User talk:Centpacrr/Archive6

Orphaned non-free image File:Empire Express Streamlined 1941.jpg[edit]

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Empire Express Streamlined 1941.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:39, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This was NOT an orphaned image, but one that had been in place on the Empire State Express article for more then three years until you arbitrarily removed it without explanation. It has been restored to where it was since June 1, 2008. Centpacrr (talk) 06:13, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Empire Express Streamlined 1941.jpg listed for deletion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Empire Express Streamlined 1941.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. SchuminWeb (Talk) 08:24, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pioneer Zephyr Dawn to Dusk Club.jpg[edit]

Regarding File:Pioneer Zephyr Dawn to Dusk Club.jpg, just because a deletion review overturned a deletion does not give an image a free pass on having a woefully insufficient fair use rationale. Rather than waste your time edit-warring over the tag, why not bring the fair use rationale up to the proper standard? SchuminWeb (Talk) 10:19, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This issue was resolved on September, 2010 i favor of retention. Centpacrr (talk) 10:21, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't address my point at all. It currently fails WP:NFCC#10, which will lead to deletion if not brought up to standard. This is a matter of policy. SchuminWeb (Talk) 10:22, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see that while I was writing up rationales they were supplied by another editor familiar with the earlier kerfuffle over this fine and quite appropriate image.. Please therefore withdraw your unjustified deletion nomination. Centpacrr (talk) 11:09, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Centpacrr. I see you've twice removed the {{Non-free reduce}} tag I've added to File:Pioneer Zephyr Dawn to Dusk Club.jpg. That image is currently 640 × 494 pixels, or over 0.3 megapixels. It is used in articles only at thumbnail size, which is at maximum 300 × 232 pixels, or less than 0.07 megapixels. That means that the current resolution of the image is at least four and a half times as large as its use in Wikipedia articles. Can you provide a justification explaining why we need to have this image at such a resolution? Please see WP:NFCC#3b, which requires of non-free images, "Low- rather than high-resolution/fidelity/bit rate is used…. This rule also applies to the copy in the File: namespace." Also see Wikipedia:Non-free content#Image resolution, which says in part, "Ideally, most common image uses can likely be represented in an image containing no more than 0.1 megapixels." Note that User:DASHBot resizes non-free images above a threshold of 0.16 megapixels; the current resolution of this image is almost twice this size. This image is clearly of significantly higher resolution than any use in Wikipedia, and it seems to me that this high resolution is indefensible. But perhaps you can explain why it is necessary that we have this image at a much higher resolution than is ever used? —Bkell (talk) 13:07, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of thumbnails in an article is not to give the viewer the best look at a relevant image or illustration, but to provide him or her with a path or means (through a direct link to the thumbnail) to view those images or illustrations that particularly interest them at a size large enough to be useful without their overwhelming the text with their inline placements. You are proposing to decrease the size of this image (which contains not only the train but a group of people) to a size so small (i.e. hardly larger than a thumbnail itself) as to make it virtually useless to fulfill that purpose. The "full size" file of this image is currently 640 × 494 pixels and just 42 KB which is hardly "excessive" when compared the vast majority of similar images (especially those of groups of people) that are hosted on WP and, I dare say, is smaller than many similar images. It's "full size" is not suitable for printing (if that is your concern) and is only sufficient for limited web viewing. Also you should take into consideration that this particular image is a 75 year old publicity photo which was created originally for the purpose of seeking its reproduction and distribution by others without charge to promote the event depicted. The image at its current size (or even if it were much larger) is of no current commercial value to generate income or royalties to its copyright holder (if, indeed, there actually is one) and thus fully complies with both the spirit of Wikipedia's non-free content policy as well as of the fair use provisions of the United States copyright law (17 U.S.C. §107). That being the case, I can see no reason or benefit whatsoever to decreasing the size of this image on its file host page. Centpacrr (talk) 22:47, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. My point of view is that the purpose of Wikipedia is to build an encyclopedia of free content that anyone can use, modify, distribute, and republish for any purpose (see the third of the five pillars), and all non-free content, such as this photograph, is directly contradictory to that goal and so should be minimized. I don't care that the image was meant for publicity purposes or that there is no commercial value to the copyright holder or that its use is acceptable under United States copyright law—that's all fine and good, but irrelevant to the main point. DASHBot would resize this image to about 455 × 351 pixels (see [1]), and it doesn't seem to me that anything of significance is lost at that resolution, but I won't press this issue further. —Bkell (talk) 12:56, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment although I must respectfully disagree with your conclusion that 17 U.S.C. §107 does not matter. This image was very extensively discussed in September, 2010, and found to fully conform to all the criteria for its use on WP at this size and purpose. Also I think realistically that the chance that any legitimate copyright holder of this image (if there actually is one) would ever challenge or complain about the size of this image as it currently exists on WP is absolutely zero. Centpacrr (talk) 13:27, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say that 17 U.S.C. §107 doesn't matter—I said that that's not the issue. Of course the use of this image is legally acceptable, and we aren't going to be sued for using it. Those considerations are important, sure, but there are additional criteria for Wikipedia content beyond mere legality. My point has nothing to do with the law—it's about the goal of the project to create a freely licensed encyclopedia. We have to maintain stricter standards than just legality in order to achieve that goal. U.S. copyright law would likely allow us to use much more non-free content than we do, under the "fair use" clause, but we don't, because non-free content is the opposite of what we are trying to accomplish. —Bkell (talk) 16:26, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Railroad images[edit]

I think I can give you guys a hand with getting more free use images. Am not a train expert, but can upload free images to Commons and leave you a list on your talk page of what I've uploaded and then you can decide where the photo(s) would be best used. Am seeing a bunch of photos on postcards that are pre 1978 which I think would be useful. Have found one of Zephyrus in service in 1950. Was able to check out the producer of most of the cards that have no date on them and now know the ones that are pre-1978 are not copyright marked. Am going to get Zephyrus uploaded now and you can let me know if this might be of help. Also have found some 1940-1949 UP issued dining and kitchen photos that would be free use because they were issued without copyright marks by UP itself. We hope (talk) 23:47, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, much appreciated. Centpacrr (talk) 02:15, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the day's worth:

Union Pacific

File:Union Pacific City of Denver 1940.JPG Not sure which COD this is. There's a note "65-71" on the back of the photo. Enlarged the file enough to be able to read City of Denver on the train, so it was labeled correctly.

File:Union Pacific dining car kitchen 2 1949.JPG Kitchen of new 1949 dining cars. There's a dishwasher in this one; there's another photo from the shoot we have too.

File:Union Pacific dining car kitchen 1 1949.JPG More kitchen tour--this discusses the first dry ice refrigerator on a train.

File:Union Pacific experimental steam turbine engines 1939.JPG From the description on the back of the photo, this sounds like it's the two steam turbines they ordered in 1938, received in 1939 and returned to GM also in 1939 from the Steam turbine locomotive page.

Other-

File:Chicago and North Western interior 400 coach.JPG The date on these being new has to be before 1958, as here's a photo of them ready to be re-done in that year.

File:Illinois Central Panama Limited kitchen.JPG Old photo of the Panama Central's kitchen area.

