User talk:Nagualdesign/Archive 3

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.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10

This page has archives. Sections older than 28 days may be automatically archived by .

File:Carved whalebone whistle dated 1821. London. 8 mm long.JPG

Dear nagualdesign:

Thank you so much for spotting this careless mistake of mine. I have changed the length in one place from 8 mm to the correct 8 cm and I have requested that the file heading be changed to show 8 cm - the correct length. So, hopefully, there is no need for you to do any extra work. I really appreciate your help in correcting this error. All best wishes, John Hill (talk) 22:41, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh good. Thanks for that. Kind regards, nagual design 00:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

FPC/The Submission of Prince Dipo Negoro to General De Kock

An image created by you has been promoted to featured picture status

Your image, File:Nicolaas Pieneman - The Submission of Prince Dipo Negoro to General De Kock.jpg, was nominated on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate an image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thank you for your contribution! Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 02:36, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

POTD notification

Hi Joe,

Just to let you know, the Featured Picture File:Percival Lowell observing Venus from the Lowell Observatory in 1914.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on December 12, 2014. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2014-12-12. Thank you for all of your contributions! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:56, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Nice!

Thanks Crisco. I'll give it a look in a second. Kind regards, nagual design 03:12, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

A pleasure, really. Don't get many images like this. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:31, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

@Crisco 1492: I've just rewritten the caption completely. Please let me know what you think, and whether I need to trim it down any further. Thanks. nagual design 01:29, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I was just gonna ask you the same thing . We should keep the image central, though I don't mind having more about Lowell (though we're pushing length limits now) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:30, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

While I understand the need to keep the image central, I don't think it's necessary to state the make and model of the telescope or geographic location. That information can be found on the image file page. I thought it more interesting to first state who Percival Lowell was and why he's remembered before segueing into the scene with an interesting factiod. (A rude word on Wikipedia, I know!) This is supposed to be more of an editorial piece than an article fragment, right? nagual design 01:42, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

More like an article summary than an editorial. Terms such as "unfortunately" are POV and should be avoided. If you want to trim a bit, please do, but I think it is better to describe the image first, before the man. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:49, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. Kind regards, nagual design 01:53, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

File:A&N International Media

Hi Nagualdesign. I am trying to find the source of File:A&N International Media.png which you uploaded in November 2011. The website you provided is no longer active and I have not been able to an alternative link through googling. I removed the image from A&N International Media per WP:NFCCE because the separate, specific non-free use rationale required by WP:NFCC#10c was not provided. The image does have a non-free use rationale for Northcliffe Media, but the image is no longer being used there. This means it has become an orphan and will be deleted in a few days per WP:NFCC#7 unless it is added to an article. All I need to fix the rationale is a valid link for the source. Please let me know if you know where I can find that. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly (talk) 02:18, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I had a look but found nothing. Sorry. Surely there's some clause for companies that no longer exist. Preserved for historic purposes? Can a company from the past even claim copyright in the present? nagual design 03:12, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for checking. I've asked another editor who has more experience dealing with NFCC about this. I'd imagine that the "source" links for other files have died over the years, so perhaps some kind of precedent has been established. It might be a good idea to download the image and keep it for safe keep just in case. That way if, by chance, it does end up being deleted, it can be re-created if the source is eventually found. Another idea is to try and find out why it was removed from "Northcliffe Media" and figure out if it can be re-added. I was able to find something which looks like a logo on an archived page, but it is quite different from the one you uploaded and I'm not sure if (1) it was even used, and (2) if it is OK to use an archived page for the "source". I was also able to find this old page, but still no logo. - Marchjuly (talk) 04:26, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

