User talk:Veggies/Archive 5

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.

Mason Neck Image

It should be noted in this forum that this user, Vegitau, has been the cause of a completely negative experience in my editing of Wikipedia. A few months ago, in editing the article Mason Neck, Virginia, I posted a picture of my own map that I took with my own camera. I acquired this map many years ago when I was growing up in Mason Neck. I thought that it would then be my right to freely distribute this photograph, but apparently it is not, though I am still unsure as to the exact reason(s). When I attempted to rectify the proposed deletion of my photograph, Vegitau was extremely unhelpful and labelled me as a "liar" from the start (See image discussion page). It has been clear to me in this experience, though perhaps isolated, that this user is concerned primarily about his own interests and not about helping others. Instead of calling names, in the future it would be beneficial to inform users as to why their posts are in violation of Wikipedia rules, and help them to do the right thing. ابو منية (talk) 16:57, 23 March 2008 (UTC)Abu Munya

Libyan Sibyl

That pic that you are inserting is a post-restoration image. I don't know what the source is, but it is a very poor reproduction, despite being larger in size than the one used previously. The colours are over-all yellow, instead of clear, bright pastel. It doesn't properly represent the post restoration state.

Amandajm (talk) 10:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I see. I've never been to the Sistine myself; I was just looking at detail and the Libyan Sibyl image I put up was just higher resolution and the one it was replacing looked moderately compressed. I'd like to get an image of the Libyan Sibyl that looks as well as the one of the Cumaean Sibyl. Maybe submit the high-res Libyan one to the WP:GL and have them make the color scheme look like the small one? -- VegitaU (talk) 16:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I could fiddle with the colours. I've seen the Sistine Chapel quite recently, since the restoration was finished. (and spent an awful lot of time looking at other frescoes).

The problem is that it will save as a bitmap, which I will then have to convert back to jpeg or png, with subsequent loss of resolution. It's such a magnificent picture, it's a pity not to have a really good high resolution image. However, the smaller images often look better in articles, so I'm always torn between uploading the biggest image possible to show every detail when viewed on wikicommons, and uploading a smaller version which is sharper on the actual page. Sometimes it depends on the subject matter. I think for an artwork it probably needs the best resolution possible.

Actually, a lot of the art images that have been uploaded are of very poor colour. It's disappointing.

Let me see what I can do about cleaning up the image. Amandajm (talk) 00:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, I had a fiddle with the colour balance. One thing that encourages me to think that it's now pretty good is the subtle contrast between the blue-grey shadow and the silver-grey light on the wall at the back. The bottom half is a little gloomier than the top, which makes me think that the surface, which is curved, wasn't evenly lit when the photo was taken. This curve also accounts for the fact that the proportions differ quite radically in different photos, depending on the angle. This is particularly the case with Jonah, which is the largest of the pendentive paintings. I changed the pic in the article, but not in the Gallery, so it's easy to compare. Let me know what you think. Amandajm (talk) 00:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

It's all right, I suppose, but not what the original small one looks like. For reference sake, I have made a gallery below of the three versions. I'm going to submit the large one to be further edited to look like the small one and see what the Graphic lab comes up with. I'd do it myself (and I will if they fail), but I don't have easy access to Photoshop right now. -- VegitaU (talk) 16:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

What it really looks like
Large version
Your version

The mauve has been lost unfortunately. Other than that, I think was go with that new image. I'm going to look at every image I can, including prerestoration ones to try and determined what intensity of colour the mauve actually has. Would you like to insert that newer, somewhat sharper image in the various places? Amandajm (talk) 09:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

‎

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!

From Amandajm (talk) 06:36, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Woodsball

An article that you have been involved in editing, Woodsball, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Woodsball. Thank you. --BJBot (talk) 21:00, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Template:User Military Award

On 12 June 2007, you removed the following code from Template:User Military Award:

<includeonly> {{#ifeq: {{{nocat|}}} | true | | [[Category:Wikipedian award recipients: {{{gi|}}}: {{{award|}}}|{{PAGENAME}}]]}}</includeonly>

I'm curious about why you did this. --DieWeisseRose (talk) 12:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

That was quite a while back. As I remember, it wasn't working properly—linking to categories that weren't created. If you know how to work that, be my guest. -- VegitaU (talk) 12:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's no trouble to create a new category but I thought it might be a category that was deleted. I don't think I'll do anything about it. I was just curious. Thanks for your reply. --DieWeisseRose (talk) 02:16, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

What if it's not fine as it is?