File:Northern Pacific dining car 1912.JPG

Found a diagram from Alco-GE that appears to be for the gas turbine UP-50, but it has a watermark on it and will take a little time to clean up. This discusses there being 2 cabs. There's a lot more if you want or need it. We hope (talk) 23:48, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Had a chance to remove the diagram's watermark; here's the file: File:Alco-GE Union Pacific Gas turbine locomotive diagram.JPG We hope (talk) 01:53, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Centpacrr (talk) 02:06, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

October 2011[edit]

Please refrain from uploading disruptive images with no encyclopedic value. It is considered vandalism. Thank you. SchuminWeb (Talk) 11:56, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am puzzled as to how to respond to this as I have no idea what image(s) are you talking about that you consider to be "disruptive" and/or having no "encyclopedic value." If you wish to discuss something about which you disagree then please be specific. (If you are talking about File:MEC_Flying_Yankee.jpg that is an existing image which I digitally cleaned up but did not originally upload. The only image that I ever did upload in which you expressed any interest was the Empire Express 1941 RPO cover which proved to be Public Domain and is now on Commons.) If you are speaking of MEC Flying Yankee.jpg, editorial disagreements over the use of available WP images do not constitute either disruptive behavior or "vandalism" which is defined as "a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia such as by adding irrelevant obscenities and crude humor to a page, illegitimately blanking pages, and inserting obvious nonsense." I have never done any of those things nor have I ever engaged in any other form of vandalism on WP. Making such a charge gratuitously (especially for an Administrator) simply because one disagrees with another editor's editorial views seems to me to be a serious violation of good faith as are repeated nominations for deletion of images after previous discussions have been closed in favor of retention. Such actions clearly are disruptive to the process of achieving consensus. Centpacrr (talk) 18:46, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More stuff[edit]

File:Baltimore and Ohio Royal Blue Palace car 1880s.JPG Royal Blue Palace car in the 1880s.
File:Aeolus Burlington Steam Streamline locomotive 1937.jpg Photo and page of article from 1937 Railway Age about the steam-driven backup locomotive, Aeolus, for the Denver and Twin Cities Zephyr runs. No idea what happened to this backup locomotive. Did some research and found (so far) that the copyrights for years 1936 and 1937 for the magazine weren't renewed. Would suggest if you see something interesting in an older issue to check for non-renewal. We hope (talk) 21:30, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip and update. Centpacrr (talk) 23:47, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Flying Yankee at Portland Union Sataion.jpg[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Flying Yankee at Portland Union Sataion.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:19, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Caps in titles[edit]

The use of all caps is considered an individual "affectation" that many sources may use. In wikispeak, only companies/organizations that use that titling for their official title, e.g. NASA, use an all caps format. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:35, 27 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]

All I was doing was quoting the headlines exactly as they appeared in the Times. Please therefore direct me to the specific written WP guideline (in any) that states how the Times chooses to format its headlines is an "affectation" which should not be quoted. Centpacrr (talk) 19:51, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See: use of capitals for emphasis and All caps. The reason to revise titles or any use of type in all caps was because that is how some editors actually "cut-and-pasted" text. FWiW, many editors have actually submitted entire passages in all caps because that is how they find the text on some Internet site, but often the Internet copy was not necessarily written in "standard" formatting. Bzuk (talk) 20:11, 27 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]

OK, thanks. Centpacrr (talk) 22:15, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Watering steam locomotive.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Watering steam locomotive.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created 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-enwikimedia.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-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

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. SchuminWeb (Talk) 13:12, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:Portland Union Station c1890.jpg[edit]

Thank you for uploading File:Portland Union Station c1890.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.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:40, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:UAL Route Map 1940.jpg listed for deletion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:UAL Route Map 1940.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:43, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:WBRobertson.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:WBRobertson.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created 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-enwikimedia.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-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

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. SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:52, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

UAL ticket envelope[edit]

How high of resolution can you scan that ticket envelope, as seen at [2]? Since it's PD-1978, we should have it in as high of resolution as we can get. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:22, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Watering steam locomotive.jpg[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Watering steam locomotive.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:51, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:AHL Philadelphia Phamtons 2005 Calder Cup.jpg[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:AHL Philadelphia Phamtons 2005 Calder Cup.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:15, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:WBRobertson.jpg[edit]

Thank you for uploading File:WBRobertson.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.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:40, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Schuyler Colfax Statue, Colfax, CA.jpg listed for deletion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Schuyler Colfax Statue, Colfax, CA.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:50, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:The Spectrum and Stadiums.jpg[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:The Spectrum and Stadiums.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:59, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:US Pacific Railroads 1887.jpg[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:US Pacific Railroads 1887.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:31, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

November 2011[edit]

Please do not assume ownership of articles. If you aren't willing to allow your contributions to be edited extensively or be redistributed by others, please do not submit them. Thank you. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:51, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Centpacrr (talk) 03:44, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please hold on. I believe this is exactly an issue of a little misunderstanding, which will be happily resolved if JBarta and SchuminWeb follow the standard procedure which I outlined at the graphics lab. Cheers. Materialscientist (talk) 03:46, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your suggestion which seems reasonable. I'll wait a day and see what happens. Centpacrr (talk) 04:55, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

images[edit]

I see you added this image. While I admire your artistic skills, I have to say... this is an encyclopedia. It's not a showcase for your artistic skills. Your image of keys is quite unencyclopedic. I would suggest you simply upload a nice image of the keys, without the fancy border or other superfluous artwork. I'm not going to push the matter and keep reverting you, rather I'll simply appeal to your good intentions as a Wikipedian and let it go at that. Regards. JBarta (talk) 06:13, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Palace Hotel Room Key c1935.jpg[edit]

A tag has been placed on File:Palace Hotel Room Key c1935.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.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:10, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Centpacrr.jpg[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Centpacrr.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:20, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:CPRR Button 1867.jpg[edit]

A tag has been placed on File:CPRR Button 1867.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.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:23, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:South Philadelphia Sports Complex c1972.jpg[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:South Philadelphia Sports Complex c1972.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:36, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Robertson Aircraft Corporation Logo.jpg[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Robertson Aircraft Corporation Logo.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:38, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:CPRR Button 1867.jpg[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:CPRR Button 1867.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:40, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trestle[edit]

The images you added to Trestle#Steel trestles of City Point Trestle in Belfast ME are not images of a trestle. If this bridge is known locally as a trestle, it is most likely because it replaced a former trestle. The bridge is clearly a truss bridge#Warren truss, specifically, a deck truss. It does not have any of the defining characteristics of a truss, most notably, a series of bent (structural)s supporting the bridge from the ground. Your pictures may well be appropriate illustrations for Warren Truss bridges, but they do not contribute usefully to the Trestle article.Douglas W. Jones (talk) 04:47, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anaheim Stadium[edit]

I like it, great job! The big "A" is a lot more defined now, which is great. Thanks! Delaywaves ^talk 16:00, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Franz Joseph I of Austria[edit]

Centpacrr, thank you very much for helping me with that photo and the signature. You did a flawless job there. I really appreciate it. Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 00:13, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're more than welcome. Centpacrr (talk) 00:17, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Commodore Matthew Calbraith Perry[edit]

Yet again you helped me. It's very good to see a Wikipedian like you here. Thank you very much, Centpacrr, you're great. Regards. P.S.: Not trying to bother even more, but could you trim the margin of the picture? --Lecen (talk) 12:14, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I've cropped the margin of the .png version of the file. Centpacrr (talk) 18:32, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now it's perfect! Thank you very much! --Lecen (talk) 20:51, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hendrix Mug[edit]

Thanks for your support of keeping this properly tagged FU image. I just wanted to let you know that I've all but given up on uploading FU images of any sort, with mugshots being the last bastion that it still attacked (usually through the NFCC#8 argument). I uploaded the image two years ago; but now, after tiring of arguing endlessly with the image deletionists, I try to stick to unarguably free images. Like this mugshot of Al Capone or this one of Whitey Bulger: only because they're from a Federal agency are they able to be tagged as "free" by WP standards. A state or local agency? Depends on the state (or country, in Hendrix's case). I've uploaded all kinds of FU images, both mugshots and not, all tagged appropriately - and about 1% of the ones I've uploaded survive because of arguments like the horridly worded and vague NFCC#8 gutting them from those who think text can describe any and everything. Anyhoo, Cheers :> Doc talk 07:23, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome Doc. Unfortunately WP is populated by a relatively small but industrious cabal of "deletionists" who spend their lives trying to undo and wipe out the contributions of others based on their narrow personal interpretations of "policy and guidelines" instead of attempting to help build the project, and a small cadre of determined admins who believe that the powers they have been entrusted with by the community give them the unfettered right to act as the "masters" of all other editors as opposed to serving the needs of those who volunteer their time and efforts in good faith to grow and improve the encyclopedia for the benefit of all. It is this kind of attitude that eventually tends to drive many of those good editors away from the project altogether. The result is to pablumize its content and thus reduce it to the lowest common denominator. The problem with WP:NFCC#8 is although it is completely subjective it is nonetheless often cited as gospel by these deletionists and their like minded admins even when applied in the face of common sense. Centpacrr (talk) 01:36, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, at least the deletion discussion for that particular image was closed and the image stays (for now) - we must fight on where we are needed next. Proper tagging, proper sourcing, proper FU rationale: if these requirements are fully met in good faith and images like these still get whacked... NFCC#8 is the only place left to go. Yuck! Cheers :> Doc talk 06:37, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you think getting properly sourced and used FU images whacked is bad, just take a look at this foolishness! Centpacrr (talk) 06:51, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Barn Starr[edit]

