This is an archive of past discussions with User:Crisco 1492. 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.
Could you possibly get me [1] ASAP? I need it for the Signpost, and want to restore it first. Sorry I'm asking so late, I didn't realise someone had greyscaled the image we had on Wikipedia and not said. Adam Cuerden(talk)21:55, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
The original is in the article history. It's not really saved in the source with high quality. That being said, I'll upload it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:22, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Will be back when he strikes again. Although it seems this guy's based in Saudi Arabia on the basis of the IPs, it's now apparent he's becoming as obnoxious as the Indonesia anime/telenovela/movie studio vandal (or may be the same persion), switching IPs as if the blocks don't faze him. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs03:11, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Bizarre DYK credit
I've just discovered that I was given a DYK credit for helping to expand Yemen women's national football team. As far as I can tell, my only contribution to that article was to comment out the mainspace categories when it was still located in User:LauraHale's userspace. It may seem to someone paying particular attention that I'm trying to weasel out of my DYK QPQ duty by getting a weird credit nullified, but I do still intend to fulfil my QPQ obligation - I was just curious to know why such a minor edit was deserving of a DYK credit. – PeeJay04:49, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
My assumption is that User:LauraHale, when she nominated the article for DYK, included your name (together with all others who had edited the article since creation) as people who should received DYK credit. Nobody checked to see what each contributor added/did. Since this happened over two and a half years ago, I doubt she remembers. As for the QPQ: she already did a QPQ when nominating, and we count article-by-article. In other words, you don't need to do a QPQ, as Laura did one already. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:48, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Hmm. Mind, the Victoria and Albert's copy is better. Does Wikipedia have an agreement with the V&A? The V&A are pretty free with allowing downloads, but their terms of use for doing so are fairly restrictive. Adam Cuerden(talk)04:04, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
You'd have to worry about that more than me. The UK is fairly strict about its sweat of the brow doctrine. That being said, V&A don't have zoomable images. (Also, I agree, their copy is much better). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:14, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
I grabbed a few for private research, and they're all proetty good. About 2500x2200ish in size. Reasonable. Enough to make the theatrical programmes mouth-watering. Adam Cuerden(talk)04:28, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
I believe some of the objects I'm looking at are only 6-8 inches wide, so, very good for them. Not so much for paintings, but, y'know. Adam Cuerden(talk)04:36, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
length of TFA text
I've been consistently running a little over 1200 characters. I asked over at WT:ITN if there were any problems; no one had a problem. Should I be asking anyone else who writes sections for the Main Page, or should I assume that someone will let me know if there's a problem? - Dank (push to talk) 00:35, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Oh, another thing. For TFAs that haven't gone through TFAR, I leave a message for the FAC nominator(s): "A summary of a Featured Article you nominated at WP:FAC will appear on the Main Page soon. I had to squeeze the text down to a little over 1200 characters; was there anything I left out you'd like to see put back in?" During February, I'll be happy to mention you in there somewhere if you like. (Brian was leaving his own messages, but I see you're not.) - Dank (push to talk) 03:23, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
I was going to do that earlier, but then I saw that you'd posted the most recent notification so I figured you were doing them. I'm fine with leaving notifications. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:03, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Okay ... I like to leave mine whether you do yours or not, to invite the writers to review the TFA text and talk with me about anything they don't like ... if you'd like for me to wait to do the TFA text until you've done notifications, I can do that, or I could leave one mesage from both of us, up to you. - Dank (push to talk) 04:10, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Will do. As always, let me know if you'd like any changes. Btw, I've been giving a lot of thought to this, and although Bencherlite and Raul took most of the burden on themselves to write or vet the TFA text, I'd like to nurture a small wikiproject to help with that job. I can see a few potential downsides and a bunch of potential upsides. Bencherlite will probably give me an earful over this, but I wanted to run the idea by you and Brian first. Thoughts? - Dank (push to talk)
The blurb (I don't usually call it that because "blurbs" are usually fluffy text designed to sell a book, and what we're doing isn't anything like that ... but I won't ask people to stop saying "blurb", that's established wiki-jargon by now). - Dank (push to talk) 04:46, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Agreed ... and cooks are tame compared to copyeditors :) This isn't a criticism of the way Bencherlite did things, btw; I looked back through his work to get me started, and I found him making a ton of good calls on how to condense and summarize prose. He took a difficult job, made it look easy, and minimized drama. There's no higher measure of success on WP than ... well, success.
But my position is that we need more people involved in writing blurbs (and you two can get more involved or not, I'm happy either way). What I've been doing so far has basically worked ... at least, people are happy ... but that's because I haven't been doing it for long, haven't been very noisy about it, and haven't been objecting unless someone's wording is technical, rare, ambiguous, or ungrammatical. Standards tend to diverge over time, and if people start perceiving that I'm trying to push anyone away who wants to help and could help, then I'm in trouble.
And I'm in an unfortunate position here that you and Brian aren't in ... it's quite common for people to have a visceral reaction to being "corrected", particularly if they're just trying to help. I'm more into copyediting than Bencherlite and Raul were ... it's who I am, and it's the most likely reason I got the job. I can't duck copyediting issues ... but if I don't duck them, and I try to retain sole control of the process, some Wikipedians are going to start seeing me as haughty, and obviously, that's not an acceptable outcome for me.
Over time, both the FA and GA processes have morphed into standards that Wikipedians are routinely held to, whether they like it or not ... for instance at WP:RFA. People resent it when they're held to standards that they're not personally on board with, particularly if the standards aren't transparent, and documenting the decisions made in writing the TFA paragraphs is a really big job ... like Bencherlite, I aim to make it look easy, but there's actually a pretty big decision tree involved in many decisions. I'm not going to be able to achieve the kind of transparency I'm looking for if it's just me doing the work. I want to pull in at least two or three people, hopefully more, in some capacity. (I don't care much what hats they're wearing, if any.) My guess is we're going to agree that, as long as it's our asses on the line if the process doesn't work, the three of us have to retain the power to pull the plug on anything that doesn't seem to be working. Thoughts? - Dank (push to talk) 16:46, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
We're currently approaching 20 hours for the latest DYK main-page set; plenty of preps are filled, but no one's around to promote them. If you should stop by and happen to see empty queues, please promote one or two preps if you have the time. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:53, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Greetings, Crisco! May I once again pick your brains on a matter to do with images? I wonder if this, this, or this might be admissible under WP's arcane rules for US press photos. Your guidance would be greatly appreciated. Tim riley talk11:44, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Hey Crisco. The draft revisions have been stewing on the Talk page for a while now and I think have had time to steep. Keeping up with changes in article-space to make sure they are reflected in the draft is starting to be a pest though. I was wondering if you would be comfortable performing the copy/paste of the draft into article-space? Another editor gave me the "go ahead" template, but given that some of the edits are on controversial issues (lawsuits), I didn't think it would be a good idea for me to do so, lest an editor with a strong interest/opinion in the subject later accuse me of impropriety on the subject. CorporateM (Talk) 18:21, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
The article Pah Wongso you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Pah Wongso for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Seattle -- Seattle (talk) 02:21, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Would you like to write an entry on three four lines on your featured picture, File:Skyline of Detroit, Michigan from S 2014-12-07.jpg since you are an expert on the topic... Hafspajen (talk) 22:00, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
That was good. Big city that one. Now will you do the same with File:PS4-Console-wDS4.jpg too? PLEASE... I am not in that business activity. Hafspajen (talk) 23:19, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Can you please delete the following pages by me. I have created the articles but messed up the title so had to fix it a number of times. so please delete them. Thanks in advance.
