User talk:Jbarta/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Jbarta. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archives

1, 2

Welcome to the Wikipedia

I noticed you were new, and wanted to share some links I thought useful:

Feel free to contact me personally with any questions you might have. Wikipedia:About, Wikipedia:Help desk, and Wikipedia:Village pump are also a place to go for answers to general questions. To read up on the latest wikinews, have a look at the Wikipedia Signpost. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~~~~.

(Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 17:30, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Juice collector

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Juice collector, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Juice collector. h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 19:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Your addition to the Children of Paradise article

I've made some changes and added this note: "Revised to reflect that "the gods" are not people, but the cheapest, upper balconies of a theatre".

The article's second section explains the term, "the gods": basically it is the upper gallery(s). The literal English tranlation of the title, as we know it in America, comes out as "Children of Paradise", using the translation of the French theatre term for the same upper areas.

The most accurate title translation would be something like "Children of the Upper Gallery", but that's not really correct either....

Essentailly, the "children" are the theatre-goers who sit in "the gods" or upper balconies. Hope this clarifies. Viva-Verdi (talk) 12:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Public image of Barack Obama

I'm fine with cherishing facts, but "an issue with Obama's birth certificate" is not one of them. Please understand that this "issue" is constantly being peddled across dozens of Obama articles, even though it has no merit for inclusion. The peddlers are hoping that if they make enough of a fuss about it (including besieging Wikipedia with their fringe nonsense) it will become notable. The constant attempts to include this material by the "sore losers" I described earlier are highly disruptive to the project. My only concern is the integrity and neutrality of Wikipedia. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:33, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

"at least concede that the birth certificate Obama has made available is not the actual birth certificate that was created at his birth."

You are referring to the long form birth certificate, I presume? It doesn't need to be produced, because the short form certificate is more than sufficient to put his place of birth, date of birth, name and parents' names beyond any doubt whatsoever. Only fringetards care about the long form birth certificate. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:16, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Reply

No problem, I figured it was an innocent mistake. Thanks for your note. I see that I'm not the only night owl. :-)Ferrylodge (talk) 09:41, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Reply to your comment

"I just wanted to tell you that while I personally find some of your comments and views grating, unconstructive and a general insult to reasonable and thoughtful discussion, your knowledge of Wikipedia guidelines and your commitment to it's integrity are obvious and admirable. I reluctantly concede that your efforts in limiting my efforts have contributed to the worthiness and objectivity of these articles. In that context, you have my respect."

After months and months of fighting my way through the political bullshit, I'll admit I'm a little acerbic from time to time. I no longer have the patience. I do appreciate your comment, however. Although we don't necessarily agree on stuff, it is nice to be understood! My thanks. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:44, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Obama article probation

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Article, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you. -- Jehochman ^Talk 02:24, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Fringe

Atheism is a fringe view? How do you draw that conclusion? -- Scjessey (talk) 16:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I didn't mean that with any seriousness. If we define fringe as a view held only by a few, then maybe it's fringe. I'm really not prepared to make that case one way or another. However, personally I like to shy away from making such judgements on other people's thinking altogether. People are rarely as loony as we are often so convinced they are. Jbarta (talk) 16:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. If we define fringe as a view held by only a few, then maybe atheism is a "fringe view" in a small number of countries around the world. In many countries it is a prevailing view, and in most countries it is a significant (if still a minority) view. The US, for example, is unusual in having an atheist population estimated at less than 10% (although that depends a little on how you define "atheism"). As far as "loonies" are concerned, it is my experience that people are often more loony that I was convinced they were! It disturbs me, for example, that a significant number of US citizens believe that Earth is less than 10,000 years old. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:30, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

It has little to do with their "loonieness" and more to do with their core belief systems. We can point to many ideas that WE consider loony, but that make perfect sense to other perfectly sane people. It's important to not confuse belief with sanity. I might think it's loony to kill my sister for bringing shame on the family, but that doesn't mean if someone thinks that is acceptable, they are by cosmic definition, a loon. At best they are a loon by MY definition and in relation to MY beliefs (or OUR beliefs if you and I share the belief or most people's belief if most people share the belief). In no event does the sanity of the individual come into play.

On the specific issue the earth being less than 10,000 years old, I believe that proposition is completely contradicted by evidence. However, that's my view. Another's view might be that it doesn't matter what the "evidence says", but that there is a greater truth that trancends mortal physics and presentation of earthly evidence. Again, it's not about "loony"... it's about what one chooses to believe and how one approaches various issues. Jbarta (talk) 17:51, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah. I would contend that it has nothing to do with "belief" at all. I am skeptical about everything, and it requires an enormous leap of imagination to believe in a God or gods when there is absolutely no evidence for their existence whatsoever. To make that leap, it seems that a person would need to be a little fucked in the head, or, be so thoroughly brainwashed and conditioned from birth (we are all born atheists, of course) that they don't know any better. Either you have to be a lunatic to believe all that crap with no evidence, or you have to be a lunatic to brainwash your children into believing all that crap. Either way, the looniness quotient must be pretty high! -- Scjessey (talk) 18:05, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Other people find it easy to make that leap despite the evidence. Einstein believed in God. Ben Franklin believed in God (more or less). It would be tough to argue that either were stupid or crazy or illogical. And yes, what you characterize as "brainwashing and conditioning" very much comes into play. Actually beliefs that are handed down by those around us are very powerful (not to mention numerous and often subtle). You have the belief that it is good to be skeptical about "everything" and that a leap of imagination is unacceptable. To others, such skepticism may be less important and that leap is no problem at all. For them it's truth, end of argument. While you may disagree with their reasoning or refute their beliefs, I don't believe you can then draw the conclusion that they are lunatics by some cosmic definition. Jbarta (talk) 18:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, a more important and interesting aspect of this discussion comes into play in it's application to everyday life. Honor killings in New York, "moments of silence" in schools and Christmas displays at the municipal center... that's where it gets dicey. Regardless of the issue however, I think it's good to stick to arguments of reason rather than making accusations of lunacy. Nothing useful or constructive comes from that. Jbarta (talk) 19:38, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Answer

I replied at my talk page. Additionally, I don't mind your energy and interest in this issue at all. But I do suspect it would be helpful for you to moderate your position a bit, and seek compromise, especially when there may be admins chomping at the bit to block or ban you.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:47, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anybody is looking to block Jbarta. They seem to be a good faith user with a diversity of interests. Jehochman ^Talk 18:12, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I stand corrected. :-) But I still do suspect it would be helpful for you to moderate your position a bit, and seek compromise. Also, think more about the question posed in an RfC; is the question phrased so that the outcome of the RfC will resolve everything, or could it still leave things unresolved? Does the RfC offer a clear choice, or does it only ask whether one choice is good or bad? Stuff like that. But don't give up; I think you've had a lot of interesting and insightful things to say.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:55, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, when posing the question in the RfC, I did mention that if there was a suggestion for new title, to offer it. There wasn't a whole lot of that. Scjessey proposed an alternative, that while I wasn't completely content with it, I offered my support. If I recall, there was a proposal (by you?) for "citizenship challenges and conspiracy theories". Again, I'm not entirely happy with that, (actually I'm mostly UNhappy with that for a couple different reasons) but I could grudgingly support that as an alternative to the title as it stands now... in the interests of compromise and with the idea that that's as good as it's going to realistically get. Do you think that should should be proposed? If so, would you be willing to propose it? I really don't think I should propose it after telling so many people how wrong they are. Jbarta (talk) 19:21, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

And for the record, I've never thought that anyone would seriously consider blocking or banning me. They might think about punching me in the face really hard or wishing I would go find a hobby, but never blocking or banning ;-) Jbarta (talk) 19:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I haven't got much time for this but I'll give it a try.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:53, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:TALK

Seriously, you have got to review WP:TALK and stop using the discussion page for Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories as a discussion board for your opinion of the various theories about Obama's eligibility to be president. The discussion page is to only be used to discuss improvements to the article and if the comment you are about to make does not have anything to do with that, then it does not belong on the article's talk page. There is going to be some meta discussions because of the discussions on the naming of the article, but it is entirely inappropriate for you to make any of these comments. They have absolutely nothing to do with making improvements to the article and are purely you using the article's discussion page to further your own opinions on the matter. If you feel the need to express yourself about your own personal opinions on the matter that is not related to improvements to the article, I hear Blogspot, [Blogger, and any of the other free web log providers have an excellent service that you may use. Please be aware that if you continue to use the article's talk page to discuss the general merits of the topic rather than article improvements you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 06:15, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your concern. I have a question for you. Do you personally have any authority to block anyone from the discussion page? Jbarta (talk) 06:27, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I am not an administrator on Wikipedia, so I don't have access to the buttons that would block you. That being said, I can request that an administrator block you, but before that can be done, you have to be warned and given the opportunity to change your ways. So consider the above a warning to change your ways.;) --Bobblehead ^(rants) 06:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, I appreciate your concern. Who am I kidding, I don't really appreciate your concern. Actually it's late and I really don't much care what you think unless it has something to do with the article. I understand there are a lot of people posting on the issue and I'm one of them. You're one of them too. And for the most part, it's all in an effort to examine the topic for the good of the article. Tossing around threats you can't follow through on isn't useful or impressive in the least. Trying to get those with whom you disagree with to just go away isn't a very convincing position. At any rate, I'm sure we can be friends and I'm sure we can find points of agreement and I'm sure in the end it will benefit the article. In the meantime however, don't think for a second that your civic-minded warnings and suggestions are worth very much more than a warm bucket of piss. Now that we have that sorted out, I'm happy to discuss the article with you. We can even do it here, one on one, point by point and see if we can't make it a better article.Jbarta (talk) 06:51, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Poll

If a statistically significant number of people really thought there was an issue with Barack Obama's citizenship, I amsure the McCain campaign and the Republican National Committee would have tried to use it to their advantage. The fact is, however, they didn't. They figured they were more likely to lose more voters who would be disgusted with the tactic then they would've gained from running with it. One can infer from this fact alone that the numbers were not significant. The election results would seem to confirm this. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree MaCain (and Clinton) left this one alone because they saw it causing more trouble than it was worth, and probably figured they'd get nowhere with it just as the lawsuits have gone nowhere. And yes, voters would have gotten disgusted had this been aired by the campaigns. Look at the contentiousness in these talk pages among people who largely know the details. Can you imagine how it would fly with the general public?

That said, I still believe that given the information, a large number of people would agree something is probably not as advertised. All in all it's an interesting topic... mostly because it never really comes up. How often does a mainstream presidential candidate have to deal with this? I think the last time was Goldwater. (And I never even heard about that until very recently) Jbarta (talk) 14:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I know I've asked you this before and you blew me off... but maybe I'll ask you again... do you think Obama has something to hide?

Absolutely not. Despite what I've been saying about the title of that article, I am very much of the opinion that all this speculation over Obama's citizenship et al was caused by the ugly lies spread by Andy Martin, and fueled by Hannity-loving Americans who just don't like the idea of an intelligent black man being their president. I am 100% certain that Obama's eligibility is rock solid, and I have never doubted it for a second. My disagreement over the title of that article was based purely on my understanding of Wikipedia policy, and had nothing to do with my personal views. If I could choose how I wanted to title the article, it would be "Claims by right-wing wack-jobs and illiterate fundamentalist racist morons that Barack Obama may not be eligible for the presidency" (or something far more derogatory). -- Scjessey (talk) 17:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Very interesting (the 100% rock solid part). I believe you are sincere and I'm somewhat astonished you arrive at that conclusion. It's amazing how two people can look at the same thing and each see something different. As far as the "intelligent black man" as president, I've observed three things in this election... 1) that race really isn't that much of an issue, and 2) race is more of an issue than I thought and 3) charges of racism are made to great excess. (those seem to conflict, but they really don't). As far as your last sentence, that's absolutely ridiculous. That would mean you characterize me that way, and I don't believe you can and keep a straight face. (unless you believe I'm just an innocent and witless bystander who has been sucked into believing their crazy ideas.)

I also have a frank observation if you're interested... you seem to have a rabid partisan streak in you that I believe clouds your judgement and poisons your objectivity to a significant degree, and is precisely the attitude you claim to abhor in others. It spills out all over the place when you write. The words you choose, the exaggerated and insulting language you use to describe other people with whom you differ. I'm not trying to provoke you, just offer my thoughts and suggest that it is precisely this rabid streak that widens the gulf between our thinking. My opinion, nothing more. Jbarta (talk) 17:51, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

You are partly right and partly wrong. I do not edit in a partisan manner - I edit according to policy (and when that fails, common sense). However, I am deliberately unsparing in my criticism of (and derision for) the foolish and stupid among us. I might express partisan opinion in conversations like this, but you will not see any sign of that in my approach to edit articles. Nor will you find much of it in article talk page discussions. If you truly believe that my objectivity has been clouded, then why would I make such an effort to get that dreadfully non-neutral title changed, for example?

And let me afford you the courtesy of being blunt. If you really think there is anything to these citizenship claims, then you are quite right in thinking I am lumping you in with all the other wack-jobs who believe in that nonsense. I'm sorry if that disappoints you, but it certainly disappoints me if an apparently intelligent and thoughtful person can be so completely sucked-in by what is nothing more than a scare story conceived by people who did not want Obama to win. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

As I've said before, I have no doubt you have only the highest standards for yourself when it comes to editing. And I suppose given the choice between being considered merely a witless bystander rather than a right-wing wack-job illiterate fundamentalist racist moron, I suppose I can be grateful that you see me in the less dim light. Thanks (I think)

By the way, I've been a fan of Obama since I first heard him speak in 2004. As soon as I heard him, I told a friend (literally) "I could vote for that man as President". Now, considering I'm pretty solidly a conservative and have never voted for a democrat for President, that was a surprise to people who knew me. And his racial makeup was completely immaterial to me, but I knew the specific circumstance of his being black would have a wonderful impact within the black community. So while it didn't matter to me personally, I thought it was a great perk. There's more, but that's enough for now for you to stick in your wack-job racist republican crack pipe and smoke for a while. Jbarta (talk) 18:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

(undent)Wikipedia welcomes knowledgeable people no matter what their personal opinions, as long as they can suspend those opinions in service of NPOV. Scjessey seems to understand that really well, which is really great. Incidentally, "a scare story conceived by people who did not want Obama to win" is a lot closer to the truth than "a scare story conceived by people who are racists morons." Unlike Scjessey's 100% certainty that Obama's eligibility is rock solid, I only have 99%, and am not ashamed of it. Senator O. used technicalities to obtain his first political office, and technicalities are as much a part of the law as anything else. The circumstances of his life in 1961 are very unusual, and include undisputed travel over a vast ocean while he was not yet a month old, parents whose activities during their 1961 summer vacation are almost completely unknown, a non-citizen father, a mother who loved exploring other cultures, and a Hawaii state government that apparently had no problem issuing birth certificates virtually on demand for years after birth. None of this adds up to much, but I wouldn't mind seeing the original certificate. Though I would much prefer President Obama to President Biden.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Funny that. When the election process started some 2 years ago, I wanted Joe Biden to win. I suppose that comes from living close to Delaware and being familiar with his politics, etc. I don't have the right to vote, so it's all rather moot anyway. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:02, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I always liked Joe Biden. He's a little annoying at times, but for a democrat he's an OK guy ;-) Jbarta (talk) 19:10, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course, "OK guy" is all relative. I detest virtually all politicians for being power-hungry, corrupt SOBs. To quote the Richard Jordan character in The Hunt for Red October: "Listen, I'm a politician which means I'm a cheat and a liar, and when I'm not kissing babies I'm stealing their lollipops." (appropriate Biden/Baby link)-- Scjessey (talk) 19:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

