This issue is starting to get beaten to death, but... please, please stop or at least cut back on the shadow lightening / faux-HDR that you like to do. Unlike JBarta, I did not find issue with the modifications you did to File:SremskiKarlovciCityCentre1.JPG as it really helped bring out an important portion of the image and looked plausible and pretty natural. In the most recent case however, File:Brake crane 334E of electric multiple unit ER2 Russia.jpg (your version vs just watermarks removed), I was not that impressed with the results. A couple of arguments against these modifications:
You claim that lightening shadows compensates for the digital photography's lack of dynamic range and that these modifications should look more similar to what the human eye actually sees. As I see it, the human eye does indeed have a very wide dynamic range, but even it cannot focus on the whole range at once without re-adjusting itself. And the eye re-adjust itself to see the darker areas in an image just as it naturally would. Unless there is information missing due to clipping, the eye can see that. Also, I don't really understand hot lightening the shadows should compensate for a lack dynamic range when no information that is outside the fixed range and missing due to clipping is actually recovered in the process. To sum it up, I do not find this specific reasoning you keep bringing up to be convincing in the least.
By doing levels adjustments to only selected areas of an image you are distorting the lightness and saturation of these areas relative to the rest of the image. This by itself is not necessarily a bad thing, if such distortions are justified. In the above image though, after your editing the control panel looks light rather than dark grey and the hole in the box looks as if a light from some source is now shining inside it. Another (quite drastic) example of this is [1] vs [2], where the woman's hair looks practically grey, not black, after selective lightening. This leads to the next point...
There is no real need for these distortions/enhancements in this image (and others). As I mentioned, File:SremskiKarlovciCityCentre1.JPG is a good example of an image where lightening the shadows has a real benefit. In this image however, all the important content is on the foreground and well lit. There is nothing that deserves to be emphasized inside the hole (there is literally nothing there except for a single cable). The control panel, which is well-lit needs it even less. In my opinion, significant selective lightening/darkening, like this, is usually distracting and noticeable for the viewer, which is not a good thing. It would only be justified if it brought out any important parts in the image that are otherwise badly visible. This, as I already mentioned, is not true (at least in my opinion) for this and many if not most other images I have seen you edit this way.
By lightening shadows you usually make the images look quite flat and lacking in contrast. And I think the human eye enjoys and benefits from contrast as it helps it distinguish items from each other (on the large scale particularly) and helps it focus on the significant parts of the image
One less ideological but still important point: the modifications are quite sloppy in a few places. In this image, for example: the shadowy area beneath the control panel now has a weird discontinuity that wasn't there before, as does the area in the bottom right corner. As I already mentioned, the control panel now looks too light in general and also somewhat unnatural. Another thing, which is pretty much inevitable but should be considered is that lightening dark areas brings out quite a bit of noise and for badly compressed images even JPEG blocks.
In conclusion, I guess the overall point is that what you are doing is not necessarily bad but you should reserve it for images that actually significantly benefit from it (otherwise it only makes the image look unnatural). And if you do decide to do it, be a bit more careful in applying it. Cheers, —Quibik (talk) 22:31, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I poked around your website sometime previously when I encountered you on GL, and I suspect it'll eat another hour or two of tomorrow afternoon. My interest is primarily in the railroads and trolley lines of southern New England, but your site is just fascinating. Cheers! Pi.1415926535 (talk) 08:04, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you find some things of interest there. I wrote quite a bit about New England railroads in the 2011 book "The Classic Eastern American Railroad Routes" of which I was also the Consultant Editor, and also have an extensive site on the history of the Belfast & Moosehead Lake Railroad in Waldo County, Maine, of which I was once a small minority owner. Centpacrr (talk) 09:36, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note to say I was impressed with your cleanup of the temple image. It was a difficult one, but you did a fine job. It looks great. You went a little further with the background than I had originally imagined, but it's a reasonable change and it does set off the sculpture nicely. Well done. – JBarta (talk) 20:39, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Centpacrr, again, when you remove a timestamp from an image it is not necessary to place the "watermark removed" tag. See previous reminders in your archives for more explanation if you need it. – JBarta (talk) 17:08, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You very much wish to use your edit of the image, I get that. The last edit is a little better than earlier ones and while I still don't think it's superior to the plain restoration I did, I'll conceed out of exasperation and let it go. However, your edit is a derivative of a commons file and should be uploaded as such, rather than being a new upload to en:WP. There is a project-wide effort to get as much media to commons as possible where other projects can use it as well. In addition, it transfers all pertinant information and categories so it doesn't have to be done again by others, not to mention is easier to find. So, please re-upload your derivative to commons as a derivative. Can get there in Commons by clicking Upload file -> Back to the old form -> derivative work and follow the instructions from there. Once uploaded to commons, you can then request deletion of your en:WP file. – JBarta (talk) 20:03, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My restoration was made from an original dual image tiff file that I downloaded directly from the Library of Congress' server, not from the file on WP Commons. Another editor has already marked it as a candidate to be moved to Commons. Centpacrr (talk) 21:57, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A distinction without much of a difference. Your version and the original version both come from the same LOC tif... though possibly you took the left and the original was from the right. Either way, it's still a fine idea to simply upload to commons in the first place. – JBarta (talk) 22:56, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As one who finds myself being critical of your work from time to time, I think it only fair to offer praise where praise is due. Your restorations of Sam Houston and James Gordon Bennett Sr were both well done in my opinion and for whatever it's worth to you. While I've always thought a restoration of the full resolution tif is usually a better starting point, the Sam Huston effort especially is nonetheless well done. – JBarta (talk) 21:50, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Sam Houston, the LOC tif is 3248 × 4096. Your edit is 512 × 754. If you started with the the tif, then you downsized it pretty drastically, right? – JBarta (talk) 22:36, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why on earth would you do (or even say) something like that? Sorry, but that's got to be one of your more idiotic utterances. – JBarta (talk) 23:17, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have uploaded my restorations to WP at more than adequate sizes for the purposes they are meant to serve which is to help illustrate the articles in which they appear. Links are included on each image's host page to the LOC site with hi res tifs of the originals for those who wish to view them. As I explained elsewhere earlier, I do not upload hi res versions of either my restorations of historic images (such as this, this or this), or of my own original photographs and/or illustrations (such as this, this, this or this) on WP in order to avoid commercial exploitation of my work by others. Centpacrr (talk) 00:15, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh.... that damn commercial exploitation. Tell me the truth now... you're just making this up as you go along, right? – JBarta (talk) 01:07, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely not, and I have said this in other discussions elsewhere in WP before. I am not interested in having others download high resolution digital files of my work without my knowledge or consent for the purpose of their making and selling photographic prints of them (which has happened with hi res images on some of my copyrighted sites), reproduce them in publications and films (which has also happened), or to otherwise exploit them. When used for any of these purposes I expect to be compensated for my work. (See my commercial digital image services site here.)
I am perfectly happy to donate low resolution (i.e., non-commercially usable) versions of my work suitable for web viewing on WP as illustrations or other free encyclopedic uses, but not high resolution image files to which I own the copyright of the original image or illustration, or of the restoration of otherwise PD images, which, if I uploaded those files here, I would forever lose all control as to how they are used elsewhere in the future. Not everything available for viewing on the internet is also meant to be free for every other use. Centpacrr (talk) 01:41, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So you'll spend hour after hour after hour donating your time to removing watermarks and otherwise messing around with images, not to mention articles and arguing with other editors, yet for some reason, if on the highly unlikely chance someone tries to make a buck off your hi-res Sam Houston restoration, you're going to feel put out because you expect to be compensated for your work? That about right? This whole project is a gift to the world by tens of thousands of volunteers, yet YOU Centpacrr claim to be worried about "commercial exploitation" over a 150 year-old public domain image? Do you have any idea how ridiculous that sounds? Personally I don't think there *is* a hi-res restoration. Personally I think you're full of it and even if you did start with the hi-res version, you quickly decided that it would be easier and faster to sample it down far enough so you could just blur out all those pesky blemishes. The good news is, for what it is, it's a nice image. – JBarta (talk) 02:16, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I must admit, sir or madame, to being really quite puzzled by both the tone and content of your last comment above, and why you seem to be so angry about how I choose to contribute to Wikipedia especially while also complimenting the quality of the contributions themselves. As you correctly point out, every "Wikipedian" (including yourself) is here as a volunteer. As such, none of us is an "employee" nor is what we do here a "job" for which we are being compensated monetarily. We were not "hired" by anybody and there are no "supervisors" or "bosses" to whom anyone must "answer" or be "responsible" other than the community as a whole which operates on the basis of the assumption of good faith. Each comes here under his or her own volition and contirbutes to the project based on their own different skills, individual interests, philosophies, points of view, background, life's experiences, areas of expertise, editorial judgement, etc.
My personal philosophy of participation on WP to be completely transparent in how I contribute which is why I have elected to thoroughly identify to the community who I am, my background, interests, skills, points of view, many public and private accomplishments, etc, on my user page. I do this as a courtesy to both other Wikipedians and WP's readers alike and to provide them with as complete a basis as I can to help them further judge the credibility, value, and objectivity of my contributions, and also whether or not any of them may potentially constitute any conflict of interest. Many other Wikipedians (such as yourself) have chosen to remain completely anonymous (which is their right) such that the community doesn't even know if they are men or women let alone any of the many other kinds of factors about each such contributor which others have personally chosen to freely reveal about themselves. Even though you and many others have chosen to remain anonymous, I nevertheless still assume good faith on their parts although I must admit that I found your claim that you in particular have chosen to remain anonymous because you are "in the Witness Protection Program" and have been a "...an enforcer and occasional assassin for a well known crime syndicate..." to really strain credulity to the breaking point.
As for my philosophy of how I choose to contribute digital image files, I have explained above in great detail exactly why I do not upload high resolution files of either my original images or of restorations I make of existing images unless the image I am restoring already exists as a hi res file on a WP server, and here about adjusting gamma and color issues. As I am not an employee of WP but like you and all other Wikipedians a volunteer contributor, I am not obligated to make my contributions in any particular format. As are you and all the others, I am also free to decide how I want to contribute based on whatever philosophy and/or reasoning best suits me. At your request, I have explained that in detail above. You and every other contributor is, of course, free to do so based on their own different philosophies. All I expect of the rest of the community is that, in accordance with WP policy, each other contributor would assume good faith on my part and accept as equally legitimate the approaches of how I and WP's other volunteers choose to contribute to the project as I do for them.
That being the case, I would also appreciate it if you would cease continuously ascribing, assuming and/or projecting false motivations on me and others based on your own philosophy for how we should contribute to the project such as: "Why on earth would you do (or even say) something like that? Sorry, but that's got to be one of your more idiotic utterances."; "Tell me the truth now... you're just making this up as you go along, right?"; "I don't think there *is* a hi-res restoration", "Personally I think you're full of it and even if you did start with the hi-res version, you quickly decided that it would be easier and faster to sample it down far enough so you could just blur out all those pesky blemishes.", and the like. With respect, none of these comments are accurate, appropriate, constructive, or helpful, and really constitute little more than repeated failures on your part to assume good faith on my part based on nothing more than your own personal, unsupported speculation about how and why I (and others) contribute to the project.
Again I have now explained to you several times exactly how and why I contribute the way I do to WP in general and to the Graphic Workshop Project in particular. You can, of course, agree or disagree with my philosophy, decide that any or all of it "sounds ridiculous" to you or not, or have any other opinion you care to. I am perfectly willing to accept that your views on how to contribute to this projects are different than mine. But please also accept the fact that just because I and other WP volunteers have different philosophies than you do does not make any of our views illegitimate or any less (or even more) valid than yours. They are just different and have been made in just as much good faith as yours are. Centpacrr (talk) 11:36, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent editing history at Charles Lindbergh shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Lindbergh's flight to Europe and the circumstances of his eventual return were highly charged and controversial events when they occurred, Binksternet, and your pablumizing the language and deleting references only serves to misrepresent the verified facts, their interrelationships, and their significance in understanding this controversial period of Lindbergh's life. Before unilaterally deleting material you would be well served to actually read the eight New York Times, one TIME magazine, and one LIFE magazine articles, and two later books on the Lindberghs which I have cited while creating this section. Centpacrr (talk) 19:03, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: The following thread exists on the Talk Page of the User "Binksternet" 'without my final posting (which concludes with a question) which he or she deleted instead of answering so I have reposted the entire thread here so that its context is clear and it does not appear that I did not respond to his/her inaccurate speculation as to my position.
