're inspiring and breathtaking, thanks for sharing. — raekyT 17:15, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

BTW, to answer your query, it's a 27-inch monitor, and my usual window width is about 21–24 cm (8.25–9.5 in). My res is set on the max of 2560 × 1440. Mac OS. I'm gonna ask around my wikifriends! Tony (talk) 17:22, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

There are a bunch of technical reasons underlying why this appears this way. Unless I’m missing what the concern is here, what Tony is seeing when screen shots are shared boils down to different OS, different browsers, different browser settings, different Wikipedia preferences (I.P.s will get defaults), and different pixel densities of the respective users’ monitors. If Raeky has a monitor at 90 ppi, screen shots will look like they have unusually small text when viewed on a 27-inch iMac, which is nearer to 109 ppi. More to the point, the rendered, live pages will look “normal” to everyone who views them. Unless someone accidentally begins a sentence with a space or someone specifies a thumbnail at a gigantic size, Wikipedia’s server engine merely fits content to the full extents of the users’ browser windows. Greg L (talk) 17:43, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:TPS? :P — raekyT 17:49, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

• What about it? Looks fine to me. I see you controlled the thumbnails sizes on both images so I.P.s will see what you and everyone else sees. I also note that you specified them smaller than I would have. It depends on your intent as a designer.

  It is important to note that many Wikipedia conformist-Nazis will strafe your troops for this violation of the Geneva Wikipedia page-layout convention and cite how we are supposed to leave thumbs with unspecified widths so they are seen in the default width we give I.P.s. I almost always ignore that mantra because it’s complete poo-advise from people who think page layout is simple.

  It isn’t.

  For one thing, landscape and portrait images mixed in the same article produces crazy-looking results unless you control the picture sizes. Greg L (talk) 18:03, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Content creators (studly Wikipedians responsible for page layout) should always log out and visit their pages as an I.P. Most of we Wikipedians set our picture-size preferences to something larger than the default we afford our I.P.s. This affects all pictures that have unspecified thumbnail width. So, just to make sure you like what our I.P.s will be seeing (some 99.9+ percent of our readership), log out and double-check. Greg L (talk) 17:55, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

P.P.S. One other thing we should be considering when designing complex Wikipedia pages with unusual content: the assumed minimum window width. Modern Web-page design assumes a monitor with at least 1024 horizontal pixels. You will see the effect of this on CNN.com. After subtracting room occupied by the vertical scroll bar, you almost always have 1000 pixels or more remaining for content. Try clicking on the CNN link. Then adjust your browser window smaller and bigger. You’ll note that at some minimum point, you get a horizontal scroll bar; that is the 1000 pixels-of-content point. When I create Wikipedia pages that has complex page layout (lots of pictures), I double-check my layout in a browser window with 1000 pixels of content; i.e. with a total window width of 1018 pixels on a Mac using Safari.

Between 1000 pixels and logging out so you view the page just like an I.P., we are ensuring pages look their optimum for the minimum common denominator system modern Web design assumes is available for the English-speaking world. If someone has a 640 or 800-pixel monitor, they may well have crowded and unattractive layout—but they’re used to that anyway. What we should be doing, IMO, is ensuring we have not placed fixed-size elements on a page that results in horizontal scroll bars for windows larger than 1000 pixels of contents (1018–1024 total window width).

That’s why I added the 900-pixel version of the picture to this FPC nomination; the picture above it (later deleted) uses an odd way of specifying picture width (|thumb|right|100000x260px|) and that really messes with browser windows for many users. Greg L (talk) 18:57, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