This is a non-award, as you don't accept awards. :) As regards your self-portrait, I really don't see where the problem is, and the admin has clammed up. I'm not necessarily going to "advise" you to take it to WP:ANI, but if you truly don't get it, as I don't, maybe someone there could provide an answer. Alternatively, you could run the question by someone like Hammersoft or Delta, who are among the most prominent image deletionists, and they might have a clue about it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:12, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note Bugs. There is actually nothing at all wrong with my image as it was created in exactly the same way hundreds of other self portraits on WP were all of which are licensed as "free" with the subjects of the portraits as the copyright holders. If you read the thread "Four improperly deleted free image files" further up on this admin's talk page it will pretty much answer your question as to why I am being subjected to this particular bit of Admin abuse at the hands of this sysop and his fellow admin User:SchuminWeb. I will give him one more day to respond to my question and then will take it to ANI. Centpacrr (talk)19:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's why I said I don't see where the problem is. Or maybe I should say, I don't see why the admin has a problem with it. Good luck at ANI. No guarantees of success there, but it's worth a try. If it were me, first I would run it by Delta or someone else who is an image-watcher. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:15, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you really must know, I'm not responding to your posts because you arrogantly dismissed what I told you and re-asked the same questions I just tried to answer for you. Seriously, I have better things to do with my time than to shout at a brick wall. Here is what should have happened: after I closed the WP:PUF discussions, you could have politely requested clarification of my closing rationale, which I would have been happy to give to you. Had you disagreed with that rationale, then you should have proceeded to initiate a WP:DRV discussion. Instead, I get slammed with a wall of text, allegations/personal attacks directed at SchuminWeb, and an jaw-dropping amount of misinterpretation regarding our copyright policies. From the get-go, you persistently, and forcefully demanded responses from me with new posts, literally every 12 hours, even after I explained my closing rationale to you; imo, this is harassment. If you simply cannot accept my closing rationale, fine, take it to WP:DRV, but please, stop bothering me. I'm done here. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 23:39, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point me to where you explained why the Schumin picture is allowed but the Centpacrr picture is not? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:54, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly my point, Bugs. That is the question I asked and it has never been answered. The reason for that, I must assume, is because it isn't different, and that the real reason the image was deleted most likely was punitive because I was persistent in asking for an answer to my question that has never been provided. Perhaps I might get an answer if I put up one of those other self images on the "possibly un-free" forums as a comparison and see if it survives. Centpacrr (talk) 00:13, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When you uploaded it, did you use the exact same license/permission wording as the Schumin picture has? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:01, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bugs, the language I included in my image's summary was actually far more detailed as to when, where, and how the picture of me was created including that it had been taken at my request, using my camera, under my direction and control ("point the camera at me and push the button"), that since taken the original file had and still has never been out of my sole possession, and that it had never been used in print or on the internet anywhere other than on my WP userpage. Also many of the hundreds of similar files in the Wikipedia:Facebook Directory licensed as "free" (and in which the subjects of each of the pictures are accepted as the copyright holders) do not include any of that detail as to how they were created. Centpacrr (talk) 07:06, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) I will say this, if I may. I've dealt with lots of image deletionists, from both mighty admin to regular schmoe. Of the admins I've encountered that work in this area (which is, IMHO, one of the toughest and most necessary jobs here, with random idiots uploading copyrighted images every minute), Fastily has been by far the most level-headed and fair admin that I've encountered. YMMV. Jus' sayin'... Doc talk 06:04, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not speaking here as to how this admin has dealt with any other image files, only this one which has been treated differently than all other similarly created files and which he has refused to state why, despite multiple requests, it has been so dealt with. If there is some rationale for that difference, it has never been provided. Centpacrr (talk) 07:06, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That was my recollection also. That's why, if it were me, I would run it by Delta, who's a famous deletionist, and see what he has to say. Based on experience, I'm fairly sure he would answer the question that Centpacrr is asking. I would ask Delta myself, but it's not my place to do that. Centpacrr can manage his argument himself. I'm free to give advice, though. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:19, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have already asked User:Mackensen who has been an admin since 2004 and has also served WP on the Arbitration Committee, as a CheckUser, had Oversight permissions, and as a member of the Wikimedia Foundation's Ombudsman commission, for his advice and guidance in this matter in a posting on his talk page entitled "A question about the licensing of self images". Centpacrr (talk) 07:06, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:08, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bugs, you are free to add your "two cents" to my posting on Mackensen's talk page if you care to. Centpacrr (talk) 07:32, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are at least 2 different photos of you in Google images. If they won't let you use the one, is there anything stopping you from using the other one? Also, do you have the "original" of either photo? Assuming they are digital, if you upload them with the metadata intact, I don't see how they could yelp. (Though it's hard to think of everything deletionists might do.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:13, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and I am also the only one who has the original digital files of the images. However it is also now a moot question as I have already "blanked" my Centpacrr "user page" where they resided and am in the process of going "silent" as a registered WP contributor. After more than five years of active and uninterrupted contributing to the project, I am no longer willing to put up the all the unnecessary aggravation of the ancillary mishegas that goes with it.

Thanks for the support in this, Bugs, but I expect that no matter what image I put back up it would just get whacked again as these deletions were not actually based on either policy or "common practice" but were instead "punitive" because I was too persistent in making my case. I don't have the cards (i.e., administrative tools) here and am not willing to go down either the ANI or DRV routes as I expect that those would be fruitless exercises as well no matter what the merits. I suppose I could propose the SchuminWeb image file as "possibly un-free" and force them to establish a precedent for such images, but I am sure they would come up with another reason why that one is "free" and mine is not.

I don't really feel like doing another Don Quixote run against the tide as the outcome will be the same so I've decided it's time for me to just move on to other things and bid WP adieu. Centpacrr (talk) 12:22, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, it's your decision to make. I also was getting the drift of a "punitive" aspect to this situation, and it's not right. And you're right, nominating Schumin's pic would likely result in a claim of "pointiness" (which, obviously, it would be - but it would be a good point). I hope you can get back to wikipedia eventually. Sometimes I get seriously irritated with this place, and I just stop editing for awhile. A "vacation" can be helpful. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:51, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Bugs. I will probably edit Wikipedia again sometime in the future but will do so quietly and strictly anonymously. Centpacrr (talk) 12:58, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Follow up comment: I am wondering if it would also be "pointy and disruptive" (as another admin predicted some might consider it) to question the copyright status of the the image File:Ben Schumin meets Jimbo Wales, 06-13-2011.jpg which User:SchuminWeb lists himself as the source ("Own work") and gives as the justification "(my camera, taken for me, so close enough)"? For other examples of similar image file copyright "violations" by this user see here, here, here, here, and here.
I consider this to be a serious question of principle as User:SchuminWeb is also the admin who has been wikistalking and/or "eldering" me for months about copyright issues of image files both of mine and others about which I have commented in FFD and PUF discussions. And again this is exactly the kind of administrative hypocrisy, abuse, and overtly disparate treatment that has soured me on WP. Centpacrr (talk) 08:02, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Broad Street Bullies Interview (HBO).jpg listed for deletion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Broad Street Bullies Interview (HBO).jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Sreejith K (talk) 05:40, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Stanley Cup Finals[edit]