Thanks for taking your time off to help hapless Wikipedians and otherwise stucked-up articles find their way to the forefront of other non-English speaking readers.
I would hope that I have approached you the right way.
Nonetheless, I humbly seek your intervention to translate the following pages from English to your native tongue, since I gathered that it may mean something to Wiki readers in other languages.
Crisco, can I ask you for a favor and have you decide whether the second QPQ submitted is sufficient, since the first wasn't? I'm in the wrong headspace right now to decide this, given everything else that has gone on with this nomination, and would appreciate your help. Thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:52, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Crisco, the first QPQ was clearly inadequate and a new one has been submitted in its place (Template:Did you know nominations/Diego Costa). After something that happened with a QPQ at another nomination by the Captain I feel like I can't fairly judge where the line is between just barely okay and not quite adequate on the new QPQ, and I've disagreed with Yoninah enough already on this nomination. My question is simply, would you accept the new Diego Costa QPQ based solely on the Captain's contribution (Cwmhiraeth ultimately appropriated it with a more rigorous check), or did he not do enough of a check per DYK reviewing criteria for it to qualify as a QPQ? Fuebaey wants my opinion, and I'm hoping you'll give yours instead. If not, I suppose I'll have to think of something else. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:13, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
Hafs, you shouldn't back down like that and withdraw. You need to stand by (stick up for) your ideas. You need to beat them at their own game. You need to use words to persuade others that you are right. Did you see what I wrote? I wrote all that I could (you could say more) -- but you've got to stay calm. Many editors are academics (professors at universities) and are used to arguing their point of view, and they're good at it. You have to be as good as they are at arguing your point of view.
1) First, you clarify the issues.
2) Second, you concede (acknowledge) whatever they are right on: "You are right in saying that...., but.....". Then you take each of their points, one at a time, and come up with reasons why they are wrong.
3) Third, if you can, come up with more reasons why you are right.
4) Fourth, you re-state your point of view with different words.
Your mistake is getting emotional about it. If you do what I am telling you, you will be surprised. There are probably some editors who are just reading but not saying anything. If you make your argument in the way I suggested, those editors, and even some who felt the opposite a little while ago, may come to agree with you.
You could also enlist my help. I can help you write your rebuttal (response) if you wish.
C'mon, Hafs. I'm on your side. I agree with you about the spirit of collaboration. I think the others were a bit pedantic and mean-spirited about the whole thing. Do not give up. Please go back and undo those edits canceling out your votes for images and saying you are giving up.
I have an idea. I think we should go ahead and nominate each one of those Van Gogh images. You can do one. User:The Herald can do another. Crisco can do another. Xanty can do another. etc. and little by little, we'll get all of them promoted. Or, we could do co-nominations with two editors to rile them a little bit: 1st one: Hafs and The Herald. 2nd one: The Herald and Crisco. 3rd one: Crisco and me. 4th one: me and Xanty, etc. Looking forward to many future FP nominations, CorinneSD (talk) 00:06, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
This doesn't reflect poorly on the nomination; you entered previously untested territory, so people are trying to figure out what the rules should be on such nominations. This one'll pass no matter what. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:11, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for participating in the photo discussion. I really appreciate it. One thing: A new photo has been uploaded and added to the discussion. I hope I'm not bothering you by asking if you would mind indicating whether this changes your viewpoint, or whether it remains unchanged? Thank you very much. Nightscream (talk) 12:44, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
If you have time, could you glance at the above article, now at PR? It will make a fine, noncontroversial TFA someday I hope!--Wehwalt (talk) 12:38, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi Chris,
Now-a-days, I am creating the protected POTD three days in advance so as to avoid the issues as we had in the past. Is it fine? Three days will be good IMO.. - The Herald (here I am) 11:18, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Me and Phil got all muddled up with the question we asked about the Breakfast time image. The problem with the file is not the file naming. The problem is that File:Hanna Pauli - Frukostdags.JPG doesn't have the correct source. It is not a photo. It is a cropped Google file but it say it is a photo... I mean it is NOT the wrong file, but the wrong source. The guy overwrote the original photo with a cropped version of the google file. Without mentioning it in the section = source, on the file data. If that can be fixed than the file is fine. If it could be fixed, maybe it can be nominated. Phil was giving this one to me a long time ago as Wikilove and we just wrote an article on it (no snatching tp-s...Phil has first right on this) A link to the Google art file on Commons? File:Hanna Pauli - Breakfast-Time - Google Art Project.jpg
I'm rather new at participating in the FP nomination process. I read the minimum size for FPs is 1500 x 1500. Is that set in stone? I found one that is 1415 x 1416, that's why I'm asking. If there's no leeway, it's not a big deal. I'm just curious. APKwhisper in my ear07:09, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Just checking in again. I might just go ahead and move it into article-space, considering I was given the "go ahead" template and can't seem to find anyone to make the edit; probably in part because it's actually 30+ small edits, which are difficult to orchestrate in this manner. CorporateM (Talk) 20:37, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
That should be appropriate. If someone takes issue with it, I'll do it. Sorry, but I kept having to restitch the images (you can see them above, in #Hometown visit). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 20:40, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Crisco, the two-hour warning went up at WT:DYK a little while ago, and there are five preps awaiting promotion. Not sure whether you'll be on before the next move to the main page is scheduled, but if you are on and see that the queues are empty, a promotion or two would certainly be welcome. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. It really helps. Can I ask you to take a quick look at Template:Did you know nominations/Ali Akbar Aboutorabi Fard? There appears to be an objection to the image having to do with watermarks, and I'd appreciate it if you could weigh in: the nomination had been ticked before the objection, and having someone who knows something about the issue (I was pinged but I don't) would be great. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:12, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello Crisco 1492! I'm very content about Romances being TFA on Feb. 14 (especially since another I tried to get FA failed). Just a question, would it be okay if I suggest a picture on the blurb? Erick (talk) 18:44, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi Crisco- Just got back from four long scanning days at the Smithsonian. Only world currency this trip and I'll have some goodies up soon. There is an editor on Large Denominations of US Currency who insists on adding bogus images of fake US bonds. They insist that these are the notes that the Fed and BEP never told anyone about due to "secrecy". Would you mind having a quick look at the three images posted [2] and let me know if you think they meet criteria for deletion (improper claim of fair use, no license in connection to the original website, improper attribution of authorship to government agencies, etc...). Many thanks.--Godot13 (talk) 22:38, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Australia (pre-1960 Federal Reserve), Canada (pre-1935 Bank of Canada copyright), Czech notes with art by Mucha, unusual siege notes, remote places (e.g., European Pacific and African colonies), and a few crazy denominations.--Godot13 (talk) 00:20, 25 January 2015 (UTC) Enough ammo to maybe sign up for that silly little competition...