To me it's not. I don't want such a negative demonic side of the painitng look like it represent Bosch. People will probably look at the page and consider Hell nightmarish. His work needs to be represented by something positive that he made. People will light up to see Paradise on there. You know I made a resolution that would make us both happy.--User:Angel David (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) 16:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The Hell piece of the triptych is the most recognizable part of his most recognizable work. Besides, you've already been commented upon by someone asking why you changed it. Too bad if you feel bad about it, I feel it represents the pinnacle of his surviving works. -- VegitaU (talk) 19:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

So now I put the whole triptych.--Angel David (talk) 22:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Good compromise. -- VegitaU (talk) 22:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you--Angel David (talk) 20:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay

I told you I'm going to stop the POV edits--User:Angel David (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) 15:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

dyk

On 14 January, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Grande Odalisque , which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Archtransit (talk) 21:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

THank you!!!!

Thank you so much for creating an article on Grande Odalisque!! I was waiting for someone to do that! It's a very nice painting and we studied it in art class. Thanks so much! --Yvesnimmo (talk) 22:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, no prob. I can't wait to get back to school where I can really research this material. -- VegitaU (talk) 00:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The Gleaners

On 15 January, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Gleaners, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 20:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Unique Forms of Continuity in Space

On 17 January, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Unique Forms of Continuity in Space, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Royalbroil 00:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Gee

Thanks dude! I owe you big time!--Angel David (talk) 00:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Art Renewal Center

Refs need to be provided to validate notability. The default is lack of notability. Tyrenius (talk) 15:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Re:Replaceable fair use Image:Risalpur Runway.JPG

Hello! I want to ask that if a replaceable image of this exists Image:Risalpur Runway.JPG then can you give me the source, where i can find it. Thanks! --SMS ^Talk 03:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I have no idea. Never been to Pakistan myself. -- VegitaU (talk) 03:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually this image is a screen capture of Google Earth. So I was wondering if I can get it from somewhere else. --SMS ^Talk 12:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. As for a free source, try a Pakastani government website or something. Ultimately, it remains replaceable because you can go to Pakistan and take a picture of it yourself (in theory). -- VegitaU (talk) 22:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Takhli-rtafb-image2.jpg

I had been though this with the moderators already.. Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#Image:Takhli-rtafb-image2.jpg

Please advise why you do not think this can be replaced with a 'free source' when none can reasonably exist. Especially flying over an active military base which is not allowed and is stated in the rationale??

The other group of moderators said the justification was valid.

Bwmoll3 (talk) 00:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I undersand your statement with regards to the replacablity of this photo. Within the United States, the USGS digital orthophoto program is a source of PD imagery of aerials of military bases. Outside of the United States however, that program does not exist.

As access to military bases is restricted to those who are assigned to the base, dependents of those assigned to the base, or civilian workers on the base (I am none of the above) it is impossible to acquire photos of the base. Google earth/maps do not provide the sources of their imagery, and they do purchace NASA Landsat images around the world, along with other sources of imagery and aerial photography. Google does not specify the sources of their imagery, usually cite "digital globe" which is a VAR that acqires raw imagery from the various sources of supply, processes the raw data int a georeferenced form and also performs color imagery creation and also color enhancement/balancing to produce the product that google uses. The point being that the source of the imagery which is avaliable on google, as well as the other sources of web imagery online, could very well be landsat imagery, which is in the Public Domain.

Indeed, I agree with you with regards to using google to show areas of the earth that can - with some effort - be illustrated with imagery that fits wikipedia's fair use criteria. I'm stating that with regards to restricted areas and military airspace, the likelyhood of accessing those areas of the earth is not possible unless one is in a position to legally do so.

Also, as the origional source of the google processed imagery is unknown - other than it is being made available online by google - I believe I've filled out the proper tags and other forms. If you suggest any changes that should be made to the narritive, please advise and I'll be more than happy to change the tags to reflect yoru adice.

Also, as I stated to the other moderators, I consider this image to be a test and wanted a decision made to the useablity of the low-resolution (300px or less) images of the military base in question. It is NOT at the highest resolution avaialbe on google, and I've clearly made the source (as well as a link to the image) available in the justification.