Have you uploaded any of the Cup presentation photos? Much as I'm sure it pains you, as your Flyers lost, it could be a nifty addition to the article. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:10, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would have, but the pics were taken from the TV booth five stories above the ice and thus are really too far away and indistinct to be particularly useful. Centpacrr (talk) 10:24, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, even the thumbnail versions looked interesting to me. But if you don't like the quality, I can understand your not wanting to upload any of them. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:08, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tweak?[edit]

Tweak? You reinserted a whole bunch of images that you removed in indignation two weeks prior. Interesting twist on the word "tweak". And you wonder why some folks go nutty to give you grief? Sure, we can point the finger at them and suggest they find something better to do with their time, but it seems to me that you share the blame by inviting it with your seemingly habitual duplicity. Just sayin... JBarta (talk) 00:45, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe he was indignant then and is unindignant now. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:57, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

His motivation for removing and replacing the images aside, my point was that instead of saying something like "add images to gallery" in the edit summary after adding back his images, he chose the word "tweak". JBarta (talk) 01:40, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Really? With respect, "habitual duplicity" seems to me to be an unduly harsh and over-reaching charge to make with regard to a one word summary on a single edit when summaries are not even required at all. At least I used an actual word whereas some editors (such as the admin who deleted my userpage image) "habitually" use only single letters as summaries, and you (as do I and countless other editors) sometimes provide nothing at all. So "Just sayin..." Centpacrr (talk) 02:25, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The gallery images, by the way, that I had earlier removed and then later decided to reinsert were all contributed to WP by me. Centpacrr (talk) 02:50, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reminded of a line from All About Eve... "Is it possible - even conceivable -that you've confused me with that gang of backward children you've been playing tricks on - that you have the same contempt for me that you have for them?" At any rate, I've said my piece. Carry on... JBarta (talk) 02:59, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you have left me completely confused now as to what point you are trying to make. Again with respect, however, I can't say that I much appreciate being charged with "habitual duplicity" which I reject outright. Such a characterization does not seem to comport much with an assumption of good faith so please be more careful with your words in the future. Centpacrr (talk) 03:30, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, it doesn't comport much with an assumption of good faith. JBarta (talk) 03:51, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I gather then that this is meant as a postmodernist view of "duplicity" in which there are no absolutes and thus everything is "open to interpretation". While I will note that for future reference, I still ask you to be more careful with your words in the future as they can also be open to misinterpretation as well. Centpacrr (talk) 04:09, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A request[edit]

Hi, Centpacrr. Thanks for helping me out with that Lincoln photo. I already added to its article. You've been helping me quite a lot lately and I hope you won't min if I make a request. There are three pictures which are being used in Featured Articles I wrote that I believe could be improved:

This is a painting of Emperor Pedro II of Brazil. I might be mistaken, but I always had the feeling that there is something wrong about it. I don't know if it's the lightning, color, etc... Since you're an expert, if you believe that there is something that can be done about it, that would be good.
This one is a daguerreotype of Pedro II. My only real issue with it is that it looks too bright, don't you think so? Could it be fixed? If yes, could you create a frameless version with translucid background of it and copy to this other file?
Now this one is a daguerreotype of Pedro II's wife, Teresa Cristina. My complain about it it's that the picture is clearly a low quality scan. Could you do something about it? Is yes, could you also create a frameless version with translucid background and copy to here?

I don't want you to remove scratches or anything that came from the real picture (I want to keep the "old" feeling from them), but only fix any issues that came from poor scan. Also, don't feel obliged to do it, in case you're too busy or you simply don't want to, ok? Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 05:58, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will be happy to help if I can. Give me a little time to evaluate the images and see what I can do. Centpacrr (talk) 14:13, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have now tweaked all three images as requested, I have tried to improve the sharpness a bit on the Teresa Cristina but if I push it too much it will introduce undesirable artifacts that will defeat the purpose of this process so the real solution is to rescan the original at a higher resolution. Please take a look at all three and let me know if this is what you were looking for. Centpacrr (talk) 16:28, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, that wasn't what I was looking for. The color was changed too much, I don't know. I'm going to try to scan an improved version of each and if it still isn't ok, I'll come back here and ask your help again. But thank you very much. You've been kind as always. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 17:33, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another request[edit]

The recent thread at the Graphics Lab reminded me of a past image which I shelved for months because of lack of time and color correction skills. I have no any attachment to this image (quickfixed because it was about to be featured on the main page then), but as I recall, there was no worthy substitute to this historical painting on the web. Wikipedia-wise, it would be great if you could apply your skills to this image. If you fix it, please upload over my poor version, for interwiki sake. Regards. Materialscientist (talk) 00:59, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not exactly sure what you wanted me to do to this painting but I've done the best I can with it. Unfortunately it is not a terribly high resolution image so that limits what can be done. I've added a little tint to his forehead, brought out some detail in the background, his right hand, and the detail of his coat under his left elbow. I've also increased the saturation of the picture a bit but unfortunately I don't have access to the original of the painting so I don't know how close I have come to the original color tone. I hope this has been helpful. Centpacrr (talk) 01:46, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for trying. Yes, lack of the original is a problem, and my goal was just to make it look reasonable. When I edited it, I wasn't concerned with the background and suit, but the overly red wrists, and color and balance of the face worried me (also green hair). Therefore, I reduced the saturation, and was satisfied with the left (and maybe right) wrist, but not with the face color. One problem is this is not a photograph, and many artists used odd color balance. Tricky - which is why I have asked you. Materialscientist (talk) 01:58, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have tweaked the image a bit more to reduce the excessive red in his face and hands. Centpacrr (talk) 02:34, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, those edits were a significant improvement. I couldn't resist to tweak it a bit - perhaps because of my taste or monitor settings. Materialscientist (talk) 09:05, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note[edit]

Congratulations on getting your picture back. It's a nifty shot. I'm curious about something. A somewhat younger you is drinking from the Stanley Cup. (1) What was in it? and (2) I chuckled as I recalled a Sports Illustrated article from a few years back, about the custom of taking the Stanley Cup from player to player, and the writer commenting, upon seeing someone drinking from it, "God only knows whose lips have been on that thing." :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:55, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note, Bugs. I particularly liked the reasons given for restoring the image as being "per overwhelming consensus and pure common sense". (That judgment is enough to make me stay around.) By the time the Stanley Cup got to me in that crowded Flyers' lockerroom in 1974 in the now demolished Spectrum (a building in which I spent more than 10,000 hours in attending over 2,000 events between 1967 and 2009) the beverage was beer as I recall but it still tasted just fine! Since hockey was first played professionally in Philadelphia in 1927 there have only been seven games played in the city at which a championship Cup was awarded at the end and I was at six of them. (The only one I "missed" was in 1936 which was before I was born.) The many "adventures" (and joyous abuse) that the Cup has "endured" in its history, however, go far beyond the mere drinking from it. Centpacrr (talk) 02:17, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, so you must have seen Kate Smith perform "God Bless America", yes? What an unusual situation that was, with her being a "good luck charm". Do the Flyers still have that statue of Kate that they commissioned? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:34, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was there for all four times that she sang "God Bless America" live at the Spectrum between 1973 and 1976. The statue of her, which used to stand on the South side of the Spectrum, is currently in storage until they decide where to put it. Centpacrr (talk) 02:45, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome. Did you get a chance to meet her? As regards the statue, do the Flyers have a Hall of Fame or anything of that nature? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:53, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I did meet her. The Flyers have a "Hall of Fame" for players but it is not a physical Hall per se, just banners with their names on them hanging over the ice. You can also see a short video segment I did about her statue for FlyersBuzzTV in 2009 here. Centpacrr (talk) 03:08, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks man[edit]

You (and the graphics peeps in general) are studhorses. No barnie for you since you are so flipping proud. I appreciate ya though, man.

