User talk:Thegreenj/Archive 1


RE: Sony P-8

I was reverting the page after MER-C had redirected the page and removed it form the Cyber-shot page, therefore i was reverting his unauthorized redirect. There was no "motive" other than to revert the page back to it's rightful state, and to do this i typed the word "revert" at the top of the page to revert it for some reason the actual word remained after i reverted it. I was not just reverting this page but all other pages that MER-C had deleted and therefore did not have the time to create an edit summary for all of them so i added a summary only to the main Cyber-shot page. Nrlight 10:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Grand Canyon South Rim

I have uploaded the new edited version of Grand Canyon South Rim, tell me what you think --Digon3 21:05, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Pictures

I edited your Sweetviolet, to give you an idea how much better some of your pictures could look with a little editing. And I reverted the one you added to Depth of Field; plenty of good exampless there already. ps. your user page breaks my browser (Firefox on Mac). Dicklyon 19:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realize you had it up for peer review or I would not have replaced it. I got to it from a violet article when I was working on colors. But it desparately needs work, as most of your others do. I'm also not big on oversharpening and garish colors, but you need enough contrast to see your subject clearly, and some sharpening, preferably on a smaller original, to get anything at all to show up in thumbnail size. If you can't tell much of anything from the thumbnail, it's not a good picture. ps, it is conventional to reply here; no need to start a new thread on my talk page to respond. Dicklyon 02:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lovely pictures

If you can get photo of any whole plant, leaf and flower closeup all from the one plant, you can probably get good ID then put the image on the relevant WP page. ps. user page breaks my browser too, think writing "thegreenj" is too large. Polypipe Wrangler 02:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet Violet Pics

  • Hi, good luck with your nomination. Your most recent pic was the best, nice and contrasty. I did read you last message and took a look at the pic and found some info on your camera as well. I myself dont own a flashy digital SLR (I have a pretty good 35mm film one with some lenses) but I am supprised how well the non-purpose built lens in your camera takes macros. With that said it would take something special for you to get a FP flower shot out of your cam but if you were to do so here is how... You'd need to ramp up all the quality settings: lower the ISO as low as it will go (80 or 60 is best) and set it on a tripod. Make sure the flower has a contrasting background and then set up the camera only slightly farther away then you have been. The farther out the focus is set the larger the DOF. then, pray for no wind and take several shots. If your camera permits try using a small fstop which also widens the DOF. Best of luck -Fcb981 06:03, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The new one is the best yet. Nice contrast, better depth of field. there is still fringing but it is less obvious now. Composition is much improved. I'm not really sure what to tell you, getting a featured pic takes some serious quality, especialy if it is of a flower or common animal. To do that DOF needs to be flawless as well as no fringing. A 60 to 80mm dedicated macro would stand the best chance. As is this image would fetch, oh, 3 supports out of 8 or 9 votes on FPC or there abouts. If you manage to take one even better than this I can imagine it would be featured. keep it up. -Fcb981 00:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for having another go; as Feb says this is much improved. If only to be honest I think this would be criticised on FPC for (still) having fringing and DOF issues, but no way near as much as the previous version. I took a look at the other plant featured pictures to see what gets through, you might fancy doing the same. Otherwise, please keep improving your photos, if not for FPC then for the articles, which benefit enormously. Pstuart84 Talk 18:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New picture good

Very clear. Regret personally I'm only good for ID of Australian flora, and the noxious weeds here. Once you know what features of the plant are needed for ID (side view of plant, leaf detail etc) you can photograph them and get much better chance of good ID.Polypipe Wrangler 06:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-sequitur

I couldn't figure out what you were thinking in your recent edit of f-number, so I reverted it. The thing was badly punctuated and not at all in a good place, with the "therefore" connector being a sign of a wrong mental model I think. Feel free to ask if you need help understanding this stuff. Dicklyon 04:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • No, no. I suppose that I probably was confusing and I should have thought out that edit more. I skimmed over the section and something didn't line up in my head, resulting in a nonsensical edit. Sorry. J Are you green? 20:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm green.

You asked. I had to answer. 209.53.180.67 01:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:10 Heller Note.jpg

Hello, Thegreenj. An automated process has found and removed a fair use image used in your userspace. The image (Image:10 Heller Note.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Thegreenj/photos. This image was removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image was replaced with Image:Example.jpg, so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image to replace it with. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 21:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I noticed this flaw, and it has been fixed (I thought I had reverted all edits related to money), sorry about that. In any case the bot is no longer removing images tagged with {{money}}. Go ahead and revert it if you want :) If you have questions reply on my talk. —— Eagle101 Need help? 01:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your Flower

Looks like Foxglove.199.126.28.71 22:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, foxglove is very different. Can you identify a family or some clarifying taxon to help? bibliomaniac15 02:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't know where to start... I tried some online resources, and I ended up back where I started. J Are you green? 20:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History of the State of Israel