I was thinking about this and one thing that "might" be OK is for you to create the non-free use rationale for "A&N International Media" and then re-add the image to the article. Information added to articles are supposed to be supported by published reliable sources. However, "published" does not necessarily mean "online". Moreover, an online source which satisfied WP:RS, but has turned into dead link does not lose its value simply because it is dead per WP:DEADREF. So, perhaps the reasoning can be applied here: You uploaded the image and provided the link, which just let us know where you "got" the image. I can't say whether the source link was actually where the image came from, but you can. This is completely thinking outside the box, but it just might work. No longer being available online does not mean that the image is no longer available anywhere at all. - Marchjuly (talk) 00:19, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I didn't upload the image originally. According to the page history that was done by Cloudbound. All I did was make the background transparent (the file having been tagged as {{opaque}}), and the original upload was subsequently removed from the file history per non-free image policy. I hope that helps. nagual design 16:31, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I only saw your name on the page so I mistakenly thought you were the original uploader. I'll post on Cloudbound's talk. Thanks for all your help so far. - Marchjuly (talk) 21:43, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

No worries. I'm sorry I couldn't really help. nagual design 22:14, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Nodal Ninja

You get it yet? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:21, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh yes!

I've just been getting to know it/calibrate it so far. I've done lots of test shots and it seems great. Unfortunately the finest setting using the supplied detent rings is 15°/24 stops, and using my 50mm lens on my 600D gives me an angle of view of just 25°×16.6°, leaving only 1.6° of overlap along the horizon (stitching portrait shots). Less when you account for the slight barrel distortion of the lens. I'm thinking that the software might have a hard time joining areas of blue sky. But then again the overlap increases as the angle of elevation increases. We shall see! ..If I have to I'll get the 25.7°/14 stop detent ring modified to 12.9°/28 stops. I'll keep you updated. nagual design 19:16, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Have you tried a stitch yet (even with that slight overlap)? Even with a large degree of overlap, if your frame is just sky, you're not going to get any control points. That's why the recent versions of PT Gui have a special mode called align to grid... though I've never tried it myself. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:21, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it stitches fine if there's texture, which there normally is within a few degrees of the horizon. There's plenty of overlap at 20° elevation, so I don't think the Nodal Ninja can be blamed for any difficulty with stitching the images. The funny thing is, I've never taken a panorama with a clear blue sky! I like little fluffy clouds, even if they do impose time constraints on the shoot. And the Nodal Ninja should make things much quicker and easier.

I've never tried PTgui. I was looking at it on YouTube the other day though. I like the red/green masking tool, and the align to grid mode is a great idea. I've tried manually aligning troublesome images into grid formation in Photoshop before running the auto-stitch, but it doesn't take the hint. I might buy PTgui at some point. nagual design 20:04, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

It's definitely worth the investment! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:25, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. I was Googling for some time the other day, trying to compare different stitching software. PTgui is about £50+ if I remember correctly, so it's nice to have a recommendation before taking a punt. nagual design 23:37, 11 April 2015 (UTC) BTW, check this out. nagual design 23:39, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Madonna (entertainer)#Infobox image

Please join this discussion if you are interested. –Chase (talk / contribs) 00:45, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hi Nagual. I wanted to directly thank you for volunteering to help out with colorizing one of the images for the Belgium national football team article. I am still surprised that there are no available color photographs for the Belgian team from the period. Maybe Belgian society was slow to adopt color photography? I am sure that all fans of this team will appreciate it even more than I do (my sports heart is with another team).--MarshalN20 ^Talk 20:37, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Hey Nagual. I just wanted to apologize for the confusion about the colorization. Hope all is good. Best.--MarshalN20 ^Talk 02:39, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

No worries. nagual design 10:19, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Blended wing composite image

I don't know how hard this would be... but would it be possible to insert the B-1 in the location currently held by the Boeing design, second from the left? It represents a more intermediate step between an airliner and the Boeing. The lead image in the B-1 article would be perfect. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:48, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Done, although I decided to use a different image (of the B-1s) because it fit in the space better. I hope that's okay, and I trust that you'll edit the caption appropriately in the blended wing body article. Good call. nagual design 02:56, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Most excellent! Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:44, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Colourisation of a copper trophy

Hi Nagual, I know about your point of view about colourising photographs (and the Belgian NFT pictures in particular), and I agree with it - if the colour is unknown, a colourisation changes the truth. However: I ask myself if you would be prepared to colour the following image of a trophy.