TCO (talk) 17:54, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I also lightened up the portrait for you as it was pretty dark. Centpacrr (talk) 17:56, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

original uploader[edit]

I see again you mention the alteration of files. I suppose you already know this, but I figured I'd mention it just to be clear. Once a file is uploaded to commons, it can be altered in any way by anyone. The original uploader retains no rights other than those defined in the license. Of course, if you wish to refrain from altering certain images for your own personal reasons, that's fine. Just remember that's just your own personal policy, it's not a Wikimedia Commons policy and has no effect on anyone but you. JBarta (talk) 23:20, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

INS Ganga.jpg[edit]

FYI, you missed the circular watermark in the center. JBarta (talk) 22:45, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas[edit]

Well, my friend, I'd like to wish you a Merry Christmas and a happy New Year. Keep up with the good job you're doing at the Graphic Lab. I hope we'll talk more next year. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 23:08, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Lecen, and the same to you sir. My pleasure. Centpacrr (talk) 23:30, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Season's tidings![edit]

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:12, 25 December 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you, see here. Centpacrr (talk) 03:20, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Winter Classic[edit]

Looks like you had a press-box view of the action. :) Was it very cold there, or fairly mild for January? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:35, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Bugs and Happy New Year. I was in the NBC Sports booth right next to the main game camera which was directly behind home plate to the left of the press box. It was windy and chilly (upper 30s) but I was well protected and just a few steps away from media "mess hall" and coffee pots so I was in good shape all around. Because to the time change for the start of the game (from 1 to 3 pm), we had two hours to "fill" before the game itself started so I was at my post for five hours. It has been very mild here so far, however, with the first really seasonally cold day coming today (it is 23 right now) although it will be back up to the mid 50s again this weekend. After a record 80+ inches of snow in each of the last two years we have yet to have a single flake so far this winter. Fingers crossed for that to keep up as I did way too much shoveling last year! Centpacrr (talk) 17:53, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Outstanding. You were "in the catbird seat", as Red Barber used to say. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:04, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had some "deja vu" when I saw pages 4-5 of the new Sports Illustrated. Nearly the identical photo. Both snapped at about 3:19, apparently within a few seconds of each other. The difference being that the SI photographer was above the press level, while you were in it. Otherwise nearly the same angle. (Your picture is every bit as good. :) ) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:22, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed I did have the "catbird seat" and in addition to working on the NBC telecast of the Flyers/Rangers games took more the 700 pictures there over the week long event which also included a Flyers/Rangers alumni game on December 31 and record setting crowd AHL game on January 6. Centpacrr (talk) 14:45, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

HBO[edit]

I went looking for that 2010 HBO special about the Broad Street Bullies, and as luck would have it, the entire thing was on youtube. I just finished watching it, and oh boy did it bring back some memories. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:21, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Producer George Roy, et al, did a great job on the film. The filmed interview that George did of me lasted about an hour and a half, and I also provided him with a 33,000 word book chapter that I had written on the history of the Flyers in 1994 as my contributions to the project. I lived through that whole era and got to drink from the Stanley Cup in the Flyers lockerroom at the now departed Spectrum when they won it there on May 19, 1974, a memory I will never forget!! Glad you enjoyed the film. Centpacrr (talk) 01:40, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great stuff. To my mind, being officially titled a team historian is a great honor. :) So they filmed you for 90 minutes and used maybe less than a minute of footage. Probably the same with many of the guys on-camera. That's why they pay editors the big bucks. :) Me being an old midwesterner, it was nice to hear the occasional snippet of the late-great announcer Dan Kelly, who used to do the Blues and also the national telecasts. It was funny seeing Dave Schultz beating up on Keith Magnuson, who the Blackhawks had brought in as their own designated goon. Keith drew a lot of penalty minutes too, but he didn't have nearly the kind of uplifting effect on the Hawks that Schultz did for the Flyers. I'll just mention that I didn't much care for either the Bruins or the Canadiens (especially the Canadiens), so I followed the Blackhawks during the regular season, such as they were, and enjoyed the Flyers when they pursued the Cup. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:54, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also appeared as the Flyers historian in another longer film made earlier by NHL Productions and released in 2007 for the Flyers 40th anniversary season entitled NHL: History of the Philadelphia Flyers in which I am seen much more than in the the HBO movie in both the hour and a half main feature as well as in the "Bonus Features" section entitled "Personal Stories". (Click on the "Scenes" tab on the linked page to see the DVD's menu.) You may find this of interest as well as it covers the history of the team through 2007 whereas the HBO film concentrates primarily on the period from 1967 to 1975. Centpacrr (talk) 06:14, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, that's worth looking into. Thank you! I was wondering about something else... do you consider yourself a historian of other Philly sports, or is it primarily hockey? I'm asking because the Shibe Park article is being pushed for GA status, and it could use some help. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:52, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am primarily a hockey historian (you can read some of my writings at my personal hockey history site HockeyScoop.net), although I did used to go to Phillies games at Shibe Park/Connie Mack Stadium, and as a kid lived just down the street from and knew both Robin Roberts and Curt Simmons. Centpacrr (talk) 19:01, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image cleanup notices[edit]

Hi! A small reminder about image cleanup notices: after you have fixed a specific issue with an image, also look for and remove a notice template requesting that fix (e.g. {{Opaque}}), if one exists. For {{Watermark}}, it is also customary to replace it with {{Watermark removed}}, rather than remove it, unless the image is in the public domain. Here's a list of almost all such notices. These templates usually place files in the Category:Images needing cleanup, where the Eight Requests images in the GL are taken from. —Quibik (talk) 23:01, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to mention the same thing. After you remove a watermark from a commons image, just change {{watermark}} to {{watermark removed}} like so. – JBarta (talk) 14:23, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A request[edit]

Centpacrr, I'd like to ask you a favor. Please take a look at this painting. Is there anyway you could change the background (tone, colour, I don't know) and allow the character's hair to be actually visible? I don't want you to change anything at all on the person despicted, just the background. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 20:57, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lecen, have a look at this version. Shows his hair well. You mentioned this version yourself when you first sought to improve this image. – JBarta (talk) 21:37, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know, but that's not the same painting. It was made by another painter, but obvioulsy as a copy of this one. It has also a much lower quality than the picture I want to use. --Lecen (talk) 00:26, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done Centpacrr (talk) 23:00, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Centpacrr, thank you very much. That was precisely what I was looking for. If you don't mind, could do the same with this other version of it? --Lecen (talk) 00:26, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done and ready for use. Centpacrr (talk) 01:26, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's almost perfect. Could you make the black areas in his uniform darker? --Lecen (talk) 01:36, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Doing so removes detail but I've made a little darker. Centpacrr (talk) 01:44, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Would be too hard to cut only the person shown by taking it from an older version like this one and paste it over the new background? Even if it itaks time, please do it. There is no hurry. --Lecen (talk) 02:14, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the request. Centpacrr (talk) 02:28, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Centpacrr, I'm sorry. I wasn't clear enough. It's because the image of Emperor Pedro I doesnt look good. Too bright. I wanted it look like this coupled with the new background you made. Lastly, I saw you made his brown hair mroe bright on the other image. There is no need for that. You also forgot to change the color of the dark are below his chin (that's his beard as you can see here). Regards, --Lecen (talk) 13:42, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've darkened the overall image by 10%, added a brown overlay to the beard, further darkened and partially desaturated the hair, and reduced the greens of the background. While this is what you've asked for, I don't think this now as accurately reflects the true gamma of the original painting so I am unwilling to alter this any further. Centpacrr (talk) 16:25, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for having taken so long to reply. What I'm trying to say is that I don't want any change made to Emperor Pedro I. I wanted him to look like in http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/a/a3/20120116012427%21Dom_Pedro_Duke_of_Braganza.jpg this previous version] but with the newer background you made. Is that possible? No change to the person depicted, only to the background. Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 03:45, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As it is now Pedro is not materially changed from the original. Also be advised the en.Wikipedia will be taken "off line" (along with many other web sites) for the next 24 hours (starting at Midnight EST) in protest of the SOPA bill now being considered in the US Congress. Centpacrr (talk) 04:31, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:FNR.Triremis.RomanEmpire.BCE31.SvenLittkowski.001.jpg[edit]