Considering it is a direct text dump from History of Palestine and has nothing to do with the stated concept of the article (history of the modern state of Israel) I'd say our anonymous friend is trying to make a point... and even if they are not it is redundant and off-topic in this article.--Isotope23 00:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem... I didn't notice it right away either. I did get a bit suspicious when an anon with 3 edits suddenly added a huge amount of well written and sourced text to the article. You don't see that every day!--Isotope23 00:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Darmera peltata pic

Complaints, dear Thegreenj? Nothing but praise - it looks lovely now. I have absolutely no idea what a blown headlight is - something to do with a car crash, maybe - but the pic is all the better for their removal. Thanks for taking the trouble. Jasper33 20:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see above you are trying to identify a flower. Maybe I can help? Jasper33 21:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not a lot, as it turns out. The first I have no idea; the second looks like it is a member of the family of plants called the Lamiaceae. Maybe you could ask someone who has edited articles related to the Lamiaceae? Where di you take the pics - were they wild flowers or in a garden? Jasper33 21:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2 and 3 remind me of Ajuga reptans, but I couldn't say for sure. Sorry I couldn't be of more help. The ref desk is probably your best bet! Jasper33 21:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

nice edit
An image uploaded by you has been promoted to featured picture status
Your image, Image:Soyuz TMA-7 spacecraft2edit1.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! Debivort 01:43, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the nice levels adjust! Debivort 01:43, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:10 Heller Note.jpg

Hello, Thegreenj. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:10 Heller Note.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Thegreenj/photos. This image or media was removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg, so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 20:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see above (5 headlines up). J Are you green? 21:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FPC - Colosseum

I'm not very good with graphics terminology, but hopefully my comment clarified my comment. - Mgm|(talk) 21:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:BrokenIE.png

Thanks for uploading Image:BrokenIE.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 21:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Signature

oopsies! Please excuse my negligence :) Jellocube27 16:40, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image adjustment request

Hi! You did beautiful work on Soyuz TMA-7 spacecraft2edit1.jpg. Thanks! I wonder if you would be willing to make similar adjustments to another key space photo: Mir on 12 June 1998.jpg? In the history of space stations, the configuration of Mir shown by the photo tells a lot about the reality of modular space stations, but something (contrast?) makes it difficult to really see the station clearly. Is this fixable? Thanks in advance for considering it! (Sdsds - Talk) 21:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect! Whatever you fixed, it makes the details in the image much clearer. Thanks! (Sdsds - Talk) 06:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Check it out: Wikipedia:Today's featured article/June 29, 2007. Coming soon to a main page near you! (sdsds - talk) 17:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome! Thanks for the note. J Are you green? 14:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:10 Heller Note.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:10 Heller Note.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 20:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:10 Heller Note.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:10 Heller Note.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 03:53, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am *sick* of the trouble this image has caused. I have the file stored on my computer, so I am going to allow it to be deleted. If anyone should read this and for some reason want the image to be re-uploaded, I would be more than happy to do so. J Are you green? 00:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

courtesy

Courtesy is never answer a question that was not addressed to you. please spare me a courtesy of your reply. i'm not interested in it.--69.181.181.226 22:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)mbz1[reply]

George IV FPC

Hi there. I thought you would be interested to hear that I added another version to the George IV featured picture candidate, this time without the halftoning. See what you think, cheers. Chris.B 20:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Thanks -- Chris.B 20:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reynolds Club

Thanks for the edit, but I'm not sure it's an improvement. The horizontal lines of the part of the building at the bottom of the picture now tilt a different way than the horizontal lines of the tower, which creates a dizzying, M.C. Escher-esque perspective. Spikebrennan 00:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commons images and my nom to picture of the day

Thanks for the tip and for fixing my nom. I appreciate it very much. And for fixing the links on my talk page too! Best. - Dragonbite 22:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About image at Wikipedia and Commons

I just want to let you know what I found out (assuming that you still don't know). A person can still upload from Wikipedia, then transfer it to commons under the same image name. As long as the image has exactly the same image name, you don't have to request deletion at Wikipedia. The counter at commons will be able to detect the number and places (such as other language wikipedias) of usage. Regards. And thanks again. - Dragonbite 05:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay thanks. So, I just have another question before proceeding farther. Okay now that I have a few images with same name here and at commons. Can you give an idea what will happen if I request the images be deleted here at Wikipedia. And then I use/post the image (with the same name as the already-deleted file from commons), will there be a conflict between the two. That is, because of their image names (one deleted; and one not (from commons). Kindly let me know. Thanks. - Dragonbite 20:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That answers my question/and relieves me from the "worries". Thanks again. You really have excellent and professionally-taken images. Thanks too for showing those to me. Regards. - Dragonbite 20:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The baseball Card Adventures pics

