Open main menu

Wikimedia Commons β

User talk:Chiswick Chap

File:The Defence of Duffer's Drift prologue. The book is attributed to a Lieutenant N. Backsight Forethought, otherwise known as Major General Sir Ernest Dunlop Swinton..jpgEdit

File:The Defence of Duffer's Drift prologue. The book is attributed to a Lieutenant N. Backsight Forethought, otherwise known as Major General Sir Ernest Dunlop Swinton..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 | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | 한국어 (조선) | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Rcbutcher (talk) 03:02, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Right, we must delete it at once. The book's cover File:The Defence of Duffer's Drift cover.jpg must be moved to Wikipedia where I will write a fair-use rationale for it, I have already reduced it to a thumbnail for this purpose. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:18, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Actually, it's PD-US as it was published outside the USA before 1917, so it can go to Wikipedia at full size without further rationale. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:07, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Autopatrol givenEdit

Hello. I just wanted to let you know that I have granted autopatrol rights to your account; the reason for this is that I believe you are sufficiently trustworthy and experienced to have your contributions automatically sighted. This will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to help users watching Recent changes or Recent uploads to find unproductive edits amidst the productive ones. Thank you. INeverCry 15:55, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:19, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Picture of the Year 2013 R2 AnnouncementEdit

Round 2 of Picture of the Year 2013 is open!Edit

2012 Picture of the Year: A pair of European Bee-eaters in Ariège, France.

Dear Wikimedians,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the second round of the 2013 Picture of the Year competition is now open. This year will be the eighth edition of the annual Wikimedia Commons photo competition, which recognizes exceptional contributions by users on Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favorite images featured on Commons during the last year (2013) to produce a single Picture of the Year.

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year were entered in this competition. These images include professional animal and plant shots, breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historical images, photographs portraying the world's best architecture, impressive human portraits, and so much more.

There are two total rounds of voting. In the first round, you voted for as many images as you liked. The top 30 overall and the most popular image in each category have continued to the final. In the final round, you may vote for just one image to become the Picture of the Year.

Round 2 will end on . Click here to learn more and vote »

the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee

You are receiving this message because you voted in the 2013 Picture of the Year contest.

This Picture of the Year vote notification was delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:23, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Picture of the Year 2013 Results AnnouncementEdit

Picture of the Year 2013 ResultsEdit

The 2013 Picture of the Year. View all results »

Dear Chiswick Chap,

The 2013 Picture of the Year competition has ended and we are pleased to announce the results: We shattered participation records this year — more people voted in Picture of the Year 2013 than ever before. In both rounds, 4070 different people voted for their favorite images. Additionally, there were more image candidates (featured pictures) in the contest than ever before (962 images total).

  • In the first round, 2852 people voted for all 962 files
  • In the second round, 2919 people voted for the 50 finalists (the top 30 overall and top 2 in each category)

We congratulate the winners of the contest and thank them for creating these beautiful images and sharing them as freely licensed content:

  1. 157 people voted for the winner, an image of a lightbulb with the tungsten filament smoking and burning.
  2. In second place, 155 people voted for an image of "Sviati Hory" (Holy Mountains) National Park in Donetsk Oblast, Ukraine.
  3. In third place, 131 people voted for an image of a swallow flying and drinking.

Click here to view the top images »

We also sincerely thank to all 4070 voters for participating and we hope you will return for next year's contest in early 2015. We invite you to continue to participate in the Commons community by sharing your work.

the Picture of the Year committee

You are receiving this message because you voted in the 2013 Picture of the Year contest.