• Raeki, I tried out a slightly different arrangement: didn't like the whole of the FP section without a pic (just a grey mass), so added frog pic, put two, not three pics down the side of the FPs text, enlarged poster and Borgnine at the bottom. I hope no one will think there's a snide association implied between the bottom two ... the captions certainly belie that. Can you comment or edit, please?
  • I like it, the new pictures extends about as low as the double picture box, so everything looks neat. — raekyT 10:54, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll be honest, I'm not mad keen about these. On this one, the copyright is claimed by The Lesbian Herstory Archives. Googling suggests they own the original photograph, but I'm not seeing any reason to believe they own the copyright. The ticket was handled by Howcheng (talk · contribs) if you want to look further. The email concerning the other two is more than a little dubious- for a start, it's from a Yahoo email address registered to a female name, and the email is signed by a male name, claiming to be "Manager, Photographic Services & Permissions" in the "Manuscripts and Archives Division, The New York Public Library". The author of the email claims to own copyright, despite the fact a photographer is listed here for one image (the link mentioned in the email to the other is dead). I get the impression the copyright may well belong to whichever publication the image(s) was (were) used in originally; not to mention the fact it seems the person sending the email also tried to release a book cover, which the OTRS volunteer ignored (though I may be misreading). This one was handled by Riana (talk · contribs). In short, both are a little odd. I recommend contacting OTRS volunteers before taking action, but it may well be worth chasing up. J Milburn (talk) 02:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll follow up with those individuals. — raekyT 02:09, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• User_talk:Riana#OTRS_Check and User_talk:Howcheng#OTRS_Check if you wanted to monitor. — raekyT 02:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I guess one option would simply be to just nominate them for deletion. If there's something in particular you want me to check, I'm happy to do that. J Milburn (talk) 16:45, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll work up the nominations for them later I suppose, and link to the relevant talk page posts that confirm the info. — raekyT 16:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, the best way i know is to nominate images quite often! That will be the best! :) --Tadija^speaks 11:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Post your suggestions on the WP:VPC talk page, that way we have them all collected in one place and can best decide on the project's fate there. And as far as I know we have been putting a lot of candidates up for vote recently, just no one voting, so that isn't the issue. — raekyT 11:58, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Well then, i will just inform you that i am willing to vote, or do whatever is needed to save project. You may give me some tasks and i will do that. VP is nice and good project, and wikipedia needs it. You may ask or tell me whatever you need, regarding projects future. --Tadija^speaks 12:06, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Theres a brainstorming section that you should edit and add your opinion and ideas too, commenting on others comments about to delete/mark historical with counter-arguments that could save the project would be useful too. And above all, vote on nominated pictures! — raekyT 12:12, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, seeing as the PR is now closed I'll follow up here. I just wanted to thank you for your response to my question. Is it the case then that when a photographer makes a derivative work they have no rights with respect to that image? I had remembered (perhaps mis-remembered) Ets-Hokin v. Skyy Spirits Inc.[1] to mean that the resulting image would need permission from two people; the copyright holder of the object being photographed, and the photographer. But on re-reading it looks to me that the appeals court in that case decided that the photographer had copyright because the photos weren't derivatives—perhaps if they were derivatives they would have upheld the original district court ruling that the photographer had no copyright protection. The reason I want to get this clear is that we have a lot of similar images on Wikipedia. I have always thought that the principle of de minimis for non-free images might be better upheld if we at least had photographs for which the photographer had given permission for their use, but if the photographer has no rights with respect to the image then this doesn't matter. —Jeremy (talk) 14:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

It has to meet a threshold of creativity to be a new work, for example File:Marcel_Duchamp_Mona_Lisa_LHOOQ.jpg is a famous example. In the United States for pictures of 3d artwork, there is no whats called "Freedom of Panorama." Relevant laws are linked here. — raekyT 15:47, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I guess the question is, what is the threshold of creativity? I suppose that only the courts can decide that, but it would be good to have a rule of thumb to point people to. What I'm really alluding to is, if a photo does cross the threshold, can it be both a new work and a derivative work?—Is there ever a time when it would be necessary to consider the copyrights of the sculptor and photographer separately (as I tried to do for the cloudgate photo) or is it always an either/or situation? —Jeremy (talk) 16:01, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Faithful photographic reproductions of 2d artwork does not carry a new copyright, the copyright carries over of what you photograph, so changing that enough to meet that threshold is fairly established I think in the eyes of a law. But a photograph of a 3d artwork, thats different, it carries two copyrights, the photographers and the artwork. I don't think there is any legal way to modify a photo of a 3d artwork to be a new work and not worry about the copyright of the 3d artwork. Only way is to photograph it in such a way it doesn't look like the original artwork, close-up, major parts cropped off or digitally altered. It's a tricky area in copyright, what makes it more tricky is the law is different depending on which country your in. — raekyT 16:05, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

