Last modified on 23 October 2012, at 11:56

User talk:Stuart.Jamieson

  • Discussion
Return to the user page of "Stuart.Jamieson".
Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Stuart.Jamieson!
Afrikaans | Alemannisch | العربية | Asturianu | Azərbaycanca | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | বাংলা | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Euskara | Estremeñu | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Frysk | Galego | עברית | हिन्दी | Hrvatski | Magyar | Հայերեն | Interlingua | Bahasa Indonesia | Italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | 한국어 | Latina | Lietuvių | Македонски | മലയാളം | मराठी | Bahasa Melayu | Plattdüütsch | नेपाली | Nederlands | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Scots | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Kiswahili | தமிழ் | ไทย | Türkçe | Українська | Vèneto | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | 中文(台灣)‎ | +/−

TUSC token 719f83b7c1d2f6fdcce1a718a69de5c7Edit

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Curious croppingEdit

Re File:Early Butlins Chalet.png:

  • why do you use spurious capital letters
  • why did you feel the image needed desaturated colours and shifted hue
  • why did you not use the largest image available
  • and, most importantly, why did you save the image as PNG?

RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 21:14, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

  1. I regularly use Camel Case as a programmer it's natural to do so and there appears to be no Policy against it for File names only Article titles.
  2. The original colours were distracting in the article and the desaturated slightly sepia tint was more in line with the other images in close proximity to the image and better represented the images of the period being discussed. This use seemed appropriate because most actual period images of the same chalets in the period are non-free and this is the closest to a free replacement.
  3. It's a thumbnail for the article not a stand alone high quality image for archival/editing.
  4. Because it's non-lossy, the image was already suffering from bad artefacts as a jpeg before editing, the last thing it needed was further artefacts.
Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 21:54, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Camel case - I was not thinking about file names, I was thinking of horrors such as "Chalets Preserved and Listed". I have seen artificial "antiquing" of images elsewhere - I disagree with it. I was interested that in the Butlins Skegness article, you felt that the chalet image should be antiqued but File:Butlins Skegness - geograph.org.uk - 1762469.jpg was OK unchanged - even though it was taken on the same camera under similar lighting conditions, etc. Thumbnail - there is clear policy to always use the highest res. available irrespective of what size it is used in an article - and if you had used the highest res., you would not have seen the artefacts! — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 23:02, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry my use of Camel Case horrifies you so much, but really that's an issue for enwiki and nothing to do with commons. You disagree with antiquing, but it is not prohibited. The key reason for doing it is to draw the eye away from the blue sky and red car and toward the chalet itself; not to represent the image as older than it actually is. The image was created for Billy Butlin and only later used in skegness and no I have no opinion over whether your cropped image or my cropped-desaturated image is better for the skegness article but I do have an opinion of Billy Butlin. Finally COM:FT advises on the use of PNG for exactly the reasons I outline above and the artefacts are visible at every scale despite your claims otherwise. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 05:32, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

TUSC token 5997c7d8c7b928ec4bd41e2f1503fd58Edit

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

File:Don McGregor 1974 closeup.jpgEdit

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Don McGregor 1974 closeup.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!


Afrikaans | العربية | বাংলা | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Tenebrae (talk) 00:47, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

AWBEdit

I have granted your request for AWB. Please review the Rules of use and be careful to only make non-controversial edits using AWB. Happy editing! --Philosopher Let us reason together. 11:56, 23 October 2012 (UTC)