There is no value in detesting all politicians. And I happen to have the admittedly pollyannish view that most politicians are mostly decent people doing what they feel is good, right and proper most of the time. And most often we are quite fortunate to have such excellent people working in our service. I know... what an incredibly dangerous and stupid attitude to have... let's just hope I don't get with another one and breed. Jbarta (talk) 19:29, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for trying to help with WP's coverage of President Obama. Two years ago I was trying to get the fact that Michelle Obama is African American added to his bio. This seems like a vitally important fact, but alas it couldn't make it to the article. I'm not going to waste my time any more, but check out Talk:Early life and career of Barack Obama where the argument seems to be made that it is not a good idea to make a positive statement because that opens up the chance for someone else to make a negative statement. All the best. Steve Dufour (talk) 02:51, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

We'll add Wikipedia to laws and sausages ;-) And hopefully you'll consider wasting your time where you see fit... in the end, good comes from it. Jbarta (talk) 08:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Birth certificate / Moses

I have no special insight into the reasons Obama might or might not release personal information of this nature, but I suspect that the reason the long form certificate has not been released is that it is a private document that strangers have no business with. The release of the short form certificate should have been more than adequate to allay any fears of Obama not being eligible. If the long form certificate was released (which I think is a bad idea, because it makes the president-elect look weak), the tinfoil hat brigade will simply say it is faked and produce retarded videos by masked "experts" who offer conclusive "proof" that it isn't legitimate. Scjessey (talk) 16:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I was looking for specific statements he may have released on the issue. I'm guessing there are none beyond fightthesmears.com. Sometimes "the less said the better" is a smart approach to a difficult subject so I probably won't find much. (And is also a reason why I probably wouldn't get very far in politics myself... I don't know when to shut up ;-) Jbarta (talk) 20:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

As far as Moses is concerned, I am of the opinion that most of the details in the Old Testament are myth. There are some interesting stories in it which certainly have valid "life lessons" and the like, but most of it is just made up or drawn from legends and older religions. The New Testament is more historically accurate in the details (places, people, etc.), but only because it is more recent. I don't believe in miracles any more than I believe in pixies. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I would have a really hard time disagreeing with any of that. On the issue of miracles and pixies however, I suspect there are goings on in our world that we have yet to fully understand or even be aware of. I'm reminded of Rumsfeld's known known's. (I'm always a little disappointed to see that perfectly clear and logical statement is derided so by the peanut gallery... like or dislike, agree with him or not, Rumsfeld was no idiot.) Jbarta (talk) 20:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Therapist

Thanks for catching that... my blurry eyes didn't even see the word therapist until I woke up this morning. Once my brain put a space after the "e" I could only see it that way... not unlike those optical illusions that require you seeing a square where there is none. Be stwish es, —Noah 15:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:EGHS logo.png

Thanks for uploading File:EGHS logo.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

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

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 18:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: Civility

Thanks for catching me out. I'm so quick reverting everything poor ever since I started using tabs I haven't really put thought into my daily clean-ups. Alientraveller (talk) 16:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Btw, that was a nice quiz you linked on your user page. I scored Cultural Creative 81%; Idealist 75%; Postmodernist 63%; Romanticist 56%; Existentialist 56%; Modernist 50%; Fundamentalist 38%; and Materialist 25%. Alientraveller (talk) 16:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Humor

You'll enjoy this one: [1]
To be clear: there is no point or deeper message here; just a joke I remembered on reading your talk page comment. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 19:38, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

That's cute. I like that. JBarta (talk) 19:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Monopoly Editions

I was just curious...the Monopoly Editions page is now 344,707 bytes (344 KB) in length, with more editions being added all the time. Might it be time to create sub-articles for each country where numerous editions exist? For instance, in place of A-Z on the main page, replace it with a link to its main article, "Licensed and localized editions of Monopoly in America", or "...in England", or, in the case of ones I've found online and am adding, "...in Belgium" (I found six city editions on a foreign page which I used translation on).

This would help reduce load time on the main page and also how much information must be loaded for someone to find their "Argentinian edition" or such. If every edition on that page had details right now, I guarantee the page would be a megabyte or more. This also helps further as well, as the Star Wars edition I believe also got a Belgium release; we can list it with the Belgian names in their section, as well. Unless you consider that kind of release unnecessary to note, if it's just a direct translation (in which case list it, then provide a link to the main edition, I think).

Just some thoughts. =) CycloneGU (talk) 02:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Brandon Teena

This page is for discussion of the article, Brandon Teena. Your discussion of a change you'd like to make to the manual of style belongs on the talk page for the manual of style; it can be confusing when a talk page contains unrelated discussion. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

This is interesting- I figured out how to search the discussion archives at WP:MOS. Here's the search results for the word 'transgender'- you should probably review the previous discussions so you don't have to rehash discussions that have already happened, unless you have new insight to offer, of course. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm positively certain I have no new insight to offer on the matter. Just a little voice standing up to be counted against the great tide of consensus. (Standing up arguably in the wrong place.... but I already knew that) JBarta (talk) 13:19, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

File:Scouts y Guías Adultos de Argentina.jpg

Thank you for your help with this one. Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 11:17, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Newrsynclogo.png

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Newrsynclogo.png. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 03:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

You figure it out ;-) I simply created a png version of Newrsynclogo.jpg with a transparent background as requested. The whole license/permission/rationale etc etc is a confusing mass of rules and I have NO desire to learn the ins and outs. Use the image (as you have been for all intents and purposes) delete the image, fix the image.... whatever you wish. As far as I'm concerned, I'm done. I'll just figure it as one more reason why I'm seriously wasting my time here at Wikipedia. JBarta (talk) 04:22, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

_(delurking) ... Samba software is free/open source/GPL. Though the website doesn't provide a terms of use, they do explicitly provide instructions for mirroring it freely here: http://samba.org/samba/mirroring.html ... so it'd be a safe assumption that the website itself is GPL as well. Even so, I added a non-free rationale for the logo.. Fastily can probably delete the jpg version as duplicate. cheers, --guyzero | talk 05:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:GertVanRooyenVictims.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:GertVanRooyenVictims.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. 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 you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? feydey (talk) 00:04, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Just war article and "removing out of place statement"

On 8th Feb. 2010 you removed the mention of Obama's use of the term. How can this be "out of place". Perhaps today, but - also in the future? In my opinion it shows a quite important use of the term (and also of "Just peace"). Could it be moved to other places? I did refer the lecture itself, but I do think it shoud be mentioned in the Just war article. Øyvind Teig (talk) 10:49, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

As it was, it appeared to be an afterthought plugged in by an adoring admirer of Obama rather than an integral part of the article. Plus, if the concept of "just peace" is actually something substantive rather than just a catchy phrase, and if it should be in the article, then it might be useful to explain it with some meaning and some context rather than as just something Obama said. JBarta (talk) 11:31, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I wish I could have added it without leaving that impression! Maybe the fact that I only referenced, caused that thought! What I think about Obama should be irrelevant. I tried to find a place to put it, but did not really think it worth a separate chapter. Maybe a chapter could be added? Like "Recent references to Just war". Personally, I think both Just war and Just peace are as tricky as Obama's eager referencing of them. Read the speech and see what you think. I think his references may be just as important as the other references that now are in the Just war article. The "world history" will not depend on that short paragraph I added, as it also says shortly in the speech wiki-article, and in the speech itself. History will see if his mention of them was right, a catchy phrase or anything substantial. Obama at least offer his rather interesting metric to measure against. Will it hold? I think it should be added in again, but feel a little incompetent about it! I'd rather not add anything that stands a 10% chance to stay! Thanks for your comment! How do "we" proceed? Øyvind Teig (talk) 19:13, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

"We" don't. "You" however are welcome to make edits as you wish. Maybe my comments are something you'll consider as you proceed. JBarta (talk) 02:21, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Milan collage

Hi JBarta, I've replied to you on the photographic lab--Theologiae (talk) 09:09, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Diana de Vere Beauclerk (cropped to frame).jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Diana de Vere Beauclerk (cropped to frame).jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 03:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 03:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I figured it was in the public domain so anything could be done with it. Silly me. Plus the source is in the description. Not sure how much more is needed. Anyhow, since you have access to the same information I do and you seem to know what the problem is, it sure would be nice if YOU figured out what the image needs and fix whatever is broke rather than simply slapping some sort of a delete tag on it and walking away. JBarta (talk) 04:22, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Crazyforyoumusicvideo.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Crazyforyoumusicvideo.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).

PLEASE NOTE:

I am a bot, and will therefore will not be able to answer your questions.

I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used once again.

If you received this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.

To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to somewhere on your talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:19, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:GertVanRooyenVictims.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:GertVanRooyenVictims.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).

PLEASE NOTE:

I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 06:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:MeganKanka.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:MeganKanka.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).

PLEASE NOTE:

I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 01:54, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:George Burns.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:George Burns.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).

PLEASE NOTE:

I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:35, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Gits-tiltrotor.jpeg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Gits-tiltrotor.jpeg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. BloodDoll (talk) 05:33, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Poprocks.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Poprocks.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).

PLEASE NOTE:

I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:44, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Falsetto (song).jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Falsetto (song).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).

PLEASE NOTE:

I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:57, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Photo colorization

Hi, Jbarta. I was wondering if you know how to colorize old photos. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 12:41, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Never tried it before. Not sure if I'd even want to try. I'm sort of an "anti-colorization" purist. If it started out black & white, then it should stay black & white. JBarta (talk) 12:49, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Ow, that's ok. But thank you very much for having answered so fast. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 12:55, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

There was an editor in here at Wikipedia who did this kind of job. Unfortunately, he seems to have given up. Compare this black and white photo of U.S. President Zachary Taylor with the colored version. Or see this black and white and this colored version of a photo of the Confederate President Jefferson Davis. It's spetacular. A shame the user does not appear around anymore. --Lecen (talk) 20:52, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

FFT

Glad to hear you decided to give it a try. I have just a small comment to make but I didn't want to continue the off-topic discussion at the Graphic Lab. I thought the Queen Emma picture was probably not the best one to start off with – it is one of the more annoying ones and required quite a bit of cloning brush and some other tricks in addition to FFT. But I won't be stopping you, if you enjoy a challenge. :) A nice example would be File:James McBride, US minister to Hawaii.jpg. The FFT worked surprisingly well there. If you want a more practical example you could have a go at File:Kantarell, Iduns kokbok.jpg (used in 4300 articles!). The FFT can also be used to remove vertical stripes in that image. Of course, I'm not obliging you to do any of this; I'm just offering some suggestions, in case you have a deeper interest in this. Cheers, Quibik (talk) 15:08, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I did some messing around with the yellow rose in the tutorial and believe I have the basic jist of it. I was able to achieve the same results as they did in the tutorial. For the most part, the results seemed to be the same whether the image was broken down into RGB components or not. I played with Queen Emma and got about the same result as you did. I played with a few other files from the category you mentioned and had mixed results. Try as I may, I still don't understand the concept & mechanics behind FFT, but that's OK... I don't need to understand everything and it's not necessary for image manipulation. Anyhow, thanks again for the suggestion. Your suggestion also had the side advantage of forcing me to muck around in GIMP, which I had installed but never really used. It seems like quite an application and probably capable of more than I can imagine. JBarta (talk) 18:42, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh... there's a plugin (and a tutorial) for Photoshop too: Commons:Commons:Cleaning up interference with Fourier analysis#Tutorial for Photoshop. Should have mentioned that, I guess. As for understanding the concept of FFT, I agree. Even though I have studied and know the mathematics of it, my skills in using it for cleanup still came mostly through trial and error. —Quibik (talk) 19:59, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Good Housekeeping

Hello, Jbarta. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Graphic_Lab/Photography_workshop#Good_Housekeeping.2C_Aug_1908.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thank you

Thank you for the super fast turn-around on the Adam Thoroughgood house. Much appreciated. MarmadukePercy (talk) 08:37, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I was here and it was an easy job. Probably took more time for you to post the request than it did for me to crop it and upload new. JBarta (talk) 08:43, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, it looks a darn sight better, so thank you. I'm very fond of Frances Benjamin Johnston's work, and although I've uploaded some of it, there's a lot more I'd like to upload. She was a very gifted photographer, in my book anyway. Take care and enjoy your day. Best, MarmadukePercy (talk) 08:49, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the fixes, both on here and on Commons. That almanac looks so much better, as do the images on Commons. Thanks again! Best, MarmadukePercy (talk) 21:22, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Great job !

Jbarta, when you do a great job: simply upload upon the former file British_Museum_Asia_5.jpg (upload the cropped as "a new version" of the former file). Thus, the both version are available at the same place ;) Yug (talk) 10:47, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I will keep this in mind the next time I do a great job. JBarta (talk) 23:03, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Re:excellent work

Thanks. Tamba52 (talk) 05:31, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

June 2011

Your addition to File:Mandarinembraer.jpg has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other websites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content such as sentences or images. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Cropping the copyright banner to try to keep picture is not allowed Ronhjones ^(Talk) 22:22, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Get a grip Beavis, it was probably one of the images that was in Category:Images_with_watermarks and I just cropped out the watermark and removed the watermark flag. Nothing more complicated than that, and I promise that no one here was trying to put one over on you. JBarta (talk) 02:25, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Re: Marks on images

Hello, Jbarta. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Graphic_Lab/Photography_workshop#Marks_on_images.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

MissMJ (talk) 01:19, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Rosemary Theby Stars of the Photoplay.jpg

Sorry, I didn't mean to be unclear or rude: there is a mold-like white noise in her hat which could be removed within a few seconds in GIMP without affecting the rest. Grayscale noise is almost always present in unicolor photos and its degree depends on the contrast settings, thus my comment. Materialscientist (talk) 00:29, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Moved conversation back to the graphics workshop page so anyone or everyone may benefit from our ramblings. JBarta (talk) 01:00, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

TUSC token 8ef2c28a3cd8184f229fa5b030158f9e

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Governor's Mansion, Richmond, VA - 1905

An image created by you has been promoted to featured picture status

Your image, File:Governor mansion richmond 1905.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! Makeemlighter (talk) 14:14, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Kamal Abbas (cropped)

I was wondering if you could remove the other people from the background of the image. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 12:08, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm wondering... why? JBarta (talk) 16:05, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I wonna nominate it be a featured picture here on wikipedia english as well as on commonsك and they will most likely as for the background to be clear/transparent. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 14:38, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, though I'll pass on that. I think it's a fine image as it is and looks a little hokey with the background trimmed away. Personally, I think if you're going to nominate it as a featured picture, it would stand more of a chance with a natural background than a contrived one. JBarta (talk) 15:14, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:EGHS logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:EGHS logo.png. 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).

PLEASE NOTE:

I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 18:21, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

The lion of Egyptian revolution

I need your help finishing the clean-up of those images. Finemann have sadly left wikipedia and I need someone to fix the problem with the lion. The loin looks a bit pixelilized and noisy. I think once the lion is done, The image would be featured. Please let me know if you can help. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 00:04, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I made an attempt... though I started from scratch rather than starting with someone else's work. It is here. JBarta (talk) 17:01, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Jbarta. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Photography workshop/Eight Requests.
Message added 09:05, 16 September 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hopefully you'll be able to handle my request. It features on the "On this Day" section today so it'll possibly require quick action. Thanks. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 09:05, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks and I understand

I'm sorry man, I appreciate your hard work, this looks better, thank you! I feel the same about the rampant deletionism.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 05:36, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For all your excelent work done in the Graphic Lab! Thank you very much! Lecen (talk) 12:00, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank-you. JBarta (talk) 18:36, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Congratulations for the excellent work! Tamba52 (talk) 17:57, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks mate. JBarta (talk) 23:36, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Graphic Designer's Barnstar
	Thanks a lot for doing so much work at the graphics lab. It seems like you handle 5 - 10 a day! Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:08, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome, thank-you and happy to help out. JBarta (talk) 15:15, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Nail-clippers-variety

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted

Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Nail-clippers-variety.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Makeemlighter (talk) 09:53, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Graphic Designer's Barnstar
	You did a great job on transforming the image for Kate Ritchie - You would never know she had someone stood so close by! RaintheOne ^BAM 17:09, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that one turned out pretty well, thanks. JBarta (talk) 17:10, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Thermite

Hi. In my recent FPC for thermite, you mentioned a lack of encyclopedic usefulness... I don't have a video camera so can't get a video as requested, however if you've any further ideas for still images, I'm more then willing to give them a go!

