User talk:凰兰时罗/Archives/2017/December
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
Hello, 凰兰时罗. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Barnstar of Good Humor |
| I like your profile page and am going to take style mine similarly CommunistKing (talk) 16:34, 28 November 2017 (UTC) |
Thanks, @CommunistKing:) 凰兰时罗 (talk) 17:26, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Was not unjustified - if you think that it has to be oversize according to the NFCC guideline, then please add a reason to the FUR to justify that as per the guideline recommendations - I've added the {{non-free no reduce}} template for you, but that does need some text to justify its use. Ronhjones (Talk) 20:40, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
- @Ronhjones: I simply don't see anything in WP:NFCC that prompts any further reduction of this picture's size -- for example, there is no specific numeric guidelines as to the number of pixels. Similarly, I don't understand to what size you plan to reduce it to. 100x100 pixels? 10x10? What are you trying to achieve and why? So, without an additional explanation, I see this as an unjustified and arbitrary activity. I ask for further clarification. If you point me to a specific guideline that says that this image is too big, i'll immediately withdraw my objections and adjust my image-uploading practices going forward to match this guideline. 凰兰时罗 (talk) 21:01, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
- WP:Image resolution (the link was also on the reduce template). 100,000 pixels is correct. Note is is only a guideline as some images will not reduce to that level without excessive corruption. If it were reduced by the bot, it would be 387x257. The section I was referring to is... You also may wish to add the {{non-free no reduce}} template to the image rationale page to indicate that your image resolution purposely exceeds the 0.1 megapixels guideline, though this still requires you to include a valid rationale that explains this reasoning; large images using this template without a rationale to explain the large size may be reduced despite this.Ronhjones (Talk) 21:14, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
- @Ronhjones: What I read in there is this: «There is no firm guideline on allowable resolutions for non-free content; images should be rescaled as small as possible to still be useful as identified by their rationale, and no larger. This metric is very qualitative, and thus difficult to enforce. Some legal proceedings have discussed the issue, but are inconclusive here.» Hence, I still don't see why are trying to change the dimensions of this particular image? What problem are you trying to solve? How are you improving things by doing this? 凰兰时罗 (talk) 23:23, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
- The choice is yours - most images (and I would estimate 99.9% of the NF images on Wikipedia) reduce to 100,000 pixels (which is what the reducing bot's target is) without corruption, All we ask, is what I put above (in italics) which is from the same section. If you are happy to leave the {{non-free no reduce}} on the page, then I won't tag it again, it will then be in Category:Non-free images tagged for no reduction and other editors may well view those images at some later date, or may not. Ronhjones (Talk) 00:03, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
- @Ronhjones: Got it. Okay, so that's the template ({{non-free no reduce}}) I'll use for such cases. No problem :). BTW, who is "we"? 凰兰时罗 (talk) 16:27, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
- The choice is yours - most images (and I would estimate 99.9% of the NF images on Wikipedia) reduce to 100,000 pixels (which is what the reducing bot's target is) without corruption, All we ask, is what I put above (in italics) which is from the same section. If you are happy to leave the {{non-free no reduce}} on the page, then I won't tag it again, it will then be in Category:Non-free images tagged for no reduction and other editors may well view those images at some later date, or may not. Ronhjones (Talk) 00:03, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
- @Ronhjones: What I read in there is this: «There is no firm guideline on allowable resolutions for non-free content; images should be rescaled as small as possible to still be useful as identified by their rationale, and no larger. This metric is very qualitative, and thus difficult to enforce. Some legal proceedings have discussed the issue, but are inconclusive here.» Hence, I still don't see why are trying to change the dimensions of this particular image? What problem are you trying to solve? How are you improving things by doing this? 凰兰时罗 (talk) 23:23, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
- WP:Image resolution (the link was also on the reduce template). 100,000 pixels is correct. Note is is only a guideline as some images will not reduce to that level without excessive corruption. If it were reduced by the bot, it would be 387x257. The section I was referring to is... You also may wish to add the {{non-free no reduce}} template to the image rationale page to indicate that your image resolution purposely exceeds the 0.1 megapixels guideline, though this still requires you to include a valid rationale that explains this reasoning; large images using this template without a rationale to explain the large size may be reduced despite this.Ronhjones (Talk) 21:14, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
The Signpost: 18 December 2017
- Special report: Women in Red World Contest wrap-up
- Featured content: Featured content to finish 2017
- In the media: Stolen seagulls, public domain primates and more
- Arbitration report: Last case of 2017: Mister Wiki editors
- Gallery: Wiki loving
- Recent research: French medical articles have "high rate of veracity"
- Technology report: Your wish lists and more Wikimedia tech
- Traffic report: Notable heroes and bad guys