Your recent editing history at Charles Lindbergh shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
My friend, you are alone in your quest to put your preferred wording into the article. Multiple editors—Joefromrandb, Collect, Stihdjia, Writegeist, myself—have expressed to you that it is not appropriate. Nobody has expressed support; the closest you got was Bzuk saying the whole argument was ridiculous, which we all agree with. So one question: who is the edit warrior here? Binksternet (talk) 18:39, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lindbergh's flight to Europe and the circumstances of his eventual return were highly charged and controversial events when they occurred and your pablumizing the language and deleting references only serves to misrepresent the verified facts, their interrelationships, and their significance in understanding this controversial period of Lindbergh's life. I gather from your comments here that you, Joefromrandb, Collect, Stihdjia, Writegeist have all failed to actually read any of the eight New York Times, one TIME magazine, and one LIFE magazine articles, and two later books on the Lindberghs which I have cited while creating this section. Unless and until any of you do as opposed to misrepresenting what is included in them, then I must observe that you as a group are the "edit warriors" here. Centpacrr (talk) 18:53, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The question I asked is "have you or any of the others read the sources? Without having done so, you have not provided any basis to support your claim. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources not speculation. There is a difference in verifiability so please answer the question I have asked you. And I guess that Bzuk does not agree with you either as I see that he has reverted your last edit, not me. Centpacrr (talk) 20:32, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have not answered your query because it simply does not matter. An encyclopedia uses calmer language than newspapers and magazines. Binksternet (talk) 20:34, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So I gather, then, is that it is your position that sources don't matter to you and thus you are free to reject the substance of what they say in favor of "calmer language" even if that language materially alters or misrepresents the facts. Please define exactly what you mean by "calmer language" as opposed to "highly charged" wording, and how you determine the difference without referring to the sources. Pablumizing language that accurately relates what happened simply to make it "calmer" is, in fact, the opposite of being neutral when it materially misrepresents what happened. Claiming that what is referred to in the dozen sources cited in the section "simply does not matter" seems to me to be advocating that Wikipedia should be exclusively edited by ostriches. Without referring to the sources cited you have no basis on which to judge whether or not any of these words are "highly charged" or if they are just accurate, objective, and yes even "encyclopedic" reflections of happened.
Anyone who knows anything at all about how Lindbergh was treated by the public and press during this period, for instance, would understand that using the term "exasperated" (defined as: "to be irritated or provoked to a high degree; extremely annoyed and frustrated") as to how Lindbergh felt about it would not only not be a highly charged term but an understatement and thus "calm language" to related his stated feelings. (To understand that just read the extended quotation in the section of Lindbergh's own words on this to Deac Lyman.)
The term "sailed furtively" (defined as: "taken, done, used, etc., surreptitiously, by stealth, or in secret") is equally accurate, objective, and "calm" given the extreme lengths Lindbergh went to flee the country without detection by he and his family traveling under diplomatic passports and assumed names as the lone passengers on a freighter that left port at three in the morning after having arranged for Lyman to both withhold his story for a full day and then not disclosing any details of his means or time departure from his New York Times story in exchange for exclusivity.
Neither of these words are pejorative, "highly charged", or uncalm language, but accurate, objective, and appropriate terms that are well supported by the sources to describe the events.
The purpose of an encyclopedia biography is to provide an accurate reflection of the life and times of the subject without exaggerating them. But that does not mean that whitewashing them is acceptable either.
I am puzzled, therefore, as to why you take the position that knowing what cited sources say "simply does not matter". If that were the case then why cite sources at all?! At least I guess I know where you stand on this anyway. Centpacrr (talk) 21:13, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am getting the impression that you are making of your preferred wording at the Lindbergh article the same "must win" fight you battled and lost at the The High and the Mighty (film) article. Why? To protect the wording of newspapermen and magazine writers? We are writing from the viewpoint of many years later, and the scholarly tone is more appropriate. Your wording beats the reader repeatedly with extremes. I lessened but did not fully remove the kind of newspaper wording you wanted, but this was somehow unacceptable to you. I'm done trying to explain my position, as you dismiss it; the same way I dismiss your wish to retain the excitable mood that was present at the time. Binksternet (talk) 00:59, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The final comment of mine below was deleted by Blinksternet from his/her talk page instead of answered.
This has nothing whatever to do with "newspapermen and magazine writers", but accurately reflecting the events as they occurred and using perfectly ordinary and well understood English to do so. For some reason you seem to think terms like "exasperated" and "furtively" are somehow words that "repeatedly beat readers to extremes" and are somehow "non-scholarly" (whatever that is supposed to mean), but have still offered nothing whatever to support that view except to say that what contemporary sources might say "simply does not matter". So again I ask you have you read the sources?
The twelve sources I cited (eight stories from The New York Times, one each from TIME and LIFE magazines, and two well researched and footnoted Lindbergh biographies and histories both published in 1993) are not filled with "excitable" or "highly charged" language, but are fair, objective, well sourced, and thorough reporting of the facts and events that occurred. (Lyman's coverage in the Times in fact won the 1936 Pulitzer Prize for the paper.) If these contemporary sources are not "good enough" for you (although they clearly are for most professional historians as they appear liberally in the footnotes of a great many scholarly books on the Lindberghs), then what, pray tell, is "good enough"? Centpacrr (talk) 02:03, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What's all this "study" nonsense when you remove a watermark now??
(1,
2,
3)
And have you decided to opt out of marking the requests 'done'? You figure you'll just leave that for someone else to do? You're an interesting bird Centpacrr. – JBarta (talk) 13:18, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to again be making assumptions about my motives. However as it is your practice to redo most of what I do anyway, I'm just giving you the opportunity to do so before they are marked "done" in case you don't approve of any of my versions. In order to avoid further confusion (as well as any more AN/I postings), however, in the future I will mark any images I upload as "done pending approval" in the "Eight Requests" gallery instead of "study" on the images' host pages. Centpacrr (talk) 13:39, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This nonsense borders on disruptive. Removing watermarks is simple process with established procedures that you know well. I simply request that you follow them like any other editor. If you find some of your contributions reverted or changed by other editors, then maybe you should re-examine what you're contributing. And keep in mind, to a great extent, reverts and disagreements with other editors is normal and how things work around here. Personally I think you have a lot of fine work to offer... but all this juvenile crap needs to go once and for all. – JBarta (talk) 19:34, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And I actually thought we were past this. Again, please stop with the poorly done alterations to images. Often you make good changes, sometimes you make tolerable changes and sometimes you make awful changes. Here are two recent ones I have a problem with... 1, 2. As you were advised on the Commons administrator's noticeboard, if you make a change to an image that is "controversial", rather than reverting back to your altered version, upload the altered image as a new file and list it in "other versions". Let's please not be going through the same crap over and over and over. A proper solution was offered. Let's stick with it. – JBarta (talk) 14:04, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll compromise with you on the falls image. I'll conceed my edit may still be too dark, though I believe yours is way too light. If you can upload a happy medium between the two, I'd be content with that. – JBarta (talk) 14:08, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I take slight issue with your replacing the bridge image with a lower resolution version. I won't revert in this instance, but one of the first guidelines around here is to upload in the highest resolution available. I understand that a lower resolution file can be easier to work with and is sufficient for todays casual web user. In that respect I agree that smaller is a more "reasonable" size. However, storage space is cheaper every year and for our purposes here can be considered unlimited. We must also consider that what is "reasonable" today may be mediocre tommorrow and images here may be used for things other than just plain vanilla Wikipedia as we know it today. Just think about typical media quality just 20 years ago. That awesome 640x480 full-screen image and 320x240 video are mere postage stamps today. In addition, one of the charms of such a high resolution image is the detail that can be zoomed in to. Some of these old Detroit Publishing Company photos especially are ordinary photos at first glance, but are interesting as hell for their detail when zoomed in. When you reduce a file size on Wikimedia servers, you are permanently reducing and destroying some of that detail. It can never be gotten back except to re-download the tif original and losing all your improvements. Every day we graphists deal with images where detail and quality have been lost permanently by well-meaning people making their images more "reasonable" in their eyes. Let's not become one of them. – JBarta (talk) 02:50, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There is a link to LOC's 19.5MB and 155.9MB TIFFs on the image's WP host page which permits anyone who wants access to them to do so. Centpacrr (talk) 14:18, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're entirely missing the point... being the finished display image that is live on the WP site with all improvments should be the highest resolution possible. – JBarta (talk) 14:44, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it did, but that isn't really the point either. I just think (and Commons policy suggests) that going up in resolution is generally good and going down is generally bad, and higher resolution is generally better than lower. – JBarta (talk) 15:56, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I based this interpretation on the upload comment for the 980dpi version which only says "higher resolution from LOC" but includes no reference at all to any changes thereto indicating that it was a straight upload without changes. In addition, as the most obvious faults in the raw LOC image (the lighter strips along the right and left borders as well as multiple spots and scratches in the sky and water which I had noted and corrected in the original low res version) were left untouched, the logical assumption to make was that apparently no improvements had been made to the 980dpi version uploaded from the LOC site. That being the case, the then "finished display image" that was "live on the WP site" at that time was not one with all (or even any) apparent "improvments" and thus replacing it with a restored hi res 490dpi version with such improvements was not in contravention of your original point above. Centpacrr (talk) 16:49, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is a pattern with you. You resist a simple idea by launching into windy and convoluted nonsense. The point... one more time.... is that you should have edited the highest resolution version rather than uploading a lower resolution version for the reasons stated above. It need be no more complicated than that. A sensible and useful response would be, "You're right and I'll keep that in mind next time." – JBarta (talk) 17:26, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I understand your current point, but that is not the point you made originally (and the one to which I was responding) which was "...the finished display image that is live on the WP site with all improvements should be the highest resolution possible." The 980dpi version you uploaded contained no such apparent "improvements" and could be accessed in the same form directly from the LOC site which is linked to the image's WP host page. The 490dpi version I replaced it with does have such imporvements. The issue with a 19MB file is that for those viewers without a broadband connection downloading such a large file is an unnecessarily slow process which for some users could be more than an hour! While this is not a problem for me as I have good broadband service, it is for many internet users around the world who may be interested in such an image. That is the reason why I uploaded the restored version at 490dpi instead of 980dpi. Why make it unnecessarily difficult for the tens of millions of non-broad band and dial-up users? Centpacrr (talk) 18:15, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Jbarta, the real reason Centpacrr uploaded a lower resolution version with his improvements is the same reason he has uploaded many such images in the past: he does not wish to give away for free any of the images he has worked on if they are high resolution. He lowers the resolution for WikiCommons and Wikipedia, keeping the high resolution version for himself. There have been many conversations about this, asking him to upload the high rez improved image, but Centpacrr sticks to his guns. Check out his talk page history for some of the past discussions, but others have taken place at article talk pages. My guess is that he thinks he will be able to gain value from the high rez versions some day, the ones kept on his hard drive. I think it is absurd that he donates so much of his time to Wikipedia, building articles and making improvements, then holds back this last step, the value of which I doubt would ever be exchanged for money. Anybody else with image improvement software, high bandwidth and spare time could do the same thing he did. Binksternet (talk) 18:37, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. As I've suggested to Centpacrr before, I think he would rather upload lower-resolution images largely for a very practical reason.... the lower the resolution, the easier the image is to deal with. I think it's pretty safe to say that, despite what he may be slinging, there are no high quality high-resolution versions of his WP restorations sitting on his computer just waiting for the perfect time to unleash on the market for some big bucks... or sitting on his computer so that some thievin bastard won't be cashing in on his efforts. All that said, he does do a lot of nice work. He doesn't play well with others and can be aggravating as hell, but on balance the Wikimedia projects are better off with him around doing his (more often than not) very fine work. – JBarta (talk) 19:39, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On the point of download speeds... first, and most importantly, download time becomes less and less of an issue every year. Again, 20 years ago an ISDN line was cutting edge. Now well over 3Mbps is commonplace (even on a cell phone). Second, the only time a user needs to download the full hi-res version is when he wishes to. All large images have a series of lesser resolution links to choose from. And with a minor edit to the URL, any resolution can be had at will. Of course, common sense dictates that for a plain simple image excessive resolution serves no useful purpose, but images with lots of detail, or images that cannot be reproduced are definitely more valuable at higher resolutions. As an item of interest, if you haven't seen them yet, you might be interested in some of Commons' very high resolution images... many a few GB in size. They are of such high resolution they cannot normally be rendered on a typical PC.... yet. There are however some ultra high resolution art images that can be viewed online using a special web based viewer similar to Zoomify. Anyhow, bottom line... don't worry about download speeds of large images... make them large... the Wikimedia software will take care of the rest. – JBarta (talk) 19:11, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To add one more point to the ones listed by JBarta, Commons also has the template {{LargeImage}}. Besides warning the user of the possibly unexpected size, it links to a page that allows the user to interactively zoom into the image. That template should have been added to the bridge image under discussion anyway, if the largest resolution had been used. —Quibik (talk) 19:28, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A 490dpi, 4+MB file is hardly a "lo rez" image, and I uploaded it at that resolution for exactly the reason I gave. This file is also actually at a very considerably higher resolution than the original upload of this image which was made at 72dpi. WP is not meant to be treated as a "job", however, and no contributor is either "hired" or being paid for anything that he or she donates to the project. It is instead a community of volunteers in which there are no employee relationships between WP and its contributors, and no "bosses" or "supervisors" to whom anyone is required to report. My general practice in uploading image files (as I have explained elsewhere) is to limit the resolution of those that I may chose to share on here to those which I have personally created, own the copyright, or in rare instances have done extensive copyrightable digital restoration work on a public domain image. (I do not, however, upload such restorations at an resolution lower than that originally on WP.) The image files in this category (i.e. to which I own a copyright) I upload as encyclopedic illustrations meant for web viewing only. I may or may not also choose to sell prints of commercially of some of these, or to display at higher resolution on one or more of my own websites where I can control the copyright of such versions. Here are some examples of the types of my images that I treat in this manner:
Even if I do not choose to sell prints of my original work, however, I am still under no obligation to "give away" high resolution files of these images so that others can exploit them commercially as if it were their own work. Not everything on the internet is meant to be "free". Centpacrr (talk) 20:07, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You may or may not know this, but I figured I'd mention it just in case... the Eight Request images are pulled from this list. Since you do large numbers of watermark removals, you are more than welcome to do them directly off that list. It certainly would save the time and effort of continually repopulating the Eight Requests just to keep up with you, and it would save them for those who only pop in occasionally to do just a few. Just a thought. – JBarta (talk) 04:38, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just add whatever images you need cleaned up to the Workshop as you have before and either I or the other digital image editors will work on them as their time permits. Centpacrr (talk) 19:14, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Have found a 1921 book online with a lot of information on the railroad and photos from it. Are you interested in doing something with this for WP? We hope (talk) 00:16, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello We Hope. What is the name of the book, and who is the author? Also is this a book which is itself online (i.e., as a digital text or pdf file), or is it one being offered by someone for sale online? Thanks. Centpacrr (talk) 01:06, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is one of Google's digitized books/magazines. Railroad history, Issues 1-10 1921, By Harvard University. Graduate School of Business Administration, Railway & Locomotive Historical Society. This is a link to the areas in the e-book where there's anything about the railroad. Since this is pre 1923, you're able to download the book as a PDF if you like. Quite a bit in there about the railroad that seems interesting. We hope (talk) 01:14, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
CPRR Engineers L.M. Clement & T.D. JudahThank you for this reference. I am actually familiar with the article on the early Western railroads that appears on pp. 16-27 of Bulletin #5 of "Railroad History" (1921), and in fact one of the two US Pacific Railroad Commissioners in the photograph on page 27 of that issue is my great great grandfather, Lewis Metzler Clement, who is sitting on the right of the pilot of the CPRR locomotive "Falcon" next to UPRR eigineer Jacob Blickensderfer, the other Commissioner, in the photograph taken at Argenta, NV, on March 1, 1869. Lewis Clement served Chief Assistant Engineer, Acting Chief Engineer, and Superintendent of Track of the CPRR during his 19 years with the company between 1862 and 1881. He was also the resident engineer in charge of the surveys and construction of the CPRR's Sierra Grade (particularly the section between Colfax and Truckee which includes the Summit Tunnel at Donner Pass) which you can see in my six galleries or 114 original photographs and six maps here which I took while personally walking portions of that grade in 2003.