I have got planned a photographic comparison of the different types of thermite and their relative brightness / ferocity. (i.e., Iron(II) oxide vs Iron(III) oxide vs Manganese oxide vs Chromium oxide). Am up for trying other stuff though if you've any ideas. Cheers, Nik thestoned 09:11, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Palace Hotel Silver Teapot c1900.jpg

The relevant guideline is here. You did follow it by discussing the issue, but the author disagrees, and if his reasons are solid, the policy asks to upload a separate file. Sure, you can argue further and defend your position as a wikipedian, but as a graphist I would respect the taste and efforts of Centpacrr, who created this image and is a major contributor to Palace Hotel, San Francisco (letters aside, you probably appreciate the background difference). There are not many capable and active editors on wikipedia, not to mention graphists, and I believe it is crucial to live in peace. I see it as a fight between improving one image hidden in a gallery of 20 and alienating a capable editor. Regards. Materialscientist (talk) 05:31, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I applaud your effort to make peace, though I think you're a little misguided in your effort. The correct and most useful outcome is for the image creator to understand and embrace that the description should be on the description page and caption, period. Your solution does not effect that outcome at all. With two images there may be a battle over which image to use. And at some point someone else will probably remove the text anyway. The value of compromise is often overrated. JBarta (talk) 06:02, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

There is no right or wrong here, there are two positions, and there is no indication Centpacrr will change his. (Look at File:PH composite.jpg for example). This is not just a teapot, it is an individual teapot presumably made for the hotel, and we do not know in what setting this teapot was displayed.

If you split the image, there is a chance your version will be used to illustrate a contemporary silver teapot; there is no chance his version will be used anywhere (at least outside the hotel article). Your version won't exist without his. So to me, it is also a courtesy matter. Materialscientist (talk) 06:33, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm done with that image and that article. Do what you wish. JBarta (talk) 07:52, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Ugh .. Materialscientist (talk) 08:16, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Not sure what you're trying to say, but he certainly did do a decent job with that old stadium pic. It didn't even occur to me to replace the sky. JBarta (talk) 08:46, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Laborious isolation of numerous blurred edges with various shapes at the sky part, low-importance image. Kudos. I hope he keeps doing such things for a while - it is helpful to see worthy examples (or just different approaches). Materialscientist (talk) 09:23, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

He does have skills.... no doubt about that. Actually, there's quite a few I've noticed over the years who are remakably skillful around here. Actually, speaking of skillful photoshopping, I found this the other day. I'm sure you'd find it awe inspiring. JBarta (talk) 18:31, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Graphic Lab request

Just a question, but where is the finished product I requested in Graphics Lab? The cone I requested be taken out of the pic....is still there. Am I missing something, or is the site gone wonky somehow?--Cesario (JPN) (talk) 10:34, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Nevermind, my browser didn't update. I see it now. Thank You. --Cesario (JPN) (talk) 10:37, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Image touch-up

How did you remove the dots from the scanned image I uploaded to Commons, w:Commons:File:Hedwige Chrétien-03.jpg? I would like to be able to do it myself. I do not have Photoshop but I do have Gimp. Also, is there some way of effectively removing moiré from images already scanned? Gimp has a method of doing this but I can't make it work effectively. It has a tool that requires adjusting the "diameter" but I haven't had much success. What I have been doing is using the "smudge tool" to blend the pattern into itself. This is a slow job but it kind of works. It does require some basic drawing skills though. Mike Hayes (talk) 18:25, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Remove dots, look into the "clone tool" in most graphics apps (GIMP has this). Moire from scanned images, some apps have a "remove moire" filter, or you can look into FFT. Add to that a good dose of practice. JBarta (talk) 00:04, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:GL/P

Re [2]: <3

Sincerely, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 06:31, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

shameless

How is having a frame shameless. You are not a photographer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamescyho (talk • contribs) 20:12, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, it's not shameless and I'm not a photographer. JBarta (talk) 20:37, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry

I'd like to sincerely apologize for my insolence in having the gall to even think about promoting the improvement of wikipedia in good faith. I hope you can find it in your heart to forgive me. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 12:27, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Whether or not I find it in my heart to forgive your transgression is immaterial. What *is* material is your future behavior. All the apologies and all the forgiveness in the world aren't worth a warm puddle of spit if such blatant affronts to the well-established order graduate from being a fleeting lapse of judgement to a bad case of recidivism. With that in mind, if it pleases you, you have my tentative forgiveness. JBarta (talk) 19:41, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Cropped Picture

Yes I thought the cropped image was good but I think this image fits in well in the article like how the image of Halie Selassie fits in well. Also during the nomination a user has cleaned the image of dust. Spongie555 (talk) 21:03, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Two comments... 1) sometimes one item feels preferrable to a second for no other reason than we are used to the first. And 2) the cropped image can easily be cleaned up as well. Still, your call. JBarta (talk) 22:20, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I went ahead and cleaned up the cropped image. JBarta (talk) 22:46, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Kalbhairav pinnacle

Hi, Could you please update your vote with regards to the edit? --Cj.samson (talk) 07:34, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Postcard of Eatonia

Hello. I have no problem with cleaning up an old postcard. That's fantastic. The issue is that the card is in the article because it is a historic document that identifies the town with its initial name. So, when cleaning up the image, it's best not to crop out the elements that give it historic value. That's all. Otherwise, I have no issue with your changes. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:52, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Kamal Abbas (cropped).jpg

the picture u edit has been nominated to be a featured picture on commons :-) -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 14:08, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Groovy, though I think it's a little odd that both the cropped and uncropped images are used in the article. – JBarta (talk) 16:17, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Well the cropped image focus on the main while uncropped image focus on the event :-) Anyways, I was wondering if you will comment to the current nomination. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 09:19, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll pass on that for two reasons, first it's probably not appropriate since I was the last one to edit the image, and two I'm not really feeling it's featured picture worthy. It's a rather ordinary picture. – JBarta (talk) 09:29, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Being the editor of the image doesnt mean you cant vote :-) The picture might lack a wow factor but most portrait dont have it (Unless it Putin fighting a bear :D). You vote will is needed. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 15:21, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

good looking, but not always a good heart

"Editing Wikipedia is like making out with a really pretty girl who has really bad BO. After a while it doesn't matter how pretty she is...."

This made me LOL (literally). So true...TCO (Reviews needed) 00:39, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, always a good heart. Every editor's heart is always in the right place... though sometimes it's a pretty f*cked-up place. – JBarta (talk) 00:44, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

THANK YOU

Thank you for the aspect ratio work and the table suggestion. I will definitely try it and am open to whatever makes the stuff look very smooth and professional!TCO (Reviews needed) 18:10, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty good with tables, so if you need help making it look a certain way, let me know. – JBarta (talk) 18:36, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I will try doing some of it on my own, so I learn. But will be back for special help! thanks again, liking the clean look...TCO (Reviews needed) 19:00, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I am struggling to get the PTFE applications table to work. See: [3] I would like the text to be left aligned (since it looks strange to center it, when there is more than one line). Pics are getting skewwed out for some reason also. May have same issue on the Elemental fluorine table as well.TCO (Reviews needed) 21:16, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Did a table for "Major PTFE applications". You pretty much had it nailed, I just gave the items some space. Not sure where your "Elemental fluorine table" is. – JBarta (talk) 21:58, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

You fixed it! Other table is the first one in F article, shows a strip of colors and a crystal structure for solid fluorine. I can try to figure it out on own by copying what you did for PTFE if you don't get to it.TCO (Reviews needed) 22:51, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Added an Elemental fluorine table to your sandbox page. – JBarta (talk) 23:16, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

As I think about it, I should mention that it's not the best practice to use tables for display purposes. Best keep it to a minimum... only when necessary. The problem arises on small displays (such as mobile). The content won't flow to the smaller screen and the user will be forced to side-scroll to see the whole table. Then again, this can be overcome using a few nested divs instead of tables. I probably should have done that in the first place. Let me know when you're done inserting these tables into the article and I'll see if the wiki software will let me build the same thing using divs. If it works, you'll have the best of both worlds... a groovy layout that also flows well on a small display. – JBarta (talk) 23:32, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, I will work with you on the layout before it heads to FA (months away really, need at least a month of work and then a month long Peer review). Like with the very first one, that may still be changing content wise (a different image to make a different point coming in). If I can get both, that would be great. I was using galleries before as sort of a poor man's table, but I actually DON'T like it when they break on a small screen (would rather force the reader to scroll). Also, I worry that with galleries, some of the "rule nazis" will think that I am using them as just a place with a bunch of crap photos, when really I have more thought going into this.

Thanks again for all your help and please don't be mad at me for lightening the boy. :-)n TCO (Reviews needed) 00:14, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not mad. I don't get mad. And don't be so worried if someone is mad. Just do your thing and all will be well. – JBarta (talk) 00:20, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

HAHA. Very cool man. I am going to go walk to the Y (cardio) and lift legs. I'll be the little white guy in the squat rack with the brothas. U take care, pretty girl makeout man!TCO (Reviews needed) 00:25, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

On the issue of tables and layout and forcing the reader to scroll, I just wanted to reiterate that not only is it somewhat undesirable in a general sense, but is also frowned upon by Wikipedia policy. Just keep that in mind as you revamp and refurbish. – JBarta (talk) 03:18, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Community input required: lowering delist bar at FPC

You are receiving this because of your current or past association with the Featured Pictures project. Following on from several cases where closers did not observe the prescribed minimum votes required for a delisting, there is now a motion to entirely dismiss the requirement for a minimum. Please participate in the discussion as wide-ranging changes may arise. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 13:32, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I honestly don't care about this relatively minor issue one way or another. It seems to be getting debated at length in true Wikipedia fashion. Whatever you kids sort out is fine with me. – JBarta (talk) 13:43, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

table request

Hi JB:

Could you please help me with modifying this table:

Molecular fluorine

Solid alpha-fluorine's crystal structure: diatomic molecules lie in shingled layers.	The color of fluorine gas (middle), compared to air (left) and chlorine (right). The observation was done in 1892, looking down 5 meter tubes.

I would like to add this image to the right (convert two panes to 3 panes). I guess we need to shrink the images as well. Like to keep the whole table under 800px, preferably under 750. I think the first two drawings scale down just fine. Little worried about the MO diagram (that the text at top is readable after we shrink it, but we can tweak the font if that's the case or you can do some table magic with different sizes or the like).

F atom on left and right, showing 5 p electrons (4 paired, 1 unpaired). F2 molecule is in center and molecular orbitals end up making all the electrons paired. — Molecular orbitals of the fluorine molecule lead to all electrons pairing.

TCO (talk) 17:06, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Here's your table:

Molecular fluorine

Solid alpha-fluorine's crystal structure: diatomic molecules lie in shingled layers.	The color of fluorine gas (middle), compared to air (left) and chlorine (right). The observation was done in 1892, looking down 5 meter tubes.	Molecular orbitals of the fluorine molecule lead to all electrons pairing.

I have to mention again that this sort of horizontal image layout via table is problematic. It's all fine and dandy on a full size monitor, but on a smaller screen it will make the reader scroll. It's hardly the end of the world, but I wouldn't do this sort of thing too often in an article. Finding a way to work the single images in the article is a better idea. (Actually, a borderless gallery would be nice... maybe I'll look into making such a template... but that's for another day.) Also, keep in mind other editors may come along and give you grief on this layout matter, as may those who review good/featured articles. Just something to consider. Keep up the good work. – JBarta (talk) 19:37, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks man. I hear you. Appreciate your expertise!TCO (talk) 19:42, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd like your opinion

On this... I know the motorway at the bottom would look a crap-load better if I'd not cut it off, just wondering if you feel it's worth uploading for the Cairo Tower page (this being the view from the top)? I was going to do so, but after our recent discussion I'm not so sure, and would value your opinion. Thanks, Nik thestoned 14:12, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Panoramas that I think are good:

Panoramas that I think are bad:

From there, you can get an idea of where I might place the image you mention. Again, just my opinion. – JBarta (talk) 15:02, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Cheers mate, can see what you're saying, certainly when considered re: EV (even though I do like most of those!). Nik thestoned 16:31, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

The notice that you didn't receive

You were supposed to get a notice about some nom that I closed, but because I used the spelling from your sig, JBarta, it didn't reach you. It may have been about this although I think it would have been more likely to be a promotion. Maybe you already saw it if it was something getting promoted that you were involved with. The other user talk page got deleted without any notifying, which is just par for the course these days, apparently, so I can't use it to reconstruct what happened. Sorry. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 17:40, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I will probably need more help

That is if you are still willing to help with stuff that is against the rules.

I want to show CaF2 and BeF2 side by side in one of my pseudopanoramas.

I should have just come here first probably. Got an image made of the BeF2, but need aspect ratio adjusted and the table worked (I tried doing a table in my sandie, but I can't make it scale, was looking at using the bad tall aspect stuff and just making the thing small, but even that did not work.)

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:NikNaks#aspect_ratio

Sorry, if this is confused, but can you straigthen out? Should I try to work it out with that other guy or have you take over?

TCO (talk) 09:59, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Is this what you're looking for?

Different difluorides

The strong and stable ionic fluorite structure adopted by calcium fdiluoride and many other diflurides	A sketch of the disordered structure of berryllium glass, two dimensions shown

Thanks.TCO (talk) 17:06, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Holly and Reggie

I was laughing my head off tabbing between this and this. Thanks for that! :-D Seriously though, perhaps somebody (we?) should try to come up with some quality guidelines for the Graphic Lab, get some consensus from the wider community, then try to apply them. That way it should be easier to pull someone up if need be without them taking it personally. A lot of photography forums see critique as a positive thing (as do I), maybe because everyone understands its purpose, and I don't see why the Photography Workshop should be any different. Just a thought. nagualdesign (talk) 04:15, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I also amused myself tabbing between the two :-) Regarding guidelines, I tend to think that it's subjective enough to make any sort of guidelines useless at best. I will say this however (and I've said it before), I think as the supposed graphics experts around here, we each ought to think more in terms of what a is a quality image and less in terms of what some particular editor wants. If we know something may look hokey, at the very least we ought to bring that up instead of being so eager to please that we're willing to do rather bad work. – JBarta (talk) 04:31, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I totally agree with not being too eager to please. And if I'm ever guilty of such an indiscretion you should tell me! I don't think it's all subjective though. Forensic photography relies on tools like Photoshop. Like if we restore the white balance of a photo taken under yellow-ish light; We can selectively add the yellow back in to reduce metameric errors and restore 'normal' colours but we shouldn't just paint in a false colour. And a basic level of quality may be subjective but if several editors think that it would be better to have no image than to use some crappy, postage stamped size image then we should have a system where such images get the chop, and the overall quality of images on Wikipedia will ever-so-slightly improve each time. nagualdesign (talk) 05:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

datestamp_removal

Hello, Jbarta. You have new messages at Yjenith's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Jenith (talk) 03:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

General Photos

Check the thread at WP:GL/PHOTO. – Connormah (talk) 05:42, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Any chance you can do File:GEN Warner, Volney F.jpg? The signature isn't too interfering so I don't think it should be so bad. – Connormah (talk) 06:08, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Done. – JBarta (talk) 18:09, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Nice. Thanks. – Connormah (talk) 19:15, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Re: DyceBot - WP:GL/P

Thanks for letting me know. It looks like there was some maintenance done to the toolserver recently that caused some issues with the automatic scheduling. I just ran it manually to get some archiving done, I'll look into getting it back to normal tomorrow. Should be able to get it fixed easily enough.--Dycedarg ж 07:48, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Groovy. Thanks for being on top of it. – JBarta (talk) 07:53, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, it should definitely be fixed now. Sorry about the delay, stuff came up and I ended up being busier than I thought I would.--Dycedarg ж 19:08, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Wonderful... and thank-you. They say you don't really appreciate something until it's gone. Well, after manually archiving a few times, I really appreciate you and your bot.