Multiple sources tell it is of copper, and that because of this the trophy was not known so much by its real name, "Coupe Vanden Abeele", but rather as "Het Koperen Dingetje", literally "The Little Thing of Copper". Would you have objections to give the metal part of this image a copper aspect? Thanks for your response. Kareldorado (talk) 09:56, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

POTD notification (2)

Hi Nagual,

Just to let you know, the Featured Picture File:Sobo 1909 260.png is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on October 14, 2015. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2015-10-14. Thank you for all of your contributions! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 10:00, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I had a look at the caption. Looks fine to me. Regards, nagual design 18:57, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

CPE Bach

I cannot resist asking: how did you restore that image?Anythingyouwant (talk) 22:40, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

In short, I did as you suggested and used the image provided in the link, plus some cleaning, but since you are asking I'll give you a complete rundown. First I opened the poor quality image in Photoshop. To get a good copy of the image I had to take a snapshot of the website because right-clicking the image (then Save as...) was disabled. I pasted the screenshot into Photoshop in a layer above the original. After turning the screenshot into a smart object I carefully resized it and placed it directly above the original, rechecking and tweaking until I was happy, then rasterized the layer and cropped any excess pixels. To remove the watermark I used the clone stamp tool along with the spot healing brush. I did a bit of spot removal and general cleaning using the same tools, then I reconstructed the missing edges using the clone stamp. I also copied a small portion of the chair decoration, which I rotated and enlarged slightly to fill in the missing part, and used the smudge tool to round off the newly-cloned shoulder slightly. I think that was everything, though I've glossed over the fact that every time I used the spot healing brush or clone stamp tools I checked to see if it was an improvement, and undid any unsatisfactory edits. All in all I'm pretty happy with the finish. nagual design 23:30, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

That's very very impressive. The same museum website undoubtedly includes many further images to which the same method might be applied, if one were so inclined. :-) Anyway, thanks for the description of how you did it. My capabilities don't extend far enough. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:44, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. My biggest bugbear with these images is the process of uploading them to Commons and providing the correct licensing details. If you can get them to a point where it's just a matter of removing watermarks I'd be happy to help. You can leave any requests here or at the Photography Workshop. Regards, nagual design 01:58, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I will "case" that museum when I get a chance.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:25, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

C:File:Toby Suzuki office.jpg

Hi. You previously cropped and darkened a version of this file that was local to enwiki at File:Toby Suzuki.jpg. As part of a history de-merge, I have moved the original to commons: C:File:Toby Suzuki office.jpg. I have not moved your modified version (the file now has a different author, source and license than it did here), but if you would like to, please upload it to commons under a different filename (see C:COM:OVERWRITE). Thanks, Storkk (talk) 10:54, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

POTD notification (3)

Hi Nagual,

Just to let you know, the Featured Picture File:Charles Frohman presents William Gillette in his new four act drama, Sherlock Holmes (LOC var 1364) (edit).jpg is scheduled to be Picture of the Day on November 17, 2015. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2015-11-17. Thank you for all of your contributions! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 10:23, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Cheers, Chris. I made a minor edit; I prefer to begin my username with a lowercase n. Regards, nagual design 20:01, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Sure thing. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:34, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Reversion

Hey, thanks for your input. I just don't think that the way that the number is presented on Human is accurate, thus my removal -- even if it does say the 23 -> 24 difference, I don't think that it explains the difference well enough -- and I don't think we can explain how there is less than 95% difference as the information is presented. But I'll keep your reversion there because it seems that it can just be worded better, not to be removed altogether. Thanks, DoomLexus (talk) 02:13, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

I've moved this discussion to Talk:Human#Reversion. Please leave any further comments there. nagual design 02:41, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Notice of disputed non-free files