My understanding is that the US courts have traditionally set the threshold for creativity fairly low. So, thinking of the cloudgate image that I dual-tagged back in 2006 as non-free for the sculpture but CC for the photograph, I think that you are saying that I was correct in my understanding that this photo carries two copyrights—it does after all show more than just the sculpture. It's a slightly moot discussion as we have superseded it with a better photograph, but there are countless other cases (e.g. Flamingo (sculpture)) where the issues raised here would apply. —Jeremy (talk) 16:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

You are correct that a photograph potentially carries more then one copyright, you have the photographer's then if theres anything that can't quality as de minimis (like this image is probably de minimis) it will carry that copyright as well of what you photographed, and of course if its a photograph of a 2d artwork and just the artwork then it doesn't carry the photographers copyright at all but the copyright of the 2d artwork is transfered to the photograph. The threshold in US courts for a derivative work is pretty low, but if it's just minor changes that won't protect you from a lawsuit. And what you decide to do with your photograph, like try to make money from it, can affect how courts/jurors see it. It gets pretty complicated when you start dealing with photographs of copyrighted works. At least in the US buildings are not something you have to consider like other countries. — raekyT 16:25, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The image File:SBC sculpture daytime.jpg is not my photo. I am interested in it as I took the unusual (for me) step of writing a FUR for an image that someone else had uploaded, following the deletion of all images of cloudgate from the Commons (where I'm an admin). It looks to me that this image should be deleted now as it is no longer used in the articles that I wrote the FUR for. However, I have nominated File:Flamingo Calder.jpg for deletion on the Commons, as I think that this one doesn't satisfy de minimis, but before deletion I will probably upload a lower resolution version to WP because I think that there is a good rationale for its use in the Flamingo article. In the case of this image, if I removed the copyrighted sculpture from the image there would still be a photograph of the buildings behind (not a very good one perhaps, but I don't think that copyright law makes judgements on quality). So it seems to me that this would be a case where there are two copyrights to consider. Previously I would have dual-tagged this image: non-free for the copyright of the sculptor, CC for the copyright of the photographer, but you wrote that the way that I tagged File:SBC sculpture daytime.jpg is incorrect, so what would be the best way to tag this image? —Jeremy (talk) 16:38, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Yea, File:Flamingo Calder.jpg is a FOP violation, but can be uploaded (small version of it) here and you probably should tag it with this tag, {{Non-free fair use in|Article}} per Wikipedia:File copyright tags/Non-free along with the FUR. File:SBC sculpture daytime.jpg is an issue, I feel i'm right that it does not belong in the artist's page per fair use rules. We'll see what others think. — raekyT 16:44, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, what I'll actually do for Flamingo is restore a photo that I took of it (File:Calder Flamingo.jpg)—there is very little else in my photo so I'm happy to give up any rights that I might have to it. My photo was originally deleted because someone removed it from the article that I was claiming fair-use in, so if became an orphaned non-free image. —Jeremy (talk) 16:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Well building FOP doesn't matter in the united states, like the only concern in File:Flamingo Calder.jpg is the red sculpture. Having a fair-use image for that artwork is reasonable, so whichever, doesn't matter to me. But yes, you are basically abandoning your copyright to the image to use it here like that. — raekyT 16:57, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

A response to your issue at Wikipedia:Peer review/Millennium Park/archive1 would be helpful.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:47, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

If you want to do some work on [[2]] that would be great. We can swap it in at Millennium Park, addd it to Grant Park and maybe the Illinois Railroad articles. Let me know when you have something we can use.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:54, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Will do, the tiff is 99 megs, so that's a GOOD sign. — raekyT 00:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

