User talk:I.R. Annie IP./Archive

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

Foo's Festival[edit]

Image:Cartoon explaining how to orphan an image.png[edit]


That is really weird, about the 600px thing! I'm going to post about it on the COM:HD. pfctdayelise (translate?) 03:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I meanwhile wonder whether this concerns any-and-all browsers (I use only firefox). Might have a look at User:Huitzlipochtli III./TestSite 2, on this. And, please, on this occasion possibly improve on the headline, it should be correct English ;) w. [call me trouble's best friend] WolfgangW. 03:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
What's wrong with the English?! :) Of course you can use 'orphan' as a verb, heh... language is a flexible, living thing! pfctdayelise (translate?) 05:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
One more misunderstanding: I wanted to beg YOU to correct MY English in TestSite 2, where I wrote "How to come into trouble quite easily" which does not seem to me perfect, but I can't do better.WolfgangW. 05:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

rm from Talk page on WolfgangW. 10:05, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

re: Image:Foo 1.jpg[edit]

Hahaha!!! I love it!!!! Thanks so much for putting that on my talk page, I laughed out loud when I saw it. :)

I actually did intend to have a red circle like you put, but I forgot to do it before I digitised the image. So, thanks.

I'm not really clear on what you're intending to use them for. If they are called Foo.jpg for some special reason (like, to demonstrate that that's a very bad, undescriptive image name that should always be avoided - then go ahead and keep it). Otherwise... I just say it because it's like "Example.jpg" or "Yourimage.jpg" or "Yourimagename.jpg" etc.

Also I think the quality was much better as PNG rather than JPG (the JPGs look kind of "messy"). So, again, unless there is a compelling reason to keep them as JPG (like, to demonstrate why PNGs should be used, or if you find it easier to work with JPGs that's OK too), they'd be better as PNGs.

cheers, pfctdayelise (translate?) 14:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

<3 <3 <3 !!!
YES, in this case, I'd like to keep them both - but be careful, there might be some c.990 more to come ;)))
re Quality: If you're relying on the difference between YOUR original JPG and the PNG I made of it, I do not think the difference can be done beyond c. 15-20 minutes of work on the original, by a professional, but I might be wrong (it took me longer). Huuuh!
I did understand that "Foo" was something like German "Häääh?" ("what should T.H.A.T be about???"), and decided to create a series on that: Do not forget,, and trial-and-error, for sure, means (by far) more errors that „hits“ (hopefully, „hits“ is English for any very successful products, too, as it is in German).
Do you think one could manage those "Foo" and "Foo_1" to be kept from deletion or overwriting, by giving them some "flag?", or "declaration?" so that they could not be edited any more? Of course, you should check the description text in both, before, as I am not sure how many bugs I implanted by lack of language perfection. I'm really proud on having invented Pfctday's Rat's Company, but it should be made sure that there are no orthographical or grammatical errors in it which could harm the Corporate ID, hää? Let's show it as the really serious company it is. <3, WolfgangW. 15:52, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
PS: You did not answer here the second question I posed, which was, would it be redundant to use e.g. "Category:pfct..." on a document which already is put under one of it's sub-categories? Y-N? TX.
  1. Just passed by TestSite 2: TX! ;)
  2. How about giving Foo_998 a leave into PD-old or PD-Art? seriously, WolfgangW. 17:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
  3. I tried to read some of your posts (Folini, eg.,) and promose to "not too soon" offer any more like Image:Foo 2.png. Tried Duesentriebs CommonSense and found it to hard to understand for "The.Perfect.Beginner". Might be worth while to invest time on instructions-for-use of such? WolfgangW. 20:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

rm from talk WolfgangW. 10:07, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


TX for bugfix, & cry for Help[edit]

Hi David, nice you got things OK that quickly, this morning. It seems that my Editor has troubles with PNG. PNGs with transparent parts become about three times bigger than GIFs (whith supposedly same amount of colours). As in German WP I am rather "mistreated" since I showed up there, I hardly get any answer on my questions, and if I do, most are just cynical (you can check e.g. de:Wikipedia Diskussion:Bildertutorial/1 and its history on this, as well as the tutorial itself, in case you are curious; I'm de:User:IP.).

What I want to ask you now: Which tool to use for PNG re-writing? In DE.WP, I just was "offered" pngout which has to be handled by command line, and I feel somewhat too tired and wiki-stressed to learn that now. So, in case you can give me a hint on DAU [sorry, don't have the English for it, it means "Most stupid Imaginable User"] - safe tool, which is freeware, too, it would be great. I for sure do not want to make you troubles with my PNGs too often! TX, WolfgangW. 10:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC) (Hmm, I probably do not explicitely have to say that my machine runs on WinXP?)

I use pngrewrite, advpng, and optipng. Sorry, they're all command line tools! If you want to give any of them a try, I recommend starting with pngrewrite. Anyway, they're all free. User:dbenbenn 12:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Oh yes. I did read that on your user's page as well as in the remarks of your edit. My question was, do you know a tool which is not-commandline? WolfgangW. 12:56, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't know any non-command line tools for dealing with PNG. User:dbenbenn 16:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
I meanwhile "ordered" my son to pass by next weekend and help this old man to manage things like tha ;) WolfgangW. 16:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Flag of the United Kingdom[edit]

Hi Dbenbenn, I just find out that w:flag of the United Kingdom is "closed" to editing. I suggest to add the term "Union Jack" to the description. How do you think about? WolfgangW. 06:32, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

No it isn't. And it says "commonly known as the Union Flag or Union Jack" right at the top. User:dbenbenn 13:53, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Oh, you meant Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg. I've unprotected it. User:dbenbenn 13:55, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Big TA, and sorry that was not sufficiently clear. For as long as I'm quite uncertain on what is right or not in picture description, I will at least sleep over it before editing... Besides, it might be quite a good idea to protect files descriptions after there is not much to add...
I may proudly announce that I had lunch with my son, today, _A.N.D_ we (no, he) found the right thing for PNG-compression: manageable-by-his-old-man!!) It's PNGGauntlet, which works under some MS .NETframework, so just right for me!! As we had a few glasses of wine, afterwards, I'm not going to do very much editing any more, today ;)) This is just to thank you for the links you gave, where he (not me) found it. Good evening! WolfgangW. 16:04, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

rm from Talk WolfgangW. 18:29, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

(Back from David) If possible, protect Image:Example.jpg[edit]

In English, I can't do better - so, if you'd like to correct any "distorted" text, it would be nice. —WolfgangW. 11:18, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Please don't use {{notify}}. Such images have to be deleted. User:dbenbenn 15:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC) where.YOU.seemed to declare that such would be allowed![edit]

Change it into whatever, if you like, or have-to. I won't care. WolfgangW. 16:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)