User talk:Ilmari Karonen/archives/9

Godmode-light

I just tried installing godmode-light to my monobook.js, but it doesn't seem to do anything. I saw that godmode-light with navigation popups is a subpage of your user page, so maybe you can explain how godmode-light works and why mine doesn't seem to do anything. All my other scripts (navpops, navshortcuts, purge tab, db tabs, intro edit button) work perfectly, but none of the buttons godmode-light's supposed to add show up. Thanks, Pyrospirit ^{Flames Fire} 14:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image Editor

Hello! I've noticed some really nice images you have contributed, especially your work on the Radioactive Waste article. I was wondering what application you use to do svg editing -- I've never done so yet and would really like to learn. Thanks! Windthorst 15:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I mostly use Inkscape, which is free software. For fixing problems in SVGs created in other programs, I've also sometimes had to resort to editing the files by hand. (They're XML files, so they can be edited in a text editor.) Note that the one in Radioactive waste isn't really mine; I just translated the labels from French. The original is by Nicolas Lardot, though I believe he used Inkscape as well. For some SVG images I did draw myself, see commons:User:Ilmari Karonen/Gallery#Diagrams. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 15:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Windthorst 23:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Resynthesizer

Okay, I must admit, what you did to this image definitely had me intrigued. How exactly does this work? I'm kind of worried about the effect of manufacturing images though. Some parts of that new image are now computer-generated, rather than real. For all we know there could've been some minor (but important) detail covered up by one of the letters that has been lost. My thought is, in cases like these, maybe we should just delete the image rather than trying to fix it up, if the amount of fixing up changes the image too much. --Cyde Weys 04:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just Google for "Resynthesizer" to get some examples and tutorials. Basically, to remove an unwanted feature (text, dust, lens flare, unwanted foreground object, whatever), you just open the image in GIMP, select the feature you want gone (with a few pixels of margin to make sure you get any blurred pixels around the edges) and select "Smart remove selection" from the menu. There are a few tricks that will help to get better results — it's often helpful to select the source area manually, and the "number of surrounding pixels to consider" often needs to be tuned according to how smooth the texture is — but often the simple automatic tool works well enough.

I do agree that there are issues with the accuracy of such retouched images. In this particular case, I could be fairly confident that I wasn't creating a particularly false impression: the obscured areas were fairly featureless clouds and snow, and in any case the important details in the image were in the vehicle, which I didn't touch at all. If the text had been over something more important, I don't think I'd have tried removing it — not just because the result could've been misleading, but because it also probably would've sucked. In the end, Resynthesizer, as cool as it is, can only remove things. It can't add missing details, unless those details are already found in other parts of the image, and any attempt to do so generally ends up looking fake, blurry and/or just plain crap.

Other purposes for which I've used Resynthesizer include adding "fake" sky or water to the edges of images while rotating and/or perspective correcting them, to avoid having to crop too much of the actual subject. In all such cases, the rule I've followed is to avoid deliberately misleading changes and to be open about what I've done. With minor changes like these, I generally consider a note in the upload summary sufficient, especially since the old versions are still there in the image history for anyone to compare with the retouched ones. For more extensive modifications (which I've done, but not usually with Resynthesizer) I usually upload the retouched version under a new filename and describe the modifications in the image summary. In any case, I feel that, as long as the image appropriately illustrates its subject, and isn't described as something it is not, even quite heavily retouched images can be perfectly appropriate on Wikipedia. After all, we do allow even completely hand-drawn illustrations and "artist's conceptions". If an image is completely "fake", yet also a good illustration of its subject, where's the problem? —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 05:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

error

Talk:Daredevil

Please wait, reverting edits by Hour...
Getting article history...
Error: Last editor is Darkest Hour, not Hour!