Hello, one (or more) of the images you uploaded that fell into the {{Non-free Scout logo nocontent}} category have been re-tagged with {{Di-fails NFCC}}. This means that the image may be deleted unless rationale for its inclusion on Wikipedia can be provided. This change was made due to a deletion discussion for the first template. If you have any questions, please reply here (ping me with {{u|Primefac}}) or on my talk page. You can see all of the files at Category:Disputed non-free Wikipedia files as of 21 January 2016. Thank you for your time. Primefac (talk) 03:38, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Talkback message from Tito Dutta

Hello, Nagualdesign. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Graphics_Lab/Photography_workshop#WikiProject_India_noticeboard_barnstar_image.
Message added 18:10, 19 February 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Tito Dutta (talk) 18:10, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand why you've notified me about this. nagual design 23:49, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

@Titodutta: See Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Illustration workshop#WikiProject India noticeboard barnstar image. nagual design 22:18, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

The Milky Way panorama

Do you have access to a higher resolution copy than this 6000x3000 one? [1] or File:ESO - Milky Way.jpg? Tom Ruen (talk) 07:25, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I keep looking but can't find anything better. I haven't given up just yet though. If you find a replacement let me know. nagual design 23:19, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Okay. It seems like even the resolution you used is higher than the 6000-pixel one once you crop that version down to the selected view, unless you're doing some sort of celestial projection with a higher resolution than the original background "texture" bitmap? (It looks like your version pixel resolution is 2.3x higher, but also other artifacts, stretching or doubling of star images.) Tom Ruen (talk) 02:56, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I just rotated and stretched the image to fit, sadly. Since the sky map is actually a 360°×180° panorama it would be great to have used a proper spherical projection rather than a simple rectangular crop. Funnily enough, I have software that I use to stitch panoramas (PTGui) but I have no idea how to import a ready made bitmap and use the software to project a small section. Any double-star-type artifacts are due to the way the original star map was put together. nagual design 03:11, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Got it. At least in this case, near the galactic equator, the distortions are minimal. I've thought about optionally projecting a celestial sphere background to my solar system simulator. I've never looked if Celestia do this. I'd first want an ecliptic coordinate map. But even a global 6000 pixel bitmap would pixelate below 30 degree fields of view. I'm sure a smart algorithm could also have multiple maps, close ups on regions of interest that take priority. Tom Ruen (talk) 05:47, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

p.s. Here's the best milkway view I've found [2] from [3], a better balance of brightness, but still smaller field of view than I'd want. Tom Ruen (talk) 05:51, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly regarding the galactic equator, less so the top right of our image. I actually have the galaxy background plug-in installed in Celestia, but ~~it's been heavily edited to remove all the (foreground) stars~~, so isn't very precise either. As for the pixelation issue, if you preserved the size of the equator that we have now, using a spherical projection would actually increase the apparent resolution of the areas away from the equator, so there would be a net gain.

As for the links, the first image is false-colour, so probably a little inappropriate. I'll have a look at the gallery in the second link and get back to you later. nagual design 10:08, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

...It turns out I was mistaken about the stars. It actually sits as a 'celestial sphere' between the Sun and the nearest stars. It still isn't very good though. Here's a sample image. nagual design 10:18, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Image tagging for File:Double H High Adventure Base.png

Thanks for uploading File:Double H High Adventure Base.png. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 23:05, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Planet Neun

Hi Nagualdesign, thanks for the animation. The missing German words I noticed were:

Terrestrial planet: Erdähnlicher Planet
Mercury: Merkur
Earth: Erde
Neptune: Neptun
Trans-Neptunian objects: Transneptunische Objekte
Giant Planets: Gasplaneten.