hey there is me again, hey listen would u mind helpin me out with these pix?? theyve been there a long time and nobody has done anything for them. pretty please :) --Lil'Monster Heart (talk) 16:17, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Have found a Chicago Tribune photo of the Pioneer Zephyr "Dawn to Dusk Club"; the copy indicates this was a Tribune photo, which is slightly different than the one seen in the Pioneer Zephyr article. A check of Copyright Renewals for 1961 and 1962 shows the Chicago Tribune did not renew their copyright on the back issues, so the photo would be in the public domain. However, it has a very complex online watermark that would need to be removed. photo front. Do you think you can help with this, and if so, what's the next step where to upload the photo? Thanks, We hope (talk) 22:09, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is great!! Is it OK for me to take a copy of your work on this and upload along with the back of the photo and other proof that it's PD to Commons? If so, will do it later today. Thanks so much for all your work!! We hope (talk) 06:05, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
File:Pioneer Zephyr Dawn to Dusk Club 1936.JPG Just got it uploaded and have credited as asked. I see that this photo is from 1936; when you compare the two photos, it looks like the men are wearing the same suits and ties as in the Denver Library photo which they say is from 1934. This one was published in 1936 and they were there to see the first Denver Zephyr off. Am now wondering if the Library one isn't also from 1936. Again, a big thanks from me as it's just great!!! We hope (talk) 15:11, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Denver Public Library host page for the other image identifies it as having been taken on May 26, 1934, when the train arrived in Chicago for the Century of Progress, but based on the caption information on the back of the Chicago Tribune image, the fact that the various individuals in both pictures appear to be wearing the same clothing, and the two identical signs, it appears the both pictures were taken on the same day. Let me do a little research and see if I can reconcile this. Centpacrr (talk) 17:54, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Will do-leave it to me to start a controversy. ;-) We hope (talk) 18:48, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
If the photo isn't enough to boggle one's mind, you see that the Chicago Tribune copy on the photo back says they were standing at the original Pioneer Zephyr, which was preparing to make the first Chicago-Denver trip as a revenue train. Am also trying to work with this back of a Pioneer Zephyr postcard that indicates the Pioneer Zephyr did, in fact, work that run and did so until November 8, 1936, when the new trainsets for the route arrived. This is the front of the card. It was on eBay and the seller marked the photos or scans as copyright, though the card was issued by the Burlington circa mid 1930s. (Put both into WebCite archive.) We have a card for the "Advance Zephyrs" File:Denver Zephyr postcard promotion 1936.JPG mentioned on the Pioneer Zephyr card and it can be seen that this was a very early postcard promotion for the Denver train--they didn't have any sleeping cars at the time it was printed. I want to use the postcard as this appears to be new historical information--am waiting to see if they can be used PD or not. We hope (talk) 19:23, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Was able to upload the postcard mentioned above as File:Pioneer Zephyr Postcard with route.JPG. When you read the Burlington copy on the back, it says that the Pioneer Zephyr did work as one of the Advance Zephyrs from May to November 1936. The railroad copy says it started doing that route on May 31, 1936, which would put the train at Chicago's Union Station for the "Dawn to Dusk Club" photo from the Tribune. Was really glad to be able to put the postcard through as PD because this looks like it's evidence for when the photos were taken. We hope (talk) 18:31, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The way I'm interpreting it and could be wrong, is that this was a gathering of the original 1934 Zephyr run crew for the occasion of the Pioneer Zephyr making the Denver run as a revenue train about 2 years after the "dash", based on the Tribune photo's copy, and that they are wearing the same clothing in both photos. Do you think if one of us contacted the Burlington Historical Society they might be able to untangle some or all of this? We hope (talk) 21:01, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that is possible (if not even probable) but it still seems odd to me that there would not be some indication of that in the image itself such as a sign stating that his was a reunion of the group who rode the original train if the picture was taken in 1936. Let me know if you can get any clarification from the Burlington Historical Society on this curious issue. Centpacrr (talk) 15:07, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's wonderful! I was wondering if you could take a look at this and this? They are more of the same. There is no hurry, too. I would be very glad if you could work on them. --Lecen (talk) 01:36, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really sure what you want done to these as they all look ok to me except for the last one on which I adjusted the gamma a bit. Centpacrr (talk) 15:06, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's ok. You helped a me a lot with that picture, anyway. I really appreciate it. Thanks a lot, Centpacrr. I hope you're doing fine. Cheers, --Lecen (talk) 02:57, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Centpacrr, I hope you won't mind if I reverted your upload of File:First catch your hare by John Doyle.png. I had almost completed the watermarks removal, when you took the file, so I interrupted the work, but then I saw your file has lower resolution, so I completed the work and uploaded it. --GianniG46 (talk) 10:16, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I presumed that these images must have already been done by others as they are no longer on the Graphics Workshop page. Centpacrr (talk) 18:27, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I know you dislike barnstars and other similar stuff, but I'm pretty sure you won't mind if I come here (as I've done before) to tell you directly how much I appreciate your help with File:Independence of Brazil 1888.jpg. Wikipedia is about teamwork: from the guy who writes an article, to the one who reviews it, to the other who helps with the pictures (which whithout would make all articles pretty much boring!), for the other one imporves the layout and finally, for that person who reads the article. Thank you very much, Centpacrr. Once again you helped me a lot. --Lecen (talk) 10:50, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Centpacrr. Since you always do a great job fixing paintings, could you do something about these four pictures (first, second, third and fourth) that illustrate the article about the Portuguese Liberal Wars? Basically, what I need are the contrast and colors fixed. Is it possible? If yes, take your time. Thank you very much, --Lecen (talk) 03:32, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've adjusted the gamma and colors in 1 and 4; I'm not really sure what is wrong with 2 & 3, however, so I haven't done anything to those two. Centpacrr (talk) 04:03, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Centpacrr. Could you do me a favor? This picture and this picture are both crooked and they need to be rotated a little bit to be straightened. Could you do it? There is no need to change anything else, like color, brightness, nothing at all. Just the rotation. --Lecen (talk) 16:26, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are no links to the images in your message above so not much I can do I'm afraid. I will also be heading out on a ten hour drive from Maine to Pennsylvania shortly so will be off line until at least tomorrow. Centpacrr (talk) 18:55, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have downloaded both images and subjected them to grid overlays which indicates that identifiable vertical and horizontal elements in both images are correctly oriented and thus neither image is actually "crooked" even if they may "appear" so. That being the case, I have not rotated either image as that would only render them out of plumb. Centpacrr (talk) 15:58, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I noted above I overlaid both images with grids which you can see here and here which reveals that neither is crooked. Why they might appear skewed in Windows (I viewed them in Photoshop CS5 Extended v12.0 x64 running on OS X 10.6.8 on a MacBook Pro) is a puzzlement to me. Centpacrr (talk) 20:27, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How odd. I uploaded two copies of both pictures, one with red arrows so that you can see where is farther from the border.[5][6] And one with a red rectangle around them so that you can no tice how crooked they are (even if slightly crooked).[7][8] What about now? --Lecen (talk) 20:49, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. I saw that you also improved their colors, which look great. Thanks again, Centpacrr. you did a great job as always. --Lecen (talk) 17:32, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! I am currently in the process of putting together a Request for Comment/User conduct regarding the potentially disruptive editing by user Tim Zukas. It is pertaining to this user's continued refusal to cite sources properly, including on some articles with GA status. As you can see on his talk page here, this has been going on for quite some time now. I am asking for your input due to the fact that you have commented on this user's talk page about these problems.
If you would be so kind, please pop over and take a look at the draft I have created for the RfC/U and add your comments. If you would like to be a part of this, let me know and I will keep you posted once it is ready to be submitted.