I think you should also remove the smaller watermark underneath the boat in File:FNR.Triremis.RomanEmpire.BCE31.SvenLittkowski.001.jpg. Cheers, Quibik (talk) 17:44, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work[edit]

Nice job of watermark removal with the Petra Kvitova images. -- James26 (talk) 02:11, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you and you're welcome. Centpacrr (talk) 02:45, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TCO's boy image[edit]

Please take it easy - we all have our views on how to "improve" an image, and all are stubborn to some degree :-). My issue with blue background is it is more of an artwork, whereas TCO is working on a reality article, i.e. the image is a factual evidence of a medical procedure. Materialscientist (talk) 03:41, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just altered the illustration the way I understood that TCO, the original requester, asked it to be changed in order to best illustrate what he wanted to show. I then posted what I thought he asked for and told TCO that he should feel free to reject it if it did not suit him. As TCO is the original requester and the only person in the conversation with a history of developing the article (in which I have no personal interest), all I have said is that TCO should have the final say as to what best serves the purpose he is trying to achieve. Whatever he picks is fine with me, and I have no problem at all if any other editors disagree with my approach. I do, however, object when that is done so disrespectfully and without assuming good faith on my or any other editor's part. This is not a competition, and there is really no place for personal attacks such as those made by JBarta. Those I will not accept. Centpacrr (talk) 04:05, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

JBarta is well known to be rough, but he doesn't mean it (and nagualdesign knows that and takes his comments accordingly). Those are usual chats of old stubborn image tweakers, who don't want to have their work wasted (and thus push their version up, even if the're not sure it is better :-). Cheers. Materialscientist (talk) 04:22, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment. The problem is that many other people read these threads and do not know the context of the negative comments of such users as JBarta especially when made behind a wall of almost complete anonymity. (His/her userpage provides virtually no usefull information as to who this user is.) Just because this user is "rough" does not mean that this is acceptable behavior and I therefore do not intend to let any such gratuitous remarks pass unchallenged. I have never had much use for "schoolyard bullies" and have always believed that ignoring such behavior only encourages them to do it again and again. Respect and the assumption of good faith is not a one way street, and in order for this (or any other) user to deserve it then they must be willing to practice it as well. If not then he or she can expect to be called out on it by me each and every time it is missing in his dealings with me. Centpacrr (talk) 04:45, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I've spent only little time at the Graphics Lab here and noticed that all regulars have their own quirks, but it is easy to get used to them. JBarta does appreciate your skills and dedication, but pushes you to "look at other sides" of a problem which he sees more important; for example, consider the image together with the article it is used for - not as artwork, but as a tool to illustrate a certain idea. Users are a separate matter. Many will take anything you do, and some will make you sweat until they get what they want. I can tell from my experience that separate versions are not wasted - when I expand some article I look for all relevant images on Commons and take anything I find better, so do other editors, across different language wikis. There is no article ownership, and in some articles, the front image changes every few months. Materialscientist (talk) 05:20, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am perfectly happy to discuss disagreements in approach with any editor, but I also expect to addressed respectfully and not be "eldered". I only took a look at this image because the first version (made by JBarts) was rejected by the requester. When I attempted to fulfill the original request the JBarta posted "Peachy, now the little black boy is a little quadroon. Centpacrr, do you ever just decide an image is good just as it is, or do you have the uncontrollable urge to fiddle with every single one that passes within reach?" which I found to be a totally unacceptable approach and lacking in good faith. This sort of tone is just never going to work with me. Centpacrr (talk) 06:09, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it is easy to handle such posts/editors, because it is clear they are not to be taken literally. I sort of read that at another level. With all their quirks, Graphics Lab people are true wikipedians and do mean well, i.e. they might say something, but never do anything nasty (reverting your upload is probably the worst, and it is still not the end of the day - can always upload as a separate image). Materialscientist (talk) 06:27, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, but engaging in this kind of snarky banter is still not a game I am really interested to playing along with. I have done digital image restoration work professionally for many years (here is my website) and have also had seven books published (three on ice hockey, four on railroad history) which are also both topics on which I contribute to Wikipedia. I would rather spend the time and effort I donate to WP actually contributing to its content rather than engaging in endless circular debates and sparring with such editors which takes away from my doing constructive work and helping to build the project. Thanks for your support, however, as well as your reasoned explanations. But if JBarta and others are interested in engaging in constructive discourse with me on these issues they are just going to have to drop the posturing and sarcasm. Centpacrr (talk) 07:30, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The "ice cream makes everything better" appreciation note
Centpacrr, all else aside and in all seriousness, I do think you're an excellent graphist who does good and valuable work around here. I'm not apologizing, I'm not asking for forgiveness, I'm not turning over a new leaf and I'm not taking anything back. I'm just offering an honest and well-deserved compliment and an ice cream. Enjoy.

– JBarta (talk) 07:54, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The deadly element thanks you![edit]

	text-graphics partnership award
	Thank you for the graphics support for Fluorine, a high view article with importance to industry and schoolchildren TCO (Reviews needed) 03:50, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

archiving[edit]

Hi Centpacrr. There really is no reason to manually archive requests as you did here. The automated DyceBot does it on a regular basis. While there may not be an actual "rule" prohobiting such, I would suggest archiving (or even "resolving") too soon removes the discussion without giving a chance for other editors to weigh in. Further, I would argue that this is especially inappropriate when there is some disagreement going on and you're one of the participants. As you would probably argue yourself, it's not a contest, it's a discussion with anyone and everyone given ample chance to weight in. – JBarta (talk) 08:41, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More images to edit, if you are interested[edit]

Hi again, Centpacrr! As it seems you enjoy doing the "Eight Requests" cleanups quite a bit, I thought you could be interested in helping out with even some more images. As you might have noticed, all of the images I add are taken from Commons:User:Quibik/Files by viewcounts (that's images with cleanup needed, sorted by total pageviews on articles that use them), which in turn are taken from Commons:Category:Images for cleanup (English wiki has got this category too). So, whenever you have exhausted all images at Eight Requests, you are encouraged to work on any images from either of these places. All the best, Quibik (talk) 13:27, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A note about some of your watermark removals[edit]

About these three images: File:John Cena 2010 Tribute to the Troops (1).jpg, File:Dolhp Ziggler 2010 Tribute to the Troops.jpg, File:Jack Swagger Tribute to the Troops 2010.jpg. I believe you would agree, that an edited image should actually look better than the original. I cannot say, however, that a black rectangle is in any way an improvement over a watermark. Please do not edit just for the sake of editing. —Quibik (talk) 18:37, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about here. Centpacrr (talk) 19:11, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In case you can't see what I meant, you can take a look at the files' histories. I hope you didn't take offence at my comment – you are doing very good work otherwise, these three images are just an exception. —Quibik (talk) 19:55, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely do not see whatever you claim to see nor do the files histories tell me anything. I did not remove the watermarks (which you can barely see to begin with) with a "black rectangle" but by cloning a similar section of the image. With respect this seems to be nitpicking in the extreme. Centpacrr (talk) 20:43, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Uh... this, bottom left corner (your own upload) is what I'm talking about. There isn't even any cloning going on in there. —Quibik (talk) 21:37, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to pile on here, but not only do I agree with Quibik above, I'm finding your incessant image "improvements" a little harmful. It really does seem as if you cannot pass near a file without messing with the colors, brightness, saturation, etc. Here are two recent examples 1, 2. In both cases, you felt the need to not only fix whatever needs to be fixed, but then you alter the image so it's now worse than when you got it. Seriously Centpacrr, chill out a little. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. – JBarta (talk) 20:53, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you? Centpacrr (talk) 21:09, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does it matter? Honestly, I, too, would say that quite a few of your uploads could do without the additional modifications, which tend to be either unnecessary or overdone. Though, I would find it much less of an issue, if you at least uploaded theses modifications separately. —Quibik (talk) 21:37, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes actually it does. I find it very difficult to accurately evaluate and, quite honestly, to give much credence to the public comments, judgements, and/or other critiques (personal or otherwise) made to and about the contributions, approaches, and values of others that are made by those who choose to do so while sequestering themselves behind a wall of complete anonymity. After all, Wikipedia policy is to insist that the "facts" and "views" added to its articles be verifiably "sourced" and "attributed" in order to be considered reliable. So yes it does matter to me, and this is why I have created a detailed Wikipedia userpage about myself that provides anyone who wishes to evaluate my contributions and views -- and discuss them with me -- a factual basis on which to do so. I believe that this is a courtesy that I owe to the Wikipedia community (i.e., to know where I am "coming from") if I expect its other members to take my contributions and views seriously. This to me is, in fact, the very essence of any successful "community" of editors (which is how the Wikipedia Project describes its universe of contributors), especially if the encyclopedia they jointly produce is expected to be viewed as a creditable source for its readers.