What does this mean?? BTW I have it installed right under Lupins recent2. -- Darkest Hour 20:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I expect the code is broken. I should fix it, but since I don't use it myself and since I'm rather busy with non-Wikipedia stuff right now, I haven't got around to taking a look at it, and probably won't anytime soon. Sorry. I guess I should at least put up a warning about it being unmaintained. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I take a looke at it but I can't garantee that I can fix it. Thanks for your time, -- Darkest Hour 17:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Template:Familytree question

A few of us are working on a family tree for the characters from the Mahabharata and Hindu history here. Is there a way to fill a single box/person with color, without filling the entire row of boxes with a color? It's a great template you made. Thanks, ॐ Priyanath talk 19:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about something like:

WHITE

RED

GREEN

BLUE

Yes, it's an ugly kluge — make the boxes borderless and then recreate them with <div>s — but it should more or less work. The only major problem is that, depending on various things like font size, the lines coming to the boxes from above or below might not quite meet the border. (I'm seeing this especially at large sizes; it's not much of a gap, but it's noticeable.) I'm thinking of tweaking the template a bit to make this less likely (essentially reducing the size of the the line tiles a tiny bit). or I guess I could just add box-specific style parameters; it's not really as difficult as it sounds... —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 00:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I just went and made the change. You can now write that tree as:

WHITE

RED

GREEN

BLUE

Unfortunately, it seems the trick breaks if you don't left-align box labels in the grid (or add spaces to the style parameter names). Oh well, I guess I'll just recommend that people do so. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 00:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I tried it, and it works just fine, following your instructions. It will be a great help. ॐ Priyanath talk 02:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abecedare has added color to the box border, on the tree we're working on here. I thought you might be interested in seeing the creative hoops your template is jumping through. Thanks, ॐ Priyanath talk 03:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link. And yes, the way you've done the border color change is pretty much how I'd suggest doing it myself. (You could also use "border-color: red" to set just the color, but either way should work just fine.) I'm actually quite interested in reading such discussions by people actually using the template, since I'm still planning on reimplementing it as a proper MediaWiki extension some day, which would hopefully let me make the syntax a lot easier to use — as long as I have some idea of what people are actually doing (or trying to do) with it. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 07:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Cellular automata

Here's your invitation to sign up for WikiProject cellular automata. If you're interested, add your name to the WikiProject Proposals page please. Alpha Omicron 22:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Red Wine and Altar Boys

Hi, you sent me a message explaining why you deleted the page I added. I understand that it may have been a tad rough, but the information was accurate and neutral. I am just wondering why someone as exceptionally smart as you would bother deleting an acceptable page of information?

Please get back to me, Crappy camper91 08:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the page in question wasn't really deleted at all; I did propose that it be deleted, but in the end it was simply replaced with a redirect to the album article. Now, the reason I gave for deleting it in my proposal back in January was that it was a "[s]hort stub about what seems to be an utterly non-notable song", that the "existence of sources that would allow expansion into a proper article seems unlikely", and that "[a]ny relevant information would be better placed in the album article." Specifically, besides its inclusion and position on the album (which is already given in the article on the album) and the personnel lineup (which should IMO be given in the album article for all the songs), the information on the page consisted of a single sentence that I still feel would be better included in the album article as well.

I didn't really see any indication that the article could be expanded much beyond its state at the time, either, at least not enough to turn it into a proper encyclopedia article. Specifically, the only reference given was a primary source (the liner notes), and a cursory web search at the time failed to turn up any reliable secondary or tertiary sources containing additional information that could've been incorporated into the article. That said, if you do have access to some additional sources that would allow a reasonable encyclopedia article to be written about the song (preferably also explaining why that particular song was notable to begin with), then feel free to do so. The original content, as much as there is of it, is still available in the article history. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 13:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Kuseal.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Kuseal.png. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. (ESkog)^(Talk) 17:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Mind you, writing fair use rationales for these kinds of images is pretty much a cut-and-paste job anyway, however one chooses to do it: "Official logo of XXX ... taken from the XXX website ... for informational and identification purposes in the XXX article ... original web resolution ... no free replacement possible." They're pretty much all the same. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Persistent vandalism from this IP

Special:Contributions/209.188.169.34 -- Fyslee/talk 15:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And yet another! Special:Contributions/65.247.155.170 -- Fyslee/talk 17:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ahnentafel help

