User talk:El Grafo

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search


Tech News: 2014-48[edit]

19:31, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion[edit]

Markgräfliches Opernhaus Sanierung Sandsteinfassade.jpg
Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Markgräfliches Opernhaus, sand stone restoration, color sample.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates‎.

Muncy Creek[edit]

I responded to your request on the QIC review of the Muncy Creek picture. (It's under November 20). I'd be pleased if you could continue with the assessment. Thanks, --Jakob (talk) 19:27, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

@Jakec: ✓ Done, thanks for the improvements (and for reminding me). --El Grafo (talk) 20:06, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Great, thanks! --Jakob (talk) 20:07, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-50[edit]

17:11, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-51[edit]

16:43, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Karl_W_Richter.jpg follow-up, request for review[edit]

Hi. We had a discussion about this file, or better said, you quite patiently responded to my whiney bleating with some suggestions. I tried to implement them as you suggested. Would you do me the favor of reviewing the form in which I added material to the template to ensure I didn't break format? I'd appreciate that. Thanks. Azx2 07:38, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi Azx2, format-wise that's fine, I've just made the links a bit prettier. Copyright-wise, we still don't have 100% proof that this is an USAF-picture, but I guess I wouldn't nominate it for deletion if I came across this by chance. But then again (as previously mentioned), if I had uploaded this, I'd nominate it for deletion myself just to get further opinions from others. I'll leave that up to you … --El Grafo (talk) 10:11, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Change of scope[edit]

Hi, just realised I forgot to notify you. Considering your comment, I changed the scope of this VI nomitation. Feel free to give your opinion about this new scope. Yours sincerely, Gyrostat (talk) 11:30, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done Thanks for the reminder! --El Grafo (talk) 14:41, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

sharpening[edit]

Thanks for the info. I read a bit about it from the links and agree the chaining sounds like a stupid idea. The testing feedback also sounds suspect. If you play music at people who are not experts they will pick the system that sounds loudest and brightest, even if such is fatiguing and full of distortion. So I suspect oversharpening may superficially make some pictures look crisp but unnaturally so. Turning off all sharpening is also a bad idea as people will complain their thumbnails are soft. It looks like they have reverted the chaining change. -- Colin (talk) 16:05, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Colin, I'm sorry that I obviously was a bit unclear at first. I wanted to keep it short to avoid cluttering the nomination page – seems like that backfired quite a bit ;-) On first sight, I found the chaining a quite clever idea to decrease server load, can't blame them for giving it a try. I think the revert is not live on Commons yet [31], I guess it will happen with the next regular update. Cheers, --El Grafo (talk) 16:23, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion[edit]

Timema poppensis camouflaged on its host, Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens), California.jpeg
Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Timema poppensis Dorsal view.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates‎.

Tech News: 2014-52[edit]

16:52, 22 December 2014 (UTC)