All other words are the same in English and German. However, I am not sure that the inclusion of your animation will find a lot of supporters. There are still a lot of discussions going on. Regards, Don Minestrone (talk) 20:22, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

It isn't being used on the English version either yet, but it was easier for me to produce the image now rather than later. Thank you for your help with the translation. Let me know if I've made any errors. Regards, nagual design 21:14, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Please correct:

"Erdähnlicher planets" -> "Erdähnliche Planeten" (-r denotes masculine singular [in fact, German "Planet" is grammatically masculine] while the German plural of adjectives does not indicate the grammatical gender, and the -en pattern analoguous to English "brother/brethren" is one of the common German regular plural patterns)
"Transneptunische objekte" -> "Transneptunische Objekte"

(in German, nouns are always capitalized). Best wishes, -- Karl432 (talk) 22:23, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Karl. I've made the amendments you suggested. Please check again that I haven't made any more mistakes. Regards, nagual design 02:53, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, it is all fine now. -- Karl432 (talk) 10:14, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

File:BahnelementeEllipse.svg

Karl432, can you translate this picture to English? It looks really cool! --Vayvor (talk) 11:31, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

The problem with the picture is that all letters are "converted to paths" (i.e. are drawn not written), and thus replacing the text requires some skills with Inkscape or Adobe Illustrator (to adapt the text to the curvature of the orbit etc.) which I do not have. -- Karl432 (talk) 11:38, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Nagualdesign, thanks for the update, now the animation is perfect. For the picture I can offer the following translation:

Bahnebene: orbital plane
Bezugsebene: basic reference plane
Ekliptik: ecliptic
Äquator: equator
Bahn: orbit
Himmelskörper: celestial body
große Halbachse: semimajor axis

Any questions, let me know. --Don Minestrone (talk) 22:44, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Also, the following letters should be translated:

"M" → "C" ("Mittelpunkt" → "center")
"B" → "F" ("Brennpunkt" → "focus")
"HK" → "CB" ("Himmelskörper" → "celestial body")

-- Karl432 (talk) 11:38, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Karl. @Vayvor: I've made a request at the Illustration workshop for you, as I don't deal with vector graphics. nagual design 11:58, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

...@Vayvor: Good news! The image you wanted has been completed, thanks to User:Mliu92. Please take a look at the comments they left at the Illustration workshop. nagual design 22:01, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Девятая планета

Hi! I really like your animation, it's cool! I will try to help you with russian translation. --Vayvor (talk) 07:29, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Terrestrial planet: ru:Планеты земной группы

Mercury: Меркурий

Earth: Земля

Neptune: Нептун

Trans-Neptunian objects: ru:Транснептуновые объекты

Giant Planets: ru:Планеты-гиганты

--Vayvor (talk) 07:36, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

List of planets: Меркурий, Венера, Земля, Марс, Юпитер, Сатурн, Уран, Нептун, Плутон. --Vayvor (talk) 07:40, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Sedna: ru:(90377) Седна. --Vayvor (talk) 07:42, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
- It is better to translate Sedna as Седна. I think russian article will be renamed soon. --Vayvor (talk) 07:54, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

About animation. What about to put hypothetical position of Planet Nine on animation? As at this picture: [4]. --Vayvor (talk) 07:45, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Sun is Солнце in russian. --Vayvor (talk) 08:07, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
I've found the picture with positions in Wikipedia:

--Vayvor (talk) 08:06, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

@Vayvor: Thank you for your help. I've now made a Russian language version (right). Please let me know if I've made any errors, including spelling mistakes and/or incorrect use of capital/lowercase letters. Also, could you provide a Russian description/translation on the image file page and check for any other mistakes there? Thank you in advance.

I may well add the current positions of all the planets and TNOs, as well as the expected position of P9, at a later date. Regards, nagual design 03:05, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

...The position of Planet Nine in the image you linked to is almost certainly incorrect, by the way. For some reason Science Magazine, who produced the video on which that image is based, decided to flip the orbits of the TNOs (so that Sedna appears in the top left rather than bottom left) but not the approximate position of Planet Nine (which is expected to be nearing aphelion). For more information see this discussion. nagual design 03:52, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Some remark for future improvements. For me it will be interesting to see second focus of ellipse on the picture (Sun is located in the first focus). --Vayvor (talk) 11:28, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Planet Nine/Archive 3