I'm back, requesting some of your expertise. Could you have a look at Talk:Henri, comte de Paris and let me know if there is a way to imitate the .png there in Wiki markup? - Nunh-huh 23:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go: {{ahnentafel-compact2}}, {{ahnentafel-compact3}}, {{ahnentafel-compact4}}, {{ahnentafel-compact5}}, {{ahnentafel-compact6}}. I posted an example on the talk page you mentioned. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 01:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw; thanks so much for your help (I'd like to see these become standard instead of clunky html). I wish I understood how the template worked better, then I could figure these things out.) - Nunh-huh 01:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't really all that much to it: it's just a big ugly HTML table, built recursively out of smaller ugly HTML tables. All the lines are table cell borders specified using CSS style attributes. Basically, all the space between the boxes is divided into rectangular blocks, each containing a table cell with a small invisible spacer character. The tables make heavy use of rowspan and colspan attributes, both to cut down on the size of the source and because the actual boxes of course need to span multiple rows and column to allow for the connecting lines to meet them in the middle of their sides. This, and the immense amount of repetition, makes the HTML source rather hard to read, but the actual way the table is arranged isn't really that complicated. (With the compact versions, I initially tried to use colspans even more, but met some rendering problems that forced me to use more individual table cells than should've been necessary. Thus, the source code is even longer and uglier than in the original versions.) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 02:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the template is so much nicer to use. Once tables get nested, I get confused. - Nunh-huh 02:15, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, great work on the templates! Small question though: Would it be possible to have the ahenentafel number appear with the names? For instance, with the Count of Paris' complicated ancestry, people appear multiple times and the "= #18", etc, doesn't make sense since the numbers only appear in the markup for the template, but not in the output. Charles 03:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I guess this could be done by the template, it would seem simpler to just add the numbers by hand: that is, instead of writing, say, "|18 = Somebody" you'd write "|18 = 18. Somebody". —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 03:48, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is probably the best solution. After all, people with quadruple great-great-grandfathers aren't all too common. Thanks :-) Charles 04:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Love me love my CD version...

Or something. 48 hours until we lock the version at http://schools-wikipedia.org and offer it for free download. Any last comments? I really like the http://schools-wikipedia.org/wp/index/subject.htm and we now have software to do this automatically from any list of historical articles on any language. Thanks--BozMo talk 18:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pre party

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Pre party, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Many thanks. -- TinaSparkle 13:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your picture of RAPALA lures in Helsinki store

Hi Ilmari.

i was wondering if you still visit the store you took the picture. i am a fisherman and collector of RAPALA lures and wanted to ask if you could check this shop for me. looking at the price tags it seems all these lures are on sale. can you help me to get some please?

thanks, wolfgang GERMANY

The store I saw these in was K-Rauta Ruoholahti, a fairly big hardware store in Helsinki. I've no idea if they still sell lures, but the particular sale is probably long since over; it seemed like a case of inventory-clearing to me, just a big box full of any lures that hadn't sold as well as they hoped. I suppose I could check next time I'm in the area, but even in the unlikely case that they did happen to have a sale on lures again, I doubt the cost would be that much lower, compared to, say, buying them online, once you added in shipping costs. Anyway, being a hardware store rather than a fishing or outdoors store, I doubt they carry a very large selection of lures; what you see in the picture is probably pretty much all they had. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 14:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ps. Since you collect Rapala lures, is there any chance you could take a nice picture of some of your lures and upload it? Mine isn't really all that good as an illustration for an encyclopedia; it would be nice to have one that clearly shows the lures themselves rather than just their packaging. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 14:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Description pages for images on Commons

Are you sure pages like Image:GameOfLife.GIF and Image:125-36 o2.gif are in fact valid speedies? CSD I2 says that empty description pages for Commons images may be speedily deleted, but these pages used to contain (besides the indeed incorrect {{ShouldBePNG}} tag) a valid category link. Or is there some rule somewhere about (not) categorizing Commons images locally? (I'm genuinely curious about that; it feels like there should be, but I'm not aware of one.) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 20:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there was no useful information on those pages. I don't think we categorize Commons images locally, although we do add "featured picture" tags if they've been featured on our project. I'm no expert though, so perhaps you should ask someone more knowledgeable. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 21:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

T post

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on T post, by Reywas92, another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because T post fits the criteria for speedy deletion for the following reason:

page will be moved here

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting T post, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate T post itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 20:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ionicbond.JPG

Hi. When you uploaded Image:Ionicbond.JPG, you did not specify complete source and copyright information. Another user subsequently tagged it with {{GFDL-presumed}} and, for some time, it has existed on Wikipedia under the assumption that you created the image and you agreed to license it under the GFDL. This assumption, however well-meaning, is not legally sufficient and the tag is being phased out. Images using it are being deleted.