What would be really cool is a shot of approx same angle/location today, if that's possible... thats something to think about. ;-) — raekyT 00:56, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Torsodog (talk · contribs) lives near there. I am not sure if that is where the current day Aon Center (Chicago) is or not.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:00, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Yea if none of those buildings exist now it may be real hard to track down exactly where the picture was taken... — raekyT 01:02, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Most of the buildings in the photo still exist. However, it would be impossible to get the same vertical angle today as you would be standing below the current surface level of Millennium Park. I also think that the photographer was standing somewhere around about Lake Street, so there would be buildings in the way. But it might be possible to get something similar. —Jeremy (talk) 01:05, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I might be able to take a shot from here next weekend.—Jeremy (talk) 01:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Heres the source file I'm working with, it's dirty and huge, so it will take a while, not super crisp either but it's huge so that would make up for it. Depending how picky people are at FP, it may or may not pass once restored. — raekyT 01:22, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok added the restored version, theres a lot of dust, but it's worth a go. — raekyT 02:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Nice work! Thanks. Looking through some old maps, I think that this photo was taken from roughly where One Prudential Plaza stands today—just above the tops of the railroad cars on the left you can see what looks to be a road viaduct; I think that is Randolph Street. —Jeremy (talk) 04:18, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I wish the LOC would do more to remove dust from negatives before they scan, a quick burst of an air gun would solve so many post-processing issues... — raekyT 04:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		For your work at WP:VPC --Extra 999 (Contact me + contribs) 15:40, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Why thank you. ;-) — raekyT 15:47, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. --Extra 999 (Contact ^me + _contribs) 17:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Please revisit Wikipedia:Valued picture candidates/Alfred Caldwell Lily Pool and evaluate reshoot.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:56, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Where did you see a significant enough problem on that page to justify a two week complete lock? Theres a fairly involved conversation going on on the talk page for a while now on the neutrality of the article name vs other creation myths, but actual warring on the page isn't really a problem. Virtually all creation/evolution/pseudoscience articles have this level of reverts with requests to take things to talk page first. Thats common practice, changes like that generally require talk page discussion. I'd like to know what you thought was so bad to justify the lock before I take it to RPP for review. — raekyT 18:38, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Is it standard practice for admins, or just you, to completely ignore people? — raekyT 22:17, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Believe it or not, I do not edit Wikipedia 24/7. I have made all but three edits since you posted your request, and all of them were today. However, your secondary comment above ensures that no, I will not be responding to you. -- tariqabjotu 22:25, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I've replied by email, but there a few suggestions on my talk page that may be of interest. J Milburn (talk) 23:13, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Given your involvement in related discussions, you may wish to comment at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Millennium Park/archive3.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:12, 3 August 2010 (UTC)--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:12, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Surprised you didn't want to wait until we had this new restored image in the article... I'll get it done asap. — raekyT 01:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Can you comment on File:1997 Notre Dame at Michigan football ticket stub.jpg at Wikipedia:Peer review/1997 Michigan Wolverines football team/archive1.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Before I comment I want your opinion. First it's way to big for fair-use so it needs resized down. So I made versions, one just resized down aggressively to be low-resolution the other I took a step further and pixilated the helmet (the only copyrighted part of the ticket) to make it probably to the point it would be free and not fair-use anymore. I then also made a version of the full size with the helmet removed, which makes it a free image. Heres all 3 linked below. The author didn't specifically a license that I could re-upload the free version, so I'll/you'll have to contact him to figure out what license to put it under. Let me know which option you'd prefer then we'd push that change through on the article asap. — raekyT 14:13, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• Aggressive, pixeliated helmet and resized Not sure if this is enough to make it copyright free...
• Just resized down aggressively, needs fair-use claim will not pass WP:NFCC#8
• copyrighted element removed, copyright free at this point, still big
  • Why did you put all this here rather than on the peer review where others concerned can chime in?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:51, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Because I didn't want to link these images from my personal website on anything but my talk page until I upload one.. :P — raekyT 15:54, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Also think the best option is to get a license for the one I removed the copyrighted helmet on and use the copyright free large version, and I can't upload that until I hear from the copyright holder, which I asked to participate in the convo here.. just waiting. — raekyT 15:58, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
      • I am not a good image decisionmaker. Just get the proper parties involved and do whatever is best.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:23, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
        • Just waiting for Jweiss11 to respond. — raekyT 23:25, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
          • My preference is for the the second option, resized down, because it doesn't distort the original image. Thanks for your work on this. Jweiss11 (talk) 16:49, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
            • Pretty the non-free image can't stay in the article because it won't pass our non-free image criteria, specifically, WP:NFCC#8. By removing the helmet it becomes copyright free, since the text isn't unique enough to be copyrighted, then it could say in the article, otherwise I'll have to recommend it be removed altogether and deleted on the Peer Review... — raekyT 16:53, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Raeky, I took this image File:Dendrite May 2010.jpg of Dendrite (crystal), but I have never seen such shapes of Dendrite crystals before. Do you know , if those are still some crystals, or it could be a fossil. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:31, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Do you think any of my pics at User:Tyw7/gallery can make it to Featured Picture or VPC? --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 18:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

