Kerαunoςcopia◁ This 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.
You were so good to help me with the first critical phase of morphing a Google Books page onto a jpg.
THAT phase, I still don't understand how to manage on my own.
There is an image, between pages 98 and 99, in this book I'd really like to insert at the page Impalement Cretan subsection. You said something about expanding the picture to fill the screen(??), but I don't get that part. Can you help me out, yet again?
Arildnordby (talk) 15:07, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, not a problem. What I did for the last image was to click the zoom button (magnifying glass) until the image looks soft. Then I click the unzoom button once. That way the image is fairly large. (Google books doesn't seem to be very high resolution, unfortunately.) Then I take screen shots of the top, middle, and lower sections of the image. In Photoshop, I piece the pieces together, then crop the final image. I don't do any sharpening; the can be done later.
So the image between pages 98 and 99, that's the one with the people dangling from the ropes? Just wanted to make sure before I piece the images together. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 19:18, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's the image! (it's actually a cartoon; one man hanging over a crooked hook, and then the second image showing him impaled on that hook..Arildnordby (talk) 21:49, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Having struggled a bit, I manage to download this image alone to my own, but only as a tiny 98*165 image. How can I make it into usable image??? (Google Books seems to forbid me access to individual png size increase, only on htm-format is this possible..:-(
Arildnordby (talk) 20:24, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Arildnordby, my apologies for the delay. I carefully went through the copyright information and I'm pretty sure these images are PD in their country of origin, as well as in the US. So I went ahead and uploaded the larger version of this image at Commons, which you can find here. As is desired on images used in Wiki, I went ahead and removed the border and in-image text (keeping it alive and well in the description). Feel free to use the image as you wish.
I believe the book (or this version at least) was published posthumously, as the dates for publication were all in the late 1700s, ranging from 1741 (archive.org and another site, can't remember now) to 1761 (the ancestryimages link on your image here), though your description says 1702, so I became a little confused and ended up choosing the date 1741. I could not find a date on the Google Books scan—I did not search thoroughly though.
Also, I discovered the Gaunche disambiguation page, which redirects to Guanche. I'm not sure if the redirect should just point to the impalement procedure, so I went ahead and just added a link on the disambig page for now. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 22:41, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My 1702 assumption is that this was made by Tournefort by himself during his voyages (1700-02). His French original was published posthumously in 1717 (he died in a traffic accident in 1708(!)), whereas the first English translation came in 1741. Sorry for messing up these years. Thank you for your labours, I appreciate it! Here is the first Fench edition from 1717, where the illustration is between pages 92 and 93:
Many thanks for the cleaned-up copy of the image, I'll use that instead. Arildnordby (talk) 23:23, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome, I'm glad it was useful to you. This was good practice for me because it'd been a while since I've dealt with public domain images. I have a query at Commons for someone to look over the image description page and make sure everything is fine as well. If so, I'll let you know and you may be able to move your other image(s) from Wikipedia over to Commons, if you so desire. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 00:36, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
When I encountered the article months ago, it was a stub that was highly vandalized and otherwise used for self-promotion by one person. I do not claim ownership, but merely want to protect the definition of the subject that is the basis for my contributions, which were substantial. The redefinition you propose would mean a re-write of the article, but not by me.FigureArtist (talk) 02:50, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You have done a good job adding some images to the List of Muppets page. In preperation for other images for that page, I am setting up a section for the character images in case you plan to upload more pictures of the Muppet characters including the ones that appear on Sesame Street (whom have their own page). Rtkat3 (talk) 7:23, February 21 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Rtkat3. Just a heads up, unfortunately, the images may not last much longer; apparently, Muppets are copyrighted (I suppose this would be akin to taking a picture of a Coca-Cola can and uploading it to Commons). I've already had two images deleted. I started a discussion at the Commons help desk just to be absolutely sure, but replies over there are slow, so if I don't hear from anyone by tomorrow, I'll probably ask about it here (en.wiki copyright board). I'm not too hopeful, so I've since moved on to another image-related project. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 00:40, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"But not FP for me, sorry" yet you vote "Neutral"? We aren't debating whether it should be in the article or not, or deleted or not, or if it is valuable (it is). Is there anything excellent about this picture that justifies FP? Colin°Talk 08:15, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I kept refraining from commenting because I was, and am, really "meh" about the image. I saw they wanted feedback and I probably gave the most useless pointless feedback ever. I don't support it as a feature picture; it's a rock with 1620 carved in it. Maybe I shouldn't have posted anything? Or are you suggesting I change my neutral to oppose? I just don't feel like I'm familiar with the process enough to make that call, except for obvious images. Anyone (at that location) could've taken that picture. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 08:39, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I needed a nudge, but I looked at the image again and if it's a yea or nay people are looking for from me, it's a nay. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 08:49, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think some subjects benefit from expert opinion as to the complexities or issues involved (like difficult wildlife photos or artwork restorations) but others just need folk to give their honest opinion. I've made mine clear in the article, and I'm not going to influence your opinion out of the FPC forum -- I just was puzzled that your wording was clearly oppose FP and not neutral yet your vote was the other way round. -- Colin°Talk 10:21, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate that. I did take your comments into consideration (of my own accord; I read all the comments) and I agreed anyway. I even used Google Images earlier today to get an idea of the size of the rock, where/how it's actually placed, etc. I think I'm still a bit shy with saying "oppose!" but I'll work on that :) – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 11:06, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