– JBarta (talk) 19:40, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

File:Smiley-Estrella de Mar-te pequeña.png Thank you for your appreciation. --Jenith (talk) 14:24, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep it up

Thanks for everything, what did you change ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vjiced (talk • contribs) 20:53, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Commons can only accept free files. That is, images that you create... that you personally draw or photograph. Scanning an image or copying an image from a web site is not creating... it's copying... therefore you don't own the copyright. An exception are public domain images... usually very old images where the copyright has expired. Another exception are files that others create, but offer for free usage. Before uploading anything to commons, you must understand and be sure of its copyright status.

That said, Wikipedia (not Commons) allows for limited "fair use" of some copyrighted images. In this case a logo. As long as the image follows the guidelines, you can use it.

I see you've been having copyright troubles all the way around. Don't let that discourage you. Just take the time to read and understand the various policies and be sensitive to potential copyright issues and over time you'll be fine. Yes, it's a bit of a pain, but it's necessary and will make you a better Wikipedian. Good luck. – JBarta (talk) 21:18, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

File:HP_Pavillion_dv6000_home_screen.jpg

Is it not possible to upload an own gadget (laptop) picture? I understand that you tagged it for deletion, because of some copyrighted icons exist in that picture. Any workaround to upload those? Appreciate your ideas and explanation. --Jenith (talk) 08:40, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Basically, you have to blank out anything that is non-free. Unfortunately this may render the image nearly useless. See this. Non-free images can be used in a limited manner but they can only be uploaded to specific wikis (such as English Wikipedia) but not Commons. See this for guidelines in using non-free images. – JBarta (talk) 15:18, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Re: File:Beloxi.jpg

Hi,

It is corrected now. Thank you for notice. PawełMM (talk) 09:02, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

WikiThanks

Thanks for your recent contributions! 66.87.0.210 (talk) 20:26, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank-you. (Though a quick look at this user's recent contributions reveals he's spending the day hopping around like the Easter Bunny thanking random people for their recent contributions. Random act of kindness I think they call it. It makes me think though... it's easy to kind when it's easy to be kind. But can we still be kind when it's hard to be kind? Just thinking out loud.) – JBarta (talk) 21:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Template makers asked to come to hackathon in June

Hi, Jbarta.

I invite you to the yearly Berlin hackathon, 1-3 June. Registration is now open. If you need financial assistance or help with visa or hotel, then please register by May 1st and mention it in the registration form.

This is the premier event for the MediaWiki and Wikimedia technical community. We'll be hacking, designing, teaching, and socialising, primarily talking about ResourceLoader and Gadgets (extending functionality with JavaScript), the switch to Lua for templates, Wikidata, and Wikimedia Labs.

We want to bring 100-150 people together, including lots of people who have not attended such events before. User scripts, gadgets, API use, Toolserver, Wikimedia Labs, mobile, structured data, templates -- we want you to come! I especially hope you can come and chat about your experience as a template maker and user.

Best wishes! - Sumana Harihareswara, Wikimedia Foundation Volunteer Development Coordinator 00:30, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

For your help on William T. Anderson, I'm really impressed with the difference. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:07, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome and thanks

– JBarta (talk) 03:14, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Add my thanks for File:RIAN archive 850809 General Secretary of the CPSU CC M. Gorbachev (crop).jpg. Materialscientist (talk) 04:16, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Why that editor insisted on leaving the image uncropped is beyond me. I think some believe that if an image is modified then the original is somehow lost forever. At any rate, it worked out and the articles got a nice cropped image of Gorby. – JBarta (talk) 14:03, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the work done on the Fiat 850 image. Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.76.115.98 (talk) 15:53, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

No problem. – JBarta (talk) 15:58, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Maps

Thank you very much, JBarta. This must be the 1000th time you help me, but it's never too much to tell you on your talk page how much I appreciate all your effort. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 21:39, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. – JBarta (talk) 22:13, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Request right aligned image table (help me sensei)

Please use your super powers for evil (no lectures on divs).

1. Within fluorine, in the section on metal fluorides: make the table of CaF2 and BeF2 be right aligned (allowing text wrap). make the images smaller (thumb sized). I will (or you can) edit the caption text to make it tighter). Also I want to move it up a paragraph. And probably put a spacer bar right before the next set of images (next table). I can handle that stuff though. Just need the help making the table right aligned and pics smaller and next to each other. Tried, but I am pathetic. Was kicking my butt.

2. Like to get a similar right justified table for the two HF images (one already in article withing compounds and then one here: File:Boiling-points Chalcogen-Halogen.svg. You will have to work some aspect ratio magic on this one. Also, if you can edit the font (WITHIN the two images) and make images readable in thumb I appreciate it. (Article has 50 images and want people to not have to click if not needed...both images have plenty of space to make the font bigger, thus saving a clickthrough).

P.s. I like TOTALLY respect your helping someone who is such a Wiki-misbehavor as me. :)

Smooch! ;-)

Done. Add a heading to the HF images if you wish. If not, let me know and I'll remove the heading section of that table. You'll need to edit captions and alts as well. As far as image font sizes, it actually worked out pretty well. In that table they worked out to be about the same display size and perfectly legible. – JBarta (talk) 20:14, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Chaplin screenshot

Hi Jbarta. Thanks so much for the work you did here, that is a big improvement. I'm so pleased with it, in fact, that you've spurred me on to be cheeky and make another request...could you perhaps have a go at this one as well? That would be really great. These images have fairly high encylopedic value, since they are his first ever appearance and the first appearance of The Tramp character. To have them cleaned up is wonderful. --Lobo (talk) 17:43, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I didn't clean up the screen shot, I just found a better version of the short. Regarding Making a Living, the shot you have isn't all that bad. However, I grabbed another shot from a few frames earlier so he doesn't have such a dorky look on his face. – JBarta (talk) 18:37, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh wow, I didn't realise you had taken a whole new screenshot. That was very kind of you to go to the effort, particularly since you seem to have found the exact same frame. That can't have been easy! The Making a Living one is reasonable quality, but I was thinking maybe the lines could be removed and the colours made a bit stronger. Don't worry about it though. I think I may take another shot from the film (I admit that I just searched on the internet in this case, I haven't actually had a go at getting a good one); see if I can get one that shows the character a bit more. All the best, Lobo (talk) 16:43, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

It's easy if you have the film and you know what you're doing ;-) And you don't want to get too crazy with "improving" the image or it won't be an accurate screenshot any longer. – JBarta (talk) 17:48, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

watermark removals

Thanks. I try to do the best I can.
For as concerns the tags to be left on the pages, I guess that if the "watermark" reports the source of the work I should put the tag {{watermark removed}}, otherwise (if it is a date or similar) I simply remove the {{watermark}} tag? --GianniG46 (talk) 09:54, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Correct. – JBarta (talk) 09:57, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Wow

		The da Vinci Barnstar
		To Jbarta for excellent technical work on Science 2.0. A much better solution -- editable charts. How did you do that? Impressive.Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:37, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

It's just a slightly dressed up table. The flowchart further down however may be a little more problematic. – JBarta (talk) 16:08, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Your addition is a considerable improvement -- biggest plus -- the chart is editable. It is also organized. I will try to use your method on similar stuff from now on. Thanks.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:30, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

request another centered table, please

Can you make the two of these into another centered table please?

A parralelogram-shaped outline with space-filling diatomic molecules (joined circles) arranged in two layers — The low-temperature, alpha-fluorine, crystal structure is layered.

I guess something around 550 total px for the two together? Also, if you could rotate the phase diagram slightly?

64.134.168.97 (talk) 17:06, 10 June 2012 (UTC)


	The low-temperature, alpha-fluorine, crystal structure is layered.

Done. – JBarta (talk) 17:08, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Smooch! 64.134.168.97 (talk) 02:19, 12 June 2012 (UTC) (TCO)

Please help with the /MiniMonos page

I had to change the page due to how the company name is MiniMonos and not Minimonos (upper M) and somebody marked it for deletion. Can you possibly help, since I've seen you on multiple claims? Thanks ZeldaZach (talk) 05:57, 27 June 2012 (UTC) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MiniMonos

I moved the content of the old talk page to the new talk page. The deletion discussion can resume there. – JBarta (talk) 06:46, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

more help for the permabanne please

Could you convert this into a right justified table (for text wrap), reduce the width to 400px and cut the large space in the middle?

Ruthenium's highest fluoride and oxide

Ruthenium hexafluoride (RuF₆): Six fluorines fit around the ruthenium but only make a +6 oxidation state.	Ruthenium tetroxide (RuO₄): Four oxygens fit around the ruthenium, making a +8 oxidation state.

TCO (talk) 05:21, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Ruthenium's highest fluoride and oxide

Ruthenium hexafluoride (RuF₆): Six fluorines fit around the ruthenium but only make a +6 oxidation state.	Ruthenium tetroxide (RuO₄): Four oxygens fit around the ruthenium, making a +8 oxidation state.

Done. – JBarta (talk) 12:57, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Putting in article. TCO (talk) 00:54, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you sir, may I have another?

Left justified and 400px total?

Order and disorder in difluorides

The fluorite structure, adopted by many difluorides	Disordered structure of beryllium fluoride glass (sketch, two dimensions)

TCO (talk) 21:32, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I got it done on my own.TCO (talk) 03:28, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Bad penny...

Hi JBarta:

May I please get a triptych style table for the images below? Centered, total width = ~600px. Left to right in order of the images that are top to bottom.

4 unit cells shown of a crystal structure that is skewed (not cubic) and has 8 bonds to a fluiride, for each metal (fluorides are 2 coordinate). Hard to resolve though even if you could see the picture. — ZrF₄, common tetrafluoride structure

4 tilted octahedra linked in a square — The –Mn₄F₂₀– ring of MnF₄

TCO (talk) 23:17, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Title

ZrF₄, common tetrafluoride structure	The polymeric structure of SnF₄	The –Mn₄F₂₀– ring of MnF₄

Thank you. how do I get a title in there?TCO (talk) 02:07, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I wondered about that. You didn't mention title so I left it out. It's in now ;-) – JBarta (talk) 02:20, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. is in article (spinout).TCO (talk) 02:21, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

How are you?TCO (talk) 02:25, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Very well, thank-you. – JBarta (talk) 02:51, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Gabriel Knight 3 cover.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Gabriel Knight 3 cover.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:00, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Re:DyceBot - WP:GL/P

A rather easy fix this time; the pages got moved. All I had to do was direct the bot to the renamed pages. Thanks for letting me know.--Dycedarg ж 06:36, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I didn't even notice someone renamed them. Oh well. Thanks for the fix. – JBarta (talk) 11:54, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Hitlermusso2 edit.jpg

Thank you, that was exactly the sort of edit I was looking for, but I have reverted you- could you possibly upload it separately? I'll worry about replacing the old version and nominating it for featured picture status, but overwriting current featured pictures is something that could well cause upset. J Milburn (talk) 22:12, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

If you really believe it should be a separate upload (I don't), then go right ahead and make it a separate upload. – JBarta (talk) 23:12, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Death of Captain Cook.jpg

799 pixels

800 pixels

Orphaned non-free media (File:BAT(videogame cover).jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:BAT(videogame cover).jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:01, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

POTD notification

Hi Jbarta,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Governor mansion richmond 1905.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on January 23, 2013. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2013-01-23. —howcheng {chat} 21:24, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

POTD notification

Hi Jbarta,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Nail-clippers-variety.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on January 29, 2013. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2013-01-29. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:01, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Being Eileen

Hello! You previously did a piece of work for me through the Graphic lab on the Body of Proof logo? Well I have got a new request, the title card of Being Eileen at the Graphic lab, [[4]]. Could you take a look? Thanks! :) — M.Mario (T/C) 19:44, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what you'd like me to do with it. It's white text. If you were to remove the background, not only would the text disappear on the page, but it would cease to be an accurate representation of the "logo". – JBarta (talk) 20:33, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Samuel Lightfoot Flournoy and Henry Bell Gilkeson

JBarta, thank you tremendously as always for your awe-inspiring edits to the scanned black and white portraits for Samuel Lightfoot Flournoy and Henry Bell Gilkeson. I was making edits to both articles and noticed that their portraits came in clear and sharp, and saw that you had worked your magic on them. Keep a look out on the graphist request page as I'll have a few more coming down the pike soon! Thanks again. -- Caponer (talk) 16:46, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I didn't really work any magic other than ordinary image editing. What I did do is find better versions of the images. Anyhow, you're welcome. – JBarta (talk) 16:49, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit of Sherman Burbank Memorial Chapel

Nice cleanup of File:Sherman Burbank Memorial Chapel, Williamstown MA.jpg, thanks! What tool(s) do you use? Faolin42 (talk) 20:24, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Several. For that I think I just used an old copy of Paint Shop Pro. – JBarta (talk) 20:48, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

table image help

J, will you please fix up this table or the image aspects so the images fit properly?