Zimbabwe issued that note about a decade ago? Can't imagine that would be PD yet, unless the country has no copyright on currency.--Godot13 (talk) 00:29, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
I've been looking for that online, and can't find anything. If they are PD... well, that would be something to see. 100 billion dollars and whatnot. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:32, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Ah, it was under "money". So if we can get some of those... you and Sca were talking about post-WWI Germany, and these are almost as bad. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:56, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I saw that you restored a JPG version of Union Films logo. Why do you think a JPG scan should be better when the original was clearly line art (to be printed/visualised black and white)? Using JPEG here goes against WP:PIFU. Regards, kashmiriTALK11:43, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
As I said when I removed the superseded template on Commons, JPGs render sharper than PNGs on Wikipedia. PNGs have an awful blurry look. (an SVG would have the same issue, but at least that would be scalable) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:29, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Agreed re. thumbnail, but PNG is still the preferred format for line art on Wikipedia, and thumbnail quality is not the determinant here - it might change at any moment with an update of wiki engine. For this reason, there is an ongoing effort on Wikipedia, incl. relevant image tags, to convert JPG→PNG (but not vice versa). Anyhow, see the official policy at WP:IUP. Regards, kashmiriTALK20:01, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Hence the "an SVG would have the same issue" in my comment... I know my formats. At least SVGs are scalable. No, the blurriness is not acceptable, and using a threshold filter to give a pure black look just makes the image look rough. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 20:56, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Hey, Crisco, would you mind having a talk with Ghost Lourde, who thinks the wording "one the most seminal heavy metal albums ever produced" is appropriate and is willing to fight over it?
Yes. A) They are, as ships go, quite different (one is wooden-sided, American, and extant, the other is a battlecruiser, German, and scrapped). B) A 100th anniversary and a 200th anniversary. I was thinking we could maybe schedule the class instead of the Bayern itself, if necessary... but I prefer the ship. What do you think? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:51, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
First, I must say that your body of work on WP is remarkable. I was in awe over the number of FAs you've either created or collaborated on. I've only been through 1 FA review so I have an idea of what it takes, and really, really admire what you've accomplished. The images you've captured are amazing, too. In fact, you are an "all-around" amazing editor, and I feel honored to meet your acquaintance. Hafspajen introduced me to a whole new level of WP regarding FP, and I find it very uplifting. It adds a whole new dimension to my editing and photography. Ok, so my question to you - I've been looking at getting a new Canon 5D Mark iii body, and wondered what your thoughts are about that model? I saw on eBay where they sell for $1,000 less than what you can buy them retail in the U.S. However, they come from Japan. In a disconnected happenstance, I received a form email from Canon advising customers that purchases of cameras outside the U.S. were not warranted, yet the seller on Amazon says they are - (a 2nd source?). Have you had any experiences with that? I was also curious to know what lens you would choose to shoot birds from say....100 ft. away? Thanks for your time - Atsme☯Consult05:35, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Atsme, I don't have any personal experience with the 5D mk III (Diliff uses it; he'd know best), though the reviews I've read have suggested that if money is a consideration the 6D is pretty much up to the same level except in non-central autofocus points. I'm actually planning on getting one of those when I'm back in Indonesia. Of course, I'd be much more inclined to believe the manufacturer about the warranty; they are the ones who may or may not honor it at a later date, and so their position is paramount. For the birds, JJ Harrison (the best photographer of that subject on the EN Wikipedia) uses a 500 mm lens... looking at his exif data, the EF500mm f/4L IS USM (sometimes with a 2X extender). That's a major investment, and one I'll likely not be able to afford for some time. Don't know how far he normally is from them when he takes the pictures though; a 300mm lens might be enough for closer work. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:24, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, ChrisGualtieri. the canon link is what I received via email, but the 2nd link was helpful.