{{help me}}
Not finding help at MediaWiki. At my Common.js page (on Commons), I took someone's script, but instead of having it go to "Special:Upload", I actually want it to go to the specific URL: Special:Upload&uselang=experienced. How can I do this so I can have a quick one-click uploading experience? I tried fiddling around with this myself, but I'm probably going to end up erasing the Wikimedia servers. Thank you so much! – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 23:14, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In the interest of full disclosure, I've made a few tweaks to the border (outside the image itself) since you voted. I think it's pretty clearly an improvement, but think it only fair to tell everyone. Adam Cuerden(talk) 06:00, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't even find the difference you're referring to, but I'm changing my vote to oppose anyway. j/k :P – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 06:14, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Since we've been talking about Sullivan, by any chance are you familiar with The Yeomen of the Guard? I'm doing chorus in it this week, and it has some amazing bits of music. Adam Cuerden(talk) 09:25, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not familiar with it per se, but it's on my iPod. I got as many of the D'Oyly Carte recordings as I could get my hands on from libraries, but I'm still missing a few (I came across your FP for Utopia, which I haven't heard yet.) Cox and Box and The Zoo are the only non-Gilbert operettas that I have, I think. Some of Yeomen's music is wonderful. But I haven't listened to it with rapt attention yet, so i don't know the story. Every so often, I'll go to that boise.edu site and listen/read the entire opera, plus read the wiki articles to get a sense of the story. (No G&S performances at my state symphony for a while, unfortunately; I do check, though.) So I need to get boise with it for Yeomen. Are you saying you're performing in it? Or you're working on it on wiki? – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 18:53, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Performing in it. =) Tiring, though. Heh. You'll see my name a lot on the Boisestate site if ye look around enough, by the way =) So tired after the performance, though, so may not be that coherent. =) Adam Cuerden(talk) 01:35, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free not to answer, but where are you, roughly? There's a lot of amateur G&S about. Adam Cuerden(talk) 01:42, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's incredible, break a leg! I'm private about specifics, but currently I'm in the middle of the US. :) – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 05:54, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest googling [city near you] Gilbert and Sullivan society. You may well find one if you try enough cities =) Adam Cuerden(talk) 12:07, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps :) (I checked and there are none.) A lot of my personal hobbies don't really extend beyond my own self, including Wikipedia. (I don't edit G&S articles, for example.) Btw, in reply to your comment at the Commons village pump, I'm guessing you dole out dough for your own passion with G&S. In my case, I don't really care to spend money on obtaining a snazzy photograph because my life won't be bettered by it either way lol. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 20:15, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are at least four more major passes of Chartbot to go. There are some story URLs that aren't getting picked up properly in pass 3, there's a pending approval request for dealing with some truly archaic references to discography pages, and then I have to fix up a pile of references to song and album pages. There's a total of 89,700 references to Billboard, and Chartbot is approaching the 40,000 mark. Go ahead and archive things if you want, but don't be surprised if you see Chartbot revisit the same articles a few more times.—Kww(talk) 02:17, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thank you for letting me know; I didn't know there would be several passes. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 02:51, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'll give you a shout when it's pretty much done. There will probably always be a few tweaks to pick up a few danglers, but I expect to be essentially done by early April.—Kww(talk) 03:10, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, sorry about that, I have a bad habit of forgetting to do that. I'll try and remember to add edit summaries. Thanks for notifying me! ---Tsu'tey♫ (talk) 22:54, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome, and thank you in kind :) – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 00:25, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I brought up the Number/No./# discussion here as an RfC. I see you tried to do this previously with no discussion. You are welcome to contribute to the current discussion. The more opinions, the better. CycloneGU (talk) 01:07, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That article happens to be on my watchlist. Just a friendly note, you're at three reverts there and it's really not worth getting het up about. I know it's frustrating, but perhaps find something else to work on while tempers cool. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:29, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am far from a designer, but I intuitively agree with your comments about how poorly we present information. See Fluorine and Painted turtle for some little tries of mine to go after good images and use them for explication, not just ornaments strewn into sides of walls of text. I actually think we are even LESS engaging and efficient than nice prose sources (e.g. National Geographic), much less engaging and using the power of the web. (Don't get me started on the insanity of not supporting videos in common use browsers and telling our readers to change their software!!!)