Painted turtle	Red eared slider

TCO (talk) 02:31, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Like that? I also removed the border around the images because in this case it really doesn't add anything useful. – JBarta (talk) 15:26, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

you rawk. thanks for helping a permabannee.TCO (talk) 04:50, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Image tagging for File:New Australia's Got Talent.png

Thanks for uploading File:New Australia's Got Talent.png. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

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

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 05:07, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Graphic Designer's Barnstar
	Thank you very much for helping to restore File:Dred Scott photograph (circa 1857).jpg — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:12, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh hell, I did next to nothing... but thanks anyway I guess. – JBarta (talk) 08:14, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I replied on my own talk page. -DePiep (talk) 00:30, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

issue many watermarks issue

Thanks for your assistance re this case: [5]. I have followed it up by corresponding with the author and explained to him that commons:wikimedia considers the watermarks advertisement and that for that reason his pictures will likely not be used. I also asked him if he could upload the pictures without these watermarks. His reply this morning (in Dutch) has been that indeed his intention was to intentionally use wikipedia/commons as a free advertisingmedium to generate traffic to his website. Also that uploading pictures without watermark would not be worth it to him. He even proposed to upload pictures with a white border where the website address would be on that white border. And on top of that he wrote that there were thousands more pictures to be uploaded in the same way. In the meantime I have removed all categories from a number of his pictures (related to category:Delft) since I am working on that section and don't need the interference of useless pictures. Is there a category:PictureBlackHole to send them to? Maybe all his wrong pictures (about another 1200?) could be dealt with the same way, assigning a "rather don't use"-category, for example with a "category:Pictures with watermarks" but then not as a hidden category? Is there a way to block uploading by this individual because he admittedly uses it for advertising? --VanBurenen (talk) 14:14, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Again, until Commons firms up its watermark policy, there's not a whole lot we can do. Of course some admin over there could take action against this particular uploader, but that would be singling out and punishing the uploader for a failure over at Commons and the problem will remain. My opinion is just leave them. The watermark issue is just one of many issues plaguing Commons and those issues don't seem to be important enough over there to compel any real action. We can't help them if they won't help themselves. So I throw my hands up, accept the world as an imperfect place and find something else to do. – JBarta (talk) 15:30, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your honest answer. Since I am working in only a small section of commons I'll stay with that and try to reduce the "damage" there. --VanBurenen (talk) 16:13, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Update: For anyone else reading this, these uploads ended up causing a bit of a dustup over at Commons. – JBarta (talk) 01:02, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:ADZMEDIA.com logo.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:ADZMEDIA.com logo.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:22, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Archived discussion

I was wondering if you wouldn't mind helping me with something. There was a discussion on the talk page of an article about an image of Percival Lowell that I'd like copied/archived on the image talk page, so that others can see how the change to the image attribution was arrived at. You know, one of those bits of boilerplate with the blue background and the bold red writing that says Please do not modify it. (Forgive my ignorance!) Basically I want to copy this to here but I don't know how to do it. Thank you in advance. Regards, nagualdesign (talk) 22:44, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I think a better solution in this particular case would be to leave a note on the image description talk page mentioning and linking to the discussion. – JBarta (talk) 23:34, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Good idea. I'll do that. Cheers. nagualdesign (talk) 23:40, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Needing help

Hi- I saw a comment you left in the image --what is it called?-- graphics group. I edit biographies of musicians and cleanup a lot of articles in the Wikipedia, which often have no photos. I've uploaded over 2,000 photos to Wikimedia Commons, placing all but maybe 10 of them... there's a link to the list on my userpage just above the tiny gallery there. I need serious help. Can you teach me how to remove watermarks? What is involved? I have years of almost non-stop work here, but still am ignorant of most things beyond the basics for biography articles! Please drop me a note on my talk page!! --Leahtwosaints (talk) 07:59, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

The most useful tool for cleaning up watermarks is called a "clone tool". It's available in most decent graphics apps. A good free graphics app is GIMP. Beyond that, just practice. You can get good at just about anything if you practice enough. Hope that helps. – JBarta (talk) 08:13, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Some stroopwafels for you!

Hi Jbarta,

I noticed you reacted at the Village Pump with this statement:

I think such issues are influenced by a sense of "piling on". That is, a simple blurb on a userpage by itself seems tolerable. But then add a similar blurb on image description pages. Then add a watermark on all the images. Then tell the community you only uploaded images to advertise your web site. Then tell the community "screw you, I'm going to upload even more". By then the blurb on the userpage doesn't seem so tolerable anymore. – JBarta (talk) 12:29, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I most certainly not told the community: "screw you". I mailed mister Van Buren I had thousands of pictures ready tot upload if we could reach a win-win situation! That is something completely different then screwing. It was mister Van Buren who thougt I was threatening. So that was the regrettable misunderstanding that started all the rest.

The first priority of the Wikimedia community is to obtain as much free useable photographs as possible, preferably without watermarks. My first priority is to attract as much visitors as possible to my website and foudation by means of offering usable free photographs with a little watermark.

I am still looking for a way to bring our two goals together: win-win. Up to now I did 2 proposals in that direction: 1) A watermark under the pictures in a white border. The whole picture can thus be easily cropped out, when needed by a user. 2) When I offer / upload a set of "clean" photographs of a certain village / town, a link to my website is added to the external link section of the village lemma in the Dutch wikipedia. It is not openly advertising, but a pure functional addition to the page.

I'm open to other ideas to reach a win-win situation. Let them hear! Don't you think it 's about time to start something positive?

Jan Geerling

Microtoerisme (talk) 18:59, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

The phrase "screw you" was paraphrasing. I probably shouldn't have put it in quotes. You can achieve a win-win situation by uploading non-watermarked images, properly attributed and properly categoried and not try to game the system for your personal benefit. I'm a big believer in actions over words. Your actions have been less than stellar and I don't care what your words are. If your actions improve, then we're good. – JBarta (talk) 19:06, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Really, ok with me

About [6] (weeks ago). Really, if you want to change the width, take a chance. I won't oppose. -DePiep (talk) 20:21, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I know. I think I will try to change it and I'll get to it one day soon. – JBarta (talk) 21:46, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

OK then. I get you saw my weigh-ings too (trade-offs I mean to say). All fine with me. -DePiep (talk) 21:54, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:BNY Mellon logo 2013.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:BNY Mellon logo 2013.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 will be useful. However, please note that media 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 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:06, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Dangerous Dan (Beano).png)

Thanks for uploading File:Dangerous Dan (Beano).png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 will be useful. However, please note that media 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 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:14, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

It would be nice to add a colon in front of the file name and disply a text link to the image instead of the image.

Display link instead of image in gallery

(Copied from Help talk:Gallery tag)

Markup would be like so...

<gallery>
File:Bulldog.jpg
:File:Bearded Collie.jpg
File:St Bernard Dog.jpg
</gallery>

Result would be something like this...

File:Bearded Collie.jpg

Reason for this is to have the ability to easily place non-free images into the gallery here. And I suppose it might be useful in other areas as well. Using the colon is intuitive here, because it's already the way to turn an image into an image link. We'd simply be extending that syntax to galleries. – JBarta (talk) 05:33, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

The <gallery> tag is part of the MediaWiki software; there's not much we can do from this end to alter its behaviour. You'd need to put a feature request through bugzilla:. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:20, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Done. – JBarta (talk) 13:32, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

		Click, Clack, Moo: Cows That Type Award
		English: Thank you for your participation in the Click, Clack, Moo: Cows That Type deletionathon, April 17 and 18, 2013! We are so glad to have met you, and look forward to working with you at many more fun deletion events! However, try not to make a practice of defending Mad, Bad and Dangerous to Know. Slowking4^{Farmbrough's revenge}⇔ †@1₭ 15:06, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

POTD notification

Hi Jbarta,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Olds Motor Works 4a18686r.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on May 17, 2013. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2013-05-17. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:01, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Bend an elbow

		A beer on me!
		Thanks for keeping the wiki clean and tidy. Cheers! Binksternet (talk) 20:18, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh believe me, only half of me is clean and tidy... the other half lets things slide, bends the rules mercilessly and is generally annoyed by too much clean and tidiness. But thanks anyway. – JBarta (talk) 20:30, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Over a beer or two, what a fine topic of conversation: war stories about letting the right things slide, and rule-bending at the right time... Bar-keep! Binksternet (talk) 20:37, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Heylo!

Hi Jbarta, Fun user page. I like the opening quote. I've recently started to interact at the Photography workshop (I'm User:Kevjonesin) and am noticing that you seem to have taken on a role as a facilitator on the page. I smiled when I saw you'd posted yourself as a Myers-Briggs "Overseer" type. It fit well with my observations. Anyway, as part of my exploration of this bit of the wikiverse I'm curious to learn a bit more about the personalities and process that lead to the Photography workshop and, perhaps, the Graphics Lab in general. 'Who are y'all, where do you hang out to chat, and what gets discussed' would cover some of my curiosity. Is there a Photo work/Graphics lab specific IRC channel? Not asking for an essay —although feel free :-)— relevant links will likely do. : } --Kevjonesin (talk) 16:12, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

First... I have no role. Just one of several editors splashing around in the pool from time to time. To get to know the personalities and goings on, just hang around for a while and participate as you wish. Jump right in, feel at home, be bold and have fun. If you have a question for a another editor about something he did, just ask. – JBarta (talk) 16:23, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Did some work on picture

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Graphics_Lab/Photography_workshop#Andrew_Allan -- Fulvio ³¹⁴ 17:57, 10 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fulvio314 (talk • contribs)

A barnstar for you!

	The Graphic Designer's Barnstar
	Thanks so much for making that lovely composite for me! Drmies (talk) 02:59, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

No problem. – JBarta (talk) 07:38, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Request for comment.

Please check-out this brief inquiry on the WP:Photo_workshop's talk page:

#Is there an established protocol for rotating in/out page content?

I'm curious about similar for the commons:photo_workshop as well. Thanks for your time and attention, --Kevjonesin (talk) 12:55, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

U OK?

I haven't seen you around the Graphics Labs recently. Wondering if all is well? --Kevjonesin (talk) 11:56, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I was on vacation for a few days. Plus, I think I'm going to take a bit of a break from Wikipedia. Every so often the head cases, miscreants and assorted tidbits of wiki-idiocy take their toll. I read Wikipedia all the time, so I'm sure I'll at least check my talk page if there's a new message. And I'm sure one day I'll jump back into the stew... just not today. – JBarta (talk) 15:15, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Right on. I feel ya'. Irritation w/ b.s. encountered in editing main-space articles is part of what led me to focus on the Photo workshops for a bit. Seemed less likely to have so many entrenched agendas.

Actually, specific irritants were excessive pettifogging, wp:ownership, and blatant POV battling. As I've raised questions about how some guidelines are/should_be applied in the Photo workshops I fear that, ironically, I might be viewed as having introduced a dose of wikilawyering (wp:pettifog) to the Photo workshops myself. I tried to do so in a manner which invited others to offer opinions, but as those who put guidelines above goals are quite common on the wiki, I wouldn't be surprised if that part got overlooked. WP:Dicks leave me hypersensitive at times. I imagine this is true for others as well.

Anyways, I'm starting to ramble. : }

I noticed your withdrawal seemed to roughly correlate with my increase in involvement and am a bit concerned that I may have contributed to crowding you out. I hope I'm merely inflating my own significance, but thought best to mention it.

— Good to know your well. --Kevjonesin (talk) 19:28, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Be assured, your appearance had nothing to do with my desire to take a break. I encourage you to dive in and involve yourself as you wish. There's always enough to do for everyone ;-) – JBarta (talk) 20:04, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Help a miscreant?

I know you are burned out. And I am a former permabannee. And sometimes you help me in making things different than you do yourself. But anyhow, could you make another wiki image table for me please? Really 'preciate it.

Like to have these two images together in a centered (on page) table, with the F cell on the left side. No title on the top needed. Use your judgment if they should be flush next to each other or have some dead space in between (probably room for it, given the aspects, I just don't know how it looks without trying.)

Moissan's fluorine cell, from his 1887 publication

painting of bearded man facing left — Henri Moissan, Nobel Prize photo

TCO (talk) 21:18, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


Moissan's fluorine cell, from his 1887 publication	Henri Moissan, Nobel Prize photo

There you go. – JBarta (talk) 22:06, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Bankpasargadlogoen.png)

Thanks for uploading File:Bankpasargadlogoen.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 will be useful. However, please note that media 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 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:15, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for doing whatever you did to my post(s).

They were displaying in preview but not my view of the page. I was thinking that perhaps using SNAFU & FUBAR in an edit summary may have triggered some kind of block. Or my attempt to insert a {{kjsml}} template.

Curious as to what was displayed when you came across it? I get the impression from your edit summary I take it that my comments eventually posted but didn't render the sig code into text?

It occurs to me that I ran into multiple server anomalies earlier in the day, but that may have been on Commons.

On another note, any idea on how to parse this upload summary Centpacrr left the other day?

"Cleanup minor border artifact; tfc; rgma; oa-ngdgup"

I left a message on his talk page at the time but he's chosen to ignore it. I noticed that a bit of an edit page html comment that you fixed included <-- oa-ngdgup --> so I thought you may know.

Thanks for your time and attention, --Kevjonesin (talk) 01:02, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Centpacrr included a html comment at the end of his post containing one of his cryptic notes. He accidently malformed the close of the comment rendering some text after it invisible. The sig issue was a result of that as well. As far as the meaning of Centpacrr's cryptic notes, I believe they started out once upon a time as abbreviations (agma = adjust gamma) but seem to have morphed into something more. I noticed you asked him what they mean on his talk page, but have not recieved an answer. You certainly must understand that half the fun of doing such a thing is being the only one who knows what they mean. – JBarta (talk) 01:33, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

In the interest of peace and productivity...

In the interest of (future) peace and productivity I think we should bring Centapcrr to the attention of the administrative wing of the community. It's not my goal to see him removed so much as restrained. He does contribute good work pretty frequently. But as you know, he also takes the odd turn at Albuquerque and ends up in left field at times. And then proceeds to try dragging others into the twilight zone. I believe you used the phrase "doesn't play well with others".

Well, I've been looking into how to address "doesn't play well with others" issues to those with admin powers/privileges and it seems that, as per WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE, the way to start would be with WP:RFC/USER. I'm thinking we may fairly consider the situation as meeting Wikipedia:RFC/U#Minimum_requirements but can we formally do so? I'm inclined to give it a go and see what folks think.

This may be flirting with the 'forgiveness is easier to get than permission' principle, but quite frankly, the prospect of dealing directly with any more of Centpacrr's convoluted rationalizations used to deflect admitting personal responsibility for pretty much anything turns my stomach at this point. My sense of reason has come to suspect that he may actually be challenged in a clinical sense when it comes to giving consideration to others. But, as also my feelings are hurt at this point, I'm finding it evermore challenging to keep a level head about it. Dealing with his attitude and conduct exceeds what I'm able to offer on my own.

As 'the active community' — excluding the Eight/Anonymous Requests dislpay — at the Photo workshop currently seems to comprise only 4 editors, yourself (JBarta), Centpacrr, Nagualdesign, and myself (Kevjonesin), I'm feeling that it's likely more than we are able to address on our own as well as, to my mind, Centpacrr has shown a disinclination to receive feedback from any of us.

I'll copy (or link) this thread for Nagual as well. If you'd rather, I'm open to exporting this thread to my talk page and continuing it there. Hmm, as it's may get extensive, perhaps it should have it's own sub-page in user space.

I was going back and forth with myself as to whether it (Centpacrr conduct issues) was worth pursuing and actually your response, JBarta, —about his coding his own exclusive notes into public forums— in the preceding "#Hey, thanks for..." section clinched it. The proverbial straw-and-camel's-back point for me. I feel it represents just one more example of an inclination towards WP:Own and a generally exclusionary attitude.

Another pattern in Centpacrr's behavior that has been disturbing me is that there have been occasions recently where I thought we were actually successfully cooperating/collaborating only to find that he was doing the image file equivalent of piggybacking possibly contentious changes onto minor edit summaries. I've come to suspect that his sense of 'playing fair' only works in one direction.

Anyway, I suppose that's enough for now. Thanks for your time, attention, and input, --Kevjonesin (talk) 11:51, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

p.s.— Perhaps, at some point, Commons should be looked into/kept abreast/allowed to weigh in in regards to the situation as well. --Kevjonesin (talk)

Centpacrr is a small-fry petty tyrant, and as such he should be cherished. How better to teach oneself forbearance, without any risk to life or limb, than by dealing with someone so obtuse? nagualdesign (talk) 16:14, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

You have a point there Nagual. Such is actually one of the reasons I've stuck with the wiki. There's a splendiforous array of human nature 'under the hood'. But, that said, I'd still like to put some more emphasis on the "dealing with" aspect. I'm assuming that doing so will include it's own splendid array of opportunities to develop my forbearance.

After a nap and a good sh... err... after giving things some more thought, it occurred to me that a less pessimistic —and closer to protocol— way to go about things would be to collectively approach Centpacrr. It also seems more fair (i.e. considerate, ouch >wink<) to Centpacrr. My first thought on this would be to collectively edit a 'letter' to post to his talk page —undersigned by the three of us— delineating specific things we'd like him to work on. (e.g. regularly flirting with WP:3RR, WP:OWN, and disingenuous —and/or vague, misleading, contentious, etc.— upload summaries). Make it clear that we aren't seeking tit-for-tat rationalization debates but rather are attempting to convey that there's a consensus view developing amongst his peers that his behavior has been disruptive and unfair to other editors and lies outside the —stated— collaborative spirit of Wikipedia. And may be out of bounds with Commons policies as well.