I'm not really sure what useful addition I can make to this as I have had very little interaction with this user except in a couple of western US railroad articles some time ago and the EWR article recently in which all I did was restored some relevant material he had added that had been removed because it had not been properly cited. I restored the information (which I had found to be useful), inserted proper referencing, and posted a note in the user's talk page to that effect with the note to him that if he did not use that format his future contributions were likely to continue to be deleted by other editors despite the information itself being relevant. I also noted that while his actions could possibly be considered to be disruptive to some extent, they certainly did not seem to constitute "vandalism" as defined by WP policy. As I have not watched any of the other pages to which he has been contributing since then I was not aware that the reference formatting issue had persisted. I know that the user has been advised of the proper procedure at least by me as noted above but I am not sure if there is anything else I can do to help resolve the issue. Centpacrr (talk) 06:45, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I also have another request, if you don't mind. Could you fix the color tone on this painting? You could use this version of the painting as a model to have an approximate idea of what would the correct tone. If you find to hard, forget it. I do'nt want to trouble you. You've helped a lot already. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 03:09, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The requests to crop these two images were made in the Wikipedia Graphic Lab/Photography Workshop of which I am one of the "graphists" who contribute their digital imaging skills to fix images at the request of editors who post them in the graphics project for that purpose. You did not make any "mistakes" or "errors" in posting these images originally and you are always more than welcome to request cleanup or any other adjustments to images you add to Wikipedia by posting them there with whatever instructions you have as to what needs to be done. The purpose of the Graphics Labs is to make the images used on WP a good and "encyclopedic" as possible. WP is a collaborative effort on the part of many editors and you are always encouraged to ask for the help of others in any area of the overall project in which you would like assistance. I hope this answers your question and welcome to the world of Wikipedia! Centpacrr (talk) 21:04, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For your help with "Captain Kirk"! Would like to replace the photo in the Pioneer Zephyr article with the free use one, so have posted the information on the article talk page to see if there's concensus. (Never heard from BHS.) It's a shame to have that photo just sit at Commons! Thanks once again for giving me a hand, We hope (talk) 04:43, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For your help with the Flying Yankee! Stumbled onto it by accident last night; the seller usually has a nice crop of train photos but no information as to where they came from. When I saw the "Yankee", thought I'd just look. When I did, I saw the Budd mark on the photo. :) Many thanks for all! We hope (talk) 18:14, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Centpacrr, thank you very much for your correction in the Pamukkale panorama! I have another question. The sky is exposured irregulary. A user in the German Wikipedia did it well (see here), but it was before you adjusted the gamma to correct partial overexposure and he doesn't update the first edition. Would you think there is a chance of adjusting the sky in a concolorous exposure in the same version you already updated? Thank you very much. Regards, CherryX (talk) 06:18, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Centpacrr, the information I posted was correctly sourced- I pulled law from the public statutes. There were significant differences between the Army and Navy versions of the medal at that time. While the Navy has a long history of awarding the medal for peacetime heroism, the Army does not, which is based on different controlling statutes. Thus, the Byrd medal was legitimate, while the Lindbergh medal violated the statute of 9 July 1918, which only applied to members under the War Department (as opposed to the Navy Department). If you want me to send a scan of the actual statute, I can do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foxtrot5151 (talk • contribs) 22:30, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Basically, the Army and Navy had separate medals authorized by separate laws until 1963. See http://www.cmohs.org/medal-history.php. There was room for non-combat interpretations of the Army Medal of Honor Statute of 12 Jul 1862, but that loophole was closed in 1918 becase of the perceived abuse of awarding the medal for all sorts of people and non-valor actions (over 900 were rescinded in 1917, which led to the 1918 legislation to clarify the standards for the Army). The 1918 act I cited is clearly documented by Doug Sterner (the moderator of the Cong. Medal of Honor Society). You can see that the Navy had a separate award for non-combat heroism in 1942 (Tiffany Cross), and then eliminated it and went back to the previous rules. The 1963 language that merged the Army and Navy statutes was based on Kennedy's Executive Orders on the Purple Heart and Bronze Star of the previous year (which I pulled from the Kennedy Library). Initially, no valor medals were being awarded in Vietnam (at least to Army soldiers) because of the requirement for action against an enemy. This is what led to the "opposing force" exception (Cold War actions not resulting in declarations of war), and actions with friendly forces engaged against belligerents (Korea-like actions). Foxtrot5151 (talk) 23:01, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As the award of the CMoH to Lindbergh was authorized by an Act of Congress passed by the House on December 10, 1927, by the Senate on December 11, and signed by President Coolidge on December 14, it would not "violate" the 1918 statute as Acts authorizing the medals for Lindbergh, Bennett, and Byrd would have included "notwithstanding any other provisions of law" boilerplate and were all passed as a "Bills" as opposed to a "Resolutions". The Army's official Medal of Honor history site also shows that two other such "Non-combat" awards of the Medal were made to Army service members besides Lindbergh. Centpacrr (talk) 23:37, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it's possible that the Lindbergh medal was technically legal if it contained that provision, which is why I mentioned this in my post. However, it appears the bill did not contain the "nonwithstanding" provision you mention (I've seen others, and they normally have this in the bill text). The Lindbergh bill (HR 3190) is quoted verbatim in Beamish, The Boy's Story of Lindbergh, the Lone Eagle (Philadelphia, John Winston, 1928), 276: "Be it enacted, etc., that the Persident of the United States be, and he is hereby, authorized to present in the name of Congress a medal of honor to Colonel Charles A. Lindbergh, United States Army Air Corps Reserve, for displaying heroic courage and skill as a navigator, at the risk of his life, by his nonstop flight in his plance, the Spirit of St. Louis, from New York to Paris, France, on May 20, 1927, by which he not only achieved the greatest individual triumph of any American citizen but demonstrated that travel across the ocean by aircraft was possible." I have a friend at the NARA's Legislative Archives, and will ask her to pull the bill. Will that satisfy you?
I was reasearching the illegal award of the MOH to MacArthur, which is how I came across Lindbergh. MacArthur's award patently violated the statute and had no legislation to support it (Gen. Marshall agreed to make the award for political reasons before he was even nominated, so they hadn't even identified an act of valor and never really did). Apparently he cited Lindbergh as the authority to do this- I'm pulling the papers from the Marshall Library, and already requested others from the MacArthur Foundation. There are no other modern Army awards that violate this provision. I can ask Doug where the third came from, but I suspect it's an incorrect listing of Billy Mitchell's award (he did not recieve a MOH, but rather a Congressional Gold Medal, which is a totally different award).
In my opinion, if a board of inquiry were to be reconvened, the MacArthur and Lindbergh medals would probably be stricken from the rolls. The CMOHS curator told me last year that the Lindbergh and MacArthur awards were in error. In his opinion, the War Department was cornered because practically every government in Europe bestowed their highest decoration on Lindbergh. Foxtrot5151 (talk) 23:59, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To provide further evidence, I pulled the HASC subcommittee hearing No. 2 on HR2998 of June 6, 1963, "A Bill to Amend Titles 10, 14, and 38, United States Code, with respect to the award of certain medals and hte medal of honor roll" (this was the precursor to the 1963 change in law that merged the Army and Navy statutes). According to the subcommittee chairman, Hon. Philip J. Philbin, "Present laws which authorize the award of combat decorations prescribe in general that these decorations may only be awarded to persons who distinguish themselves in actual conflict with, or military operations against, an enemy of the United States. Under present law the Navy and Marine Corps may also award the Medal of Honor to a member of the naval service who distinguishes himself conspicuously by gallantry, et cetera, 'in the line of his profession' (10 USC 6241)." The hearing indicates that the law modified separate decoration statutes for the various services, but they were all standardized at this point. Thus, the Navy technically permitted non-combat awards until 1963, while the Army did not as of 1918. Foxtrot5151 (talk) 00:18, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Irrespective of whether or not the "notwithstanding" boilerplate is in the Act, a Bill passed by both Houses of Congress and approved by the President is law unless voided on Constitutional or other grounds by an Article III court or repealed by the Congress with the approval of the President. That being the case, no "Board of Inquiry" or any other such entity could "strike" either the Lindbergh award or any other such award of the CMoH made specifically by Act of Congress from the rolls. Centpacrr (talk) 00:44, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll check- I am uncertain about this. However, your post "Until World War II, the Medal of Honor was also authorized to be awarded for extraordinarily heroic actions by active or reserve service members made during peacetime as well as in combat" is only true with respect to the Navy, and the non-combat provision was not changed until 1963. Also, I do not think that Bennett and Byrd had Congressional authorization, since they would not have needed it (the Navy allowed the Award for such actions, the Army didn't). Therefore, their case is not a precedent for Lindbergh, because it was based on a different statute. Recommend removing mention of Navy MOHs unless you make the distinction that they had a different authority. Foxtrot5151 (talk) 00:57, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The material above would seem to be useful and appropriate to include in the Wikipedia entry for the Medal of Honor, but it is really just ancillary information to Lindbergh entry. I have therefore moved it from the subsection on Lindbergh's specific award to a note. I have also changed "prior to WWII" to read "in 1927". Centpacrr (talk) 01:12, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I may be wrong about the other congressional authorizations. My only quibble is that in 1927 it could only be awarded for peacetime actions in the Navy (unless you bypass the Army statute with an Act of Congress). Thus, I think it is slightly misleading to say this, because Lindbergh presumably would not have received the medal without a special Act.Foxtrot5151 (talk) 01:22, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Found a reference to Army Gen. Adolphus Greely receiving the award for lifetime service by Act of Congress. He must be the third person on the database. Interestingly, he received the medal in 1935. The Wikipedia page also states "Greely's medal was awarded in contradiction to the revised 1916 Army warrant requiring combat action and risk of life "above and beyond the call of duty."[9] However, his Medal was the second Army presentation contrary to the combat requirement, as Charles Lindbergh (an Army reservist not on active duty) received the award for his solo transatlantic flight eight years before, in 1927. Until after WW II the Navy Medal of Honor could be awarded for noncombat actions, reflecting different criteria within the United States armed forces."Foxtrot5151 (talk) 01:26, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I found some contemporary sources that reported a dispute about the medal in both the House and the Senate. According to Rep. Snell (who introduced the House bill), "it was and wasn't the Congressional Medal of Honor which Lindbergh would receive under his bill; that the Lindbergh medal would be entirely distinct from the valor award for war service." So, the act is valid, but it created a different medal of honor with its own criteria. The article indicates that the Lindbergh medal was influenced by Byrd and Bennett's medal, but only in the sense that they knew this legislative route was possible. However, the Navy award was different and always had been- the Navy had two different Medals of Honor at that time based on a different governing statute (the Army and Navy versions were not standardized until 1963). The Navy's Tiffany Cross version of the medal recognized valor whereas the regular version was used for non-combat, and that's why it took an act of Congress to give the Tiffany Cross variation to Byrd and Bennett (non-combat wasn't an issue in the Navy with the regular medal). In contrast, the Army took a firm stand against awarding the medal outside of combat as of 1916, when they rescinded 911 medals awarded for dubious reasons (which led to the 1918 act requiring wartime valor in action against an enemy- but this only applied to the Army Medal of Honor). Foxtrot5151 (talk) 17:32, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the additional background as to the dispute at the time about the Lindbergh medal. However as the award was authorized and made by the special Act of Congress which was passed by both houses and then approved by the President on December 14, 1927, the medal actually presented (see image) was the same as the one still authorized to be awarded to Army personnel, and the award is listed as a non-combat award made to Lindbergh as a reserve Army officer on the U.S. Army History website, I don't see how it can be said to "violate" the 1918 Act with which it is inconsistent as the award was duly authorized under a later special Act of Congress. Centpacrr (talk) 18:31, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I now agree that it doesn't violate the 1918 act (it stands on its own merits per the legislation), but it does contradict the regular medal criteria and thus is highly problematic. It is technically a valid MOH, but a medal based on its own criteria, which does make it somewhat different and is worth mentioning. This only happened twice for the Army post-1918, so it is exceptional, and I think it is somewhat of a mischaracterization to claim that it is part of a trend of Navy peactime medals when the Navy statute was different and never was awarded the same as the Army. Basically, pre-1963 the Navy's two MOH and Army MOH are three different medals all with different eligibility criteria that happen to share the same name, so you can't really say that they are the same medal. With only those two exceptions the Army MOH was not awarded for peacetime actions post 1918, only in the Navy, and the Army went back and rescinded its medals that did not measure up (the Navy did not). Saying that Lindbergh was a reserve officer was merely a pretext, since he wasn't performing the flight as a military officer (and in fact the War Dept. was against it). They got this through Congress by claiming that it wasn't a regular MOH, which is probably worth mentioning. It's in all of the contemporary news articles that a Senator objected to the award on the same grounds, and the article I found said that there was similar resistance in the House. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foxtrot5151 (talk • contribs) 21:25, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It seems as if you have enough information here for a new section for the CMoH entry which could then be wikilinked inline to the CAL article in the footnote. I'll look forward to see what you come up with. Centpacrr (talk) 22:18, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Both of you are making a complete mess out a of a perfectly nice portrait. WP would be better served if you simply presented the painting as painted instead of trying to turn it into your version of how you think it should have been painted. Color adjusting and lightening the original is perfectly reasonable. I think my edit is a perfectly resonable edit to that end. You guys however are getting a little out of control with the bright colors and green hair. – JBarta (talk) 20:47, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page" - would you please be able to move your additional paragraph to the talk page? Especially as another user had already endorsed your comment before you added it. It could also be the start of a decent thread about SW's involvement (or lack thereof) in the RFCU. Regards, GiantSnowman19:17, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I did not intend my second comment to be a response to any endorsement (which I actually had not noticed when I posted it), but simply an additional personal observation based on my views relating to the subject Admin's failure to respond to this issue. For that reason I have moved the secondary comment below the endorsement. Sorry for the confusion. Centpacrr (talk) 20:04, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I have stated clearly in the note below my secondary comment of December 7, it is not a "reply to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment" but instead is a statement of an additional personal view which I have added to my own comment and is unrelated to the views of any other editor. Therefore the instructions do not appear to call for it belonging in a "talk page" but instead for clarity exactly where I placed it. Centpacrr (talk) 22:03, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You told me to use this for my simple request. But how do you straighten an image. I have searched online and it says I need to use the eye dropper tool but when I click on it it says "This tool has no additional options." Do you where there is an online straightening tool? I can't download anything on to this computer.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 12:27, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#SchuminWeb and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
Hi there. I saw your addition to the ArbCom request. The section where the arbitrators posit/vote is for arbitrators only. It's presumed that they read every single statement prior to voting. It would be wise for you to remove the attention grabbing note from their section. Hasteur (talk) 22:07, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I will remove the note, however I only placed it there because it appeared to me that several of the Arbs had NOT read all the statements above two of which include this link to a statement posted on Twitter by the subject Admin that he is aware of the RfA and therefore that is no longer an issue that should be considered. If you are an Arb then I would suggest that you make that clear in the Arb post/vote section. Centpacrr (talk) 22:16, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the note and instead bolded the link for emphasis where it appears in my original statement with the hope that the Arbs will notice it this time. Centpacrr (talk) 22:35, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you remember, I was involved in the Lenna image controversy, and I fully agree his behavior is toxic. I'm very focused on being just an editor, not a good Wikilawyer, but I will provide any support you suggest for detoxifying this guy. PAR (talk) 05:45, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, PAR. I agree fully with your views on WP ("being just an editor, not a good Wikilawyer") which are the same as mine. I try to avoid these controversies as much as possible. In the over six years I have been on WP this is the first RfA I have ever participated in, and I have only done so in this case because of the long history of disruptive practices, misuse of administrative tools and powers, and the personal attacks on myself and many other editors made by this Admin.