Thank you, Crisco 1492. I'm currently using Canon's 400mm EF L IS, 4.5, not the best glass but adequate, which brings up another question. Last year, my photo [4] was denied as a FP candidate. The reviews said there was fringing. It appears to me the fringing at issue is partly caused by the white edge that fringes the bird's black feathers. You can see the white edges around the black feathers in the solid parts of the bird. There is also a very faint contrast edge that distinguishes the in-focus bird and cactus from the background. I think your image of the silhouetted man (shadowed man?) demonstrates it as well. What are your thoughts on the fringe issue? Thank you. Atsme☯Consult15:01, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
No, actually. I do camera raw enhancements, but did not try localized blurring because I didn't see the fringe until after my cataract surgery last year. . The shadow photo I was referencing above is this one: [5] Thank you. Atsme☯Consult15:17, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, mine is definitely a bit of oversharpening (over processing, rather), but that's what I ended up needing to get the effect I wanted. It's actually a cut-out on top of a pumping station (and I do like silhouettes... I think this one works pretty well too) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:20, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Sorry I'm a bit late to the party. Seems like many of your questions have already been answered. I'd probably recommend the 6D too if price is a factor. But then again, if you have a 400mm L prime lens already, perhaps not. I'm a bit confused though because I don't believe Canon make a 400mm f/4.5. They have a f/5.6 (reasonably cheap), f/4, and f/2.8 (the latter two very expensive). Actually, if bird photography is your primary intention, it might even be worth looking at a 7D Mk ii instead as it shoots faster than the 5D Mk iii, has equally good autofocus, and has the additional advantage of similar resolution but with a 'magnification factor' of 1.6x. This is often a bigger advantage for bird photography than the better noise handling of a full frame sensor. Also, I don't think 100ft is a realistic distance for a lot of bird photography, but it depends on what size bird and how tightly framed you expect it to be. I don't really specialise in bird photography by any means, but from my experience with my 5D and my 70-300mm lens at 300mm, you need to get within 10 metres (30ft) to get a sufficiently detailed image. So perhaps with a 400mm lens, you would need 40 ft. As an example, for this image of mine, I believe I was no more than 15-20 ft away from the raven, and they are not small birds! Admittedly, ravens are also not as fearful as most birds so it was a bit easier to photograph. In any case, regardless of the difficulty in photographing birds, closer is almost always better. I would expect to need an 800mm lens to comfortably shoot birds from 100ft away. As for your FP candidate, it does seem to be upsampled to me and as per Crisco's comments, overly sharpened, which has resulted in the white halo around the feathers. This would have been exaggerated by the upsampling too. The reason why I believe it was upsampled is that the texture of the noise is peculiar, and much coarser than I would normally expect from a digital camera. Ðiliff«»(Talk)15:45, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Also, regarding grey market cameras, I bought my camera (and many of my lenses) from a Hong Kong online retailer for significantly less than could be bought in Europe. I was aware that manufacturer's warranty would be affected, but most of these retailers offer their own warranty instead (you ship it to them, they repair it locally, then ship it back to you). It's not quite as convenient as a real local warranty but I've always accepted that risk. Lenses and cameras don't often fail within the warranty period anyway. Ðiliff«»(Talk)16:42, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Not too late, Diliff - your info was quite helpful. Thank you. Really liked your raven shot. Re: my Canon lens described in full: EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM [6]. Should have said f/4.5-5.6L instead of just 4.5 - sorry. I'll check out the 7D Mk ii - sounds interesting. As for getting close to the birds, not possible when on remote islands walking the edges of mangroves shooting egrets, herons, flamingos and the like. I mostly shoot raw so something weird could be happening during enhancement/cropping/dynamic contrast, or perhaps in Adobe's conversion from raw to .dng to .jpg because I actually don't sharpen my images. That feature is turned-off in LR, too. Also, take a look at the reddish egret I shot at about 75 - 100 ft away. I'm on land hiding behind a thorny sage, the bird is perched above the water on a dead tree, the edge of the mangroves is the background. Notice how the ends of the birds feathers actually do have an edge transparency. That is a natural occurrence in the feather, not an fringing issue. [7]. With the trupial, I do see a mixture of both, but now I'm thinking it may result from a combo of cropping and overdosing on the dynamic contrast. Interesting. Atsme☯Consult21:12, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
The Reddish Egret image is pretty good, with less of an image quality issue than the one you nominated for FP, although the out of focus branch is a bit unattractive in that instance. Perhaps you're right that the halo around the tail feathers in the other image was the transparency of them. Ðiliff«»(Talk)23:14, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Well, with the 400mm you've got, I'm thinking a 2x extender would be a much easier investment for birds. If you're using a crop frame image, that means 400 mm * 1.6 * 2 = ~1300mm... more than enough for a long shot. You'd have to shoot with a higher F number though, as the 2X extender drops your minimum aperture by two stops. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 21:19, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
This wouldn't really work Crisco, losing two stops from f/5.6 means that your lens stops autofocusing, which is going to be a bit of a problem. Some pro level camera bodies can focus (poorly) at f/8 but most non-pro bodies cannot at all. Two stops from f/5.6 (which is the aperture at the 400mm end) would actually take you to f/11 which is not going to work on any DSLR camera. JJ Harrison uses an extender (I thought it was 1.3x but he may have a 2x extender too) on a 500mm f/4 lens, which results in f/5.6 and f/8 depending whether its 1.3x or 2x. Unfortunately, if want to replicate the quality of the shots he takes, the lens is rather pricey... USD$10,000! Not to mention that he's quite experienced in birding and climbing around on his stomach in a hide to get those photos... ;-) Ðiliff«»(Talk)23:14, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Great info, guys - thank you. I bought a Canon 2x II extender a few hours ago, but I'm not quite sure how I'll use it. Probably for static macro on objects I can't get close enough to shoot with the Canon 100mm dedicated macro, the latter of which I use most u/w. I don't have an issue using MF with the 100-400 lens under the right conditions. I really don't want to pack anything much heavier than that on my own unless I'm actually on paid assignment. Then I can rent whatever lens I need, and pay a local to schlep it all for me. Thinking seriously about going back to Tierra del Fuego, and spending a month just shooting in and around Ushuaia. Great photo ops if you like penguins, glaciers, mountains, and incredible waterfalls. Atsme☯Consult01:57, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Sorry about the contact out of the blue... as well as the lateness of it... my computer just got back from the shop after a slew of issues (hense the giant gap in my editing history).
Maybe, but it's like the Indonesian anime/telenovela/movie studio vandal. Even with the warning, he never seems to heed it. So, I don't think warning him will have an effect. He'll just keep on doing his vandalism. Just a heads up. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs07:59, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
For your outstanding contributions for Featured Pictures in 2014 you are hereby award this WikiProject Barnstar. Congratulations! For the Military history Wikiproject Coordinators, TomStar81 (Talk) 08:24, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
The Biography Barnstar
For your various Featured Picture contributions related to people in 2014 you are hereby awarded this Biography Barnstar. Congratulations! For the Military history Wikiproject Coordinators, TomStar81 (Talk) 08:24, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello Crisco 1492! Bananasoldier (talk) has given you a bit of sunshine to brighten your day! Sunshine promotes WikiLove and hopefully it has made your day better. Spread the sunshine by adding {{subst:User:Meaghan/Sunshine}} to someone else's talk page, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. In addition, you can spread the sunshine to anyone who visits your userpage and/or talk page by adding {{User:Meaghan/Sunshine icon}}. Happy editing! Bananasoldier (talk) 08:33, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Halim Perdanakusuma.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:
Go to the file description page and add the text {{di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}}below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 00:19, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
The name's Cat... SchroCat....
