User talk:J Greb/Archive Feb 2010

"Dark Archer" is Smallville's Merlyn.

Similar to how Curtis Knox is SV's Vandal Savage. So, why can't I add it to Merlyn's article? WHY? (JoeLoeb (talk) 03:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC))

Bluntly? The point in Vandal Savage has a ref to a review that makes the observation. Something lacking for Vortigan/Dark Archer - Kryptonsite's material was "fans guess". - J Greb (talk) 14:26, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure it was Mortigan..... (JoeLoeb (talk) 15:26, 30 January 2010 (UTC))

Either way you need a citeable source that they adapted the character from Merlyn. Continuing to push it in the article can get you blocked based on WP:EW and WP:DE over WP:OR. - J Greb (talk) 15:43, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Look at him, he's Merlyn. Oh well, guess you win AGAIN. (JoeLoeb (talk) 00:15, 31 January 2010 (UTC))

Joe... How many times does it have to be said? We do not get to apply our knowledge as comic book readers to "fill in the blanks". That is original research, a fundamental no-no.

Yes, I saw the episode on Friday. And yes, based on my knowledge of DC comics, it does look like the characters are linked. But that is an assumption. For it to go into the article, there needs to be a reliable source that can be pointed to. - J Greb (talk) 01:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

It's a reminder that this site is a dictatorship run by upper-level people, and not the little guys. Why I come here, and use this name is still beyond me. Nothing personal, J. Greb (JoeLoeb (talk) 04:08, 31 January 2010 (UTC))

lol ...the more things stay the same. Doczilla _STOMP! 08:03, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Deleting old image revision

Hi. May I ask why you delete old image revisions? As I understand it, old revisions are merely archived images which are not used in articles, and do not fall under NFCC. In fact, you effectively remove the image's history and attribution to the original uploader, which I believe is not correct. — Edokter • Talk • 16:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

To the best of my understanding:

• NFCC does still cover the "old" images. So, unused, unlicensed, unFURred, and/or oversized "old" images can go.
• The CSD rationales that cover this are WP:CSD#F1 (dupes), WP:CSD#F3 (wrong license), WP:CSD#F4 (no license, thought the entire file page is fair game for deletion at that point), WP:CSD#F5 (unused), and WP:CSD#F6 (missing FUR). 6 would also cover cases where the the "archived" image is not the same as the current file - different description, different source, etc.
• And there is also WP:CSD#F2 (corrupt or empty image) which does sometimes crop up in the "archive" stack.
• Deleted uploads are still part of the history, just under the "Deleted edits" link.
• While I can see the argument with a scan or cap made by the uploader, that should be included with the source information of the FUR along with the original published or aired source. Otherwise, if the file is copied from another website the URL of that site is important, not who pulled it over.

- J Greb (talk) 23:07, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, deleting is fine, but I am going to have to ask you to stop "resizing" the images; First, you upload images only shlightly smaller, but are degrading the image's quality considerably in the process. I am going to have to undo the majority of those. — Edokter • Talk • 20:27, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

In some cases, I can see your point - the book covers that are sitting ~301-310 (and which are generally Target covers). To be honest, my preference would be for those to be re-scanned and re-loaded from a primary save at 300px and 72 dpi. That would address bothe the initial quality of some of the images and the fair use size. And yes, the size is an issue. 300px across is pretty much the max covers can be, by use - slightly larger that the semi-standard 250px for infoboxes. But that invariable leaves the image oversize by either "megapixel" count or largest dimension. mp size is currently an "unwritten" .1 max, which for the book covers would be ~250x400. That would be the max most infoboxes present at. By dimension, we're looking at ~187x300 - which is undersized by use and which a number of the non-target covers have been shrunk to.

Beyond that... Covers above 325 across and images "landscapes" larger than .1 mp really need to be shrunk. If the quality does tank due to compression artifacts, then we're going to need a fresh version, at size from the initial scan/cap. If the quality tanks even then, we're stuck.

- J Greb (talk) 20:50, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

(Addendum) And looking at what you've reverted thus far... File:Parting of the Ways.jpg, File:Mark of the Berserker.jpg, and File:Last Sontaran.jpg. Screen caps at .15+ mp really aren't defensible. Especially with 2 of those where the characters are still identifiable (the SJA pair) and the "notable plot element" (Besreke's mark) is still clear. The final one... well the only wat the indistinct elements (the Doctor, Rose, and Jack) would be clearer would be for the image to be close to "TV screen size". And even with those characters not being clear, nothing else is lost by taking the image down to as close to .1 mp as possible.

And a small side note... do we really need 2 files for that version of the Emperor Dalek? (see File:Emperor Dalek 2005.jpg) - J Greb (talk) 21:03, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

My main concern are the screenshots. We are not talking about 1000+px images here. I already resized them them from the original 720x576 to 512x294, which is already a 50% reduction in resulotion with regards to the original. Reducing it even further (while not using the original image) degrades the images too much, especially after Mediawiki reduces it to display-size. Also, where is this .1m limit set; I cannot find it in any policy. While I understand minimality with regards to fair-use, you can only go so far before the image is degraded beyond usability. — Edokter • Talk • 00:56, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, I've been having computer problems.

I've gone back over the various pages for the image policies and guidelines, and it's a bit odd. I could have sworn that the numerarics had be spelled out in one or more of them. Seems that's changed. Even {{Non-free reduce}} lacks a concreate size point. The place I could find a ref to the numbres was {{Non-free image data}} wich lacks a ref to a policy or guide.

It seems that the consensus, if there was one, on the limits has changed...

- J Greb (talk) 00:54, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

There was in fact some discussion about it, see here and here. Basically, nothing came of it. — Edokter • Talk • 23:39, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

User 70.127.201.57

Worth a watching; User_talk:149.254.218.41 along with Talk:Michael_Scofield#Death have lists of his former IP's back to May last year persistently edit warring including one ban for his behaviour and many warnings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stuart.Jamieson (talk • contribs) 07:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

New Infobox

Theres currently a discussion going on at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics#New infobox regarding a new infobox and would just like to get your thoughts or opinions on it. -TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:27, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Amazo

Greetings. Since you've been helpful on Juggernaut, Amazo may also need watching as I've just had to revert JoeLoeb's rather unencyclopedic addition to the article. Unfortunately, such materal is better suited to a fan site. Regards Asgardian (talk) 05:10, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Asgardian

You might want to visit the ArbCom evidence page at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Asgardian/Evidence. -- Tenebrae (talk) 22:02, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Flux.png

I tagged Flux.png to move, as you wished so please fulfill my request. Thanks. Qwerty450 (talk) 09:12, 28 February 2010 (UTC)