I have deleted that page, as requested - does anything more need to be done by way of tidying up? Regards, JohnCD (talk) 16:11, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, John. I think there was another discussion that was archived at the same time, which might have ended up in Archive 2. Since I only undid the edit to the talk page there's probably a duplicate thread waiting to be double-archived. I couldn't get to the bottom of it. nagual design 16:22, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

..After some fiddling I have found the duplicates at Talk:Planet Nine#Planet X and Talk:Planet Nine/Archive 2#Planet X. I guess one of them can simply be deleted? I'll leave it to you, just in case. Regards, nagual design 16:28, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Feuding

I wasn't trying to imply that you're both equally to blame for what's going on at the graphics lab. I tried to be more direct in criticizing Centpacrr, because their behavior does seem to me to be more inflammatory than yours. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 22:34, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Hey, no worries. I just wanted to make my position clear is all. I appreciate you taking the time to explain like this though. nagual design 22:41, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Graphic Designer's Barnstar
	For your work creating the excellent and informative Planet Nine animation and contributing to the responsible Planet Nine artist's impression. Your contributions have been truly invaluable - the public would have had a significantly less-informed conception of Planet Nine without you. A2soup (talk) 04:47, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

@A2soup: Thank you. I must admit that I was quite amused to see one of my images in NewScientist (I wonder if it will make it into print?) but the fact that this or any other artist's impression remains in the Planet Nine infobox really sticks in my craw, actually. In my opinion that whole infobox is a disinfobox that dresses an article about a hypothesis up as though it were an article about a planet, but trying to explain such things to good-faith editors is like calling their mother an expletive. I guess when people edit in good faith they find it difficult to assume good faith on the part of anyone who would wish to undo their good work. nagual design 15:28, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Planet Nine

The best benefit of having the nicest Planet Nine artistic image on Wikipedia is free sharing! I hope it stays in the article, at least until we have an alternative likely orbit or something to add. [5] and [6] Tom Ruen (talk) 21:47, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Invitation to discuss UK image of Easy Lover

I was hoping you improve the image, but I guess not. Anyway, rather than change description, which you confused Commons Wikimedia with English Wikipedia, you might want to discuss the image instead at c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Philip-bailey-easy-lover-duet-with-phil-collins-1985.jpg. --George Ho (talk) 18:16, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

DS Alert

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Electronic cigarette topic area, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

QuackGuru (talk) 02:34, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I have no idea why you've copy/pasted this notification here. You either liked my edit or you didn't. If you didn't then I suggest you use the revert button, no problem. If you liked it, you're welcome. I have no wish to continue editing this topic or familiarising myself with the discretionary sanctions system, thanks. nagual design 02:58, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Nagualdesign. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Trent Reznor

Hey, I never meant my meant to offend Trent Reznor by saying he is a one-trick-pony... so it really was a compliment. That reference reflected my views perfectly... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koychui (talk • contribs) 22:40, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

FFT filter technique

I copy/pasted the following from the Photography workshop:

The Đuro Salaj and Filip Filipović image had some heavy moiré patterns, so I went ahead and cleaned it and the cropped images up as well. —Quibik (talk) 12:47, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Quibik. I hope the new year finds you well. Great work as always. I'd love to see exactly how you do these. Next time you do one would you mind uploading the FFT version of the image after editing but before reversing the filter so that I can see the size of the brush you use and what have you? (Then just overwrite it with the finished file.) nagual design 16:38, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi nagualdesign. Happy new year to you, too! Straight up editing the FFT-transformed image does not give good results in images like this one, where the wavelength of the moire is quite large and the moire patterns are mixed into the image's details. You have to extract the relevant part of the spectrum as much as possible first. A basic approach is to apply a high-pass filter to the image (for example, apply Gaussian blur to a duplicate layer, then grain-extract it from the original). I used to do that for a long time but only quite recently I discovered that bilateral filtering instead of a Gaussian blur for the high-pass filtering gives some amazingly good results (check out this and this, for example). I'm surprised every single time at how well it works, really. The key difference is that unlike the Gaussian blur, the bilateral filter does a good job of preserving edges in the image. This is great since sharp edges map to a wide range of frequencies in the image spectrum and are always strongly affected by any FFT filtering, so we want to avoid them as much as possible.