Nagualdesign has a pretty mockup of a nice image as background for the text:
I tried doing something similar in Dry Falls, but a "random little helper" (probably an officious high school student) changed it to remove the view, which ought to really emphasize the stunning broad geophysical landscape. Did something similar in List of gray wolf populations by country and the gnome patrollers haven't seen it yet to beat it into crufty submission.
I came across Pen-y-ghent a couple months ago and loved the idea. I actually prefer the image as it appears above (bottom fade) than as it does now (fades on either side). I immediately set out to copy this idea on an extremely popular article, but in testing, I wasn't thrilled with the results, namely because I was forgetting to put the top, wide image above the infobox (as it appears in Pen-y-ghent. So perhaps in the future. I like what you've done with your articles, especially Painted turtle. It goes to show that a little creativity goes a long way; unfortunately, there seems to be an unwritten "standard" that many users don't appreciate breaking. So it's probably best done on vaguer articles. I'm still determined to find the right image and fix up a couple other articles with a top photograph, I really find it eye-catching. I'm sure discussions and reverts will ensue. Meanwhile, images within the article don't seem to be as controversial. By the way, can you remind me what the catalyst is for your post above? Was this regarding my comment regarding the Main Page, or did I leave a comment elsewhere? – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 18:53, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was agreeing with your main page remark. Not even participating in stuff like that...since the place is so conservative (look at the people whining about the edit button moving left) and nothing is ever accomplished with all the yammer yammer talk talk. Just you said something sensible and wanted to show agreement. Attaboy and shake your manly hand.TCO (talk) 19:05, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I appreciate it. My hope is that Wikipedia doesn't make itself obsolete 15 years down the road simply because it's visually uninteresting. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 19:27, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I did not believe what I was doing anything wrong with that. I will renominate it. Thank you. Proudbolsahye (talk) 21:43, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, you can renominate the image, which I see you've done, but you cannot reset the original nomination by clearing the page and removing the time limit template. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 21:59, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Keraunoscopia. You have new messages at Cat-five's talk page. Message added 08:04, 31 May 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]
I greatly appreciate the photo rendition you have done of the Armenian woman. Proudbolsahye (talk) 17:52, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad you approve! It's a beautiful photograph. Crisco 1492 did make a comment about the creator field in your nomination, so be sure to update that to reflect Sergey Prokudin-Gorsky as photographer. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 18:07, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's odd. I'm the one who uploaded the photograph though. Technically aren't I the creator though? Proudbolsahye (talk) 19:53, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, the creator is the photographer, and if restoration is involved, they should be mentioned too. In your case, your nomination was for the "original" version, and the only creator there is the photographer. You didn't do anything creatively with it, and neither did the website you obtained the image from (all they did was crop it, if it was even they who did that). I don't need to be mentioned because you aren't nominating the full version. Hope that makes sense! – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 20:04, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay well I clarified both the uploader (me) and the photographer. I hope that'll solve the issue. Proudbolsahye (talk) 21:33, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I've recently found a photograph of Maktoum bin Mohammed Al Maktoum on Flickr and uploaded it to the Commons. It then occurred to me that it might be good enough to be featured on en.wikipedia. While snooping around to find out more about the process, I could not help noticing how often your name came up, so I decided to ask you for your opinion. Should I bother nominating it? Is there anything that should be done with it prior to the nomination? (I don't know why I'm asking, as I am completely clueless as to how to do that something anyway.) I'd really appreciate to hear what you think. Surtsicna (talk) 19:38, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You just caught me before I'm leaving. You're absolutely free to nominate it. First of all the image is greater than 1500 pixels on the shortest side, so once that hurdle is met, you should run through Wikipedia:Featured picture criteria and if you think your image meets the criteria, then click on the Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates link and follow the instructions. You can always post an image on the FPC talk page if you're ever unsure. Good luck! – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 19:45, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I'll give it a try. Surtsicna (talk) 20:05, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Greatly appreciate your help finding a new (and wonderful) picture for Christopher Nolan. I am also on the lookout for something I can add in the text as well (preferably him on set or something from 1998-2005), so if you by any chance see something else, then please feel free to add it or send me a link so I can.