I think that the most helpful thing you can do is to post a statement as to your personal interactions with SchuminWeb at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#SchuminWeb to join those of the 18 other editors who have already done so since the RfA was opened yesterday. The vote of the Arbitrators who have commented so far is 7-0 to accept the case so your statement will not be wasted effort and will be fully considered in the desysop process. Centpacrr (talk) 06:12, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry, PAR, for (and puzzled by) the artificial controversy that Bwilkins seems to have made about your statement on the RfA and why he has used that to accuse me "tirades" and failure to assume good faith. I truly have no idea what he is talking about or what point he is trying to make. That being said, I thought your Statement was right on point, properly supported with a link, and hope you will post it again on the RfA. Centpacrr (talk) 19:52, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hey. I didn't intend to say that you were pilin on information to get a point. I said that some users may look at your comments and get that impression. Why? Well, each statement made at a case request is limited to 500 words. ANy additional evidence is provided after the case is accepted, and you can add as much evidence as needed when the case starts. The case request is only for arbitrators to evaluate if a case is neded or not, and for this reason, only tangencial and critical evidence is needed, not all. My recommendation is to keep your section below the 500 words, or an arbitrator will surely ask you to do so if you keep expanding it. I understand this is your first time at RFAR, and with my comment, I was just giving you a little recommendation :) Happy editing. — ΛΧΣ2104:58, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The accepted case is hereby suspended pending SchuminWeb's return to editing. SchuminWeb is instructed not to use his administrator tools in any way until the closure of the case; doing so will be grounds for removal of his administrator userrights. Should SchuminWeb decide to resign his administrative tools, the case will be closed and no further action taken. Should SchuminWeb not return to participate in the case within three months of this motion passing, this case will be closed, and the account will be desysopped. If the tools are resigned or removed in either of the circumstances described above, restoration of the tools to SchuminWeb will require a new request for adminship.
Thank you for advising me of the results of this RfA. I believe that this solves the issue as, by his formal "Retirement" and statement posted on his user page, it seems that the subject Admin has made it clear that he has no intention to ever answer or participate in this Arbitration process thus constructively renouncing WP Adminship and indicating that he does not intend to contest being desysoped. Centpacrr (talk) 19:33, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oy vey are you exasperating. If you really really really want to upload your version of the book cover, then the least you could do is upload a superior version. Clean up that dark line at the bottom of the image and fix the gradient to the left of "The Bride Wore BLACK" rectangle. If you cannot upload a version that is at least as good or better than mine I will simply revert you again. You keep claiming to be this great graphist... well let's see it already. Anyone can talk their fool head off... what matters is ACTION. – JBarta (talk) 22:07, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The first 250px file I inadvertently uploaded was an interim version I had not intended for use and which I then quickly replaced with the correct final version which was derived from a different source than any previous versions. As I recall, however, at first you had wanted to leave the dreadful original 2006 file ("Personally I think it's fine just the way it is. The edges of the (old ratty) cover is not an issue that needs to be "fixed".") until I tried to come up with something better so I am at a loss to figure out exactly where you are coming from here. Centpacrr (talk) 06:04, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello and thanks for assuming good faith about my "apparently inadvertently corrupting" the Lindbergh article. I was trying to fix what I thought were format problems. Later, I realized the problems were in fact artifacts of my browser settings. Sorry about that. David F (talk) 00:00, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I gotta ask... given that there is a community-wide effort (1, 2) to get appropriately licensed files moved/uploaded to Commons, and given that you're aware of it, why do you continue to upload files to en:Wikipedia? By uploading here, not only are the images limited in their availability, but it creates more work for other editors who must eventually move them to Commons. And being the community-spirited editor that you are, I'm sure being part of the solution rather than part of the problem is important to you. – JBarta (talk) 03:19, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what images of mine you may be referring to however licensing restrictions are different between the en:WP and Commons. I have also had some image files of which I am the sole creator and copyright holder (such as "Alcatraz Island Lighthouse") summarily deleted from Commons at least once as "copyvios" because others have used them on their own non WP sites without proper credit which has caused me to have to start all over again and jump through all sorts of hoops to prove that the images were mine to start with. This has generally not happened to me on images I have posted on en:WP where I subsequently re-uploaded that image as "Alcatraz Island at Sunset". Centpacrr (talk) 03:34, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
At first I was going to chide you for playing dumb, but after reading your amended answer, I feel your pain. Sometimes it does seem like Commons is run by children. I'll just say this, then I'll shut up about it... regarding past uploads and future uploads, it would be helpful to move obviously public domain images to Commons. – JBarta (talk) 04:04, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Re the seconddeletion tagging relating to "Alcatraz Island Lighthouse" (after it had already been summarily deleted and restored once before) see the discussion here. The version on Commons -- which previously was used in over a dozen pages in a variety of WP projects -- is now an orphan as all of those links were lost when it was summarily deleted and I had no way of recreating those on projects other then en:WP. As I knew which pages on the en:WP used the image, however, I restored it to those pages using the re-uploaded "Alcatraz Island at Sunset" en:WP version. Centpacrr (talk) 04:26, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There you go again editing comments after they've been responded to. Just nevermind. Forget it. Carry on Centpacrr... – JBarta (talk) 04:49, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That was caused by an edit conflict as you responded before I was finished rephrasing what I wanted to say to make it clear so that you understand my position on this issue that I did not raise and really had no obligation to explain. (The "editing" did not materially change the meaning of anything you commented on, it just clarified how links to use non-en:WP pages were lost and I was unable to recreate them when the Commons file was summarily deleted and then restored.) I must say, however, that I don't really appreciate being chastised or mocked for taking the time to explain to you in as clear and accurate a way as possible exactly why I choose upload my images to en:WP as opposed to Commons as such a decision is exclusively up to every individual contributor, does not violate any WP policy, and (as noted above) one which no editor is under any obligation at all to "defend" or "explain" to any other WP contributor.
Despite being so chastised, however, as a matter of courtesy and as an expression of my good faith I will nonetheless explain my reasoning one more time. Any other editor is free to agree or disagree with my reasoning, of course, but this is the way I will continue to be uploading my image file contributions to WP in the future, to-wit:
As virtually all of the images I originally upload are those which I have personally created and/or to which I own the exclusive copyright, in order to avoid any repeats of the problems I experienced with my Alcatraz image and a number of other such files detailed above, it will continue to be my practice to upload those to en:WP as opposed to Commons. The same will be the case for "fair use" images covered by 17 USC §107 as they are not acceptable on Commons under WP policy. As for the relatively few images I upload that are in the Public Domain, I will only upload those to Commons when I have no doubt that they are in the public domain under the copyright laws of every jurisdiction to avoid issues such as that which arose recently with the Keystone Press Agency image you uploaded that was subsequently deleted. If, however, when I have good reason to believe that they are PD-US but may not be so elsewhere, in an abundance of caution I will avoid Commons in those circumstances as well and continue to upload those only to en:WP. Centpacrr (talk) 05:30, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In summary my bottom line on this issue is that because of the flawed way I have found that Commons operates compared to en:WP with regard to image acceptance criteria, conflicting licensing strictures, unexplained summary "copyvio" deletions, and the nature and/or type of image files I tend to contribute, it is likely that I will almost always choose to upload my personal image file contributions to en:WP over Commons in virtually all circumstances. Others are, of course, free to favor Commons over en:WP, but for the reasons I have explained above I will not be one of them. Centpacrr (talk) 06:20, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
An arbitration case regarding SchuminWeb, and previously suspended by motion, has now closed. The original temporary injuction has been enacted:
[...] Should SchuminWeb decide to resign his administrative tools, the case will be closed and no further action taken. Should SchuminWeb not return to participate in the case within three months [...] the account will be desysopped. If the tools are resigned or removed in either of the circumstances described above, restoration of the tools to SchuminWeb will require a new request for adminship.
Thanks for uploading File:The Goring Ram Squadron.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:54, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think your latest edit is too light. The previous might be a little too dark, but maybe the ideal lies in the middle somewhere. – JBarta (talk) 10:28, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For an image this small a little lighter is better to show the decorations and detail of the WWII German Army uniform this type and style of which was made of a light grey green material. If the image were much larger then slightly darker would be acceptable but at its current restricted size as a non-free image I find darker to be counterproductive. (I also made some other fixes to the image.) Centpacrr (talk) 11:08, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what image size has to do with it. (Though at a larger size it's looks rather worse than your previous edit) You do make a good point about the uniform color however. I still think it could stand to be a little darker, but I won't press the issue. – JBarta (talk) 11:34, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If anything it probably should be lighter (see here for example). How it looks when it is "larger" (presumably 200% or more), however, seems irrelevant to me as nobody other than you and I are ever likely to look at it at anything other than either 100% on its host page or as an infobox thumb in the article. Centpacrr (talk) 11:54, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.
If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion,
a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.
Hi, Centpacrr. Quite some time since we talked. I came here to ask you a favor (two, actually):
File:Congado in Minas Gerais 1876.jpg I want you to remove the grey background around the photo and replace it with white. Also, I need another version of this file with translucid background.
I have replaced the grey background on the Congado in Minas Gerais image with a white on as requested. As images in infoboxes and in articles on WP are against white backgrounds already, howeveer, I don't see any purpose or advantage in uploading second such versions or either one with translucid backgounds as well as they would not look any differently than the existing jpgs. Centpacrr (talk) 22:36, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you have reverted the version of File:Congado in Minas Gerais 1876.jpg with the white corners that I added as you requested for the original one with grey corners so I don't really know what you are asking for. Centpacrr (talk) 17:37, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
File:Adm. David Harrington Bagley (Derivative).jpg listed for deletion
The cover of first US edition published by Viking Press in 1971 (the same year as the novel was also first published in the UK) is graphically a MUCH better illustration, more accurately represents the nature of the story, is much better known, is still in use by the publisher (on the audio edition released in December, 2009 for instance), is the design that was originally used in the article, and the quality of the image file itself is far superior. Of all of the literally dozens of designs that have been used in the many various editions of this book (and the 1973 motion picture) over the four plus decades since it was first published to choose from, the 1971 Viking Press one is the best both graphically and encyclopedicly in my good faith opinion and judgement as an editor on WP, and that's why I uploaded the file and put it in the article's infobox. Centpacrr (talk) 12:46, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have since uploaded a much cleaner version of the 1971 first UK (Hutchinson) edition of the book from a 2011 Bloomberg News interview with Forsyth conducted for the 40th anniversary of its publication, placed that image in the Fredrick Forsyth article were that particular first printing is specifically discussed, and removed the orphan tag as the file in no longer an orphan. Both images are now available and in use on WP. Centpacrr (talk) 17:01, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't entirely agree with your reasons for using the US cover, but it's sound enough and I won't press the issue. That said, now we have have a new problem. Your cleaner version of the UK cover is the anniversary edition rather than the original, and there are differences in the design. (This was a problem I specifically avoided when looking for a better copy of the original cover.) You should probably revert your upload or find a version of the original that suits you. – JBarta (talk) 17:24, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Saw the change you made. I'm not sure if it's going to fly as that section of the Frederick Forsyth article doesn't talk specifically about the anniversary edition of the book. (slightly improper use of a non-free image) Some editor may come along and challenge it. Personally I think the original edition is the better choice, but I won't press that issue either. At least the caption matches the image now. – JBarta (talk) 18:23, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article references that the book has been in print ever since it was first published in 1971 and thus a 40th anniversary edition is certainly both significant and encyclopedic for any novel, and especially so when it was also an author's first one as well. Centpacrr (talk) 20:21, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.
If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion,
a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.
Thank you for uploading File:Milton S. Hershey c1915.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.
If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.
"Cover art: Cover art from various items, for visual identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary). [footnote] NFCI#1 relates to the use of cover art within articles whose main subject is the work associated with the cover. Within such articles, the cover art implicitly satisfies the "contextual significance" NFCC criterion (NFCC#8) by virtue of the marketing, branding, and identification information that the cover conveys. The same rationale does not usually apply when the work is described in other articles, such as articles about the author or musician; in such articles, the NFCC criteria typically require that the cover art itself be significantly discussed within the article.