In other words.. i'm TRYING to do this the right way.. ok ? I work with this type of imagery each day on a daily basis.. (re my User:Bwmoll3 page)..

Warmest regards and thank you :)

Bwmoll3 (talk) 01:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you :) I appreciate the work you are doing. As I said, any additional information you think may be necessary, please let me know and update the forms...

Regards

Bwmoll3 (talk) 02:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Ramsteinab-germany.jpg

Replaceable fair use Image:Spangdalemab-germany.jpg

These two images (ramstein & spangalem) fit the same criteria as Takhli. Has something changed in the last week that something different needs to be done?

Bwmoll3 (talk) 09:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

These air bases are populated and governed by the U.S. Air Force and, thus, have a multitude of public-domain images to choose from. Takhli is no longer serving the USAF and I'm unaware what Thailand's copyright laws are, so I'm not too worried about that. But as for Spangdahlem, Ramstein, and any other US-run bases, there's no way a fair-use image can be justified. -- VegitaU (talk) 18:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Apology

Apology accepted. I read that disscussion and was wondering, did you wanted to be blocked?--RyRy5 ^{Got something to say?} 01:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I wanted to see what the response to vandals was like under different circumstances. I've been an editor here for about 3 years and I've reported a lot of people to WP:AIV for vandalism, but it just made me curious as to what being blocked is like and how admins react to various styles of vandalism (from the obscene to the dumb, yet polite). -- VegitaU (talk) 01:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Clue level

Whacking with a wet trout or trouting is a common practice on Wikipedia when experienced editors slip up and make a silly mistake. It, along with sentencing to the village stocks, is used to resolve one-off instances of seemingly silly behavior amongst normally constructive community members, as opposed to long term patterns of disruptive edits, which earns warnings and blocks.

Example

Whack!

The above is a WikiTrout (Oncorhynchus macrowikipediensis), used to make subtle adjustments to the clue levels of experienced Wikipedians.

To whack a user with a wet trout, simply place {{trout}} on their talk page.

Don't pull stunts like that. It may get you blocked, and what's worse, innocent others, that use the same IP, or a lot more others, when a rangeblock would be needed. So for the next few years, this should have been enough disrupting Wikipedia. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 01:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

*rubs stinging red cheek* Thank you for your grace. I promise I won't pull anything stupid again. -- VegitaU (talk) 01:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Trying to see how it's like blocked is not a good thing, especially when you've been contributing to wikipedia for a long time.--RyRy5 ^{Got something to say?} 01:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, you pull stupid stunts when you're curious and bored. -- VegitaU (talk) 01:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Next time, please consider alleviating your boredom by going through a backlog. There are plenty to choose from. --B (talk) 01:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

You're right. I'll start working on what I can. -- VegitaU (talk) 01:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

You've done enough good stuff for the 'pedia, so, after the troutsmack, there's no hard feelings from me.--Kubigula (talk) 02:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your compassion. -- VegitaU (talk) 02:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Blocked/unblocked

You have been temporarily blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

You have been unblocked. This was a symbolic block done to ensure that the stunt over the past 2 days is recorded in the logs should you ever apply for adminship. Toddst1 (talk) 02:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Heh. I doubt I would ever attempt to apply for adminship, but you're right, I deserve it. No hard feelings, Toddst1? -- VegitaU (talk) 02:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Wrong answer. Toddst1 (talk) 05:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, ok

So tell me, what does it feel like to be blocked? Was it some kind of spiritual experience? Has it brought new meaning to your life? And, my last question, don't you have a paper to write or something? Ok, fine. At least you apologized, but I hope you understand that your little experiment gave other people work. Not an overwhelming amount, but enough to be annoying. It's not what you said on our pages, it's that doing so gave us a job. And we have enough work already, including - gasp - editing an encyclopedia so that the next time you need to know something about Ernest Glenn Munn or the Ludwig Fleck Prize, you'll have a reliable source of information. But as I said, at least you apologized. Now go do some penance - I'm sure there are some pages that could use some cleaning up or something. Cheerio. Tvoz |talk 02:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I promise I will. Not so much a spiritual experience as I thought, but I got meet new people. And I got to read the Post article on your contributions. Great job. Sorry I've added to your work-load, but I promise I'll behave. -- VegitaU (talk) 02:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, well, now listen to the NPR interview and we'll be even. And thanks for the dove. Tvoz |talk 02:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

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.