User talk:Andy Dingley/Archive 2011 October

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
← [[../Archive Expression error: Unrecognized punctuation character "{".|Archive Expression error: Unrecognized punctuation character "{".]] |
Archive {{{1}}}
| [[../Archive Expression error: Unrecognized punctuation character "{".|Archive Expression error: Unrecognized punctuation character "{".]] →


Microscope, micrometer, slide rule, pressure gauge.

There is recently a bunch of propaganda posters here which are not specific to any particular country, great leader or horrific enemy which perhaps makes it to be not propaganda.

I was wondering if you could identify the tools that are there that I have not identified and also if you can explain the lack of a grease pencil in this image. Grease pencils are perhaps one of my favorite tools; they are self sharpening and mark on so many things that other marking items fail to leave a mark upon (which is their job, isn't it, as a tool?). How come the extremely qualified grease pencil was not in this propaganda image of tools? -- Queeg (talk) 00:49, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

That one is still propaganda, as it's traceable to the USA in WW2, even if it's not specific to a battle front. This is strong enough to categorize it under "propaganda".
As to the tools, then we seem to have a small microscope, dial gauge (rear), micrometer, gap gauge, slide rule and tape measure. It might be worth categorizing under "measuring instruments" rather than just tools, but I wouldn't try to cat for each tool individually. Grease pencils aren't there because toolroom engineers don't have much use for them - they leave tooo broad a line. As Queeg was famously an impersonation by Holly, can I ask if you were previously known as Carol Spears, who shared a similar interest in grease pencils? Andy Dingley (talk) 09:52, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Some password issues. I had been enjoying the anonymity, what was left of it. Queeg is a cool nick, eh? Cooler and tougher than I have been able to maintain. I messed up being like Queeg as soon as a person here communicated with me civilly and decently.
Your nomination was interesting. Are you feeling under-appreciated? I have been looking at files that were uploaded by bots (from wikis were people uploaded them years ago) and files that were uploaded by drunk people or stupid people or those looking to promote something or bad/cruel jokes. Only the occasional great or rare file.
Some how, generic/unbranded/un-sided propaganda seems like an oxymoron. Like, I was told recently that "self censorship" is an un-defining of the word censorship because censorship is something that one person or group applies to another. That this "propaganda" could be displayed on any side who has soldiers who wear that khaki green seems to un-define it in a similar way as propaganda.
I am more fond of the grease pencil discussion, by the way, than I am of grease pencils and extremely pleased that you remembered it.  :)
-- Queeg (talk) 19:12, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Personal attacks[edit]

This edit is clearly not trolling, and I do not appreciate the accusation that I am a troll. Nor is it necessary to tell me to "Go to Hell". Your continuous condescending tone is also inappropriate. You may not agree with my opinions, but the fact is that this image would be better as a PNG, without compression artifacts. If you like compression artifacts, that's fine. But it doesn't make sense to say they are not there simply because you don't like the fact that the description page says they are. Continually removing appropriate templates from images is much closer to trolling than any editing I have ever done. If you wish to again remove an appropriately place template, I'd suggest discussing it first. —danhash (talk) 15:15, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

You are a troll.
You know my opinion of your use of the {{BadJPEG}} template and the claim that this image is damaged by inappropriate compression (it isn't) and compression artifacts (there aren't any, at least not of anything significant). The idea that it can be improved by converting this existing JPG file to PNG is farcically wrong (you don't really think this do you?). I would very obviously rather delete this image, in fact all of my images, than support this ridiculous "all JPGs are bad" notion. There is certainly not going to be a re-scan of this image as PNG, and I have made this very clear already.
So you edit-war to re-apply the template. There is no useful purpose to this. Anything image-related has already been said. Its sole purpose is to irritate me. This is trolling, plain and simple.
Once again, I have far more respect for editors pontificating on image issues if they've contributed images themselves. You have not - your sole contribution(sic) to Commons is to criticise others.
Andy Dingley (talk) 16:30, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
The image does have compression artifacts, which might not matter as much on Wikipedia since the purpose of Wikipedia images is to illustrate the topic and not necessarily to be of the highest quality. But images and media here on Commons is the point of Commons. Images are here to be reused, scaled, edited, etc. If that image is scaled to a higher resolution, compression artifacts are more apparent. You may not be able to see them at normal resolution, but that doesn't mean that nobody can or that I can't or that it wouldn't be better if they weren't there. I never said that the existing JPEG should be converted to PNG–I am obviously aware that this is pointless, as you would know if you had actually read what I have already posted on the issue. If you actually read the template I applied, it talks about a PNG version from a non-JPEG source. You obviously did not read the template before hastily removing it, simply because I put it there. I don't think all JPEGs are bad. As I have said before I think it's a great image. As I have also already said, if you don't want to re-scan the image that is fine. I don't expect you to re-scan all JPEGs from Autocar you've uploaded and save them as PNG. But it is true that a lossless image format, such as PNG, would be better suited for this image–and indeed all images of this type–especially here on Commons, and you have provided no actual arguments to the contrary. My edits to the image description have included informative edit summaries–yours haven't. You just publicly told me to "Go to Hell" and said I was "Trolling". There is a useful purpose to my addition of the ShouldBePNG template, and it was not to irritate you. It shouldn't even irritate you; it is a statement of fact–a fact that you can't refute. I unfortunately don't have enough time to do a lot of image-related work right now; my main edits are to the English Wikipedia. But having the image tagged lets people who have more time than I do to work on images see it and perhaps provide a better version. I know a lot about image formats. I might not have uploaded lots of images to Commons as you have, but I have scanned thousands of documents and have experience working with different formats, and I do not have to meet your approval to edit here. My contributions to Commons to not solely consist of criticism. Many of my edits on Commons have been tagging images, which is helpful even if you don't like it. I have also made other constructive edits, and just because I haven't uploaded enough images for your satisfaction doesn't mean I am unable to voice my opinion. I mainly edit Wikipedia and usually only tag images here when I see them in a Wikipedia article. You continue to be condescending and continue to make accusations against me, neither of which is appropriate or helpful. With so much talk about contributions, you might consider showing an attitude more conducive to a place where people try to work together instead of tear each other down. —danhash (talk) 18:23, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


I've only done about 5000 of these edits in the last week or so, but I've never, ever, seen a place categorised by the river it's on. The other way round, yes. Are you sure your reversions were correct? Cheers. Rodhullandemu (talk) 21:46, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Do it the other way if you prefer, but removing it altogether is unhelpful. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:19, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
Well, leaving it in seems to me to be redundant and perverse. That would be like categorising Maidenhead by River Thames, which we don't do. I'm only on the first pass of this exercise, which will take me beyond Christmas, but at the end of it we should have a consistent categorisation of Rivers of England, if nothing else. Rodhullandemu (talk) 22:53, 11 October 2011 (UTC)