Kilogram picture on CommonsEdit

Please do not do that again. Editors have every expectation when they use a picture in an article that the picture will be stable. Your monitor must be severely misadjusted because your effort at lightening the original looked exceedingly poor—ridiculous, really. If you have a need for a (much) lighter version of that picture, one properly creates a new version under a new name; you do not change an existing picture. That way, you can use a picture that is more to your liking while not affecting everyone else’s work. (vita) 2009. október 18., 01:39 (CEST)

Well, my friend, we can talk about the image quality at this case. I severely misadjusted my monitor to have az extremely bright display - and this picture still was uninformably dark. This is why I was, and yet I would like to refresh this file with a brighter version. If you see the page of the image, you will find this: "Upload a new version of this file". So, there should not be an option of this kind if everybody would have to keep the first versions of each images. And the editors worldwide use the first version of this image because this is found here, not because this looks quite good.
Now please tell me why you are a faithful guard of this picture. This is an illustration for articles, not a work of modern photographic (graphic) arts. I agree, the dark shadows and light are really impressive but the readers must have a grey cylinder on a plane, in front of ruler, not a shady artwork. I am sure that everybody would win with a more perspicuous version of this illustration. Let's find the optimal appearence. - Orion 8 (talk) 00:43, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Responded to this profound arrogance here. Greg A L (talk) 04:13, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

My dear friend, I've got your kind words, but now please calm down before you get some cerebrial affection. This image is very, very nice, I mean it. A perfect, deluding creature. But it is to dark, underexposed. A visitor is seeing a rounded object in a light spot before a piece of a ruler, but I'm sure he does not see what this thing really is. I know that an upgraded version is seen everywhere on pages which links to this image. This is why I intended to make this picture informative. But if you make this for aesthetic delight only then it is untouchable. You should have placed a comment for it in the description section to inform the editors who would like to see the depicted objects well. You said everybody is happy with your dark glimpse, you probably have asked everybody about it so I believe you. And I dont want to make them happier.

Now look at the thumbnail copy of your painting. My corrected version is more optimal than yours, and there is not too bright blacks. You know, the pages where this image appears use this one in reduced size. There the contrast must look better. If you would have set the dark balance better then my version would look better, too.

You can find somewhere a "Bold, Discuss, Revert" suggestion. Discuss really might mean "frantically talk or write about something" but that also can mean "politely talk or write about something". Do not forget that I proposed to find the optimal appearance. You didn't even try it, so forget me, man. - Orion 8 (talk) 13:11, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

After more than two years of this image being used on over a dozen different-language Wikipedias (be-x-old, cs, da, ka, sw, It, hu, mn, ja, sr, ay, bs, es, it, ru, and zh-yue), you are the very first to complain about its dark appearance. In fact, it was a Featured Picture award winner on en.Wikipedia If you want a light version that better suits you, create it and save it under a new name. It’s just that simple. I shouldn’t have to ask an admin to lock this one down.

The only way to properly accomplish what you want (and not have it look positively horrid, like you had it) is for me to go back to my original CAD solid model and go to a couple of background lights, tweak up their brightness, and re-ray trace the whole thing. It’s time-consuming because I do it anti-aliased and at double-res, and then reduce it 50% in Photoshop.

I once actually had some French guy come to the en.Wikipedia Kilogram talk page and complain about the inch-based ruler in that picture. He wrote that people had been “drawn and quartered” for less. Well… just pardon me all over the place for using a 3D solid model of a ruler I conveniently had laying around from some earlier work on a medical device. I’m a volunteer and elected to use it in the IPK picture to save a pile of time. If someone doesn’t like something, go make their own from scratch. Greg A L (talk) 00:11, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Nurbs PicEdit

Hi, I tried to re-upload an earlier version of your nurbs image (Image:NURBS 3-D surface.gif) because the latest version was not working on any of the pages I saw it in (with the message "Error creating thumbnail: Invalid thumbnail parameters or image file with more than 12.5 million pixels"). When I checked the file history the previous versions were working so I assumed it was not a problem with my machine and re-uploaded one of the previous versions. However that version still gave the thumbnail error. I have just now re-checked the English wiki page for this file and both the version I uploaded and the most recent version you uploaded are working, but Commons page versions are not. I have no idea whats up with that. the page Here also still shows a broken thumb for me. Can you help with this? Also please feel free to revert my upload if you feel it was not helpful. Colincbn (talk) 03:19, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


Hello. You did such a swell job at cleaning up and perfecting the image on File:Kingdavidkalakaua dust.jpg. I was wondering if it would be possible if you could do the same for File:Kalakaua.jpg, which has an larger resolution tiff version at the Library of Congress site. Thanks.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:15, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Anwar al-Awlaki sitting on couch, lightened.jpgEdit

File:Anwar al-Awlaki sitting on couch, lightened.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk.

The file you added may soon be deleted. If you believe this file is not a copyright violation, you may replace the copyvio tag with a regular deletion request.

Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

Afrikaans | العربية | asturianu | azərbaycanca | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | British English | español | euskara | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | հայերեն | Bahasa Indonesia | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Lëtzebuergesch | македонски | മലയാളം | मराठी | Bahasa Melayu | Malti | မြန်မာဘာသာ | norsk bokmål | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | polski | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | српски / srpski | svenska | тоҷикӣ | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

-- tariqabjotu 06:55, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I certainly did too take notice of copyright issues so take your arrogant copyright notice and go to hell. All I did was create an alternative version of File:Awlaki_1008.JPG, which was already marked as being free-use. If the free-use copyright notice for the original was incorrect, then this one will be fouled up too. I'm too busy in real life to battle on crap like this. Go take it up with the rest of the Wikipedia community that has no life.

P.S. I’m glad that terrorist bastard is dead. Very glad. Greg A L (talk) 16:42, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletionEdit

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have 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 them, 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 | norsk bokmål | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | occitan | polski | پښتو | português | português do Brasil | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | українська | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−


Yours sincerely, Natuur12 (talk) 18:00, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I took an existing image off of Wikimedia Commons—assuming the Creative Commons license was legitimate—and cropped so it looked better. I see that a Boeing representative went through a bunch of Boeing-related images and alerted Wikimedia that they are all copyrighted; ergo, my derivative of the image was caught up in the purge. We need to protect copyright owners, so by all means, delete the thing.
For whatever it's worth, someone should advise the complainant from Boeing that if they don't want a bunch of ground-level photos of their fine planes featured on Wikipedia, they should release one bird’s-eye view of each model into the public domain with a Creative Commons license and post them on “media” sub-page on their website. Whereas having an attorney assert copyright privileges is an important thing to do, legally speaking, such assertions ought to be followed up with media help so as to not undermine the broader objectives of Boeing's marketing efforts.
If Boeing already has such a website (I'm too busy in real life to go look), then someone really screwed the pooch on these plane photos. I'll go copy/paste this on the deletions discussion page. Greg A L (talk) 20:40, 22 October 2015 (UTC)