User talk:Aaa3-other

Yamato drawing
Nice work, but:
 * 1. I did almost the same drawing back in 2010 as you did now, to find out which one works best in the article. But I was unable to provide the correct data for the strength of the armor under the magazine (not given by the USNTMJ document) so I decided to forget about it.
 * 2. When working with inkscape you should, in the last step before uploading an image, break up all paths * for letters and symbols to allow a more decent diplay for other users. Compare and  for the difference. *(I was working with the german lang-version, so I am not sure if its called "path" in the english one)  Alexpl (talk) 09:33, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * hi and thanks for your comments (though i would feel this 'd more belong to the picture's commonspage).
 * a, i now understand that why you dont want this in the article and its ok. sorry for the many reverts.
 * b, i tremendously prefer the texts in editable form - this is proper i think, not only for anytime editing but for not giving sixfold file size increase. and, if one just thinks abstractly about the format and the rationale behind it... damn, if its so awesome to be able to store texts as texts and then display it, then why ultra-hardly code the curves mathematically belonging to each letter, in the tiny detail to even replicate the font face! also, in inkscape (so, i guess, in a proper implementation of the format's display), as opposed to firefox which i also use (to be fair, it at least always stood behind of it unlike damn ie, just to not to appear anti-ff, not intended) and picture viewer programs, and to even mediawiki's svg-to-png parser as i see, there is close to zero visual difference between the two approach. in the two kurskmaps you link, its because of missing fonts i guess, which happened with me only with the undercaptions, which i will correct. (+in the maps, general lack of care and choosing of size)
 * c, okay, so that red which i noticed too is actually unknown. could you answer to the following questions however? [i am totally new to both svg (my 1st drawing lol), and unknowledgeable about yamato as well; just took up the pic because of those big grey metal girders (plus the thicker, so while not to scale, much more informative orange internal lining) inside make the picture look very beautiful and technical-like in fullsize, and i also found surprising the armor layout on that pic is almost identical to my own (prior!) private hobby warshipdesigns, and anyway having the two pictures both in existence (not meaning actual use in article anymore) is more than a good idea.]
 * do you know the thicknesses of the other two elements of the „triple bottom”? so whether the red 22mm is not only under midships. i didnt have the courage to just copy it there. (but i guess the 14mm is universal)
 * same for the two longitudional heads, (is the one there 9mm too, i suppose most likely yes), and what is the thickness for the thicker black to the outside it, and also should i call that thick one torpedoschott as well, since it stood exactly in place for that, though if too thin to be red, then cant be effective?.
 * also do you know, the above-belt splinter protection of the hullside is extending all the way fore and aft to the turrets too, or its only midships? also was scared to just copy it there, the thin red line, despite it looks much more btfl that way
 * b+c: in the „text way” other experts who will find the picture years later can fill in the relevant info and do the needed changes much more easy with less hassle & efficiently.


 * i will wait for the upload with these i think, tho offline i already start the newest version, already yesterday noticed many things i wanted to correct. but ty really for writing--Aaa3-other | Talk | Contribs 18:32, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * new questions: schott 9mm, schott 16mm and boden 22mm are cnc? and my extension of the 15mm innenseite to the whole panzerdeck, as found amidships, wasnt a mistake, was it? also, is inneneite cnc? and, is the 9mm schott's bottom really more outward at the turret than amidships? now the two images are the same larger size and the t-cut is aligned to the ms cut so they can b compared--Aaa3-other | Talk | Contribs 23:49, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * a)The „triple bottom” at the magazines had 80 mm for the angled plate (wee see in your drawing as "Panzer unter dem Magazin"), 50 mm CNC for the horizontal plate directly in the center, under the ammo (we can not see in the drawing). The outer plate is most likely to have had 22 mm strength again, because it seems somewhat difficult to modify its strength while building the ship. But I dont know the strength of the inner hull plate.
 * b)The longitudional protection is the main proplem for anybody who attemps to make that drawing. Text says 270 mm strength for the reinforced torpedobulkhead near the magazines, directly below the beltarmor, and its strength decreases to only 175 mm when reaching ("surprise") the ships bottom. So the text does not match the drawing since your torpedobulkhead ends long before reaching the bottom. The work of the american researchteam in 1946 was somewhat inconsistent in that point, but I guess your drawing is closer to reality.
 * c)The inner longitudional protection has 9 mm, supported by standard-steel-beams. The black lines in my drawing are those supportive beams, which do not aid the protection, since they are only placed every few meters.
 * d)Above-belt splinter protection is the same, but, of course, there is only one deck above the armored-deck at turrets "A" and "B" - other than the two decks above the boilers and below turret "C". Since turret "C" has 2 decks between magazines and bottom, your drawing is located near turret "A". So you have to draw the top-protection which is somewhere between 34 and 50 mm CNC at that point.
 * I was able to answer most of your questions I think and I share your hope that others will continue our work someday.
 * edit: NVNC was the standard-armor - sometimes replaced by CNC, unfortunately we dont know for the inner-splinter-protection-
 * wbr, Alexpl (talk) 08:55, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