Who knows, he may surprise us, and we ourselves, in the process. : } --Kevjonesin (talk) 19:59, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I have almost no confidence in either Centpacrr's inclination or ability to change, or Wikipedia's inclination or ability to change him. If you think you can accomplish either, I wish you the best of luck. – JBarta (talk) 00:03, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Speculation on possible outcomes and a request for explicit feedback

I'm not particularly optimistic about Centpacrr's willingness (or even cognitive ability, to be honest) to voluntarily change his conduct towards his peers either. I have been surprised by problematic humans before, but moving on from the vaguely plausible to the realm of the more likely and probable...

Wouldn't it be nice if his attention was diverted to offering his convoluted rationalizations in a forum actively patrolled by those who are empowered to take action (i.e. admins) for awhile? If he really lets his true character 'shine' for a bit he might even end up taking the occasional 'wikibreak' and hence allow other editors an opportunity to engage in active collaboration without it escalating to contentious struggle. Give-&-take instead of tit-for-tat.

As I understand the guidelines I've cited above, it needs to be clearly shown that multiple editors have asked him to address his behavior before passing it on as a 'conduct issue' to an administrated venue outside of the Photo workshop. So a collective statement would serve in that regard. Although a bit of archive sifting would likely do the trick as well, such a 'statement' has the potential to be much more clear and perhaps —with some help— concise. Presuming he ignores and/or rails against it, we would then have the option to pass him on to the admins for a bit. At the very least doing so might keep him distracted for a bit, and perhaps serve as a proverbial 'wake-up call'.

He's so 'special', isn't it selfish to keep him all to ourselves? : }

As he obviously invests much of his time, energy, and interest into Wikipedia (and Commons) I think it's fair to surmise that he places-significant-value-on/derives-some-sort-fulfilment-from the privilege of being involved. However, I think he's lost sight of the "privilege" part. It might be helpful if someone —empowered to do so— would remind him.

I guess what I'm asking for here is a clear indication whether (or not) either of you (JBarta & Naguladesign) are willing:

a.) To sign off on a statement on his talk page expressing concern with his behavior and requesting that he express (and implement) some understanding of said concerns.

b.)While "a.)" would be enough to 'get-the-ball-rolling', it would help to know —for my own consideration— whether (or not) anyone else is willing to commit to seeing it through if it progresses to arbitration of some sort.

I don't see any sense in sticking my neck out on my own as it would likely just lead to spiteful harassment. I figure it's not a good idea to poke a troll unless one's got a friend nearby with a sturdy net.

Otherwise, I figure it's best just to go around. I suppose I could start my own micro-workshop on a user space page and engage in all discussion with requestors there. Invite other graphists —as I see fit— to offer feedback and to share projects. Flag requests as "taken" on the primary Photo workshop page and then drag 'em off to my own cave to work on 'em basically. Once done to the satisfaction of the requestor, they would flag the thread as resolved and then a swift trip to the archives. Y'all could do the same in your user space, or you'd be welcome to share in mine if you'd like. It seems to run a bit contrary to the wiki's stated ideals, but I guess it would hardly be unique in that.

I think the decision for me came down to whether it's worth a period of concerted effort aimed at creating a new norm, or whether to continue forbearing an ongoing regular disruptive irritation.

Personally, it chafes and itches and replenishing my supply of salve has become tedious. I'd like to address the source of the irritation. --Kevjonesin (talk) 16:44, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I think it's better to live and let live. Any resolution has to be applicable to all users, and ought to be inclusive and open. That's what makes Wikipedia strong, IMO. Perhaps we (everybody) would benefit by creating some opaque guidelines for the Image Workshops? It sounds like a big ball to get rolling though. You might want to start by writing your own ideas down in full (remembering to be concise *wink*), then other editors have a starting point to join in. Remember, forbearance! nagualdesign (talk) 19:29, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Huh, we synced a bit on that one, Nagual. Funny enough something quite similar occurred to me as well. I just wrote the following in a text editor and came here to paste it:

Another option occurred to me after a nap, I was musing about how Centpacrr disregards and confronts, runs-roughshod-over, his fellow graphists but then holds editors/users who have placed requests in high regard -in an almost obsequious way. Puts them on a pedestal.

Somehow, this led to musing about how the conventions of both the Photo workshop request section and the Anonymous/Eight_requests (name could still be better) display are simply that. Conventions. In place to facilitate cooperation amongst editors interacting on the Photo workshop page. Loosely defined if at all.

There is no requirement that image edits go through the Graphics lab. It is completely voluntary on behalf of both the requestor and the requestee. Custom as opposed to official wiki guidelines. This makes the established habits of the Photo workshop something akin to a 'legal fiction' as, in actuality, anyone may edit photographic images freely on either Wikipedia or Commons (subject to each communities' respective guidelines and consensus on file talk/discussion pages).

So it occurs to me that another option would be to actually write and implement a set of official guidelines for conduct within the Wikipedia Photography workshop. This would likely include a mission statement and such as well... It smells a bit of bureaucratic policy bloat though.

I occasionally read articles on group dynamics. Stuff coming out of organizational management analysis and software development teams and such. I'm recalling how some author —quoted in one the articles— had described as an anecdotal example how when Mary Jane proposes at a staff meeting that "We need to implement policies to prevent incomplete design presentations from being mailed out to clients." what she really means is that —it's coded language for— "George fucked up again".

He went on to imply that rather than hobbling/alienating the most competent staff members with rules/policies designed to compensate for the least competent ones, that the organization should adapt itself so as to be able to confront the reality that "George fucked up again".

Having said that, perhaps an outline of best/preferred/most_courteous practice might be a better goal than a formal list of 'official guidelines'. Or we could simply go back to the idea of dealing directly with the fact that "George fucked up again". And again... And a...

--Kevjonesin (talk) 20:10, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

It occurs to me that it's only fair and honorable that someone tell Centpacrr he's being discussed. I'll leave a note on his talk page. – JBarta (talk) 20:21, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Judging by your unilateral action, JBarta, may I safely to assume that your not interested in making a collaborative effort to inform him of such as was proposed above? Sigh... --Kevjonesin (talk) 21:40, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

First, this is an open community. There ought not be anything that smacks of backroom discussions about anyone.
Centpacrr has been informed ad nauseam of troublesome behavior... and as you are finding out, it has little effect. When he reads this, he may consider this yet another admonition and again figure he's right and everyone else is wrong.
If Centpacrr is forced to change a bad behavior, two others will appear in its place. He can be quite creative.
Having him perform in front of admins will have no effect, because I'm sure they have seen behavior that makes Centpacrr look like a choir boy.
"Not playing well with others" and other low-grade annoyances are not reasons for administrative action. If you wish to seek administrative action, I would strongly suggest you be very specific and provide examples of actionable offenses. But you won't get very far as Centpacrr knows the rules too and is pretty good at making mischief while not specifically violating rules... or when all else fails... playing dumb.
On Wikipedia in general... when you open the front door and invite anyone in, you must realize that anyone will walk in. Wikipedia's greatest strength is also it's greatest weakness. Dealing with pain-in-the-ass editors is simply part of the grand experience.
If you wish to send Centpacrr a note, I'd be happy to give it a look. If I agree with it, I'll put my name to it.

– JBarta (talk) 22:07, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

It occurs to me that my reply may be taken as harsh (one of my own particular abnormalities). Be assured I don't admonish you for your intent. Centpacrr certainly doesn't work well in a collaborative environment (though on some level he wishes to and on another he thinks he does) and if something can be done about it, I'm all on board. It's just that regarding Wikipedia in general and Centpacrr in particular, I don't think anything can be done. Pursue what you wish to pursue. I'm not going to help lead the charge, but if you wish to take action and I agree with it, I'll support you in your effort. – JBarta (talk) 23:24, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the warm qualifier, JBarta. I really appreciate such. It can be tricky conveying tone and intent face to face sometimes. Here in the text world it can be... >shrug< ...even more difficult. >sigh< : }

Note: The following is merged after an 'edit conflict' and picks up from before JBarta's most recent comment:

Right on. Thanks for expounding in detail. Lack of detail presented by others on talk pages and in edit summaries and such is actually one of the reasons I don't make more of an effort to restrain my own inclination towards verboseness (outside of main space that is, I do give it more consideration there). A bit of balance as I see it. It seems to me that many conflicts I've observed may well have started with someone trying so hard to be concise that they ended up coming off as glib.

I just got around to digging up an article which had been tickling my brain as having some relevance. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not therapy. As is so often the case, when I earnestly attempt to advise and examine another's behavior something eventually self reflects. Rereading the first two subcategories (#Unintended consequences and #Pace your work) have given me food for thought. i.e. Helped me to recall some unfinished text articles that got put on the back burner after I rediscovered GIMP. : } Centpacrr may not be the only one expressing an exaggerated sense of urgency and importance recently. >wink<

That said though, it's his frequently choosing to take things just to the brink of becoming an admin issue which I feel needs addressed. The ad nauseaum factor. It comes off to me as a sort of 'gaming the system'. A case in an arbitration archive I was looking at recently used phrases like "makes this a woolly issue" or "hence it's a woolly issue" in addressing the case of a disruptive editor whose actions were difficult to pin down/pigeon hole into words and guidelines. It immediately brought this discussion to mind. As I think you'd agree, we've certainly got a woolly one in our midst and I've come to suspect something other than mutton lies beneath.

I'm also rather eccentric myself, have feet of clay, and am surely not without sin myself. Struck me as worth noting.

"First, this is an open community. There ought not be anything that smacks of backroom discussions about anyone." — I did actually give this concern some forethought. Hence we are having the discussion here, on an active editors talk page, rather than on a sub/sub/sub/page or a Google Docs page with collaborative editing enabled, etc. I considered that if Centpacrr had a general concern for the welfare of the Photo workshop he might well have already placed the talk pages of the other active editors on his watch list as I have. Not out of reach, but not spoon fed either. 'WP:Canvassing' is another concern which came to mind but the guidelines requiring multiple editors to address a disruptive user before passing on a complaint seemed to require some coordination.

I'm not particularly religious, in fact I'm rather secular, but all the same, there's a New Testament verse I stumbled across years ago while leafing through a bible during a boring sermon. It laid out some suggested guidelines for dealing with a disruptive members of the community in the post crucifixion church. Basically it said to first take them aside one on one in private. Then if they don't respond to that, to gather a group of peers from the close community and go together unto the transgressor and speak to him en masse. If he then fails to respond "proclaim his transgressions to all the nations of the earth", or some such as that. I'm likely paraphrasing a bit but that's pretty darn close.

There are established processes in place on the Wiki to deal with chronic disruptiveness. It seemed reasonable to me to give consideration to using them. I think "your opening the door" concern is valid though.

There is the risk of replacing a pain-in-the-ass editor issue with a pain-in-the-ass admin issue. Similar crossed my mind when I invited folks from the Wikipedia & Commons Graphics Labs to drop by now and then to add to the pool of opinions. I must confess to having breathed a sigh of relief when someone whom I consider to be the Commons Photo workshop's 'special' editor mentioned that they were blocked here. And, as I've mentioned before, I did come here, in part, initially, seeking refuge. I'm hearing under/over tones of "don't blow it up" in your words. It could be worse. eh?

I should really be careful not to throw around the "unilateral" term to strongly I suppose. I do make quite a few changes on my own. But please recall that when I first showed up and asked you, JBarta, for mentorship you told me to take the initiative and dive in. And I did explicitly publicly offer opportunity for the community to inform me of local policies and traditions in advance. No one cared enough to step forward so I was left with the published guidelines. Many of which I now realize have come to be ignored and/or subverted rather than adapted (edited) to fit present custom.

I think Nagual's idea to draw up some defined guidelines would be useful, but I question whether doing so is plausible with the status quo. i.e. Whether Centpacrr will allow it. Nagual, please feel free to start jotting down some notes on the topic. Maybe start a sandbox page and share the link. It may be useful in forming some de facto consensus even if not de jure. --Kevjonesin (talk) 00:18, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Reflection on special needs

p.s.— This just appeared on an article's talk page and struck me as somehow worth reflecting on here.

'Props' once more to Erik who stepped in to facilitate rather than 'manage'. To apply collaboration instead of 'control'.

Perhaps it might be useful to give some more thought to determining Centpacrr's special needs. And then incorporating them into our flow/and or structure. Perhaps create some sort of nook for him to call his own. Centpacrr Junction, The Whistle Stop, or some such. --Kevjonesin (talk) 01:01, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Graphic Designer's Barnstar
	Thanks for the multiple images for Istanbul! Cavann (talk) 01:42, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

The infobox image finally got changed! Cavann (talk) 01:43, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I noticed ;-) – JBarta (talk) 01:47, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Note

Struck me as a pettifog'd attitude displayed in that edit where request display entries got deleted for non-free display. I left the editor a message. : }

I also posted a suggestion here.

I just discovered this...

http://toolserver.org/~jbarta/resize.html

...Cool! I'm thinking a list of tools for graphists may deserve a subpage for the work shop. Cropbot, move2commons... any others come to mind?

--Kevjonesin (talk) 21:24, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Wow!

I was doing some "other version" updates and such to the file pages linked via Photography workshop#Charles I of Spainand happened to take a look at the scope of the linked files list associated with that .png file you linked. Wow.

hmm, your likely already familiar but just in case... I've been finding the Commons Global Usage Badges tool (Preferences>Gadgets>Interface: Files and categories>Global Usage Badges) quite handy lately. Makes it a breeze finding files to prioritize for editing requests.

--Kevjonesin (talk) 22:14, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually, regarding File:Emperor charles v.png, at some point I noticed they are two different paintings (look at the flowers lower right). I didn't mention it when I discovered it (probably should have) and that's why I didn't upload one over the other. It would probably be wise to revert your upload there explaining why in the edit summary and let them continue to be two separate files. – JBarta (talk) 22:49, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Tried the Global Usage thing. Seems a slightly interesting little widget. Unfortunately it didn't seem to work very well for me. I'd click the little red question mark and nothing would happen other than all the other little red question marks in the gallery would disappear. (using the latest version of Firefox in case you were wondering) – JBarta (talk) 23:01, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Nevermind about the reverting. I see now there are three(?) versions of that painting and I'm sure you'll get them all sorted out properly. – JBarta (talk) 23:17, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Four actually (so far), the original Titian, the anonymous one from Flanders, and two different views by Rubens.

As to the widget, once one 'clicks' to activate it within the current gallery it scans all entries and only displays a number (1+) in a red square for those which actually are in use (0 = 'blank'). So, perhaps you were testing in a gallery without many linked files. --Kevjonesin (talk) 03:17, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Ah, ok. I went to another category where I knew files would be in use, and it behaved just as you said. And yes, it does immediately make known what files are in use and to what degree. Neat. – JBarta (talk) 06:37, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Wilder-W-Hartley-of-Los-Angeles.tiff

I don't understand what you did concerning the above image. Can you explain? Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 06:04, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Just cleaned it up a little. Got rid of those lines and cleaned up a few spots. Nothing major. If the changes aren't showing for you, the old image may be stuck in your browser's cache or the wiki cache. – JBarta (talk) 06:34, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. It is always good when some of the old photos are worked on. GeorgeLouis (talk) 13:01, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

request padding help

J, could you please fix the padding of the two image tables in Kate Garvey (scroll down)?