Many thanks for your recent thoughts and comments at the informal PR for Casino Royale (novel): The changes you suggested have been taken on board and implemented, and the article is much, much stronger than it was before. As such, I've gone ahead and opened the FAC, and I hope you will have time to have another look through at some point in the future. Thanks again. – SchroCat (talk) 12:16, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps I've misunderstood, but I was under the impression that a FP illustrates the subject in a compelling way, making the viewer want to know more. A photograph has appropriate lighting to maximize visible detail; diagrams and other illustrations are clear and informative. Example: if a section in the article about a mosque describes a unique feature of that mosque, such as the ceiling, and the nomination is a photo of that ceiling, but not of the complete interior or exterior of the mosque, is that acceptable or is a full shot required? Atsme☯Consult11:56, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Details are acceptable in many situations. I haven't had the time to look at the image, but it should be technically acceptable. There are, however, people who prefer seeing the whole animal (you'll notice that even with the goat that Haffy nominated). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:56, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
What's with the goat I have nominated? It's a portrait. An artistic representation in which the face and its expression is predominant. But I always tought it looked more like a wild bull to me ... Hafspajen (talk) 16:26, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi Crisco - I just wanted to share a couple of thoughts with you regarding u/w photography and FP evaluations, primarily because I was hoping you could help suggest ways to improve non-diver understanding (if such a thing is possible) about the basics of u/w photography and what to look for, such as uniqueness and technical difficulties involved in capturing a front cover or in WP terms, an image with EV. Do you think perhaps we could write a brief essay to accompany the FP criteria? My background includes 8 years of teaching u/w photography, and I was also an assignment writer/photographer for a popular dive magazine as well as for a fleet of live-aboard dive boats. My official status now is NITROX Instructor/Advanced Open Water-Specialty Instructor Emeritus (two different cert agencies). Companies actually paid me to get wet and take pictures - if only they had known. One of my u/w images was licensed by the USPS for inclusion in a Limited Edition Stamp Collection, and I've also licensed u/w photos and/or digital footage to National Geographic, Discovery, various dive magazines, yada yada - the point being, I'm not a neophyte. If you get a chance, I was hoping you would take a peek at the following two articles which explain in a little more detail what I was trying to describe in a few sentences about u/w macro photography and DOF. [9][10]Atsme☯Consult01:17, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
I'll have to read that in more detail later (still unpacking). I was thinking that the exposure speed was the issue for DOF, and if that is the case it can be toyed with by changing the exposure bias. To compensate for my body's poor noise control at anything higher than 800, I used a bias of -2 for the Balinese dance series, which would have given me considerably more wiggle room if I wanted to go for a greater DOF. Though yes, I expect that underwater things change quite a bit. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:52, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
(stalker)@Atsme- I've tried u/w (though I haven't been diving in quite a while). Based on my limited u/w experience, it was much more complicated than out of the water...IMO.--Godot13 (talk) 02:20, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, Godot13 - not to imply that land based photography is easy by any means. A big advantage to land based is not having to worry about running out of air. My favorite lens u/w is a 100mm Macro 1:2.8 L series. I've shot exquisite detail on critters the size of a pea, and smaller. Factors like light refraction, loss of color at depth which requires strobes, particles in the water column that create backscatter, bulky equipment, judging the correct distance despite skewed perception (34% larger - 25% closer), getting close enough without scaring the subject, buoyancy issues, stability in surge/current, limited vision through a mask, exhale bubbles and noise that scares fish away, and so on. I'm fortunate in that I can stay 90 minutes u/w using an 80 with a 32 - 34% Nitrox mix, but that also has limits. Digital cameras are so much easier to work with today compared to what we had in the late 80s (slide film and parallax error!). When the Nikonos RS (SLR) came out in '92, it revolutionized u/w photography. I shot a lot of u/w video back then, too, some of which was shown as recently as 2013 on Nat Geo. It was an exciting and fun time. Atsme☯Consult03:43, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm preparing to roll out new, updated range maps for many lemur species. This includes the map you reviewed at the Fork-marked lemur FAC. The new maps are a little more compressed horizontally and made in QGIS using freely available SHP files (public domain), which I trust more than some of the SVG files used in the previous map template. I was wondering if you could look at the ones I've uploaded so far and give you thoughts as if you were reviewing them at FAC.
Feedback on appearance is welcome as well. If you're happy with these examples, I will prepare a new map for the current FAC candidate and many other lemur articles. If I need to make some small changes first, that's fine. – Maky« talk »07:02, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look. Glad to know the licensing is all in order and that the stuff in the bottom left corner wasn't too crammed. I changed the size of the map because QGIS wanted to use a "Letter" size page, so I just set it to portrait and worked with that. Hopefully no one complains once I've made a ton of maps. ;-) Again, thanks! – Maky« talk »07:59, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
File:2417-Panji Kilapawarno de Surakarta en Java central (Indonesia) actuando en el XXV festival folclorico de Coruña. (6594185315).jpgThese girls are mind blowing
Missed the event? Or? Missed purchasing some of those charming skirts? Would look lovely while driving to university on your motorbike.... Hafspajen (talk) 17:35, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
The photograph. Mind, I'd enjoy wearing the outfit too. It would look... unique. I do have the beskap; one of my wedding ceremonies was in the Javanese style. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 17:39, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Well, technically it's just the vest, but one of my wedding ceremonies was in a costume like this. (My wife and I had three: one in Niagara Falls (just family, with a party like a week later at my house in Windsor), one in her hometown of Semarang (which was in the westernized Chinese-Indonesian style), and one in Yogyakarta (which was in the Javanese style). She wore a kebaya, and I wore this. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 17:53, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Only thing I can nit-pick about is that little area in the lower left corner which is a slightly different colour than the rest of the page. Otherwise, no. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 20:41, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Good point, and the area of Laguna know as Three Arch Bay really is worthy of a page on it alone. I did update the LB page, tell me what you think. Thanks! talk→WPPilot03:49, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Damion Scott has taken issue with the photo in his article. He previously demanded that I replace it with one that I thought inferior to the one already in the Infobox, and has now replaced with a third one of his own. In the interest of WP:CONSENSUS, can you offer your opinion on this? Thanks again. Nightscream (talk) 19:23, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
So happens I read just ystdy that the crazy Pickelhaube (supposedly) was designed by Schinkel. One would've thought he had better taste. There's no mention of him in Eng. or Ger. WP articles, though. (Eng. article says was designed by Fredrick William IV, but I rather doubt he designed it personally.) Sca (talk) 14:51, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Thank you again for your thorough review of the images during the PR review of the Gary Cooper article. With We hope's help, I believe we resolved all of the copyright issues, and replaced images that couldn't be used. I nominated the article as a featured article candidate. I would very much appreciate one last review and assessment when you have the time. Regards, Bede735 (talk) 14:24, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Crisco, right now that queues are empty while the preps are full. There's a decent chance that the situation will change before 00:00 UTC, but if you could check the next time you're on to see whether there's at least one queue filled, that would be great. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:21, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, they got it, but the next one was late, and we're empty again. Any chance you could take the next one, or add an extra to give us some cushion? Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:24, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
This ivory carving is a gift from China presented to the United Nations in 1974. It depicts the Chengtu-Kunming railway, which was opened to traffic in 1970 and covers a distance of over 1,000 kilometers. The railway connects two Chinese provinces, Yunnan Province in the South and Szechuan Province in the North.