 * wow, big surprises. so unknown red is actually known as well as most nvnc-s & cncs, ok. 14mm i will erase, and 22mm outer bottom i will add, ok. one 9mm ILP is ok too. (btw if the black lines are the beams they are (ca.) also the walls, because its a cross-section). BUT, what i understand, is, that 1) the TPBH is much thicker @t mags, 270-175 vs 205-75, and 2) it is exactly the same layout as amidships (all t way 2 bttm), and 3) that 1)+2) - or 2) only as 1) makes sense - is most likely incorrect info so better leave the drawing as it is. Also, the drawing (its 90% still your drawing and your bulkhead etc btw, i only modded/updated it, i feel you misunderstood it but i only took your 2010 one in the history of the now-midships file, and reuploaded it separately ;)) is really supposed to be under Tr. 'C', because it was captioned that back in 2010, so i will just draw in randomly halfheight a deck between the inner bottom and the angled red. (or i could recaption it Tr 'A' and add a red line with 34-50mm at the top of the deawing, but i prefer leaving it as 'C'). Also all the other above are drawable in, even the incosistencies will pose no problem. The only thing i cant place is the missing 50mm horizontal cnc. did you mean, is it above the angled 80? (most likely not). is it between the left and right (port&starboard) angleds near the symmetry line (\_|_/), instead of only 2 angleds reaching all the way to the center (\|/)? (likely not as its not sensible to (consequence) limit the depth of the ammo, as the deeper the better for balance). is it somewhere below of the angled red 80? (then how? extending from side-to-side and then its a quadruple bottom?!) i cannot see any use for yet another horizontal plate tho its the designers trouble not the reconstructers so whatever. but as i felt from your writing, it is not actually unknown and you know how is it, it is simply missing from the drawing. i hope all the above is correct. wbrAaa3-other | Talk | Contribs 11:45, 14 December 2011 (UTC) -edit, but you do know that the inner hull plate is 14mm amidships, dont you? as it is present in the midships drawing. because this way i wont remove it, only would mark it with '?', as probably unchanging lenghtwise along the ship; but not even that, as it seems to me just a common structural thickness for such a place on such a ship so let's assume.
 * The inner ends of both angled 80 mm plates are connected directly to a 50 mm horizontal plate \_/ - so the 50 mm plate is irrelevant for the drawing, because it´s located outside the frame. BTW, you can also do both drawings in english if you like. I added the "DE" extension in the filename of "Yamato-armorsheme-DE.svg" to allow other lng. versions with EN/JP etc. extensions. It looks somewhat ridiculous when english and even japanese wikipedias use images with german text in them. Alexpl (talk) 12:34, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * ok for the plate, (it will fit btw); and i let someone else to do an english one if he feels having too much spare time because i dont feel the need, the ger version is already very understandable even for non-speakers of german :)
 * For the 14mm plate you mentioned in your edit - do you mean the standard steelplate backing the torpedobulkhead on the inside ? Alexpl (talk) 12:45, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * no, the inner hull plate of the bottom ('boden 14mm'), the only 14mm in the drawing:) i just let that there, as reasoned above. btw, now uploaded the more-or-less finished one, take a look at it --Aaa3-other | Talk | Contribs 14:14, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I dont know the strength of that inner hull plate under the magazines - as mentioned in my first answer. The drawing looks good, altough you used a font which is displayed somewhat strange, esp. the new text in gray "...34-50 CNC" can barely be seen. Alexpl (talk) 14:49, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * yeah, i shouldn't've used that small font (smallest in t whole dwg), but i think i can leave the thing as it is, dont want2 spam just for such a little error. the font used throughout is the same as you did, and in fact (as mentioned) looks and arranges 100% accuratly the same as your drawing in inkscape, and ffox and mediawiki either doesnt follow the standard that good, or just fails in an unknown way. (well, ff ['view fullsize'] displays letters ugly as you have rightfully mentioned, and mediawiki is ok about this [check for example the 1000px and you will see], and the only diff to inkscape is that mw somewhy shifts the bottom 'legend' text right all the way until the edge, while in i.s. i left a nice margin; and maybe extremely minor issues about spacing between letters. but (all sort of) viewers will evolve.) i now place a copy of the whole section to File:Yamato-armorsheme-DE - magazines cut.svg's commonstalk to make all the history explained for new viewers -- Aaa3-other | Talk | Contribs 15:18, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Battle of Britain
No problem with the image as such, but the image you replaced is of a Battle of Britain era Spitfire and was selected and used specifically to fit in with the section, plus it ties in with the image of Douglas Bader. If you intend replacing such images please put more thought and care into your selection. Thanks ◆ 'Min✪rhist✪rian ◆  MTalk''   20:02, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * didnt know about bader so ok, as for 39 vs 40 not theme, i think totally indifferent in this specific case as the 39 image looks very B o B-ish. imo just the feel matters not the actual depicted subject. those spits looked iconic, provided pic is ugly. only b.c. o. t. special connection i think i can agree you in this one morelike an exception. but thanks for writing an explanation here for me: Aaa3-other | Talk | Contribs 20:21, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