Anonymously made comments thus don't really mean much to me. In fact I expect that anonymous posting is a significant contributing factor to much of the toxicity that crops up in the interactions among editors in Wikipedia that would never occur otherwise if people had to identify themselves. (Another example is how drivers treat others on the road when protected by the anonymity of their own vehicles and thus feel free to ignore the strictures of civilized society and behave in ways and do things that they would never do to others face to face.) Others are, of course, free to disagree, but in the spirit of openness and forthrightness, they should understand this is how I operate within the community and interact with its other members -- i.e., openly and identifiably.

That being said, as for my approach to images, unless a specific kind of editing to an illustration has been requested by a poster such as with this file or this file, I do not actually add (or remove) any digital "information" that is not already there, I just try to bring out darker (or sometimes lighter) portions of the scene that would be clearly visible to the naked eye but are lost in an untreated digital or photographic image because of the far more limited dynamic range of a CCD (or film) and thus are relatively under (or sometimes over) exposed. Whether or not such modifications are necessary or unnecessary; underdone or overdone; or good, bad, or indifferent is all subjective and in the eye of each individual beholder. If the consensus of the community disagrees with something I have done as to a particular image, it is, of course, also free to change it. I make no personal claims of either ownership or infallibility, and I presume all agree that neither should anybody else. Centpacrr (talk) 01:57, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Belated thanks[edit]

Thanks for sorting out File:Wool Exchange, Bradford 045.jpg. Much appreciated. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hindenburg[edit]

As you're a regular I wil refrain from templating you, but when you make a revert like this one you put yourself firmly in the wrong. WP:RETAIN recommends keeping the language version of the article that it was written in, in this case clearly British English. In addition, your edit restored numerous other problems with the article (a spelling error, some overlinking, some unreferenced material). Please be more careful. Thanks, --John (talk) 06:31, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Before you jump to unsupported conclusions about the historic formatting of the LZ 129 Hindenburg page, you should understand that I have been editing and building it over a period of many years and have contributed more original text and illustrations to it by far than any other editor with 291 total edits whereas you have apparently edited it just 19 times with most of those coming in 2008 or earlier. As for the international associations related to the airship itself, it was built to provide transoceanic passenger service between Germany, the United States, and South America and not to any Commonwealth country, and you will also notice that the date formatting under which it was established on June 6, 2002 (and has used for most of its history) was M/D/Y ("On May 6, 1937 at 19:25 the German zeppelin Hindenburg caught fire and was utterly destroyed within a minute while attempting to dock...") and not D/M/Y that you have changed it to. Your claims that the article has traditionally been maintained in "British English" are therefore simply not correct and are not supported by the article's history. Please therefore be more careful in the future. Centpacrr (talk) 07:21, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now I see where your misunderstanding lies. I am talking about British English the dialect and spelling variant, not the dmy date convention. The latter needs I think to be challenged at project talk as it seems the consensus there is to use dmy. The spelling issue is a different one and if you think about it and take a look you will see that I am right. My comment about being careful not to blind-revert still stands. --John (talk) 07:40, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

datestamp removal[edit]

Hi Centpacrr. I noticed that in some watermark removals you did, you changed {{watermark}} to {{watermark removed}}. That's good. But to do that for a datestamp essentially places an inaccurate tag on the description page. "Watermark removed" states "Attribution information, such as the author's name, e-mail, website, or signature, that was once visible in the image itself". In this example no such attribution information was removed or moved. Only the date was removed. So, if you remove an attribution watermark, use "watermark removed" (and make sure the attribution info is in the description). If you remove a datestamp, just remove "watermark" (and put the photo date in the description if you think it's pertinent) – JBarta (talk) 18:50, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

eight requests[edit]

Can I make a small request? Would you please mark as done each of the eight requests as you complete them. It's getting to be a minor annoyance to click on image after image only to see you have already done it and will get around to marking them "done" sometime later when it suits you. It's a small small annoyance, yes... but a truly needless one. Thank you. – JBarta (talk) 19:11, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Watermark removed" template[edit]

A super-minor request about {{watermark removed}} templates: would you please place them below {{information}} or the license rather than on the top. The content of {{watermark removed}} is rather unimportant to most users and editors, so it probably should not be the first item on the page. —Quibik (talk) 14:58, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My practice has been simply add the word "removed" to the existing {{watermark}} template html wherever it already happens to be placed. Centpacrr (talk) 15:05, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I presumed too. Just cut & paste it to some other place afterwards. —Quibik (talk) 19:48, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GEN Poe, Bryce II.jpg[edit]

I'm actually kinda glad you lightened it. It looks better that way. After I got done with the minor repairs I did a some levels adjusting because it seemed too washed out. After I uploaded it though, I really wasn't liking it. I'm glad you made that change. (enjoy those words because I don't say that to you very often ;-) – JBarta (talk) 22:45, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you sir. In the 1970s I was a Captain and active air search and rescue pilot in the Civil Air Patrol and wore that uniform (Blue Shade #1549) so am quite familiar with how it looks. Centpacrr (talk) 23:06, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:The way out.jpg[edit]

Watermark remains (upper right corner). – JBarta (talk) 18:47, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops missed it, thanks. Centpacrr (talk) 19:14, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

shadows[edit]

Better, but I have to ask... what do you have against shadows? I've noticed on quite a few occasions you brighten the shadow areas of images, maybe not to the extent I feel the need to revert, but very often is unnecessary and does the image harm (IMO). Do you chalk it up to your personal subjectivity and you simply think photos look better that way? And don't take this the wrong way, but have you done any calibration checks on your monitor? Is it possible your monitor simply isn't displaying the full spectrum properly or is adjusted too dark? Sorry, I gotta ask... – JBarta (talk) 04:15, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As I have stated a number of times in here before, the dynamic range of film, CCDs, and other image recording/storage media is narrower than that of what can be perceived by the human eye when interpreted by the brain's visual cortex. This inevitably limits the range of luminosity that can be reproduced accurately in unadjusted "raw" photographic image files and results in "clipping" which, without such subsequent digital adjustment, produces images in which highlights of the subject are too bright and thus rendered as overly "white" with reduced or no detail while areas in shadow are rendered as too dark or black again resulting in the loss of detail. For photographs on WP that I work on in which that has clearly occurred (other than "artistic" images in which such narrowed gamma appears to be an element intentionally introduced by the images' creators for effect), it is my practice to adjust the gamma in areas of the image that appear to be out of dynamic range in order to make the image more closely resemble how the scene would appear when viewed "live" by the human eye. (See as examples this original unadjusted image in which, among other things, the underside of the wooden marquee is almost completely lost as compared to my adjusted image in which it is now rendered as a person standing there would see the scene, and in this unadjusted image of GTW#6039, a classic Baldwin 4-8-4 steam locomotive, in which much of its works are hidden in shadow in the original image but are visible and well defined in my adjusted image making it a far more useful illustration of the locomotive.) There is also no problem with the screen on which I view the digital image files on which I work which is a properly adjusted 1280 x 800px color LED illuminated LCD with 32-Bit color (ARGB8888) pixel depth on a 2011 MacBook Pro. Centpacrr (talk) 14:49, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A quick perusal of Wikipedia Featured pictures yields quite a few with darker shadow areas...