I want the outside edges of the tables to be the same (think this is good now) and then the center white padding bar to be the same (wrong now). I mildly prefer the fatter bar (because the top table has somewhat different subjects), but regardless want both the same size, so it looks slick.

Thanks in advance and I'm not as evil a permabannee as people think I am.

TCO (talk) 21:50, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Done - None of us think we're as evil as other people think we are. – JBarta (talk) 01:13, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Speaking of evil, I just weighed in on the picture issue on the Kate Garvey talk page... and you're probably not gonna like it ;-) – JBarta (talk) 01:28, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Hampshire images

JBarta, as always thank you again for your continued assistance and support, and for offering to bring the images from the above text into the Wikisphere. I have articles in mind for each image included in the book, so it will be no problem to add the details on each description page. As soon as you have them uploaded, I'll have a description ready and will have a place for each on Wikipedia. Thank you again! -- Caponer (talk) 22:39, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

As I upload them, I'll put them in galleries below. I'll include in these galleries all pictures from the book. New uploads are bold. Image description pages contain minimal information and no categories. I'll leave that to you/others. – JBarta (talk) 22:39, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you tremendously Jbarta! I'll work on adding text to each of the images you've graciously extracted, edited, and uploaded! I've already begun adding them to articles on English Wikipedia. I'm now working on a set of articles for the Angus McDonald family, some of which already have articles (Marshall McDonald and Angus McDonald (Virginia militiaman)), and found another text on archive.org from 1911 with images of every single family member. There are a lot of them, but as with the Maxwell text, I have homes for each of them on English Wikipedia. If ever in the future you have a free moment (there is no immediacy), I could add the text and categories to these as well as you upload them, if you were to choose to do so, of course ;) Take a look at it and let me know--I know it's a bit much and you have many other priorities! I would upload them, but I'd inevitably be posting them on the graphist site for help! -- Caponer (talk) 13:47, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Hampshire images: User talk:Jbarta/History of Hampshire County, West Virginia

Jbarta, the images have turned out beautifully, and I'm working on getting them all properly categorized and included in corresponding articles. Your extraordinary efforts are always greatly appreciated! -- Caponer (talk) 04:41, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Hampshire images all done. – JBarta (talk) 02:30, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Glengarry McDonald images: User talk:Jbarta/The Glengarry McDonalds of Virginia

Glengarry McDonald images all done. – JBarta (talk) 19:34, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

JBarta, thank you again--all the images turned out perfectly, and I look forward to adding each and every one of them to an article in Wikipedia. Right now, I'm working on categorizing each in Commons, and I will be authoring articles on a great deal many of the people in these images soon. Thanks a million more times over! -- Caponer (talk) 04:07, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I do see you've been busy with the images. Glad I could help. – JBarta (talk) 04:45, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The West Virginia Barnstar
		Jbarta, It is with great distinction, privilege, and appreciation that I bestow upon you this West Virginia Barnstar in recognition of your tireless efforts in uploading and vastly improving the quality of images of illustrious West Virginians. Because of your contributions, you have added not only faces, but immeasurable value to the articles detailing the sons and daughters of the Mountain State. Thank you for your service to the Wikipedia community. Caponer (talk) 04:55, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

My pleasure. Glad to help. – JBarta (talk) 07:28, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Beattie, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages James Beattie, John Beattie and George Beattie (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:51, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

File:Rolling Stone Magazine logo.svg

Just FYI, I deleted File:Rolling Stone Magazine logo.svg under WP:CSD#F8 (media file available on Commons). I saw your note on the talk page. I do think it is a straightforward case of PD-Text. However, if it is ever an issue on Commons, it can easily be uploaded again locally (or undeleted). Jujutacular (talk) 15:44, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

August 2013

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Cavatelli, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 15:05, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Pedro II of Brazil

Hi, JBarta could you do the same you did with File:Delfim da Câmara - D. Pedro II. 1875 (edit).jpg to File:Delfim-pedroII-MHN.jpg? --Lecen (talk) 19:31, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

That's about as good as I can get it. You could always throw it in the Graphics Lab... maybe someone else can do better. (And yes, I realize it gets messy in there... but such is the way it is and more often than not a better result comes out of it.) – JBarta (talk) 20:00, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it's quite good. It's far closer to the original painting now. Thanks a lot! --Lecen (talk) 20:11, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

SVG conversion

Thanks for the info. Sorry I didn't get chance to reply before the discussion was swept under the rug. So are you saying that you work in a bitmap/raster editor then Potrace does the conversion? Seems too easy! In the good ol' days bitmap to vector conversion produced all sorts of wiggly artifacts, putting straight lines where there ought to be curves and vice versa. I guess things may have improved in the last 15 years. nagualdesign (talk) 23:26, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

"It seems too easy"... sometimes it is easy. Other times, not so much. Though I suppose it's not always easy for me, not because it's difficult, but because I'm not as skilled (yet) as I'd wish to be. – JBarta (talk) 03:48, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Origination

Hi JBarta. Thanks again for the excellent image of Joseph Story, which I have installed in the article Origination Clause. Incidentally, regarding the four grouped images in that article, I wrote "wearing gray" or "wearing brown" because when you look at the article in mobile view (iPhone), the images are presented vertically rather than to the right or left of each other. But it's no big deal, so I will leave the captions as they are.Anythingyouwant (talk)<

Re the "wearing gray", that's an interesting problem and you have a good point. I wonder if the MOS addresses this? – JBarta (talk) 20:49, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

It does (#6). Though I'm not entirely sure "wearing gray" is better. Maybe the reader will simply assume a left-to-right or top-to-bottom placement? I don't know. That said, I'll change it back to "wearing gray" because it's clear "left" is problematic. – JBarta (talk) 21:25, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Well done. I never would have found that, despite "accessibility" in the page title.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:27, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:NT Rama Rao.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:NT Rama Rao.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 will be useful. However, please note that media 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 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Werieth (talk) 14:35, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Idio (logo).jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Idio (logo).jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 will be useful. However, please note that media 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 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Werieth (talk) 14:17, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Mulatos and caboclos are an ethnic groups?

Hi Jbarta. Just came across your map in which you identify mulatos/ mulattoes and caboclos as ethnic groups. What happened to real ethnic groups like Tupis and Guaranis? Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 17:01, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely no idea what you're talking about. How about some links? – JBarta (talk) 17:05, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot to include.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Empire_of_Brazil_ethnic_groups_(edit).png Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 17:19, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Ah, now I see. I do some work in the Graphics Lab from time to time and a request was made to remove the borders of other countries in a few maps. I did that and uploaded derivatives. That's where my involvement started and ended. I had no input in the actual creation of the map. – JBarta (talk) 17:51, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

My sincere apologies. I realised later that I read your name somewhere on the info about the map, but that the map was actually created by someone else. Sorry for being hasty. Regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 02:18, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Help

Good evening, how are you?

I noticed that a photo I had uploaded was "cut" for you (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lua_Blanco.JPG?uselang=pt-br#file). I wonder how I can "edit" a photo that already exists in the Commons so that it is closer to the image?

I appreciate if you can help me.

--Renatha Marques (talk) 00:00, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Try Cropbot. Or, let me know the image you'd like cropped and I'll do it for you. – JBarta (talk) 00:31, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Image usage guidance

Jbarta, I wanted to touch base with you to seek your guidance about utilizing a military portrait of John Baker White from a book published in 1923. I wanted to use the portrait between pages 238 and 239 in Callahan's History of West Virginia, Old and New, Volume 3, as well as the signature below, in the article I'm still drafting for John Baker White. Both the photograph and the signature need to be improved before inclusion in the Wikimedia Commons, but because they were published in a book in 1923 and not before January 1 of that year, do I wait until January 1924 before I can utilize them in this article? Any guidance you can provide would be of the greatest help as always! -- Caponer (talk) 17:30, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Since it was published after Jan 1, 1923 it is not public domain in the US. Even if you could show the photo was taken prior to that date, you would have to show (if pressed) it was also published before that date. Those are the rules, technically speaking. Personally I think it's such a close shave we should upload it and be done with it.... but there are editors flitting about who make a full time job out of saving the world by looking for stuff to get deleted.... thin reason or not. So, at some point there's the risk it may be deleted. Of course you could fib on the upload and say it was published in 1922 and no one would be the wiser unless they actually looked. At any rate, those are my thoughts. I'll pass on uploading it for the simple reason I don't wish to fib on the upload and I don't wish to upload it only to have some wiki-dweeb drift by and nominate it for deletion. – JBarta (talk) 18:59, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Works copyrighted in the US between 1923 and 1963 for which the copyright was not renewed "during its 28th year" after the original copyright are in the public domain. For "History of West Virginia, Old and New, Volume 3" copyrighted in 1923, it would have had to be renewed during the year 1950, however as this title does not appear in the Library of Congress Copyright Office's "Catalog of Copyright Entries and Renewals (Third Series)" for either 1950 or 1951, it would appear that this work has been in the public domain now for 63 years and therefore so is the image of John Baker White opposite page 238 published therein. Centpacrr (talk) 20:53, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Then you are welcome to upload it. If and when someone nominates it for deletion, you can argue the point with them. – JBarta (talk) 21:22, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Jbarta, I sincerely apologize for my late reply to your responses to my original post (and for coming late to the above conversation)! Centpacrr has indeed uploaded the photo in question to English Wikipedia and it's been included in my article for John Baker White. In a few months when the calendar strikes January 2, 2014, I will have the image moved to Commons, on account of it being published in a 1923 book. It should easily be free without controversy at that point. I appreciate the guidance as requested and thank you for all your previous assistance in the past! I'm finishing up an article for James Sloan Kuykendall and just found a rather small black and white photograph of him in a 1907 text published by the West Virginia Secretary of State (p. 139). If you could ever so graciously lift it from the pages of this text and uploaded it to Commons, I will immediately categorize it and provide context in the Commons as I did with the previous images you've uploaded for me! The article just wouldn't be complete without your magic touch. -- Caponer (talk) 21:02, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually the image can be moved now as the copyright for the overall 1923 work in which it appears is not listed in either of the two volumes of the Library of Congress Copyright Office's "Catalog of Copyright Entries and Renewals (Third Series)" covering 1950 as having been renewed during that, the final year of its first 28 year term, and therefore its copyright expired and it entered the public domain on January 1, 1951. If, however, it had been renewed during 1950 for a second 28 year term as provided for by §23 of the 1909 Act then in effect, that second term would have been later automatically extended by the 1978 Act to 95 years from first publication (i.e. to January 1, 2018) so the date of January 1, 2014 would have no baring on its copyright status whether or not it had ever been renewed in 1950. Centpacrr (talk) 22:04, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

With that said, I've placed a template on both images to have them copied over to Commons. Thanks again! -- Caponer (talk) 22:23, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Request

Hi, Jbarta. How have you been? Once you made a few color adjustments into this picture which became this. I wonder if you could do the same to this picture? The file is located here. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 01:07, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to pass, sorry. – JBarta (talk) 17:40, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:BattleForTheMillenniumPuzzle.png)

Thanks for uploading File:BattleForTheMillenniumPuzzle.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 will be useful. However, please note that media 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 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Werieth (talk) 19:39, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Your Image Resize Calculator

Howdy. I have a suggestion for your Image Resize Calculator. I suggest that when a person clicks the Clear button the focus should go to #imgwidthbox.--Rockfang (talk) 01:34, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Done. Also added same for onload. Thanks. – JBarta (talk) 03:27, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/The Kid

An image created by you has been promoted to featured picture status

Your image, File:Chaplin The Kid edit.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! Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 14:11, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Sanuk logo.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Sanuk logo.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:53, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on the RfC regarding the Ebola virus epidemic

Hello Jbarta, per the policy regarding publicizing RfC’s, your name was chosen to participate.

The RfC link is here.

The question is:

Should we keep these newly created separate country articles about the Ebola epidemic, or should we delete/redirect them to the article Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa?

Your participation is greatly appreciated. Thanks!

SW3 5DL (talk) 01:28, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting! Maybe you will be interested in editing there? We could use the help. One thing, on the countries in West Africa, their separate pages haven't been allowed to be expanded because a couple of editors have been persistently deleting additions. If they are allowed to develop, with more editors contributing, they would be much better than they are now, and without any unnecessary duplication. If you've the time, it would be nice to have more editors participating. Thanks, in any event. SW3 5DL (talk) 04:14, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Shoreway/Lakeland Freeway transition

See my new comment at Talk:Lakeland Freeway. Mapsax (talk) 16:45, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Nitpick comment in addition to the one I left on the talk page there: That's not the 1963 topo because there's purple on it, it's one of the later revisions. The base is still 1963, so it might be splitting hairs to change the year in the description, especially since the highway conditions didn't change. Mapsax (talk) 14:22, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I wondered why there were multiple copies of particular years. Now I know... thank you ;-) I remade the image using the original 1963 map. – JBarta (talk) 21:03, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Translation

Thank you for trying to have "Es kommt ein Schiff, geladen" translated. Two problems: Google can't do justice to old poetic German, and the "poem" ruins the page layout, therefore I reverted. Look at other articles on poems. In a discussion on the Bach cantatas we decided on no translation, every translation is biased. Most works come with a link or more to translation. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:17, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Google is just a rough translation, a starting point. Also, I made a markup error that caused the page layout to break. That's fixed. If, given that a more polished translation may come along at some point and the page layout is fine now, if you still think translating the poem here is a bad idea, go ahead and revert me again and I'll leave it at that. If not, let's see if an acceptable translation evolves from this rough start. – JBarta (talk) 12:28, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic HERE. Thank you. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:09, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

KlingonInsignia.svg

I was trying to make a duplicate of the PNG image because an SVG image resizes automatically and is always sharp and clear at any size reduction or enlargement. I noticed after I did it that the trace version missed the outer edge border, and I was trying to figure out how to reproduce the effect (which is why I didn't replace the use in the article with the SVG version), but I see you did it. SVG images can often be smaller, the one I had was only 6K vs. the original 24K of the PNG image. Paul Robinson (Rfc1394) (talk) 04:55, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

So the SVG I uploaded is fine by you? – JBarta (talk) 05:00, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

wrongful conviction

Jbarta, i am new to wikipedia and recently undid an update by you which i am having reservations about doing. I don't want an edit war, and i couldn't find the proper way to send inquiry first in a talk form. The article was about Drew Peterson and feel free to reinstate your update. I look forward to any inquiry from you on how to properly conduct myself in wikipedia since i've had no success of finding literature about updating wiki and about talk pages. Best regards, Christopherakers (talk) 06:39, 5 November 2014 (UTC) Chris. christopher.akers@gmail.com

Hi Christopherakers. I replied here. – JBarta (talk) 08:01, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Dahmer

Thanks. I am sure you appreciate my viewpoint as being for the betterment of the article in question (and which I have contributed significantly towards populating to the level/status where it is now). Hope I didn't sound bitter in my rationale for believing 'My Friend Dahmer' is not worthy of inclusion as a book. To me, it is little more than a comic, but, I do respect consensus. I do appreciate your belief in its being deemed worthy of inclusion. Best regards,--Kieronoldham (talk) 10:15, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Your reasonableness does you honor. – JBarta (talk) 10:23, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

No worries, same to you. Here is a print of one of the pages of "My Friend Dahmer" (I could add more), which the editor who initially inserted into the article described as a "serious work of a memoir". Not being petty; just hope this illustrates my viewpoint. See you around Wikipedia.--Kieronoldham (talk) 10:48, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I know exactly what it is. I had a look on amazon and read a little of it. I also looked around to see what others thought of it. By all accounts it's pretty well reviewed. Your biggest objection to the work seems to be that it's a "comic". That because it's a series of illustrations rather than a series of sentences it's somehow inferior or unserious. With that I emphatically disagree. – JBarta (talk) 11:36, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

That is not my biggest objection at all. Unserious? Sure I believe many seeking a lighthearted analysis of Dahmer's life would view this as an intriguing read. The only serious sections are those in which the author gives us his personal perspectives of Dahmer's life (which he's admittedly mocked since the 1990s) and the intriguing quotes from those actually involved in the case or giving it a serious analytic study which accompany his illustrations. Look at the overall content of the illustrations in the context of Dahmer's overall life. By no means would I disdainfully deem this book worthless, but it is sorely lacking in overall objectivity or any major value. To me, by reading an illustrated, childlike series of illustrations (expanded from the author's acknowledged/endorsed prolonged, mocking comical stories of Dahmer) this book would not "significantly improve readers' understanding of the subject (Dahmer)". As I said earlier, I respect Wiki. consensus.