The sculpture was carved from eight elephant tusks, and it is said that 98 people worked on it for more than two years. It is amazing for its detail - it is possible to see even tiny people carved inside the train.Hafspajen (talk) 17:48, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi Chris, I'm just checking on a CCL to see if I'm OK to upload an image. It's for this geograph image which goees off to an "Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic (CC BY-SA 2.0)". Am I OK to go ahead an upload to Commons? Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:41, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Here's a Sakotis for you! This cake promotes WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving this cake to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Make your own message to spread WikiLove to others! Happy editing! Hafspajen (talk) 12:02, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
I've initiated a discussion at Talk:86th Academy Awards of how the performers table should be formatted because Atomic Meltdown and I were in a dispute resulting in warnings about being blocked. I think there should be consensus, and since you are an expert on film articles, I would like your feedback, please.
Can you help me understand this edit? If I produced the image on behalf of the Smithsonian, why is the permission/attribution being changed, and how is a 1940's banknote PD-Art? I just wanted to make sure this made no sense before changing it back...--Godot13 (talk) 00:37, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm not going to argue the merits of putting banknotes in with 2D artwork (for this one example), but I will replace the attribution/permission.--Godot13 (talk) 20:29, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
[11]. You know about these things. Can you tell if it is a scan or not? Mind you, I don't think it should matter, either way it is copyrighted.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:43, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello Crisco 1492, love is the language of hearts and is the feeling that joins two souls and brings two hearts together in a bond. Taking love to the level of Wikipedia, spread the WikiLove by wishing each other Happy Valentine's Day, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person.
Sending you a heartfelt and warm love on the eve,
Happy editing,
- T H (here I am) 12:03, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello Crisco 1492, love is the language of hearts and is the feeling that joins two souls and brings two hearts together in a bond. Taking love to the level of Wikipedia, spread the WikiLove by wishing each other Happy Valentine's Day, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person.
Sending you a heartfelt and warm love on the eve,
Happy editing, Hafspajen (talk) 14:06, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
your talk page has become very, um gallerised... sure there is a post modern explanation in 1,000 words or more that could explicate a thorough analysis of this phenomenon, its tempting to remind you where you are physically, in the midst of tropical climes where the last thing you do is actually have the originals of anything on this page placed in anything but a refrigerator with a humitidy control device... satusuro00:13, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Har har. I don't have the energy to write 1,000 words on that (translating and writing a paper about Lie Kim Hok will do that). I just blame it mostly on my queue for FP nominations. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:45, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Since I'm not going to be at Wikimania (July/August will be really busy in RL), I don't know if a signature from me would have much value. It is an interesting point, but I'd be concerned that some may take the (obviously tongue in cheek) "pick up artist" phrasing a bit too negatively. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:30, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Since this isn't China (and, as it's a state school, I doubt any of the performers are ethnic Chinese), I doubt any of them would stick. Curious what #1 is wearing.
Actually, come to think of it, Zanhe may know. (We're referring to the section #Chinese New Year above). AFAYK, is that a traditional(ish) outfit, or is it something they came up with? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:12, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Also, Haffy, the woman (at least) is wearing a very traditionally Javanesebatiksarong. I'm not an expert on the subject, but that resembles some traditional patterns I've seen. So, I think it's likely Chinese-Indonesian fusion. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:16, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Yeah. Around her legs she has a batik sarong (Chinese influences are evident in Cirebon-style batik, but not the stuff found around here). The guy in blue looks like he's wearing batik too, around his legs. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:13, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
There is an error in both the image file name and the description line. I don't know if you want to correct it. "Laying" is not the right word. It should by "Lying Jade Buddha" (to lie - to recline - lie, lies, lying, past tense lay) not laying (to lay - to put flat - lay, lays, laying, past tense laid), or, better, "Reclining Jade Buddha". CorinneSD (talk) 17:33, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
A 1914 copy of Architectural Record with an article and photos of the Ritz, London-the magazine gives no information re: who took the photos but is/was published in New York-can these be used as PD and if so, do they need anything other than the PD-US license? Thanks! We hope (talk) 21:05, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
US magazine, right? Unless the images of the Ritz were published elsewhere before the AR (hard to prove), should be fine for Commons. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:40, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! Thought so but sometimes you want to get the photos and you try to "rationalize" with yourself as to why they're OK. :) Architectural Record is/was a US magazine; there's nothing about who took the photos. We hope (talk) 23:51, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Last night I uploaded a photo of The Big Bopper and didn't realize it had the same file name as the non-free one here until I was done. I hate to change the Commons file name because I think it makes it easier for people to find and use it; before I uploaded the cropped copy, another wikipedia had already added it to their article. :) I don't want the uploader of the non-free file to think there's anything wrong-all that's the matter is that there's now a free use photo to replace it. Haven't gotten up enough money to have a box yet, but am looking for suggestions. :) We hope (talk) 13:40, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Great, thanks!!! And - help. PLEASE, could you look at the Talk:Francis of Assisi - the lead picture was removed and changed in the last three month about four five times, times, everybody is complaining, mostly IPs. It has been even protected because of it, and because of persistent vandalism. We should chose one picture and stick with it. Now there's an other editor that started a new circus. Hafspajen (talk) 12:01, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
The start of the camel trail File:Cornell qatar courtyard.jpg
questions and good faith
Thank you for getting another Bach cantata to the Main page, the last one for a while. I remember meeting you over Handel's "He was despised", and your approval in good faith after reasonable questions. I had archived "despised" but returned it to my user page, did you know? - You are an awesome Wikipedian!