File:A Scene from Troilus and Cressida - Angelica Kauffmann.jpg

File:AlfredPalmerwelder1.jpg

File:Stone sculptor at work.jpg

File:HenryMoore RecliningFigure 1951.jpg

File:Junior at Darlington edit.jpg

File:KeizersgrachtReguliersgrachtAmsterdam.jpg

File:BergenHordalandNorwayVagen.jpg

File:Summer Solstice Sunrise over Stonehenge 2005.jpg

File:Hohenzollernbrücke Köln.jpg

File:ItalianMarketPhiladelphia.jpg

File:Fort Mason Center and Downtown San Francisco.jpg

File:SeattleI5Skyline.jpg

File:Fünfmastvollschiff.JPG

File:Card puncher - NARA - 513295.jpg

I would argue that a good number of them, had they passed by you, you'd have felt compelled to "fix" by brightening the dark areas and with it unfortunately, much of the rest of the image. Might I suggest two things... one, exercise restraint and subtlety when dealing with adjustments to normal images and two, if you must modestly lighten a shadow area, limit it largely to the shadow area and don't take the whole rest of the image with it. Take your time and do a "good" job. There's no glory in blowing out a bunch of images if you leave a trail of substandard work for others to check on and pick up after. I've seen your work at its best and I know you're better than some of the edits you've put forth.

My opinions, my thoughts and my suggestions, nothing more. – JBarta (talk) 02:02, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do in fact make most adjustments by carefully defined areas, not the whole image which in most cases would be counterproductive and defeat the very purpose of the process of dealing with issues caused by digital clipping. Of all the images you cited above, the only one that I would have possibly considered doing anything to with regard to adjusting its gamma would have been the one of the Italian Market at 9th and Montrose Sts in South Philadalphia. Centpacrr (talk) 02:35, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's just patently not true. The above example is a perfect case in point. You're either lying or your sense are breaking down. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and figure it's just your senses. – JBarta (talk) 02:44, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And I disagree that you'd only alter one of the above images. Your practice has been to alter most of the images you come across. Granted, you've been doing it less lately, but you still alter quite a few. More importantly, arguably quite a few unnecessarily. – JBarta (talk) 02:55, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend that in future you read what I (and others) say carefully before commenting to avoid your tendency to jump to false conclusions. Accusing me of "lying" when I try to answer your questions about how I contribute to this project is both inappropriate and false. What I said was that I make "most adjustments" (not "all") in carefully defined areas of images. I also have never claimed that there are not digital files that I do not make some adjustments to all or most of the image. The one particular image you cited (of almost 300 I have worked on in here since December) was, in fact, adjusted by different levels in a variety of areas which were separated into three discretely created layers for that purpose. In this particular case I lightened the overall image somewhat and then two different areas in shadow were lightened a good deal more then the overall image. In some images I actually lighten some areas while darkening others, and (despite your contention) there are many images I do not adjust at all.

I will give you the benefit of the doubt here and assume that you must have misread what I said above. If, however, you are going to be anonymously accusing me of "lying" when I try to explain to you my philosophy and practices of digital image editing, then that would constitute a failure on your part to assume good faith and would thus be the end of this and any future discussions between us on this topic. I know that you tend to be somewhat more colorful and dogmatic in your comments in here than most, but there are also limits to that and accusing other editors of "lying" and saying their comments are "patently not true" goes well beyond them — at least in discussions with me.

Your claim to "know" what images I would or would not adjust is really just pure speculation on your part. The only thing I would have considered altering in the Italian Market image is the shadow area under the awnings on the buildings along the east side of South 9th Street. None of the other images you cited meet any of my criteria for making adjustments in gamma, hue, color temperature, sharpness, shading, or anything else. Centpacrr (talk) 03:54, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I give up. You're beyond exasperating. You really have no idea. – JBarta (talk) 04:29, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried my best to be responsive to your inquiries and concerns, and have explained in considerable detail my philosophy of how I work with digital image files. You are, of course, free to personally agree or disagree with any of my approaches, but abjectly ignoring everything I say and instead substituting your own speculation as to my motivations, practices, and intentions followed by gratuitous charges that I therefore must be "lying" is both unhelpful and unproductive. You are clearly a dedicated digital image artist, but with respect I must also observe that I really find it difficult to have a productive discussion with you or give much credence to your comments when they continue to be made from behind a wall of complete anonymity. Centpacrr (talk) 05:24, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You've made that truly stupid statement on at least a few occasions. There is no obligation whatsoever on the part of any Wikipedia editor to divulge private or identifying information on their userpages. And you know that. But for you, this once, I will offer this... I am prohibited from publicly divulging personal or identifying information for I am in the U.S. Witness Protection Program, currently residing in New Jersey. In the not too distant past I was an enforcer and occasional assassin for a well known crime syndicate. I'll stop there because (and trust me on this) you don't want me to go any further than that. Now, can we put that silly "wall of anonymity" business to rest once and for all? – JBarta (talk) 05:46, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Break[edit]

I am perfectly aware that Wikipedia has "no obligation" for its contributors to "divulge private or identifying information on their userpages" nor have I ever claimed that I have ever contended that any WP editor has ever been required to so. What I am saying, however, is that I personally find it difficult to know for myself on what basis I should evaluate (as well as how to determine what credence I should ascribe to) comments in WP threads and discussions that are made by those who chose to remain anonymous. As for your statement that you were "an enforcer and occasional assassin for a well known crime syndicate" who is "prohibited from publicly divulging personal or identifying information" because you are "in the U.S. Witness Protection Program", with respect I have absolutely no basis on which I can evaluate whether or not I should believe that is true or false. I am at a complete loss with that one. Centpacrr (talk) 07:01, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a novel suggestion... "evaluate" editors based on their actual contributions and work within Wikipedia rather than various puffery placed on their user pages. – JBarta (talk) 07:19, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again you have apparently not carefully read (or understood) what I said above. I am not talking about evaluating "contributions" (in your case, digital image work) which is a relatively objective process, but how to give credence and thus be able to accurately evaluate and interpret the intended meaning of "comments" in threads and discussions which is a completely different process. With respect, I have no idea when you are being serious or sarcastic ("I'm a former organized crime assassin"), using hyperbole and/or litotes, or if you are simply projecting your views on to others. To be perfectly truthful, the more you have posted in here the less I know what to make of what you are saying or where you are coming from.

The only thing you reveal about yourself on your userpage is that you apparently see yourself as being a "postmodernist" and thus presumably (as that is defined there) you "see the universe as a collection of information with varying ways of putting it together. There is no absolute truth for you; even the most hardened facts are open to interpretation. Meaning relies on context and even the language you use to describe things should be subject to analysis." As a rule I assume that the things people say here are meant to be taken more or less literally (or at least not be obtuse) and that they are being offered in good faith. Your postings, however, are an increasing enigma to me if, for no other reason, they often do not seem to be responsive to what others (including myself) have posted. Therefore I don't really know what to make of your comments, or how I should be expected to take them. That is the conundrum I feel that I have been left with in this and other discussions with you. Centpacrr (talk) 14:39, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Hadji Ali[edit]

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

Your image, File:Hadji Ali demonstrating controlled regurgitation Crisco edit.jpg, was nominated on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate an image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thank you for your contribution! Makeemlighter (talk) 11:12, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]