Please note that for the book cover to be used in the article, there would need to be significant discussion, not simply a reference. You may be able to make it case for it in the book article, but putting it in another article will not secure its usage there - non-free content is contextual. Please be careful to conform to WP:NFC, as this policy and guideline have legal implications and must be enforced. --Moonriddengirl(talk)10:22, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Image had a bit of lines remaining in the jacket (still there somewhat) and light stripe along bottom and lower right side (still there). After uploading the fix, I noticed the color was different because the file you uploaded contained an embedded colorspace. Not all apps recognize that. I then uploaded a new version retaining the brighter colors and with a default RGB colorspace. (I only have a basic knowledge of colorspaces so I hope I got the terminology right.) Also, I'm not sure why you would include an embedded colorspace for such a small and simple file knowing(?) that it's potentially problematic (as you can see). Hopefully that explains what I did and why. – JBarta (talk) 22:46, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
File source problem with File:VADM David W. Bagley, USN.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:VADM David W. Bagley, USN.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.
If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.
... I would find it useful to have a time stamp included as well. Please, out of consideration for your fellow editors, give thought as to whether being technically right will be effectively useful in this case. Thanks —in advance— for your time and consideration, --Kevjonesin (talk) 15:34, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm lazy, and I just picked the barnstar from the default ones...
You do an enormous amount of thoughtful work, and you do it tirelessly, so I think you deserve one of these things. Enjoy it, eat it, use it as an oriental fighting accessory or just smirk at it. It's yours to treasure. But keep it very safe because one day in the future it will be worth... well, nothing at all really. Ciao... Begoontalk15:22, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Centpacrr, might I suggest you apply some of your enthusiasm to splitting File:Opened scallop shell.jpg into separate 'original version' and 'altered version' filenames as per Commons guidelines? You seem, to me, to be rather attached to the page so I thought you might prefer to do so personally so as to have control over how it gets done. Choice of filenames, text, templates, tags, cross links and such. --Kevjonesin (talk) 15:48, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was musing a bit to myself recently about how I've found a number of your image edits a bit bright and heavy on contrast (— please, — pardon my abrupt honesty). To my taste, this gives some of them a sort of caricatured/cartoonish /posterized feel. I started thinking about whether it was just due to a difference in our personal sense of aesthetics or computer hardware or... what? As my sense about your images is based on how they compare to web images —viewed via my system— in general, it seems to rule out monitor differences. I then recalled that in a past discussion you had mentioned having published works over a span of 40+ years.
I applied a bit of inference and then googled "aging and color vision".
I hope this proves useful to you once the shock of my having assumed to offer personal advice wears off. We both can be a bit prickly at times so I've got my fingers crossed.
Something to reflect on perhaps.
Obviously, if you were a prodigy who started plublishing at age 3 mos. feel free to ignore all this and/or call me names. I'm partial to using fish slaps in such cases, myself. : }
p.s.On a general editing note, setting aside guidelines, visual aesthetics, wikilawyering and such... I'd like to ask you —as a personal favor if nothing else— to please go into more detail in your upload summaries. Detail about the changes you've made on the technical level. What your new version has changed from the previous and/or original version. Things like digitally extending the span of an image's background, removals and reconstructions and such. Something to give the editors who come after a bit more of the "how's" and "why's". Please. As a bonus, one might end up providing mentoring clues for new image editors as well that way. Hmm, it occurs to me that I may well have room to improve my own performance on this point as well. Hmm. Anyway, I hope the day finds you well, --Kevjonesin (talk)
Will you take a request. I sure hope there is no drama. I want someone who is going to try manipulating the image. Want to be able to use things in article.
A beaker holds water with blue food dye (upper layer) and perfluoroheptane (lower layer). The goldfish cannot swim down into the dense fluorocarbon. The crab floats at the liquid boundary. Animals were rescued after the photo.
Please crop this "wide". Cut most of the beaker that has air in it and the silver holder thing. Leave the two fluids. I need this, since it is very hard to fit into a text-wrapped situation. Also, if it is "wide aspect", then I may display centered which will allow making the animals a little bigger.
See if it looks better with the tilt taken out also.
Please do a "new file" so we can compare the different versions. Not sure what can be done but appreciate an attempt so I can pick best one.
P.s. I really don't know how it will look, but take a shot at it. If it doesn't work, I'll just do without.
I have cropped the image as requested. It doesn't really need a "new file", however, as the material cropped out is unrelated to what is being illustrated and not needed to understand what it is showing. If you don't like the crop it can always just be reverted so both options are available. Centpacrr (talk) 16:20, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is "tfc; rgma; oa-ngdgup" some sorta' Photoshop abbreviation? If so, as I (and a some others) use GIMP it's 'Greek -to-me'. Please, elaborate/enlighten me.
These are references and reminders to me of things associated with the files that I may need to refer to if I have to come back to them later for some reason. Centpacrr (talk) 15:40, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to help. Feel free to post your future requests to me in here so we can both avoid the "drama" that often prevails in the graphics lab. ;) Centpacrr (talk) 15:50, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.
I was looking at File:VE DAY Piccadily 1945.jpg and while your entry indicates that you've finished the request, I don't see the new file on Commons. Server issue or did you only crop and overwrite without completing the rest of the request?
First I am not 100% convinced that this image is eligible to be moved to Commons nor, apparently, has anyone else been as it appears to have been tagged as a "candidate" a year and a half ago. Unless I am absolutely sure (and usually not even then) I do not add images to Commons (although working on images already there is a different story) because it subjects them to a higher probability of later being unilaterally "speedy deleted" as an alleged copyvio by some ambitious Commons admin (that happens) and then lost everywhere on WP including on the English WP. This has happened to several images of my own that I had posted on English WP which somebody then moved to Commons. Some of these images later showed up on copyrighted commercial websites, a Commons admin saw them there and assumed my image was taken from the commercial site (because it had not been credited to either WP or me on that site), and then the admin inappropriately "speedy deleted" from Commons without timely (or sometime even any) notice to me (most likely because somebody else had moved it to Commons) as a copyvio causing it to be lost on all WP pages. For that reason I am very loath to post any of my own images -- and almost never move anybody else's -- to Commons. Centpacrr (talk) 00:12, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your version of 06:11, 13 June 2013 is an improvement over your last version, but you leave/introduce odd color issues. There is purple in the ceiling and the floor, the plants are a strange blue-green and the black appliance on the floor has a significant purplish hue. At the moment I believe my version is the superior to Kevjonesin's or either of yours, but I will hold off on reverting yet again and give you a chance to make improvements. If you're going to upload additional versions, please do the courtesy of uploading a version that is at least equal in quality to what is there already. – JBarta (talk) 06:33, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The subject of this image is Chan Chun Sing, and his face and hands in both your and Kevjonesin's versions are deeply off color and nowhere near to natural skin tone. The room and the stage on which he is speaking are clearly not being illuminated with white light, and in fact the "black appliance" on the floor is a Tango 700 multi-color stage lighting instrument which is providing some of the colored light being reflected by the plant and the rest of the room. The room is also clearly intended to be fairly dark to enable video of the subject giving the speech to be projected on a screen behind him.
You reverted my previous edit because you said it had too much of a magenta hue which I desaturated. While the plant and other things in the room are still not going to look the same in colored light as they would in white light, none of these things are the subject of the image either. There is no way that a room illuminated by colored light is going to look the same as if it were illuminated by white light not should it. The subject is the speaker, Mr. Chan, and therefore it is the color of his skin that should look correct. Also please notice that the full size awards ceremony image is also not being used anywhere in WP, but is instead just as the source of the detail of the speaker which is being used as an infobox image for the article about him.
For all of these reasons I find that the two versions I uploaded are not inferior as you say, but are in fact the superior ones because the more accurately depict what the subject of the illustration (Chan Chun Sing) looks like. The OP apparently also agrees with this because shortly after I uploaded these new versions of the images he marked the request "resolved". Centpacrr (talk) 07:27, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As usual, instead of addressing the problem, you just spew forth assorted nonsense. I'm going to revert again to the more normally color corrected image. I have no objection to someone improving on my edit or uploading a superior version. It can be done and I welcome it. But don't upload badly done work and try to convince me it's supposed to look that way. – JBarta (talk) 07:50, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I will say this, the face color in mine can certainly be colored better (I didn't do any region-specific coloring). In that, yours may be an improvement. But let's not color the face while trashing the rest of the image. – JBarta (talk) 07:58, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I pointed out above a room illuminated with colored lights is not going to look the same as a room illuminated with white light and there is no way to make it look so. The subject of the image, however, is Mr. Chan. That's what people are looking at and should be made to look natural. The photograph also appears to have been taken way out of temperature (white balance) which is an additional issue. So why don't you make the rest of the picture the way you like it and when you have done so I will take care of the skin tones. Centpacrr (talk) 08:23, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're just assuming the room was flooded with magenta lighting. The bad color probably has more to do with the way the camera took the picture than the lighting in the room at the time. At any rate, what's most important is a natural and realistic hue to the entire shot.. and not introducing even more color issues in the process. As far as the face color, yes, mine is as the camera took it (less overall color adjustments). It's not all that bad, but some subtle color could be added. Your coloring is a little over-done in my opinion, but generally on the right track. – JBarta (talk) 08:31, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I truly don't what it takes to please you, but if you want him purple I guess that's just the way it's going to be. It's all your now. Centpacrr (talk) 08:54, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Now you've resized the original for no particular reason. I reverted that. Your compromise on the face color is fine, but there is no need to resize the image. If you wish to resize the head crop I have little objection. Also, as I said, I thought your face coloring was overdone. I would be happy to see the face toned up a bit if you wish... but subtly. The face color should also fit into the whole image and not be reminiscient of an oompa-loompa. – JBarta (talk) 08:57, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking the time to make a reply to my inquiry about File:VE DAY Piccadily 1945.jpg. Although it would have been easier to reply to if I hadn't had to go to a diff to find it. Collateral damage, I presume. A simple "oops."
I'd like to humbly suggest that if you do not intend to complete such a request in full that you consider not taking it in the first place? Another option would be to post a request (down the page in the direct/personal request section) asking another editor to make the move? It seems to me that either of these options would be more respectful of the efforts —invested by the editor who refreshed the "Anonymous Requests" display— to select and place it there.
I noticed that you amended the original request to better reflect the current status. Great solution. Simple and effective. Thanks for being helpful to the wiki. --Kevjonesin (talk) 11:16, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. That's fine and I appreciate the consideration although is was not really necessary. I will be occupied for the next little while uploading and adding to articles in the main space many new images (historic ones from my collections and archives, from some of my own seven books, as well as other wholly original images of mine) which I have been neglecting to contribute to WP for some time. Centpacrr (talk) 15:56, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I became aware of this canvassing thread on my own a couple of days ago but did not think there is anything productive I could add to a discussion in which the subject contributor had already been referred to as an obtuse "small-fry petty tyrant." That being said, it might be useful to your group as it carries on its discussion to see if you can direct me to any examples (or even one) in which you or any other editor did not eventually either get their own way, agree to a final result, or in which consensus was not achieved in any matter in which I may have offered a different view, version, or solution. Centpacrr (talk) 16:56, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Centpacrr, if and until you arrive at a point of self-reflection and conclude that all these people must have a point, there is little I can do to help you along. – JBarta (talk) 22:37, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fine you have made that point, but that does not answer the question I posed. Please give me an example of anytime that you did not get what you wanted irrespective of whether of not I (or anyone else) still disagreed with your views. Centpacrr (talk) 22:48, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You see, that's part of the problem... ceaseless argument. You resist what is offered and continue on endlessly making argument any which way you can in an increasingly nonsensical manner. The thinner your argument the more verbose you become. You must understand... if you agree your behavior might be problematic and if you wish to do something about it, then the answers must begin from you. Instead of asking for proof or examples or more argument, show some introspection and suggest to yourself where you may have behaved poorly and why others may have a point about your behavior. I cannot serve any useful purpose here by being a sparring partner. – JBarta (talk) 00:07, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I know that you think every comment I make in here is too long, but I ask you to read this one completely as it is written sincerely and in an attempt to resolve whatever issues that are between us.
I am perfectly willing to be self reflective, certainly would like to get along with everybody (as I do with virtually every other editor with whom I have had interactions on WP), and regret that this is not the case in the Graphics Lab. Perhaps if you had not started off with me in what I perceived as an eldering manner, been less abrasive in your comments to me about my contributions and motives, and (at least with me) so adamantly always insisted that your approach to virtually any image I worked on was always superior to mine and that you intended to have the final word on what was acceptable in my contributions then none of this would have developed. (Also I think when you said to me early on in what I felt was an attempt to intimidate me that you were a former organized crime assassin and enforcer living in New Jersey in the witness protection program that was exactly the wrong approach for you to take with me.)