p.s. i think i will somewhen in the month when looking back seek another way to add that photo sw. else in t. atcl. as bob. was immediatly coming in2 my mind as a best place to find an use for it (it is a new upload), tho i fear i will be unsuccesful bco. unreasonability as iirc the a. was already soaking in images


 * Pictures are not necessarily added to articles to make them look pretty - if you read MoS Images
 * Images must be relevant to the article that they appear in and be significantly and directly related to the article's topic. Because the Wikipedia project is in a position to offer multimedia learning to its audience, images are an important part of any article's presentation. Effort should therefore be made to improve quality and choice of images or captions, rather than deleting them—especially on pages which lack visuals.(italics added)


 * Images are primarily meant to inform readers by providing visual information...


 * You might not be aware of this policy but please take it into account before you decide to replace an image, and captions, with your own. You might think the image you replaced is "ugly" but that is your personal opinion. If you insist on using your image for the article there are two good reasons why it does not belong: 1) It is not directly relevant, being taken in peacetime well before the battle - just because it looks "iconic" doesn't count. It could just as easily be argued that a genuine B of B 19 Sqn. Spitfire caught taking off in mid-scramble is even more "iconic".
 * 2) H. I. Cozens is not listed as a Battle of Britain pilot - by 1940 he was "Assistant Director (MT), Joint Directorate of Research and Development." So, if you think your image is being unreasonably discriminated against, I would argue otherwise.  ◆ 'Min✪rhist✪rian ◆  MTalk''   21:16, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * i have clarly stated that i am not thinking that as i was accepting/agreeing-with your changeback about that particular image. as for policy, im still sticking to my earlier opinion and as such im opposing it, but this is another question. ugly was a strong exaggeration on my part. (intending only as moot but: didnt care about name, only added to caption bco it was also stated on pics infopage, retrospectively i shouldnt have; as for iconicity, i disagree: while factually/knowingaboutthetopic very interesting, wouldnt look any special. now, pilots running to their acs would, or pilots flying in such a formation and with such a background/surrounding as on my pic. the heinkel pic above in t atcl is a good example of iconicity [i even remember it from my elementary-school history book]. or the london observer/firefighters: those pictures 'could have been' factually shot in the mid 30s, [just imagine,] yet they would look just the same superb there.) p.s. if it seems so "offensive" to place a peacetime photo there then goddam im convinced not to :)--Aaa3-other | Talk | Contribs 05:57, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

commons talk: iwm uploads directly with changes
this is a copy of what i posted at commons:User_talk:Cobatfor