This is much easier to understand visually, so I took screencaps of the process I typically use. The typical steps are (1) crop unnecessary borders that needlessly distort the spectrum image; (2) Do a first pass at FFT filtering to remove high-frequency noise that does not affect the image details; (3) grain extract bilateral-filtered image from the main one; (4) do FFT filtering on that and grain merge it back; (5) if necessary (not in this case), do bilateral filtering on this cleaner image and repeat steps 3–4; (6) do some final FFT filtering on the grain-merged cleaner image; (7) if necessary (again, not in this case), add alpha channels to layers and erase parts of the cleaned-up image that were better in the original or intermediate versions; (8) flatten and save. —Quibik (talk) 00:13, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Those examples really are amazingly good! (And the waifu2x algorithm is pretty amazing too!) I can't thank you enough. That really was a masterclass in FFT filtering. I get what you are saying completely, and although the screencaps are a little confusing at the moment, it's great to see the actual steps involved. I might just copy/paste this onto my talk page for future reference. Thanks again! Kind regards, nagual design 03:51, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Commons discussion of possible interest

Hi, Nagualdesign, it occurred to me that you might find interest in some discussions that have been floating around regarding derived image attribution at Wikimedia Commons.

Authorship claims to a modified public domain file

I can offer links to parallel and tangential discussions addressing such as well if you like. Haven't interacted in awhile, I hope life finds you well,
--Kevjonesin (talk) 19:57, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Kevin, yeah I'm good, thanks. And a Happy New Year to you too. Looks like there's plenty to read through, so I'll make some time for that later. Feel free to post those links to tangential discussions. Not sure if I'll have anything to add but I'll give them a looksee. Kind regards, nagual design 12:45, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Also, there's stuff on my Wikipedia talkpage (please forgive the eventual off-topic drift; there were power struggles over who's to get the final say as to formatting and reversion in my namespace).

And I made a, at present quick-n-sloppy, sandbox page at Commons with a bunch of relevant links to both threads and to details in one place.

--Kevjonesin (talk) 08:11, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Linear Distribution versus Gamma Corrected Distribution.png

Thanks for creating the graphic, but the "stops" on the JPEG scale looks kind of odd. Assuming sRGB, 8-bit, and 255 = +0 EV, -5 EV would be around 49, certainly quite far from pure black. I've made a SVG to show this.--Kakurady (talk) 17:45, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, the image is basically a non-copyright infringing copy of another image found in one of the sources. I'm not sure why the jpeg gradient shows 5 'stops' to be honest (or why most DSLRs divide their histograms into 5 'stops'). I think what the image is attempting to show is that each region of the raw gradient representing one stop become equal-sized regions of the jpeg gradient. For the sake of simplicity several technical details are not evident in the diagram, and it could probably be improved through further simplification rather that greater precision, in my opinion. Finding a happy medium isn't straightforward.

I'm pretty sure that your diagram is incorrect though (or at least more misleading) for a couple of reasons; first, unless I'm mistaken, gamma-correction ought to produce zones of equal size, and second, I don't think that a jpeg has 12 stops of dynamic range. I don't think it has 5 either, to be fair - probably more like 7 and a bit? - but the idea is that jpegs have much less than raw.

Perhaps it would be an improvement to remove the EV scale from the jpeg gradient altogether, but leave the zone dividers? That would make the image more ambiguous but perhaps less misleading. Or perhaps there should simply be more 'stops' shown on the jpeg gradient? What you have to remember is that this diagram is meant to represent a fairly simple concept, and many attempts to improve it with greater specificity will actually make it more confusing. Of course any bona-fide improvements are always welcome.