So as I say I am perfectly willing to see how I can interact better with you and the others, but I also see this as a two way street and so I ask you to try to be a little less abrasive with me, not view every time I take a different position and try to explain it as being "ceaseless argument", and to be more understanding of my feelings, positions and motives. As I have always said, there are many ways to deal with an image file that are acceptable, not just one. Your taste and mine obviously clash but that does not mean we can't work together and when we disagree can come to consensus on images. Sometimes your approach will be better, but also sometimes mine will be as well. I am not perfect in what I do and do make mistakes -- even inadvertent ones -- but so is and does everybody else. You and I are really not all that different and I'm sure we have much more in common than not. We are both obviously strong willed and passionate in our positions, but that should not mean that we can't happily co-exist. All of us in WP are volunteers, want to do the best we can to improve an advance the project, and none of us has to be here. I respect you and the others for that, but please respect me for that as well. We all do this because we enjoy it so let's all work to make it enjoyable for everyone else as well.
So this is my proposal which I ask you to pass along to the others as well. As I noted to Kevjonesin above, I plan to be occupied for the next little while by uploading and adding to articles in the main space many new images (historic ones from my collections and archives, some that I have used in my seven books on ice hockey (3) and North American railroad history (4), as well as other wholly original images and illustrations of mine) that have been building up and which I have been neglecting to contribute to WP for some time. While I take this voluntary "break" from the Graphics Lab to do that I ask all sides (including myself) to stand back and take stock of ourselves about how best "play with others" while also respecting the views and contributions of those other contributors.
I'm truly sorry if I have hurt anybody's feelings as that has never been my intention. But my feelings have been hurt as well. To be labelled an "obtuse small-fry petty tyrant" by somebody I don't even know -- and who doesn't know me -- is not why I joined the Wikipedia Project more than six years ago and is not something I have or would ever call anybody in here no matter how much I may disagree with them on anything. So the above is my sincere proposal and effort to resolve any and all past issues so that we can all work in harmony in here for the benefit of the project and all of its contributors. I hope this is good enough as I really think that this is the best that I can come up with. If it isn't then we should all just go our separate ways, but I truly hope it does not come to that. :) Centpacrr (talk) 03:18, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Centpacrr's preceding comment strikes me as well considered & intentioned, civil/non-confrontational, and generally good sense. Thanks Centpacrr. --Kevjonesin (talk) 13:48, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comment, Kevjonesin, which is much appreciated. The other two users have not yet commented (nor do I know if they will), but in the future I would ask that all parties refrain from speculating about anyone's alleged "mental state" or "special needs" as well as to avoid using invective such as "obtuse small-fry petty tyrant" about any other volunteer WP editor which are both inappropriate and counterproductive in WP and none of which has anything to do with this issue or its resolution to the satisfaction of all. The consideration of all in this respect would be most appreciated.Centpacrr (talk) 16:16, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A tag has been placed on File:B&ML Station, Brooks, ME.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Ronhjones (Talk)20:19, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In your collections do you have any plan drawings of Chicago 'L' or interurban units of around 1900 or so. I am asking because these are rumored to be a design on which the first units used for the Electrification of the District Line in London around 1906 were based?
Additionally, from the small number of photos I've seen, The Liverpool Overhead Railway units
also seem to be based on US style designs of the period, albeit adapted for the smaller loading gauge in the UK.
Hello. Unfortunately I do not have anything in my collections relating to "El" or interurban rolling stock from Chicago. My railroad collections concentrate on North American standard railroads in general, and the Transcontinental lines as well as the roads in Pennsylvania and Maine in particular. I also have virtually nothing on rail lines in the UK. Centpacrr (talk) 19:16, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Centpacrr.. you like historical stuff, right? And you're pretty good at developing articles. I think I found an opportunity for you to create and develop an interesting article from scratch that's right up your alley... The Hygeia Hotel, Old Point Comfort, Va.
Wikipedia has no article on the Hygeia Hotel, yet it seems to have been a fairly big deal at the time. I figured you might enjoy the exercise. – JBarta (talk) 18:52, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Apparently there was more than one Hygeia Hotel. This website mentions one in Palm Beach FL that burned down in 1917. Maybe they are related to the VA hotel?
Thanks for the suggestion and the links which I will give some detailed study when I get a chance. I am currently on vacation in Maine and while here working on a number of image projects. My primary interest in hotels has to do with those which have some specific relation to U.S. railroad history (a great many of the 19th and early 20th century resorts hotels were built by railroad companies to attract riders to their trains that passed close by), and my particular area of interest for these is California (especially related to the Pacific Railroad), Pennsylvania, and New England (especially Maine). As you can see from my many recent original (as opposed to others' Graphics workshop requests) image uploads on Wikipedia here (and also now starting here), I am currently adding both many photographs I have taken over the past decade in California and Maine as well as new high res scans that I am making of historic engravings from 18th, 19th, and early 20th century materials from my long standing collections as well as others I am newly acquiring in Maine from the many dealers here that I have been getting such materials from every summer for the past three decades. (These folks all know what I like and hold things for me that they find around the state over the winter.) For instance I am now adding various engravings to Wikipedia from a number of issues of Gleason's Pictorial Drawing-Room Companion published in Boston in the mid 1850's that I just got from one of these dealers a few days ago as well as having just transcribed and added three long articles (and two large engravings) from the October 9, 1875 issue of Frank Leslie's Illustrated Newspaper the I just got on ebay on the opening of the original Palace Hotel in San Francisco to my extensive on-line illustrated history site about that historic structure. Thanks again for the suggestion and I'll see what I can do with it down the line a bit. Centpacrr (talk) 19:58, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I have some trouble with an image of yours. Could you add the missing information here? Source and author are missing. If you like, you can drop me a line on my Commons-talk pagehere and I'll add the info accordingly. Thank you for your time! --Hedwig in Washington(TALK)00:19, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Source information added ("The Cooper Collection of Zeppelin Postal History" which is my perspnal private collection); I am also the author in that I created the digital image and the stamps were created by the Deutsches Reich, government then in control in Germany. Centpacrr (talk) 00:51, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Electric power advertisement image file on Wind power
Hi Centpacrr, thanks for reinstating the "Electric Power Generating Windmill system advertisement 1897.jpg" image into the Wind power article. I'm not sure what happened previously as I noted the image was missing from the article above its caption, and a search on Wikimedia yesterday couldn't locate the file. There may have been some type of licensing issue, which is the usual reason for images disappearing from an article. Best: HarryZilber (talk) 13:39, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the note. I don't know why it didn't show up for you originally as it appeared ok for me when I first uploaded and added it and there should not be any licensing issue as it is PD having been first published in the US before 1923 (it was published in 1897). My only guess is that sometimes new images don't always reliably appear on the first day or two after they have been uploaded because of some unknown issue with the wikimedia software that causes it to be flakey in this area. It's a nice and appropriate image and I'm glad it's working for you now. Centpacrr (talk) 13:55, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Centpacrr. Thanks for double-checking my edits at First Transcontinental Railroad. I would ask, however, that you correct only what needs correction, rather than revert an edit that contains more than one fix. 19:07, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Centpacrr 2012 WC.jpg, which you've attributed to Alan Bass. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.
If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.
If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 15:51, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, copyright on these (1,2) might be challenged because the "published without a copyright notice" bit applies to standalone publications, not pages in a book/magazine. The copyright notice in the book is presumed to cover everything in it. I'm not going to push it... but someone might. – JBarta (talk) 01:02, 7
September 2013 (UTC)
This is also covered in "Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter: Advertisements)" which states "In the United States, advertisements published in collective works (magazines and newspapers) are not covered by the copyright notice for the entire collective work. (See U.S. Copyright Office Circular 3, "Copyright Notice", page 3, "Contributions to Collective Works".) This is because the same advertisement will often run in many publications. (See U.S. Code title 17, chapter 4.) Note that this rule does not apply to advertisements whose copyright belongs to the publisher of the collective work, such as ads for another magazine subscription. It also does not apply to advertisements first published outside the United States.
"Works published in the U.S. without a valid copyright notice before 1978 automatically fell into the public domain. Thus, magazine and newspaper advertisements published in the United States before 1978 without a separate copyright notice may be uploaded to Commons." Centpacrr (talk) 01:44, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. For your future reference if anyone ever brings this up elsewhere, the specific section of the US Copyright Law that covers this is 17 U.S.C §404(a) which excludes from a publication's collective copyright notice "advertisements inserted on behalf of persons other than the owner of copyright in the collective work". Centpacrr (talk) 01:22, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are you working against me? This edit restored errors and non MoS-compliant material that I had copyedited. Could you please not do that again? Thanks a lot, --John (talk) 19:20, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The changes you keep making materially change and pablumize the meaning of the text disturbing how it relates with other portions of the text and thereby make fuzzy, ambiguous, misleading and in some cases inaccurate. I have been working on and contributing and developing to this article for more than five years (over 1,000 edits) and understand the material and these relationships very well. What you are doing in the name of "style" in fact is introducing unnecessary ambiguity into the article. Words like "actually", "however", and the like have specific meanings that show relationships to other persons, events, chronology, etc. Removing or changing them materially changes the meaning of the text. Also the changes you are making in some of the thumbnail sizes are causing them to display improperly.
As you have apparently never done any editing to this article before a couple of days ago, you are apparently not aware that all these various issues have been discussed, worked out, and agreed upon over the years among this article's most active editors. The changes you are making go against that long established consensus. I would therefore ask you to respect that and not reintroduce these issues in the name of "style" over "substance". Centpacrr (talk) 19:44, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I've been editing this article since 2006. There is good material in the article but some of the writing was sloppy which works against readability. Words like "actually", "however" and the like are worthless padding at best and at worst introduce editorial bias to the article which works against neutrality. We prefer to allow our logged-in users to choose their own thumbnail sizes, as what looks good on your set-up may not display well on someone else's. We don't use "summer" or "fall" to describe times. We don't write a comma between a month and a year. And so on. If you disagree with these well-established editing practices, you should raise it at the various relevant MOSTALK pages; in the meantime you should please resist the temptation to revert others' copyedits. Thanks once more. --John (talk) 19:55, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Prior to your edits beginning yesterday a review of the entire history of the article going back to its creation on September 9, 2002 reveals just two edits had ever been made to it on it by you—one (a deletion) on June 2, 2006 and the other (an RVV) on September 6, 2006. Hmmm, this represents 0.032% of the total activity on this page (and none in more than seven years) so unless you have edited it under some other name it appears that this is the sum total of your work on Charles Lindbergh prior to yesterday. With respect, John, this does not seem to really comport with the spirit or implication of your statement that "I've been editing this article since 2006." (I have made 943 edits on the page representing 15.3% of its activity over that same period which I think would better meet that description.) Also you have misspelled Lindbergh's name in the title of this section ("Lindburgh") as well which I hope was not intentional.
That being said, much of the language you have been changing written by a variety of editors including myself has been in place for many years. Words such as "actually", "just", "however", "virtually" etc all have specific meaning as modifiers and when used in relation to the total context of the rest of the article make the meaning more precise and less ambiguous. They are certainly not, however, used as "worthless padding".
For example:
"...just $15,000..." is used because Lindbergh's financing was miniscule compared to the other groups he was competing with;
"News of the Lindberghs' "flight to Europe" did not break until a full day later" is used because the Times reporter Lauren "Deac" Lyman had deliberately withheld the news of his departure for 24 hours at Lindbergh's request even though he knew when he sailed. The fact that it "did not break" until a day later as opposed to when the newspaper had the story was a matter of considerable controversy thereafter. (Also your edit of "News of the Lindberghs' "flight to Europe" broke until a day later" makes no sense);
"The Lindberghs did not return to the United States until April 1939." conveys in the context of the rest of the section the intended meaning that they had remained reluctant to do so for more than three years after fleeing the US in December, 1935. Your pablumized edit "The Lindberghs returned to the United States in April 1939." fails to recognize that and instead implies that they just "returned" to the US as a matter of course. That was certainly not the case.
"...the ill-fated American aviatrix Amelia Earhart..." is neither an unencyclopedic nor an inaccurate description of what happened to her having disappeared without a trace over the South Pacific during her attempted round-the-world flight in January, 1939. That being the case, "ill-fated" is certainly an appropriate and accurate usage of the term.
"Unlike the previous year, however, this time Lindbergh did so in his "own ship"—and as a pilot." is a comparative within the context of the article as are many other uses of "however" in the article such as "With the Army not then in need of additional active duty pilots, however, following graduation Lindbergh immediately returned to civilian aviation as a barnstormer...", "Fonck never got off the ground, however, as his grossly overloaded...", and many other uses which are all correct usages and iclarify contextual relationships. The same goes for "virtually" which you have replaced in many places with "almost" (such as "Charles Lindbergh, a 25-year-old relative latecomer to the race, who, in relation to the others, was almost anonymous to the public as an aviation figure ..." which makes no sense at all. There are many more examples which I will incorporate here by reference.