This image has been tagged for deletion and will be deleted in one week if adequate copyright information is not provided.

If you, personally, are the author of this content, meaning that you took the photograph yourself or you created the chart yourself (and it does not use any clipart that you did not create), please retag the image with a free image copyright tag that correctly describes your licensing intentions, usually {{GFDL-self}} or {{PD-self}}. Please also make sure if you have not already done so that you write a good description of what the image depicts, when you took the photo, and other important details. This will allow Wikipedia to continue using the image.

If you did not create the image or if it is derived from the copyrighted works of others, please keep in mind that most images on the internet are copyrighted and are not suitable for use on Wikipedia. Wikipedia respects the copyrights of others and does not use images unless we know that they have been freely licensed. Any creative work is automatically copyrighted, even if it lacks a copyright notice. Unless the copyright holder has specifically disclaimed their rights to the image and released it under the GFDL or another compatible license, we cannot use it. If you did not create the image, and cannot make the image compliant with Wikipedia:Non-free content, simply do nothing and it will be deleted in a week. All other non-free images must follow these rules.

Please feel free to contact me on my talk page or leave a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions with any questions you may have. Thank you. Aksibot 06:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for that mistake. I think the problem is with the mediawiki versions. For all images now, the upload is also the same as the first edit in the edit history, I think. Nevertheless, I shall examine all the images tagged and will remove the tag from the images which were updated before 2006. Thank you for the message. Regards, - Aksi_great (talk) 18:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the problem exists only for very old images that were uploaded before we had such fancy things as upload summaries and the upload log. Unfortunately, precisely for that reason, such cases are likely to be more common than usual in Category:Presumed GFDL images. (Actually, a similar problem might also occur for newer images, if the original edits — but not the images themselves — had been deleted for some reason, but that's probably even less likely to happen.) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 18:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Finland & Wikipedia for schools...

Nice to see your compatriots are jealous... see [1]. If you want to help them and want the software which eats an article list and spits out a working DVD with relevant image pages and without the edit comments, fiuar use images etc you are welcome to it (its not open source because it took many months and I don't want conservapedia etc using it). :) --BozMo talk 08:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Texas Tech seal images

Thank you for your reply on this matter. I'm heading out of town right now and won't be able to read it until my return this evening. Please let things stand until then so we can find a solution. I think taking the matter to the discussion page of, at least, the main article would be appropriate as well. --Wordbuilder 13:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help with the Nodal Relationships question on the Mathematics Reference Desk

Thanks very much for all your help with the problem. This has now given me a very interesting task for the next few weeks (better than a normal maths lesson...). I'm not sure if I'm supposed to do this, but I would like to award you with a WikiCookie. --80.229.152.246 21:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mmmm... thanks! :) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrotransposon marker

Hey,

Last August you noticed that Retrotransposon marker was quite possibly a copyvio. You noted on the talk page that you contacted the original editor of the article, whom you had reason to believe might be one of the copyright holders of the material. Did you ever receive a reply? I stumbled upon the article and I think it needs some rewriting anyway; if it's a copyvio as well, then that's just another good reason. Let me know. Thanks! --Iknowyourider 16:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The editor indeed wrote back to me in October 2006. They said they were going to rewrite the article themselves shortly, but that apparently hasn't happened. I may be partly to blame for that, since never replied to them. Anyway, if you want to do the rewrite, that'd be great! In the email, the original editor also noted that the copyright to the Schmitz et al. 2005 article belongs to the publisher, which (presumably — I'm not aware of what the specific contracts involved might say) would prevent even the authors from reusing its content without the publisher's permission. Thus, the parts of article quoted verbatim from Schmitz et al. indeed seem to be copyvios. I don't think there's any need for copyright paranoia here (unless the publisher complains), but the stuff taken from Schmitz et al. should indeed be rewritten. If you do the entire rewrite completely from scratch, I could even delete the old versions afterwards. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, admittedly I don't currently have enough subject knowledge to rewrite the article myself. I've flagged it as needing cleanup, though. I also might get around to it in the near future. --Iknowyourider 02:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ionic bond

Sorry, I can't remember the source right now. It's been a while, you know. Space Cadet 11:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]