		The Helping Hand Barnstar
		I was very impressed with the help and encouragement you offered here and would like to give you this in recognition of your efforts. TNXMan 03:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Your Valued picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for valued picture status, File:Meganyctiphanes norvegica2.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Valued picture candidates. Jujutacular talk 13:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

[3] I've always heard anything higher than standard definition called HD, and saying 720p/i or 1080p/i is just getting more specific. This seems to agree with our article: High-definition video. How about just saying 480/720/1080? Jujutacular ^talk 18:34, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, just did the obligatory sRGB conversion on your James Webb nominee. Let me know if you feel it looks too saturated - there are ways around that. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 15:07, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Please be careful with species IDs. This image doesn't show Idiosepius paradoxus, but a cuttlefish, probably Sepia bandensis. The same common name can often be used to refer to a number of species, and these taxa need not even be closely related. mgiganteus1 (talk) 21:46, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Mimas Cassini.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Jujutacular talk 14:19, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Mantoux tuberculin skin test.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 22:11, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, there's no problem in posting the image in the SP (i.e., WP space) this week, is there? The Foundation is satisfied that it's not copyrighted, it appears. Tony (talk) 01:32, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Could squeeze it into F and A, I guess, but it's not usual. I guess I could ask the co-authors and other SP journalists what they think about having the occasional news of featured content section, probably at the bottom.

I'll be offline from probably Friday to Friday. I wonder whether you could keep an eye on next week's draft from Saturday until publication. Dabomb87, and possibly Wackywace, will be on board, and I'm preparing as much as possible before I leave. Tony (talk) 12:20, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey Raeky, please do not take it personal, but i feel pretty strongly about trying to keep/make the commons user experience clean and consistent. IMO commons description pages have been a cluttered un-uniform (=iform?) and inconsistent mess. The introduction of the Information template family helped make it a lot more structured and has given them a much cleaner and consistent look. I think adding a second template for the exact purpose which looks much more cluttered is a step in the wrong direction. So i did what I believe to be the appropriate step, getting community input through a deletion request. Let's see what happens. --Dschwen 21:43, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I had to learn this the hard way, they wiped out all my images that I had uploaded to Commons. Upload these type of images (medicine, soft drink, etc) here on Wikipedia where they don't have a problem with it. I've actually had a few images tagged for deletion from Commons, but not before backing them up, and then reuploaded them here to protect them from future deletion. I didn't have backup copies on my computer of some images which were wiped out. It's a simple process, just stay away from Commons, the administrators never had a problem with our images here, we would discuss them and they would even move them to Commons for us. Remember to apply this tag to all such images:

Do not copy this file to Wikimedia Commons. No reason has been supplied as to why this file should not be moved to Wikimedia Commons!