Again you are using "style" as an artificial constraint to trump "substance". (As an Admin you should be aware that this conflict is contemplated by WP:BOLD that notes that it is especially important that changes to long standing text like the ones you are proposing should only be made with great care and deference when claimed to be done "in relation to policies and guidelines, where key parts may be phrased in a particular way to reflect a very hard-won, knife-edge consensus – which may not be obvious to those unfamiliar with the background. In these cases, it is also often better to discuss potential changes first." Also you have provided no guideline or policy whatsoever that supports "bans" on the use of words such as "however", "actually", "just", "virtually", etc. These are all common and perfectly acceptable words in the English language (both American and Commonwealth) with specific meanings just like thousands of other adjectives and conjunctives. Your apparent objection to their use therefore seems to be strictly personal and not based on any contextual WP guideline or policy. WP does not expect its contributors to write everything at a third grade level or aimed at the lowest common denominator. Its readers are expected to be educated far beyond that level and to have the common sense to be able to tell the difference between unsupported POV and general knowledge and experience. Otherwise ever word other than "the" and "and" would have to be footnoted.
Again I ask you to accept the long standing consensus achieved about the use of language in this article (with which as noted above you have no demonstrated history of either following or editing), and respect how it has been developed over the years by myself and many other editors. Lindbergh was a complex and controversial character who for much of the 20th century was also one of the most famous (and to some infamous) people in the western world (the Americas and Europe). The language that has been chosen over the years for this article as it has developed has been done so carefully, does not constitute "worthless padding", and all the words included have specific meanings. The wholesale changes that you are making to the entry only serves to muddle the material, not improve or clarify it. If you disagree with any specific usages you should make your case first in the article's talk page rather than make such wholesale unilateral changes to long standing well reviewed text. Failing to do so only works at cross purposes to the consensus that has been built among its many editors during eleven years of development. Centpacrr (talk) 23:17, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It seems we disagree. It also seems that you are out of line with the rest of the project (and indeed the worldwide community of good writers of English). Why not request some other opinions? --John (talk) 06:08, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I regret, sir, that you seem to have not only completely missed all the points I made above, but have also elected to not support or explain any of your positions as well as to not respond to or address anything I said above. (Actually it doesn't ever appear that you bothered to read it at all as you have also ignored several blatant errors that I pointed out that you made as well such as misspelling Lindbergh's name.) As for my own writing I don't think I am that bad as I am also the author of seven published books (three for a UK publishing house and four for American ones) of which four are on North American railroad history but that's another story. Also as an American I write in American English as opposed to Commonwealth or Scottish versions of the language.
As for "why not request some other opinions?" well that has been a continuous part of the ongoing process of developing this article over the five years I have been working on it. Plenty of opinions have been offered and discussed from time to time as issues arose and when necessary compromises and/or consensus reached on the language used in this article. (In all that time, by the way, nobody has ever expressed that they had any problems with the usage or style that seems to be bothering you.) It seems to me, therefore, that you are the one who is "out of line" here, not me and the article's other editors, and If you had ever been a contributor to (or follower of) this article you would already know that.
Please remember that there are no "Editors in Chief" on WP and that being an Admin comes with no special rights to unilaterally enforce one's personal views on the rest of us just plain editors. Actually the function of an admin is quite the opposite. When the community entrusts a user with sysop tools it does so with the expectation that he or she will assume good faith on the behalf of other contributors, will act objectively and with neutrality, will honor the consensus of the community even if they may personally disagree with it, and never to use (or even threaten to use) his or her sysop tools in a dispute in which the admin is personally an involved party.
Every writer who contributes to WP is bound to have differences in "style" and technique but that does not make how they write "wrong". MOS provides guidelines but it is not meant to be a cookie cutter and you should not expect writers to be zombies. I've stated my positions here and the reasons for them in great detail. You are, of course, free to disagree with (or apparently just ignore) them but that does not mean that your views are necessarily "right" and mine are "wrong" (they are just different), or that you or any other single editor has the "final word" on editing this or any other article.
As I said I have been very actively developing and editing this particular article continuously for more than five years and know the history of its development very well. I also intend to continue to contribute to it as it is a subject in which I have both considerable interest and very substantial resources about Lindbergh available to me. By no means, however, does this mean I am claiming "ownership" of this article—far from it. But it does mean that as I am very familiar with the history of its development as well as the reasons and subtleties behind specific word choices and their intended meanings, when those are altered in a way that changes their meaning I will certainly "defend" and restore the original text for the reasons I have described above.
If you disagree with something I or other editors contribute to it, the place to discuss that is in the article's talk page as opposed to just trying to do a wholesale override of the work of everybody else to suit your own personal taste or interpretation of how things "should" be written. I am also constrained to observe, sir, that a cursory review of your "contributions" reveals that your activity on WP seems to be making virtually no new additions of materials at all to develop articles but instead you spend most of your time unilaterally deleting the contributions of others usually with just a vacuous, non specific "ce" as the edit summary. Perhaps if you would chose to actually also contribute new material to the project from time to time you might have a different perspective and appreciation for those who do. Centpacrr (talk) 07:58, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Goodness me, what a very long reply. I wish you every success in your work on the Lindbergh article, and in mastering the difficult niceties of writing clear, encyclopedic, English prose. I'm not sure what relevance my admin status has to this discussion, such as it is; I was not promoted because I could write concisely and well. If you really hold that "ill-fated" is the best and most dispassionate phrase to use, I'm afraid there is little point in discussing style with you. I admit I was also a little put off by this; it casts you in an unfavourable light. Nevertheless, happy editing. --John (talk) 06:01, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Disagreements as to style and writing technique between WP contributors does not mean that one of them by definition has to be "wrong" (and it never has) because, as I explained above, writing is not a "cookie cutter" activity robotically engaged in by zombies. I have been writing professionally—and quite successfully—for more than four decades including seven published non-fiction books (three for a UK based publisher and four for US houses) as well as hundreds of published articles and other types of writing for many other outlets. If you don't "approve" of my writing style you are, of course, free to hold that view personally, but that hardly makes my or others' contributions faulty, invalid, inaccurate, muddled, unprofessional, or "failing" any of the other "difficult niceties of writing clear, encyclopedic, English prose". (As you choose to edit on WP from behind a veil of virtually complete anonymity, however, the community also has no objective basis upon which to judge your own bona fides as either a writer or a critic of others.)
As for the instant case, I have explained in detail in several postings above exactly why the words "however", "virtually", "actually", and "just" were chosen and are appropriate in each instance, do not constitute POV, and have long been accepted and approved by the consensus of the community. When I asked you to cite any specific WP policy or provide some other affirmative foundation for your contention that they constitute "worthless padding" you were silent on that and, for that matter, every other issue I raised and instead simply made the blanket and unsupported claim that I am "out of line with the rest of the project and indeed the worldwide community of good writers of English". I find this contention particularly curious in that I pointed out above a number of blatant errors in the changes you made including actually misspelling the name of Charles Lindbergh, the subject of the article, as "Lindburgh".
Frankly, sir, I was also puzzled by your specious and disingenuous claim in response to my pointing out both your lack of previous activity as well as apparent unfamiliarity with the history of the development of this article that "Hmm, I've been editing this article since 2006" when that is clearly not the case. The recorded history of over six thousand edits to the article since 2002 reveals that you had made exactly twonon-material edits to the Lindbergh entry (both over seven years ago) one of which was to remove the wikilinks to a few words (made on June 2, 2006), and the other an "RVV" (made on September 6, 2006), prior to your making several mass deletions of long standing material on September 11 and 12. This hardly comports with any valid claim of having "been editing the article since 2006".
The issue I raised about your approach to your blanket deletions and other changes in this and other similar articles (such as the Brad Pitt BLP matter) as well as how you deal with their contributors as being inconsistent with what is expected by the community of an admin relate to your apparent pattern of abjectly refusing to accept—and your attempts to unilaterally revert—long settled community consensus if you personally disagree with it, an apparent failure to assume good faith on the behalf of other contributors with whom you disagree or to act objectively and with neutrality in such cases, and making implied or actual threat(s) to employ your sysop tools in disputes in which you are also an involved party. The brief posting I made on the talk page of Flyer22 was to alert that editor with which you seemed to be having a similar contemporaneous dispute that you were engaging in similar behavior elsewhere on WP.
I could repeat all of my other points made above again here, I suppose, but I will instead just incorporate the rest of them by reference and leave it at that. The bottom line is I intend to continue to contribute to the project in exactly the same way I have been doing so for seven years now which I have described publicly and in detail both above and on my userpage, and to always do so in good faith as well as within the policies and guidelines of the Wikipedia Project. Centpacrr (talk) 08:34, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is from the long-defunct PM Daily in NYC. The paper was published from 1940-1948. I've looked up the copyright status and it wasn't renewed. We had a nice photo of the flight from Life until someone "decided" it wasn't needed some time ago. :-(
It's the only free use photo I know of and if you think something can be done with it, I can upload it to Commons from a JPG made from the page, then ask someone at Graphics to work on it. Thanks for your time, We hope (talk) 15:14, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your question. Unfortunately there is not a great deal of detailed information in the pdf scan of the page from PM to make a really good image. I've taken a swing at it and posted what I came with here which you are free to use it you care to. As for the LIFE image that was once there I don't see why as a WP editor you can't decide to restore it to the article if the only reason that was given for removing it before was "need" as that is a completely bogus reason to have deleted it before. As it can be said that no image is ever "needed" on WP, it can equally be said that any image (either free or non-free) is appropriate and relevant which are the only real criteria for using images on Wikipedia. So unless consensus was achieved previously that the other image was neither appropriate and relevant I would put it back in. I hope this helps. Centpacrr (talk) 17:26, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for helping! Had a terrible time with some of the PDF conversion programs and finally found that Neevia would pick up the page and not ignore it in favor of the small envelope one at bottom. This is what I got from them when I converted the page there. Not sure if this would work out better for possible clean-up or not. As you know, there are some people here who believe all non-free photos aren't needed and can be covered by text & refs.;-) The person decided to make an SD of it--not FFD--just as an article using it went to GA earlier this year (it's now FA). I did a G-7 on it so it wouldn't ruin the GA and got disgusted after that--was gone for some time. While I'd like to have a photo of the historic event in the respective articles, I don't think it's worth the misery of fighting to have the non-free photo restored. Thanks again for your time, We hope (talk) 22:48, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I downloaded the jpg you linked to and fiddled with the image but because it is so small the results were not materially any better than the one I worked on from the pdf. I fully understand your frustration over the views of a small minority of editors who feel their purpose in life is to be WP deletionists. As I mentioned above, the standard of an image being "needed" is a completely false and unachievable one for the simple reason that WP doesn't actually "need" any images—free or non-free—to exist as an encyclopedia, although it would certainly be a poorer project without them. The only logical and objectively achievable standard is "appropriate and relevant."
What these tunnel vision deletionists count on to achieve their personal ends is wikilawyering them to death (which also seems to be a significant part of their hobby) and thus driving away many good editors in the process. (Curiously a number of these deletionists are also admins and try to use that as a tool to do their dirty work.) I have fought many of these battles with them over the years and they are indeed frustrating and time consuming. But I can be stubborn too and have won my share of these as well thereby saving a fair number of good images to illustrate WP articles. This takes determination, but there are cases in which it is worth the effort and it also has the side benefit that it slows down the deletionists a bit too. Centpacrr (talk) 23:25, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You hit the proverbial nail on the head re: who filed the SD. It was fine for quite some time and was already in a GA which it passed 2+ years prior. And on the other end of this, we have other people who go overboard with photos. :-) BTW, meant to tell you I like the way you've done the top of the talk page! Thanks again, We hope (talk) 00:20, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the kind words about the top of this page. (If you check my userpage you'll see why it is that I use this illustration.) Also if you read the thread immediately above this one you will see an example of exactly what I mean by tunnel vision deletionists (and an admin to boot) although in this case it does not have to do with image files but the usage of the words "however", "actually", "virtually", and "just" in the writing of WP articles. (No, I'm not kidding.) I hope you'll be able to find another usable image for the Como article. Centpacrr (talk) 00:51, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
![[1]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/3/39/20120114232233!Tisca_chopra.jpg){kind=link}
![[2]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/39/Tisca_chopra.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_crest,_logotype,_%26_teapot.jpg){kind=link}
![[3]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Debret32.jpg){kind=link}
![[4]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pedro_II_of_Brazil_by_Rugendas_1846.jpg){kind=link}
![[5]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/b/b7/20120722204452%21Debret32.jpg){kind=link}
![[6]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/3/37/20120722204517%21Pedro_II_of_Brazil_by_Rugendas_1846.jpg){kind=link}
![[7]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b7/Debret32.jpg){kind=link}
![[8]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/37/Pedro_II_of_Brazil_by_Rugendas_1846.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Thanks for uploading File:The Goring Ram Squadron.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg#File_history){kind=link}