You're very welcome. I doubt I will come across any on-set photograph of him any time soon, unfortunately, but best of luck in getting the article to GA! Also, do remember to sign all your posts with four tildes ~~~~ :) – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 20:11, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to say that no offense to you or Zoe Boyle intended by my removal of the images you added to the Downton Abbey main entry and Character pages . I see you've also added the image to other film or TV projects where she's appeared. Ms. Boyle certainly has enough credits to warrant a Wiki entry of her own; if you create one for her, the image would be most appropriate there , and she could then be blue-linked on all those project entries, where visitors could simply click on her name to see her. Mirawithani (talk) 01:32, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Offense wasn't taken :) But I definitely appreciate your reaching out to me. I tried starting a stub article on her but really didn't find a whole lot of info on her—basically I don't know her birth date, birth place (I've read British, I've read Irish) and only really found an article in the Sun regarding her appearance in Downton ("Prepared to be hated") and in the Guardian, regarding her appearance on stage. I would need to set aside some time and really dig for interviews; there must be more somewhere. So I'll confess, I sort of threw the images out there to attract people's attention in hopes someone would start the stub for me :P – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 01:35, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes this is my photo. It was taken at the Today Show on 17 May 2013 and was cropped to remove myself standing next to Avril. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freaktheclown (talk • contribs) 13:13, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Freaktheclown; I have notified OTRS with our correspondence and this should suffice as proof the image is yours. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 17:37, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any contact with the real Tom Sorensen (http://www.flickr.com/people/moovieboy/)? Turns out that Chace has been impersonating him on Commons, and I'd like to verify that there really is a Tom Sorensen in real life.—Kww(talk) 06:03, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, I've never spoken with Tom Sorensen. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 18:01, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Every file uploaded by Tom Sorensen or Mayra Cansigno has been deleted from Commons. If you get involved in replacing links on English Wikipedia, you should avoid images by MyCanon: I'm working to get all of those deleted as well.—Kww(talk) 19:22, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, what a situation. Thanks for letting me know. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 23:30, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For your excellent restoration, shown to the right, I award you this super-secret barnstar. Adam Cuerden(talk) 23:13, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much, Adam, this was a pleasant surprise! Sorry for the delay in replying. I'll fix up the contrast on the image and renom in the near future. – Kerαunoςcopia◁galaxies 19:20, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For your contributions to bring Avril Lavigne (estimated annual readership: 4,355,000) to Good Article status, I hereby present you the Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:29, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Million Award is a new initiative to recognize the editors of Wikipedia's most-read content; you can read more about the award and its possible tiers (Quarter Million Award, Half Million Award, and Million Award) at Wikipedia:Million Award. You're also welcome to display this userbox on your page:
For reaching the highest tier of this award, you've also been added to the Million Award Hall of Fame. If I've made any error in this listing, please don't hesitate to correct it; if for any reason you don't feel you deserve it, please don't hesitate to remove it; if you know of any other editor who merits one of these awards, please don't hesitate to give it; if you yourself deserve another award from any of the three tiers, please don't hesitate to take it!
Thanks again for helping so many readers worldwide; your contributions make a tremendous difference. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:29, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Keraunoscopia, I recently posted a discussion on the talk page of "Here's to Never Growing Up". I was wondering if you could put some of your insights on it? Thanks! Chihciboy (talk) 14:55, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not offended by the comment on sharpness; that's why I put off the nomination for so long. Just a question for you: is this acceptable sharpness in your opinion? If so, then Sambisari was a matter of the f number. If not, then it may be the humidity as well. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:49, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This 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.
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
_-_Gassed_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg)
,_John_Singer_Sargent,_1884_(unfree_frame_crop).jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
,_1824_(Google_Art_Project).jpg)
_and_Her_Daughter_Rachel_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg){kind=link}