User talk:Jeff G.
(Redirected from User:Jeff G./talk)
| Babel user information | ||
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Users by language |
Welcome to my user talk page![edit]
| Current Monthly Archive (redlinked the first week  |
Newly registered and IP editors may leave messages at the bottom of this page.
Portrait of Gladstone[edit]
Hello Jeff G., this portrait of William Ewart Gladstone was taken in 1861. Flickr says it's copyrighted, but if it's that old it should be public domain. There's a low quality photo here. What do you think? -Artanisen (talk) 11:03, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
- @Artanisen: You may overwrite File:William Gladstone by Mayall, 1861.jpg with a higher quality version from that source in the original 1252 × 2048 size, as long as you have also "cropped, removed minor artifacts" and "adjusted contrast". Otherwise, you may upload with a new filename. Pinging @Scewing as original uploader. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 03:53, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks, I've uploaded it as a separate image. -Artanisen (talk) 17:18, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
- Hello, I noticed you restored the low quality retouched image in articles and claimed it's "sharper". I think this version is a lot better quality. -Artanisen (talk) 12:25, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
- @Artanisen: Thumbnailed, the jpg looks sharper. Which part of "Any png image will look fuzzy when scaled down (due to design decisions discussed in phab:T192744) or jaggy when scaled up" in this edit did you not understand? Phabricator is not letting me have access to that task right now due to 'Unhandled Exception ("RuntimeException")' and 'Invalid argument supplied for foreach()', but see these links. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 09:31, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
- PNG is better imo. Adobe says: "JPEGs use a lossy compression process — meaning some data from the image is permanently deleted when it’s made smaller. This could compromise the quality of your file in the long term because each time you edit and save it, you lose more data." vs PNG: "In contrast, PNG files benefit from lossless compression. This means no data is lost when the image is compressed — the quality stays the same no matter how many times you edit and save the file. The image won’t become blurry or distorted." -Artanisen (talk) 12:36, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
- @Artanisen: Here on WMF projects, jpg thumbnails are sharpened, png thumbnails are not. I can see the difference empirically at Commons:Graphic Lab/Photography workshop/Archive/2018#Margaret Thatcher, can you? See also the following gallery with standard 85px thumbnails. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 03:10, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
- PNG is better imo. Adobe says: "JPEGs use a lossy compression process — meaning some data from the image is permanently deleted when it’s made smaller. This could compromise the quality of your file in the long term because each time you edit and save it, you lose more data." vs PNG: "In contrast, PNG files benefit from lossless compression. This means no data is lost when the image is compressed — the quality stays the same no matter how many times you edit and save the file. The image won’t become blurry or distorted." -Artanisen (talk) 12:36, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
- @Artanisen: Thumbnailed, the jpg looks sharper. Which part of "Any png image will look fuzzy when scaled down (due to design decisions discussed in phab:T192744) or jaggy when scaled up" in this edit did you not understand? Phabricator is not letting me have access to that task right now due to 'Unhandled Exception ("RuntimeException")' and 'Invalid argument supplied for foreach()', but see these links. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 09:31, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
- Hello, I noticed you restored the low quality retouched image in articles and claimed it's "sharper". I think this version is a lot better quality. -Artanisen (talk) 12:25, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks, I've uploaded it as a separate image. -Artanisen (talk) 17:18, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for uploading a JPG version. The Thatcher example looks nearly identical imo. JPG and PNG images could both be sharpened. -Artanisen (talk) 03:24, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
- @Artanisen: You're welcome. The Mediawiki developers chose long ago not to sharpen png image thumnails so that maps and diagrams would thumbnail better. Would you be ok with use of File:William Ewart Gladstone CDV 1861 for infobox.jpg on WMF projects instead of the other two photos? — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 09:50, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for uploading a JPG version. The Thatcher example looks nearly identical imo. JPG and PNG images could both be sharpened. -Artanisen (talk) 03:24, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
Restoring vandalism[edit]
Why did you restore this vandalism in [1] and [2]? 93.72.49.123 11:05, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
File:Dizziness.jpg[edit]
Hello Jeff, I used the file on vertigo, but MarcoSwart made an interesting remark about the date. It states "30 November 1899". 
Cheers. Lotje (talk) 14:12, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
- @93.72.49.123: I'm sorry, when I made those edits, I did not yet realize the ramifications of all of the false positives related to phab:T298672, which led me to a false conclusion about you. I have reverted those edits and my warning. Until that task is resolved, please do not try to revert vandalism in structured data on Commons as a new or anonymous user, just report it to COM:ANV. CC @Lotje. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:32, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
- I see, thank you. 93.72.49.123 18:48, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
- You're welcome. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 19:21, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
- I see, thank you. 93.72.49.123 18:48, 26 April 2023 (UTC)