I assure you, as a person, I seldom gripe like this in real life. ;) Best regards, Kez.--Kieronoldham (talk) 12:49, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Here is one of the reviews of the book:

"Just when you think you know all there is to know about Jeffrey Dahmer one of the most notorious criminals of the past century—along comes My Friend Dahmer, which adds significantly to our understanding of this rare form of psychopathology." —Louis B. Schlesinger, PhD, Professor of Forensic Psychology, John Jay College of Criminal Justice

While it's perfectly understandable that you personally don't find the book useful, others apparently do. Granted, I'm sure you're not alone, but in general, you seem to be in the minority. Out of 108 amazon reviews, 93 of them are 4 or 5/5 stars. Certainly readers are getting value from the book. – JBarta (talk) 13:34, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

AIG logo

Hi Jbarta, I'm a relatively new editor, but I was just looking at the license for the AIG logo, and noticed it was classified as public domain. Any chance you can look up in the Wikimedia Commons OTRS queue and take a look at how the logo was submitted? When you find the original submission, could you help me understand how and who decides to re-assign a particular CC license to public domain? Thanks! --FacultiesIntact (talk) 19:33, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I assume you're talking about File:AIG logo.svg. Read this and this. I created the logo based upon the logo on aig.com. OTRS had nothing to do with it, nor was it "submitted" by anyone. As the logo is not eligible for copyright protection in my view, I applied the license as you see.

I might also add, that generally (there are a few regional exceptions, see earlier links) the mere act of making a graphic does not automatically earn it legal copyright protection. The work must be of sufficient originality. If you take the letters A, I and G, then enclose them in a rectangle, you have not created a copyrightable work. Of course, you may attempt to declare any sort of copyright you wish, but it will be an invalid license, an empty declaration and would have no force of law.

If you have any further questions, feel free to ask. – JBarta (talk) 20:03, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation regarding the license. I was curious and confused about the licensing process, and went into further detail at User_talk:Sphilbrick#AIG_logo_licenses. --FacultiesIntact (talk) 23:20, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

It's a Wonderful Life

You are correct, I was incorrect. ~~My Bad~~ My faulty memory playing tricks on me. Nyth83 (talk) 17:51, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

We'll just call it a sign of intelligence... – JBarta (talk) 17:56, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Birther bullshit

Even to imply that any of it is true is POV pushing and, as I said in my Edit summary, makes you look silly. I won't Edit war. It's you that will look like a fool. HiLo48 (talk) 01:27, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not a fool (at least not in the way you believe). Further, I don't think that you actually believe I'm a fool. You're only trying to insult me out of anger. Possibly you too have been called a fool and found it insulting. What you may not realize though, is that a person who is not a fool cannot be insulted by callng him a fool... because he knows that he is not. The only person who can be insulted by calling them a fool.... is a fool. So, if you've ever been called a fool and been insulted by it.... – JBarta (talk) 01:47, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

At any rate, it's been added back in by yet another editor. You should be happy... this fool is giving up on it. – JBarta (talk) 01:51, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

You will note that my usage was "look like a fool". Read carefully, that says I don't believe you are one. HiLo48 (talk) 05:58, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Ah, now doesn't that make all the difference in the world. Glad you cleared that up. – JBarta (talk) 06:08, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Shirley Temple, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dwarf. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:18, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Asshole

Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:46, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

oops! sorry! wrong page!

African American vs. Black American

Not all Black Americans are African Americans. The terminology is inconsistent with what was just said previous to the sentence in question. Can't have it both ways. Sources may have incorrectly/inappropriately used African American, but that doesn't mean we have to get it wrong in the article, too. The issue is in regard to skin color, not origin, therefore, Black American is more appropriate and correct. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:22, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I've reverted your latest edit. Before making the addition again, make your case in the article talk page and we'll discuss it there. – JBarta (talk) 19:28, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Qusay Hussein.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Qusay Hussein.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 22:11, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Why delete my subpage?

I'm curious: why is this page that I created nominated for deletion? What's wrong with it? Deaths in 2013 (talk) 04:23, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

As the nomination says, it fails WP:FAKEARTICLE and WP:NOTWEBHOST. "Userspace is not a free web host and should not be used to indefinitely host pages that look like articles, old revisions, or deleted content, or your preferred version of disputed content." – JBarta (talk) 04:28, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I copied everything on the page and put it in my sandbox until I can find a page to have it. Where else is a good place to put it besides my user sandbox? Deaths in 2013 (talk) 05:30, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Discussion copied and moved to here. I will reply there. – JBarta (talk) 05:39, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Mortimer Wheeler.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Mortimer Wheeler.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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 16:58, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

"Perfectly legitimate discussion"

Really? Someone gets stabbed hundreds of miles away with no suggestion of any connection? Do you want to reconsider your opinion and revert yourself, perhaps? zzz (talk) 19:21, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

No. The IP believed there was a connection and should be in the article. The rest was explained to him and I stand by my statement in the edit summary. (The edit in question is here if other readers are interested.) – JBarta (talk) 19:49, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

AGF only goes so far. If some IP starts talking about "stabbing a white jew" without any legitimate reason, I can think of various motivations that aren't "perfectly legitimate" (your edit summary). (Reverted you just before I saw your reply, by the way) zzz (talk) 20:01, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

What are some of these motivations you suspect that aren't perfectly legitimate. What are you reading into this? – JBarta (talk) 20:05, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Ip likes the idea of blacks stabbing "white jews" (for racially motivated reasons), obviously. zzz (talk) 20:08, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Another editor has reverted me giving a different reason, so I'll leave it now anyway. I stand by my reasoning, though. zzz (talk) 20:16, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh, of course, obviously. Now you're stretching my assumption of good faith towards you or at least questioning your judgement. I'm reverting the conversation back to visible because your rationale for removing is pitifully weak. (apparently it's been done already) I suppose now you'll think *I* like the idea of blacks stabbing white Jews too. – JBarta (talk) 20:18, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. I'm mystified by this comment: it makes no sense, grammatically, or logically. Oh well, never mind. zzz (talk) 20:23, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Brown article

Armchair psychology, ha! Good show. I did not suspect we were dealing with "trench warfare" in the current state, I thought this Brown issue has been resolved in the media and it would be worth a look to see about adapting a historical and encyclopedic stance to the content. Upon first look, I was a bit sensationalist with the "extreme POV" issues coupled with dozens of WP:BLP violations present in the article and was intent on making the NPOV issues known. However, despite a very public notice and a very clear stance the editors on the page seemed to be blind the situation and the violations. The tag was like dropping a stone into a lake and reading the ripples. I could not have cut out the entire offending pieces because it'd restructure a vast amount of content. Cwobeel is a clear POV pusher. He added and defended outright misinformation and advocated falsifying information at Talk:Shooting_of_Michael_Brown#Huffington_Post_source_1. Cwobeel has been warned of the discretionary sanctions and the violation of such can result in an immediate block or topic ban. I fully intend to remove the entirety of his BLP violations, but I'll wait the necessary time until I can do so. Since this is a complex matter. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:10, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Also, I would appreciate it if you re-added the tag given that I have identified a substantial amount of BLP violations and that the article has a very clear and open attack on the police and Wilson thanks to that editor. I can provide more diffs, but you can confirm the POV bias by going to this page and reading the additions over 200-300 bytes for the article. They show not only a clear pattern and intention, but also include demonstrably false claims to give the appearance that it is legitimate. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:21, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I would suggest you get busy editing the article making changes you see fit, and doing so one bit at a time. Work with the other editors trying to achieve the best article that can be had. (No, I won't re-add the tag for the reasons given in the edit summary). – JBarta (talk) 16:45, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

(replying to your original message above) Again, a scattershot approach is not constructive. Parachuting in with a grand scheme to "fix" an already contentious article is not the best approach. I think you realize that now. As I've said earlier, one person's neutral is another person's POV pushing. And on that topic, it's usually not helpful to toss around labels. It's much more useful to focus on specific content one bite at a time. Pick a specific problem you find, and attempt to edit by consensus. You know this already, I don't need to tell you. It can be a messy process. I don't need to tell you that either. – JBarta (talk) 16:40, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Usually when an editor accuses another as a "POV pusher", they need to look in the mirror first. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:57, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Again, throwing around labels is not helpful. Conflict and differing viewpoints is part of the process. Heat in the kitchen if you will... – JBarta (talk) 18:04, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

You do not see the issue with the section at McCullough's page either? WP:DIRT and improper characterizations aside - this "reception" is completely bunk and conceals the actual facts of the matter with snide little remarks to give the appearance of reflecting fact. They may be sourced, but Rudy Giuliani's comments are contradictory and do not make sense. By law, McCullough could have not even taken it to the grand jury, but in cases of any ambiguity he has to. So if McCullough's hands were tied, how can you make an issue with the prosecution? Each part of the section I removed has pretty clear issues of relevancy and perspective. I suppose you want me to make arguments for each and pick them apart one by one instead of just removing the problematic content and adding perspective? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:38, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I've made a recent comment on that article's talk page on this issue. It sounds like you haven't seen it yet. – JBarta (talk) 18:49, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

And you are correct, I did not see it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:22, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

I've made the response to the issues. I'll try to better explain because I cannot assume everyone is aware of the same information as I am or how it works. The Giuliani piece is a lengthy one, but it is being used exactly opposite of what was really stated. Like a bizarre "Telephone" game in the school yard. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:33, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

File:Lucky Star Single Cover.jpg

The size is 113kb. Even when it shrinks a tiny bit of pixels, the bot will gradually shrink size to 10% of 113kb. --George Ho (talk) 08:57, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

You're really pissing me off here and making me regret helping you. The bot will reduce it to .1 megapixels. Do the math. – JBarta (talk) 08:59, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I apologize for snapping at you. We all have our moments.... including me. If you'd like me to explain this to you, just ask. – JBarta (talk) 09:44, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Why are pixels more important than bytes? Bytes impact loading times, regardless of pixels. --George Ho (talk) 19:22, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

When it comes to the issue of "fair-use" it's the size (dimensions) of the image that is considered, not the size in Kb. Size in Kb is a factor dependent on many variables and is a useless metric in the discussion of fair use. Size however (length x width) is a much more useful metric. And in the context of fair-use, loading time is irrelevant. Also see WP:IMAGERES. – JBarta (talk) 19:26, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Which one of us is trying to violate WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND here? Why making a big fuss over this thing? Why or why not is this innocent or harmless to you? --George Ho (talk) 20:01, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Whenever an image is resized it loses a little quality. Resizing it by 3 pixels results in an image of virtually the same size yet of slightly lesser quality. An entirely stupid action in my opinion. The image was fine the way it was and you continued to press the issue based on your misunderstanding. Interestingly, now that your misunderstanding has been cleared up (I'm assuming) you're still pressing the issue. So consider again your WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND question. – JBarta (talk) 20:07, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

~~Is there a rule against loss of qualify in regards to non-free images? By the way, you can fix the previous version that I uploaded if you have a photo editing software.~~ --George Ho (talk) 20:59, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Found one from WP:IUP#FORMAT: "Try to avoid editing JPEGs too frequently." --George Ho (talk) 21:09, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

It's not so much about a Wikipedia rule, it's about image editing practices in general. While you may find image editing help in a cursory sense here on Wikipedia, the topic of image editing is a big one and largely outside the scope of Wikipedia. – JBarta (talk) 21:27, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:ChrisGualtieri's behavior at Shooting of Michael Brown. Thank you. --RAN1 (talk) 03:11, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Pig Roast

Jbarta, Before I changed it, the article read '12 months'. This did not have a reference either. My source was another page on Wikipedia 'Pig Pickin' where it isn't referenced either. It's fine if you want to change my correction because of no source reference, however, why is that still valid if the original (incorrect) version also didn't have a reference? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.80.42.100 (talk) 01:37, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Your point was one I considered. My reasoning for changing it back was that "12 months" had existed in the article unchallenged (AFAIK) for several years. To me that carries more weight than an unsourced and unexplained IP edit.

A little digging shows that "12 weeks" was added without explanation by an IP to the Pig pickin' article. For quite a long time "12 months" existed in that article unchallenged as well, so your rationale takes a further tumble.

Now, all that said, if you believe "12 months" is incorrect, or believe it should be sourced (in both articles) then adding a citation needed tag to the articles would be a good way to go. I would also add a note within each tag mentioning the other article. If you need assistance doing this, let me know. (I'll do one and you can follow suit with the other.) – JBarta (talk) 02:00, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Your userpage...

... is gorgeous. That is all §FreeRangeFrog^croak 05:03, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Well that's a first. Thanks ;-) – JBarta (talk) 05:14, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Pizza Hut logo (1965).png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Pizza Hut logo (1965).png. 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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 21:35, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Use of force doctrine in Missouri

Why do you think it is a "faulty article on life support?" How can we work together on this rather than against one-another? Djbaniel (talk) 13:04, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I answered on your talk page. – JBarta (talk) 13:06, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

As evident from the references (see for, example, Keefe, Brendan (November 11, 2014). "Deadly force laws different on each side of Mississippi" http://www.ksdk.com/story/news/local/2014/11/12/deadly-force-laws-different-mississippi-missouri-illinois/18898855/. KSDK. Retrieved December 19, 2014.), the laws governing use of force differ substantially state by state. Thus, a use of force article for each state is notable, just as a same sex marriage article for each state is notable. (This is because it is the state by state laws that primarily govern these topics, and there are sharp differences in the laws in different states. It is primarily the state law that defines when an officer is justified in using deadly force, although there have been some limited Supreme Court decisions as well.)

I wonder how it deserves to stay as a stand-alone article. It survived! but really why?Mhhossein (talk) 20:43, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm disappointed and think it reflected surprisingly poor judgement by the closer, but as is all too often the case around here... it is what it is. – JBarta (talk) 21:06, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Flaw of tables

The table format will shoot me in the foot on ones where it is not immediately clear because the leap of logic seems short on seemingly esoteric matters of source verification, general reliability and lack of trust in them. I cannot accept an argument which is based on logical fallacies. Per WP:QUOTE: "The quotation should be representative of the whole source document; editors should be very careful to avoid misrepresentation of the argument in the source. Where a quotation presents rhetorical language in place of more neutral, dispassionate tone preferred for encyclopedias, it can be a backdoor method of inserting a non-neutral treatment of a controversial subject into Wikipedia's narrative on the subject, and should be avoided." This sums up almost every single instance of the quotation use in the article and it reflects the two discussions at the top of the page. I do not trust sources. More so - Huffington Post is wrong numerous times and that is fact. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 07:31, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh... and most of the time, I get crickets on my articles for GA. NRHP is boring even in the view history. Barrington Civic Center Historic District is a fun one. I'm out to do something difficult and hard that gets more than 3 views a day. Some of my GAs are lucky to break 10 views a day.... which is sad. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 08:30, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Jbarta. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2