Regards, nagual design 19:01, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Bill Paxton retouched

I have been watching Big Love recently and got to looking up things and noticed the state of the RfC on the infobox image for Bill Paxton. The blending of the background to remove the company logos he was standing in front of looks quite nice. The facial tone and colour are also visually pleasing. There is one thing that caught my attention almost immediately. When you removed the blue swirl from some company logo in the background you also removed the hair on the left side of his face at his ear. Most people probably won't notice it but I did. There is his slight scruffy facial hair and the longer hair around his right ear clearly visible from the angle of the picture but at his left ear his skin is smooth and tidy like he shaved only there and I wasn't sure if perhaps you didn't even notice you had done that. I would have left comment there but someone decided to apply automatic archiving to the page. That seems pretty silly because it was only modestly active for a week or so after his death and then nothing until last month when you presented the retouched picture. Your efforts have been noticed, perhaps more than you wished, but also appreciated. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 04:15, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback, it's really appreciated. Yes, I did notice that I'd effectively removed one of his sideburns, but only after uploading it. After that I had to decide which looked worse, and I wasn't confident that I could extract his sideburn from the blue swirl without it looking odd, so I left it. You are right though; anyone who compares it to the original would certainly notice the missing sideburn, and it was worth trying to correct. Having just uploaded another version I'm pretty happy with the result. I've even managed to retain the loose wisps of hair. I had to do it 'artistically' (basically, drawing them in), but by carefully comparing what I had done to the original as I was working I'm fairly confident that what I've created is a faithful reproduction of the original. Compare this to this, at 100% zoom. Thanks again for giving me a little push. Good call. nagual design 15:11, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

I won't get into a pixel by pixel comparison but I guess it could be simplified to saying the previous version looked imbalanced. You can't see his left ear but the hair around his right ear suggested some hair on the other side of his head should have been visible. So the blue swirl logo is WonderCon. It was easier to push you on this than it has been to convince myself to watch the last two episodes of Training Day. Once I run out of things to watch for the first time it will be more difficult to pretend it isn't the end. I don't recall including the picture in my previous note but I guess it is true that he is haunting me ;) delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 12:10, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

June 2017

Hello, I'm Alexbrn. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Phrenology, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Alexbrn (talk) 23:44, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

This message would have been better placed at Talk:Phrenology, in accordance with WP:BRD. Or better yet, you could have simply found the reference yourself. nagual design 00:14, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

If you knew the reference, it is obviously quicker for you to do it: it is your WP:BURDEN. Alexbrn (talk) 00:22, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I'm a third-party in this situation. Technically, the burden was on the original editor. However, we're all supposed to be working as a team here. I saw that you had reverted an edit erroneously, so I reverted your revert for reasons stated. It's pretty obvious that you didn't even try to verify the edit before quoting WP:V. If you wish to continue wasting your own time and others' by undermining legitimate edits and leaving silly bits of boilerplate on talk pages, rather than pulling your own finger out, that's your prerogative. It took me all of 3 minutes to fill in the reference, and I'm pretty sure you could have done it just as quickly. nagual design 00:41, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Re-read WP:BURDEN, particularly the bit in bold. Your edit seems problematic BTW. We are aiming at a high-quality encyclopedia, and verifiability is essential for that. Alexbrn (talk) 00:46, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Is this how you like to operate on Wikipedia; by quoting policy and patronising other editors, rather than making constructive edits yourself? Rhetorical question, by the way. nagual design 00:55, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

O constructive edits are fab. Inserting unsourced content less so. Worse than that, misrepresenting sources. The aim is decent content. Alexbrn (talk) 01:04, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Colonization of Antarctica

According to Wikipedia, in the English language the colonization is the process by which a land starts to be dominated by a power or populated, but in Antarctica there is neither a fixed population (the scientists and the technicians of the research stations in Antarctica are not migrants) nor official dependent territories. In addition, the page Colonization of Antarctica belongs to the category "futurology".--Cats' photos (talk) 16:50, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Fair point. Thanks for the reply. nagual design 18:02, 26 June 2017 (UTC)