User talk:184.76.225.106

Welcome!
74.60.29.141 (talk) 03:36, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might like to see:
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style
 * Teahouse

You are welcome to continue editing without logging in, but many editors recommend that you  [ create an account] . Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits such as the ability to create articles. For a full outline and explanation of the benefits that come with creating an account, please see this page. If you edit without a username, your IP address (184.76.225.106) is used to identify you instead.

In any case, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place  before the question on this page. Again, welcome! --XLinkBot (talk) 00:35, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Test example
~E 184.76.225.106 (talk) 23:33, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Gallery in progress
~Eric F 01:43, 6 April 2012 (UTC)00:36, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Not sure if you got the answer to this... as far as I can tell, cot on Commons relies on Commons:MediaWiki:CollapsibleTemplates.js (loaded via Commons:MediaWiki:Common.js). En.wp has some equivalent "collapsible tables" code in MediaWiki:Common.js, but evidently it doesn't work quite the same way. Rd232 talk 22:54, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

SMAC
I really appreciate your involvement in the Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri article. If you still think the SMAX material should be separated out for clarity, start a new section on the article's talk page (titled SMAX section). I think we could put the SMAX material in the last section (there was a Legacy section the last time I read the article) and refer to that section in the preceding sections. While I think we need to show significant improvement to get the article upgraded, I want to be careful we don't lose the GA status. Vyeh (talk) 01:56, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the table. I'd like to hear Nolelover's comments and then we can proceed. Vyeh (talk) 12:48, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Titanic & Deep sea exploration
Copied From User_talk:Drbogdan Deep-sea exploration Since you seem to be a principle editor for this page, I'd like to refer you to my question on the talk page. If the answer is "no", please leave a note on my talk page (I'll need to make some changes). Thanks, and regards,
 * @Eric F - Thanks for your recent comment - Please understand that I'm more a casual editor, than a principle one, for the Deep-sea exploration article - nonetheless, you've asked some very good questions - according to Wikipedia -> "The 'deep sea,' or deep layer, is the lowest layer in the ocean, existing below the thermocline and above the seabed, at a depth of 1000 fathoms (1800 m) or more." - also, according to Wikipedia -> "The wreck of Titanic remains on the seabed, gradually disintegrating at a depth of 12,415 feet (3,784 m)." - thus, the Titanic wreck would be in the "deep-sea" I would think - finally - based on the above, the Titanic wreck would qualify as a "Milestone" of Deep-sea exploration as far as I can see - but that's my opinion fwiw - hope this helps in some way - Thanks again for your comment - And - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 21:42, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Re: Titanic
No problem! Honestly, it took me re-reading it four or five times before I could figure out why something didn't seem right about it. Rickie-d (talk) 17:16, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Machine translation of de:WP
I used an online translator to translate the German article on Willy Stower. I pasted it for you here: User:Canoe1967/sandbox. --Canoe1967 (talk) 23:58, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Work in progress 98.26.28.41 (talk) 17:33, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
(moved to article) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.26.28.41 (talk) 20:22, 5 May 2012 (UTC) Coming soon: Willy Stöwer legacy section ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 02:32, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

My bad on Stower image
Sorry. I came across a higher resolution image is all. I didn't realize that the low res one had signifigance. Please revert and leave a really nasty-chew-my-ass-out type comment.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:09, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Try this photo storage?

I looked at many online free ones. This one allows larger sizes and no login or account needed. I also reverted that image and left comments on the image and talk page.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:56, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * http://www.picatom.com/


 * Link to Picasa Album ~E 98.26.28.41 (talk) 22:22, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Link to Picatom ~E 98.26.28.41 (talk) 01:50, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Direct link to image? ~E 184.76.225.106 (talk) 06:59, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I uploaded one of the images. The thumbnail in history looks the same, but the image has less brightness. Is that the correct one now?--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:41, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Looks great -- thumbnail is fine, I think it takes time for things to change, or perhaps it has something to do with browser cache. It's possible that there is a better tweaked image somewhere, but this is fine. (I have several versions that I have been working on, trying to "restore" as close as possible to an original print from Die Gartenlaube). Thanks, again ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 22:49, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Are there any of the original prints out there? Find a wikipedian in that city to photograph one? I have the signature image, do you want that uploaded as well?--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:31, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Here is a photocopy of an original Die Gartenlaube print from the 1912 German magazine -- it was a "folio" -- notice the fold in the center (an original "centerfold" -- not quite the same as a Playboy centerfold) -- note, that the sky is rather dark, unlike most of the ones on the internet where the contrast and brightness has been "improved". My attempt at "restoration" is  to get as close as possible to an original like that one.  I am tempted to use the above image, but the resolution is rather poor. That is the only image I've been able to find of an original lithographic print.  Even though the magazine had a circulation of 2 to 5 million -- but that's in Germany 100 years ago -- that issue is hard to find. Actually, I'm tempted to buy that copy from here, (about $40). --> (Too late -- sold). ~E 184.76.225.106 (talk) 17:28, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * You may spend less if you restore a good one and have it printed. I took a nice picture of a big horn sheep that I am getting done for about 40-50CDN. Watermark sample.jpg--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:55, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * My goal is to get a decent image for WP -- it's amazing how many copies were used recently on news sites, etc. Virtually every article relating to the Titanic anniversary had that image -- and most of them were copied from WP. Ideally, there should be an image with high enough resolution to show the wood-engraved technique.  Here is an example of a close-up detail from a similar Stower print in Die Gartenlaube: Etching detail (From RETTUNG_AUF_SEE_LEUCHTBOJE_WILLY_STÖWER_HOLZSTICH_W220-1898) --
 * My goal is to get a decent image for WP -- it's amazing how many copies were used recently on news sites, etc. Virtually every article relating to the Titanic anniversary had that image -- and most of them were copied from WP. Ideally, there should be an image with high enough resolution to show the wood-engraved technique.  Here is an example of a close-up detail from a similar Stower print in Die Gartenlaube: Etching detail (From RETTUNG_AUF_SEE_LEUCHTBOJE_WILLY_STÖWER_HOLZSTICH_W220-1898) --

To get an idea of what is possible, check out this Stower image from the same publication, on Wikisource.de: (1893) -- (unusual Stower subject matter). ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 00:45, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That does look very detailed. You would need to possibly find a copy that was made from the original woodcut I would think. All the ones we seem to have are from the magazine low rez image. If you zoom in on the sheeps eye you can actually see the reflection of our silver pickup. Everyone that does thinks that is amazing focus and resolution.--Canoe1967 (talk) 03:09, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Signature
It would be great to have that signature uploaded for the article -- I noticed that infobox-artist has a parameter for signature file (I "created" that one from his signature on a book cover). ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 23:45, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Both those images look like they have the fold line. Are there no copies in museums etc. that are closer to the original woodcut? I will upload a signature file for you, I just need to find the signature template for commons.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:58, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you edit in the description, source, etc?--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:11, 13 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Done -- I believe the description etc. is as accurate as I can make it, but am uncertain if I did it correctly, especially the link to "other versions" from metropostcard.com <--should that be uploaded too? That version is typical of his signature on illustrations, the one I generated is typical of his signature on paintings.  I haven't found any examples of his signature from documents, etc.  I personally prefer the one already uploaded, but the one from metropostcard is also good. ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 04:25, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:52, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, etc.
Thanks, everybody! My participation on WP is likely to be very limited for an undetermined amount of time. I will check this page occasionally, but might not be able to respond promptly. ~Eric F 98.26.28.41 (talk) 19:51, 17 May 2012 (UTC)