I've noticed a serious lack of coin images in Canadian numismatic articles. I've investigated banknotes and know they are treated differently (Bank of Canada copyright), but does the 50 year statute for Canada also apply to the Royal Canadian Mint, which is governed by Crown Copyright? A vague one-line comment at Commons:currency suggests it's okay. Thanks.--Godot13 (talk) 20:24, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi Crisco, Yet another request for PR help, I'm afraid, although this one comes with an ready-made opportunity for a pun or two while comparing the subject matter to the content and prose! It concerns the Great Stink, a relatively brief event in London history that has had a beneficial effect that we all enjoy to this day. The PR can be found here, if you have the time to spare. If you don't, no worries! (And please let me know when you have something for me to do to reciprocate the few thousand favours I now owe you!) Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 23:26, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi Crisco, I've been playing around with the galleries to try and get both the boxes the same size, and to have the images the same height. It's not possible to set the box width and the images: the box width over rides the forcing of the image sizes and has the images at different sizes. Just forcing the images to be the same heights means that the two galleries will be of different widths. Any preferences, or further thoughts? Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:44, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
It's okay. I basically push numbers until something clicks. (Oh yeah, you were asking about something I'm working on... Air Mata Iboe is sloooowly getting in shape; couple things to work out though). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:59, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Here's a question for you, SchroCat: what do you think of footnote D in the article? Worth including? I find it really interesting (I haven't found covers of any other film songs so far) but it is rather minor. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:39, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
It is a little minor, but I find that's a great place for details such as this to go – it clutters up the main text too much, and yet it's pertinent enough to the subject to be of interest. - SchroCat (talk) 11:49, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Just a heads up that I made a few more tweaks to the image, as you've voted already. They're just extensive enough that I felt I should inform. Adam Cuerden(talk)11:17, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
I noticed this. I swore to god there is a song of some kind that samples just the 'la la la la la la la la' but I just couldn't think what it was. It was driving me crazy. Anyway, it was Mutter by Rammstein, right at the start. Dunno if that is what was stuck in your mind. Thanks.--EchetusXe21:11, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Nope, that's not it. Never listened to much Rammstein. When I was in high school a friend was a fan, but I don't think he listened to that song when we hung out. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:28, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Fairly certain that very few images would qualify for FP... All the images are through the sides of holders, few of which are pristine. Spent a fair amount of time finding the best image possible (balancing size with clarity/focus). Since these are representative of actual identifiable coins (auction lots), I don't want to mess with the actual coin image. Any suggestions for tweaking the cutouts are welcome (or just try it out and let's have a look). Also, if you think the reception would be better, should we start with Canadian (Federal/National) issue coins first?--Godot13 (talk) 20:52, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Tramslated Google link They are offering CC 3.0 attribution-unported licenses on their photos and music covers. Someone said this was only valid for Swedish artists, but seeing LZ here says otherwise. I've never heard of someone being able to limit a CC license to a certain country or countries only, so it looks like it means everyone. We hope (talk) 02:36, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
This is amazing, but... wouldn't they not have the right to release an album cover that they didn't design? Perhaps this is like the numerous Bollywood sites, where the free license applies only to images their staff took themselves. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:39, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Madonna press photo I'm viewing from here and everything I've looked at so far has the CC license as above. Here's our article on the Hard Candy album Hard Candy (Madonna album) and here's the cover with a CC 3.0 license cover. Not sure what to make of this but I think I would archive the pages of anyhing I downloaded from there for proof if they change their mind about it. We hope (talk) 02:50, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Unless they hold the copyrights, they can't exactly release it freely. That's like us scanning an album cover and claiming it is CC. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:54, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Did a little more digging. The site is a Swedish PR company hired by the respective companies to talk up their products. Commons has close to 1,000 files from the site. It looks to me like in the case of Warner, they're granting CC licenses in some cases where they don't hold the copyright--the photographer or artist does. Have seen some photos with CC 3.0 licenses from Warner but EXIF data showing the copyright holder is the person who took the photo. When you think something's too good to be true, most of the time, it probably is. :/ We hope (talk) 03:32, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Hm
Nag Nathaiya festival in VaranasiFile:Kaliya's wifes and Krishna. Kangra c.1785-90. Painting of India.JPG
Indian paintings are usually quite distinct. Wish we had good scans of some. This one suffers from aggressive noise reduction. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:39, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
We can generally trust the Met to know its own paintings. If the painting is dirty, then the scan will appear dirty. That's called being faithful. Taking an image and putting it through auto-levels does not make it more accurate; 99.999999999% of the time, it's a guaranteed way to make it less accurate. We saw the same issue with the Columbus painting; someone corrected it so that the painted white appeared pure white, which IRL would be absolutely impossible. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:28, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Faithful to dirt, yes. By the way, I did not apply autolevels, try it. I used that image as an illustration in that article. It is not a piece of art, it's a copy, no more. I can imagine that you would want to use it like it is in an article about Carolus-Duran, but this article is about Mrs. Astor, and there it’s purpose is not to show the state of the varnish but the image of the woman. --Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 10:09, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Crisco here. What exactly do you have to support your statement that "it's a copy, no more"? Also, do you seriously think she had such an unhealthy blue tinge? If she ended up that blue, she must have had mercury poisoning. You may not have done autoleveling, but you certainly ended up with an image that was much too cool. Faithfulness to the original work is always preferable.36.81.20.40 (talk) 12:27, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
The artwork is in the museum. This is just a copy, a photographic copy, influenced by environmental side effects. And above all, it is a lossy compression. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 13:06, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
A photograph of a painting, yes. That doesn't mean that we get to edit it willy nilly and give the poor woman argyria and a green dress. The Met spends plenty on their scans; we can trust them more than a blind edit without being able to reference the painting. My upload is the full-zoom version from the Met's website. Although I agree that they appear to upsample a bit too far in their zoomed images, there is still more detail than in what the Met makes publicly available. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:21, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, a copy. Everybody seems to think that a photographic copy is the same as the real thing, but a short investigation shows that every unique photograph shows something different. I never said that my version is suitable for illustrating a Carolus-Duran page, but it is certainly suitable for illustrating the Caroline Astor page. As for the colours, the dirt layer on top of the painting makes the first image just as inaccurate as the second. --Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 13:51, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Where have I said that a photographic copy is the same as the real thing? Seriously, stop putting words in my mouth. You've turned her black dress green and her skin blue. That does not represent her accurately, at all. You may need to check your monitor if you are unable to see that. Yes, the painting's varnish may have yellowed with age, but a "best guess" edit is not going to help. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:23, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
No, I said everybody, a general statement. By the way, her dress is not black, Carolus-Duran generally did not make monochrome pictures. And no, her skin did not turn blue. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 14:53, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Why make a general statement when you're speaking to Crisco, and not "everybody"? That's a flimsy excuse.
Funny, it looks very blue to me. And if we look at the galleries in Carolus-Duran, it's very clear that yes, his work was often dominated by one or two colours. He was certainly no van Gogh. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:02, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I have to agree with Crisco here: we have to have the images as close to the extant versions as possible, without any "cleaning" process applied. Changing the colours of any image to one's personal preference (bearing in mind one isn't the artist and doesn't know the exact colour used) is a version of WP:OR as far as I am concerned. - SchroCat (talk) 17:23, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Reasons for getting the last word
Folie de TitaniaNelson's last word: 'It's an mdash, Hardy.