Editor182 (talk) 08:21, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I also saw that you tagged my Xanax file for deletion from Commons. I take this was in bad faith? Editor182 (talk) 08:45, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't marking files which I didn't like. The idea was if they were being used on Wikipedia, to reupload them with the same (or improved) file name and apply that tag above to prevent them being moved to Commons. Otherwise should a Commons administrator come across it in the future, it could be gone for good. I will mark the Xanax image myself, after removing the copy on Wikipedia, that way I can upload a new copy on Wikipedia without an old copy in the file history and with the same filename. Now that we're clear on the subject, I'd appreciate you not marking my files in the future, and I'll return the courtesy. Editor182 (talk) 10:01, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, though to be honest, disputing anything on Wikipedia or Commons is really time and energy consuming, and for me it isn't worth it, as I was fortunate enough to have had only few images on Commons which weren't on Wikipedia because I'd only started uploading direct to Commons recently. The ones that were lost really aren't worth going through the trouble of salvaging, so I'm just going to avoid uploading anything to Commons, even if it doesn't fall under what they say isn't acceptable because I've really been turned off by the administrators there. Uploading to Wikipedia is fine. I'm even trying to get any of my images which are on Commons removed and just have a copy here. Editor182 (talk) 13:36, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry I didn't reply concerning this sooner. Could you be a little more specific? What are the images in question? J Milburn (talk) 19:36, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I told Kristoferb not to remove any of my images and vice versa, based on what I was told by administration when I was banned after our last dispute. I would like to end this quickly and told him[6] that we would go with your decision. Kristoferb removed this[7] Normison image (which I took today) in favor of this[8] image. His reason was "Please don't upload cell phone images.... again....", which is not a valid reason. If it is, then we should delete almost all my images. I doubt he would have had any reason for removing it if I had removed the metadata from my images.

Focusing on the image in question, I believe the quality of the photo is reasonable, and the camera (not talking about the cell phone, which the camera is attached to) is a 5 megapixel camera/Carl Zeiss optics/Xenon flash, which is also reasonable for taking photos. I believe the Normison photo (major tradename for temazepam) is more valuable than the photo of white temazepam pills coming out of the bottle. Rather than do away with the previous image (which I just noticed you located to the article), I've moved it down to 'Recreational use'.[9] Check out the article and please let me know what you think. I've also let an administrator know about Kristoferb stirring up trouble. Thank you. Editor182 (talk) 09:10, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

User:IdLoveOne/DeathofVPC

Make this be archived right. — raekyT 12:43, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

We're not shutting it down that way, we'll go to MfD which is the appropriate venue then the project's talk page. Also since the signpost just published about this discussion we'll wait probably until the end of the week to do the MfD. — raekyT 12:12, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

My reading of the discussion is that there was a call to discuss if the project should continue, be marked historic or be deleted. The consensus was to mark it historic. That consensus was not carried out, and an attempt was made to prolong the discussion, though there were few people involved in carrying the discussion forward. I have no problem with you carrying on the discussion in a new format, but when there is a discussion to do something, and there is a clear consensus for one course of action, then we carry out that course of action. Ignoring consensus is against the spirit and ethos of Wikipedia. You are free, however, to start a new discussion. You are also free to ask another uninvolved admin to look over the discussion to see if there is a consensus to mark it historical. SilkTork *^YES! 19:45, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello Raeky. You seem active at the Graphic Lab, so I wanted to invite you to participate in The Signpost's interview of the project. The report is being written by Rock drum and will be published September 13; this is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Please stop by and answer some interview questions here. Thank you,  â�³ono 

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Mono at 03:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC).