Thank you for clarifying for me. I put a full use rationale on every single pic. -- E2MB the museblogger 14:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Uploads to Wikipedia

Thank you very much for your message, Thegreenj. I have left commons. Best regards.--Mbz1 00:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you again for you concern. It is probably wrong that I have left commons and you are right I should upload my imageds to commons, but I'm afraid, the only things I would do on Commons from now on would be editing my user pages. Commons will do just fine without me and my pictures. I'm not sure I will do so good without commons, but it is the way it is. Thanks again.--Mbz1 01:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Take photo of EF 50mm CF

Hay Thegreenj, could you take a photo of the Canon EF 50mm f/2.5 CF, from the side with the lens focused so that is shows the magnification numbers on the inner lens barrel. I think that having a photo showing this on the Canon EF 50mm lens page would help show this feature and enhance the article. Thanks! Nebrot 04:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


RE: Hay, no problem! Great to see that there are users that are just as dedicated to expanding Canon EF article's as I am. BTW, what do you think about the edit I made to the Canon EF 50mm lens page? Anything you don't like? Nebrot 08:26, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Army Voucher.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Army Voucher.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 19:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POTD notification

POTD

Hi J,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture Image:Robert E. Lee, 1865 (edit).jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on December 1, 2007. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2007-12-01. howcheng {chat} 19:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

reply

I have answered all your questions. :) Best regards, —αἰτίας •discussion• 15:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas

Merry Christmas
Merry Christmas

From Muhammad Mahdi Karim (talk) 11:07, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you object to the above message, please remove it, accept my apologies and notify me on my talk page.

EF lens chart style

Hay GJ, on December 30, a user GreyCat, made changes to the charts on the EF and EF-S pages. The new style was quite different from the standard red "X", and green "check" that most EF/EF-S pages have. I decided to undo his changes, so this could be discussed further. If you have any comments or observations, please feel free to make them on my talk page. Nebrot (talk) 10:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Diagram needs cropping

Hi! I am totally incompetent when it comes to Wikipedia image manipulation (no tools installed), so I wonder if you would be willing to do a simple crop on Image:CONTOUR SRM configuration.jpg? (It is a diagram of a spacecraft that exploded because the designers put the solid rocket motor right in the middle of the spacecraft's body. No joke.) Thanks! (sdsds - talk) 16:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, thanks! The result (after your cropping and contrast adjustment) is totally good enough for illustrating the article. About the original source (just in case you want use it to create an even better version): it appears on page 9 of the Mishap Investigation Board Report. (sdsds - talk) 04:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Canon EF lens mount

Hay TGJ, I'm a little confused by your edit of the caption text for the image of an Canon EOS camera's EF mount. You changed the text to "An EF/EF-S mount.", with the edit statement, "that's not an EF mount...". When the previous caption said "The EF mount of a Canon EOS camera.". Could you please give a bit more detail on your reasons. I don't really see why there was a need to edit. Was it because the mount on the camera(30D) was for EF-S lenses too? Then why not say "The EF/EF-S mount of a Canon EOS camera."? Are you debating what the mount on the camera is called? If you flip to page 162 of the 350D/XT manual in the specifications section it will say: "Lens mount: Canon EF mount". If Canon says it's an EF mount, why not you? Ok, forget little... I'm totally confused!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nebrot (talk • contribs) 11:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you make valid point, the image is not a pure EF mount. It has been modified for EF-S. I will see if I can get my hands on a 35mm EOS, and take a photo. When a better photo for the EF page is available, I will switch out the current one. Maybe we should put the current photo on the Canon EF-S lens mount page, I think it will help show what a compatible camera mount looks like. Good idea? Nebrot (talk) 03:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You think this is spam?

I don't know how broad your watchlist is, but I have noticed on mine, that in the last few days user Nbarth, has been editing a lot of Canon camera/lens pages. Some edits are... ok, but most are kinda sloppy. Also, he or she, has been adding a lot of external links to most pages. Most links being to review sites. See there history, seems a bit systematic. Thoughts? Nebrot (talk) 03:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Thegreennj,
Since you seem an interested party, I'm continuing the conversation over at Nebrot's talk page at: User talk:Nebrot#Re: Nbarth
Nbarth (email) (talk) 23:55, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have specific copyright/trademark expertise, but I know enough to be aware that "fair use" is an issue where it's very difficult to get a hard and fast answer. It's an open question whether the logo itself can be protected by copyright at all-- for example, a logo that's just a circle or a triangle couldn't be, whereas a complex bit of original work almost certainly would be--- the stylized sails here are a close call. Omitting the logo probably makes this a safer question and, at any rate, doesn't detract from the encyclopedic nature of the photo. This is not legal advice. Spikebrennan (talk) 22:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]