Hey Crisco, you may or may not be the person to ask this. The chicken manure DYK that was approved said "of all animal manures", per the source material, but apparently when it was promoted, it lost the word "animal". There was nothing in the discussion about dropping that word, and not all manure is of animal origin. Do you know what happened? LadyofShalott 00:29, 25 February 2015 (UTC) Also pinging Miyagawa as the promoting editor. LadyofShalott00:34, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Generally, hooks in the preps/queues are edited for wording by whomever is paying attention to them. Someone (you'd have to look in the prep/queue histories) may have thought that manure is always from animals, and thus dropped the word. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:06, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
That is bothersome to me. Looking at the article, manure, also linked in that hook shows that is not the case. We should not be introducing inaccuracies (to the main page!) by changing hooks on the fly like that. LadyofShalott17:25, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Lady, I had exactly the same issue some time ago whn I put something up for DYK. The reviewer and I re-worked the hook a couple of times until we were both happy, and then it was re-edited by someone without any knowledge of the subject. A factual and grammatical error were introduced which annoyed me hugely: I was lucky enough to notice before it hit the front page and asked for it to be removed before it went live. Ironically enough I have only just posted a DYK hook this week - eight or nine months after my last experience there. I am hoping it doesn't happen again: it shouldn't, because the consensus of the people who have worked on the hook is overturned by someone without any discussion or comeback on them, and that is not at all healthy. All the best - SchroCat (talk) 17:43, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
I hope not ShroCat! I wonder if there is more general discussion to be had on this; I wonder how often it occurs, and Crisco's page isn't really the place. In my case, I didn't see it until after the DYK had run and been done. LadyofShalott17:46, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
I think most preps have at least one post-promotion edit, though I don't have any statistics to back this up. There are some that introduce errors (Schro ended up with one, and that was during a time of really high tensions at DYK... you're lucky you missed it), but a lot of them are beneficial in the end. Misplaced commas being fixed, etc. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:31, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Focus stacking
Hey, thanks for mentioning focus stacking; I have Photoshop CC and therefore would've probably done it if I knew about it. I'll try it out; thanks!--ɱ(talk · vbm)22:34, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
adds it as a lead pic, at American Bulldog
and removes this
. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Pah Wongso for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Seattle -- Seattle (talk) 02:21, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
MP.4 version 1:49 White House gingerbread house 2013 at whiteHouse.gov
Unused (nominated for delisting)
Renaissance Center, Detroit (nominated)
De Menagerie, at Melchior d'Hondecoeter (nominated)
Portrait of a Man, Said to be Christopher Columbus at Christopher Columbus (nominated)
Crown of Silla (treasure 339; nominated)
Haller Madonna (obverse; nominated)
Haller Madonna (reverse; nominated)
_-_Artemisia_Gentileschi.jpg)
.jpg)
Improved bonus! Now you can see the nudity high-res!
. The shadow photo I was referencing above is this one: [5] Thank you. Atsme☯Consult 15:17, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
.jpg)
.jpg)
It's a portrait. An artistic representation in which the face and its expression is predominant. But I always tought it looked more like a wild bull to me ... 
Hafspajen (talk) 16:26, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
One of my u/w images was licensed by the USPS for inclusion in a Limited Edition Stamp Collection, and I've also licensed u/w photos and/or digital footage to National Geographic, Discovery, various dive magazines, yada yada - the point being, I'm not a neophyte. If you get a chance, I was hoping you would take a peek at the following two articles which explain in a little more detail what I was trying to describe in a few sentences about u/w macro photography and DOF. [9] [10] Atsme☯Consult 01:17, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Sillhouette of a cut-out (this was odd to look at)
Detail of the Knights of Columbus Peace Monument (1967)
Bust of Herb Gray
Detroit Princes (1993, riverboat)
Portrait of a ring-billed gull
Plaque to Roy A. Battagello at the Riverfront Bike Trail
My Rottie, Thunder
My mom's Cocker Spaniel, Lady
Interior of the Rosary Chapel at Our Lady of the Assumption
Exterior of the Rosary Chapel at Our Lady of the Assumption
Exterior of the main building, Our Lady of the Assumption
Healthy Habitz 4 Life, Frankenmuth, Michigan
Fudge and kite store, Frankenmuth, Michigan
Castle Shops, Frankenmuth, Michigan
Covered bridge, Frankenmuth, Michigan
Covered bridge entrance, Frankenmuth, Michigan
Bavarian Inn Lodge, Frankenmuth, Michigan
Bavarian Inn Restaurant, Frankenmuth, Michigan
Riverside shops, Frankenmuth, Michigan
Woolen Mill, Frankenmuth, Michigan
Fields, Frankenmuth, Michigan, 2015-01-11
Altar of Jesus, Assumption Church
Nave, Assumption Church, Windsor
Organ, Assumption Church, Windsor
Altar of Mary, Assumption Church, Windsor
Interior from entrance, Assumption Church, Windsor
,_Our_Lady_of_the_Assumption,_Windsor,_Ontario.jpg)
,_Our_Lady_of_the_Assumption,_Windsor,_Ontario.jpg)
,_Our_Lady_of_the_Assumption,_Windsor,_Ontario.jpg)
,_Our_Lady_of_the_Assumption,_Windsor,_Ontario.jpg)
_actuando_en_el_XXV_festival_folclorico_de_Coru%C3%B1a._(6594185315).jpg)
Hafspajen (talk) 19:14, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
-1.jpg)
.jpg)
Hafspajen (talk) 08:56, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
_Pifferari_in_einer_r%C3%B6mischen_Taverne.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
._1908._%D0%93%D0%A0%D0%9C.png)
woman? Hafspajen (talk) 16:07, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
,_Windsor,_Ontario,_2014-12-07.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
,_Hist._Route_66_--_2012_--_1.jpg)
(I was bored)
"Tari Edan"
"Tari Edan"
![[4]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/ba/Trupial_on_a_cactus.png){kind=link}
![[5]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sillhouette_of_man_cut-out_on_rooftop,_Windsor,_Ontario,_2014-12-07.jpg){kind=link}
,_Yosemite_NP,_CA,_US_-_Diliff.jpg){kind=link}
![[7]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Atsme#mediaviewer/File:Reddish_egret_fishing.png){kind=link}
![[11]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:1804_Silver_Dollar_-_Class_I_-_Cohen-ANA_Specimen.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg)
,_by_Carolus-Duran.jpg)
.jpg)