Thanks for your input. I told Kristoferb[10] to do not send me any messages[11] in the future, and it would be best to abstain from disputing each others work and leave that up to the Wikipedia community. As soon as a user starts monitoring or policing another users edits with intent to cause trouble, that becomes harassment and always has an adverse affect on articles. I thought I might mention that I have tried to use a different handheld camera at home, which is a 10 megapixel, but the flash is too powerful and it's difficult to have adequate lighting. I wouldn't upload images that are anything less than reasonable quality anyway, and I find the N82 does take some good, even great photos. I understand the issue with it being from a cell phone, as I wouldn't use almost any other cell phone to take images for Wikipedia articles, but the Nokia N82 quite exceptional. ;) Editor182 (talk) 04:26, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The reason was "removing images again" - it was right after I left the second of these two messages[12] with User talk:SlimVirgin, who was the administrator I notified and was involved in our last dispute. I have no idea why he would have done this, other than he perhaps judged me on my past, as he banned me after the past dispute I had with Kristoferb, but I thought I could still go back and speak to him... but this is most unexpected. It's nothing other than that; simply "removing images again" on my banned page, and he has locked my Talk page, plus he didn't reply to any of the two messages. This is most dumfounding, because I haven't removed anything, could you please tell him that he has misunderstood (or assumed the worst) of the situation? Thanks. :/ Editor1182 (talk) 05:25, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Raeky, I blocked Editor182 for 72 hours last night, because I saw he was removing images again, and there was a complaint (removing some, adding his own). Because he'd been blocked twice for this before, I issued another one. Afterwards, though, I saw a comment from you saying that this image swap had been okay. Do you feel the block is unfair for what was done here? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 15:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that Raeky. Editor182 (talk) 01:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:VERTREP Composite Pano.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Makeemlighter (talk) 02:14, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Given your thoughts at [[Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Ping Tom Memorial Park], I thought you might want to comment at Wikipedia:Valued picture candidates/Ping Tom Memorial Park.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:06, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Space Shuttle Atlantis launches from KSC on STS-132.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Makeemlighter (talk) 05:25, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Space Shuttle Atlantis launches from KSC on STS-132 side view.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Makeemlighter (talk) 05:25, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Based on your participation at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Cato June, I thought you might want to comment at Wikipedia:Valued picture candidates/Cato June.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:56, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Given your involvement in Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Marquette Building, I thought you might want to comment at Wikipedia:Valued picture candidates/Marquette Building.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:58, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I been getting interested in the valued picture project and i have a question. I know that a picture that was featured cant be a valued picture but what if it was featured on another language wikipedia but not featured on english wikipedia? does it count? Spongie555 (talk) 03:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I am leaving this message to inform you that I have asked that your opposition to the collateral murder FPC be struck on grounds that you have opposed without citing anything that can reasonably be addressed. I am more than willing to strike my comment on the FPC page once a valid reason to oppose as defined by FPC criteria is given. Respectfully, TomStar81 (Talk) 02:01, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Featured Picture Candidates#How to comment (bullet point 2)

I not opposing your oppose, all I am asking is that you find an FPC criteria to oppose on; some that is tangible and that you feel the video fails on. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:38, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

The image is now on Commons, and I have explained why the yellow is not an issue- could you perhaps take another look? J Milburn (talk) 17:10, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

This Russian dude has posted really cool pics on the Internet. Some of them might pass FPC. Tony (talk) 12:36, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

We have our final eight! The best of luck to those who remain. A bumper newsletter this week as we start our home straight.

We say goodbye to the six who fell at the final hurdle. Geschichte (submissions) only just missed out on a place in the final eight. Resolute (submissions) was not far behind. Candlewicke (submissions) was awarded top points for in the news this round. Gary King (submissions) contributed a variety of did you know articles. Suomi Finland 2009 (submissions) said "I'm surprised to have survived so far into the competition", but was extactic to see Finland in the semi-finals. Arsenikk (submissions) did not score this round, but has scored highly in previous rounds. We also say goodbye to Ian Rose (submissions), who withdrew earlier this month after spending six weeks overseas. Anyone interested in this round's results can see them here and here. Thank you to Stone (submissions) for these.

Signups for next year's competition are now open. Planning is ongoing, with a key discussion about judges for next year open. Discussion about how next year's scoring will work is ongoing, and thoughts are more than welcome at Wikipedia talk:WikiCup/Scoring. Also, TonyTheTiger is compiling some information and statistics on the finalists here- the final eight are encouraged to add themselves to the list.

Our final eight will play it out for two months, after which we will know 2010's WikiCup winner, and a variety of prizes will be awarded. As ever, anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox and The ed17 23:14, 31 August 2010 (UTC)