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:58, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

File:Basic constituent structure analysis English sentence.svgEdit

1) "Predicate" is not really a linguistic constituent label like the others in the diagram. It's more a sentence role than a level of structure. 2) In any case, "Verb Phrase" and "Predicate" are competing and incompatible -- if you used one, you should have left off the other. 3) Your changed version of the file messed up some diagonal lines elsewhere in the image. 4) I would appreciate it if you would upload any future revised version as a separate file under a new name... AnonMoos (talk) 10:18, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. You have a point about VP vs Predicate, I have no idea why VP was marked as part of the top-level item, I'd say that was clearly wrong (what does "Sentence / Verb phrase" mean, actually? Clearly that muddles together the top two nodes) and I'll remove it - better, move it as a more helpful label, "Predicate / Verb Phrase". As for saying it's nor really a label, I'll just note that it is commonly used, and clearly belongs with the node I placed it at - what else would one label that node, I wonder? I don't really agree with the "messed up" bit - I had to replace the old ones as they were not possible to ungroup, and I don't at all see why there should be two separate versions, given the now two deficiencies in the old one, but I'll certainly upload one with another name to avoid a pointless edit-war complete with 'appreciative' remarks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:26, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
It could be considered a flaw -- or at least a loose informality -- that the "Verb Phrase" label in my version of the diagram is moved up, and not where it technically should be at the unlabelled branching. However, your "solution" unfortunately created more problems than it solved. It might have been nice if you had raised the matter on my user talk page before overwriting the file... AnonMoos (talk) 15:08, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Principle of Yehudi Lights with Avenger head-on view.jpg too dark.Edit

If File:Principle of Yehudi Lights with Avenger head-on view.jpg was too dark to distinguish the plane from the background, you probably need to calibrate your monitor black levels: see here. The contrast is clear enough for my calibrated setup. I carefully prepared the image so that the Yehudi light version became more difficult to see, both due to brightness, and by not taking up so much of the field of view. If, after calibrating, you don't want to revert, please consider using more of a border - the aircraft wouldn't fill a binocular field of view at the range this method of camouflage is effective at. Hohum (talk) 17:10, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I think we're missing a point here. The diagram is not a simulation of a binocular view, nor yet of a 120-degree sector of rather-dark horizon to scan from a submarine conning tower; nor is there anything wrong with any of the monitors I have used since I designed the image. Instead, the range of greys is chosen to work on typical displays with settings that vary from excellent to dodgy. Therefore, it offers quite strong contrasts and the uncamouflaged image in particular is designed to be easy to see. The camouflaged image is by intention still visible, but the viewer can realize that the brighter spots could average out with the darker regions of the aircraft to reduce recognisability substantially. As for more of a border, the working area of the image is chosen to be as large as possible because on many displays (ok, think smartphone) the information has to be presented in a little postage-stamp image area, and having much of a border would leave a substantial region of uninformative background. The idea of a simulation is a good one; my pair of images could be made to 'fly' closer, looming larger from a pinpoint to a substantial size, in a short video, either one after the other or (as in the static image) both at once. I'd encourage you to make one, with border and even a 'binocular' cutout; but I'd not wish to do that within the confines of a static image. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:22, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
It seems I took your revert comment too literally. Hohum (talk) 18:03, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

4 typos in File:Wasps are Paraphyletic.svgEdit

I fixed four typos in File:Wasps are Paraphyletic.svg. If you would, please review the changes as they are based on your original work. I will notify you on the English wikipedia as well as CheChe who uploaded the svg. —DIYeditor (talk) 22:47, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

DIYeditor You have restored the .SVG file to the spellings that I used in the .PNG file, in other words they weren't my typos. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:50, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, yes, that's what I meant. CheChe introduced a number of typos. I intended to notify you and raise the issue with him. —DIYeditor (talk) 22:58, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Mind you, all we need to do with typos (unless someone is creating thousands of them) is to lay them to rest, life's too short for worrying who made a slip. Chiswick Chap (talk) 23:05, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
File:Whales are Paraphyletic.svg also included one typo. Just thought you would like to know since you created the original PNG. Perhaps an overreaction but I was a bit alarmed at the number of mistakes and thought I should mention it. —DIYeditor (talk) 23:31, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Stay cool baby, to quote some superhero or other. Good night. Chiswick Chap (talk) 23:42, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Chiswick Chap".