hi, my message is 2-fold (well, one-and-a-half); 1st, many amongst the pictures you are recently uploading are some of the most beautiful ones i ever saw in my life, and i just want to say that this work is wonderful, and thank you. (i have only since a week noticed that some large scale uploading is in progress, and only since a few days that its not an individual uptake but whatever, still of tremendous value imo). so i dont know if random noobs can just toss barnstars but lets say i wish you one. but ... :S ... 2. i think its a very serious problem and leading to either much duplication of effort, or even worse, of not even noticing ever or just dont giving a shit, is that in 99,9% of the time, your pictures contain some extremely minor alterations, touchups, rotations, contrast/brightness raisings, crops to older version and whatever, and then you upload that changed one. i suspect (from the scale of your and others' activity), that some sort of a bot or automation is involved. in a few times (e.g. the blown-off nosed destroyer) there were even zero changes yet a goddamn huge resave is there in place of the original grab from iwm. i despite being a very beginner, strongly disagree with this. the best would be, is to either A/, 1st upload the originals, maybe with auto-optimization (irfanview has built-in jpegtrans plugin, or one can use the app named 'jpegcrop', this not only resaves losslessly, but as the name says, also can crop and greyscale losslessly, but one alwyays must set the "huffman optimized" and the "progressive coding"-this latter only on images below ca 800kB for being gentle to mediawiki, and if you deal with the matter manually, then also when you see its blackandwhite, to greyscale it. in avarage, one can achieve a 10% filesize reduction of iwm standard jpg-s, which are in turn averagely 50kB in size, they becoming 45 or so, and only after this, upload to the same file a new edited version, with not applying anything to the original ones; or, rather, B/ if you think that a cropped and otherwise edited version is also neccessary, then better provide a new separate instance for that version, or for the original, depending on already-usage on other wikis and personal taste, and cross-reference the 2 pictures in their desc; C/ i'd think the best 'd be though if there were much less mods altogether... . also, your rotates are producing extremely uglily blurred and low-quality-looking images, i think probably a moderate amount of sharpening filter would benefit them, always only so much as to regain the appearance of the original, though i hold a personal grudge against rotations as they are the most destructive and impossible-to-do-very-efficiently-ever bastardizations of a picture.

and then there is another thing. most of the iwm pictures are, if im not mistaken, saved at the jpg 85 non-colour-subsample mode. or 75, i dont remember. but whatever, i am bringing up the subject because i have noticed earlier, that if we resave a jpg, the previous saving-quality is a sweet spot where the file size is increasing only 1-5% and the quality decrease is also minimal. OF COURSE this is not true AT ALL if one rotates a picture, because this is i think somehow related to the macroblocking of the format's encode, but you are making many other types too and it is applicable then. obviously if we save below, ugly artifacts appear, and if above, surprise, unless 95% to 100%, then too more of them appear, and file size drastically increases. so what i'm saying is some of the times, the totally agreeable wiki policy of saving highest quality, does not hold verbatimly. when rotating, it does, when not, then best is to resave with the original qlty-setting; but (imo) always provide at least in the uploadhistory of old versions, the base file. and the original q% can be found by experimenting by 5% increases (saving-as in a row from 75 to 100 w different increasing names and then comparing them with snap-to-screen zoom with setting any scaling algorithm OFF and only using plain pixel-ish rescale, i've found this way the best to compare small-size jpg-resave pictures). i might be mistaken in the exact conditions neccessary to be able to utilise this loophole, and alse have nothing to say that all of their photos are saved at the same qlty. i also dont know if one removes a watermark for example and leaves the rest of the pic unchanged whether is it still applying, as i usually dont rape my own pictures (ok ok i know 'policy'...).

ok and then another thought of mine... i think its unneccessary when you r overwriting an old low-def file with the new 800px, to emulate the old shit's crop arrangement just for the 1-to-1 replacability in mind. i dont feel it to be important to make the new one appear exatly, even in its proportions, like the old. and especially not more important, when its removing beautiful detail, like in one of the spitfire formation pics. imo the primary task when someone is involved in such a massive and historically very significant transfer is to provide the pictures themselves, and it can come later if editors of particular wikis want coloradjusted or cropped versions, to make it for themselves a separate file. (and not overwriting it. but a million times worse if there is nothing to overwrite or choose from because already only the edited shockingly huge-kilobyte croprotates are uploaded.

best wishes--Aaa3-other ( talk ) 06:31, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

p.s. forgot but i've noticed that very rarely (heinkel-pic) your dummy bot even down-transformed the dimension/resolution of the pics!!!!! omg facepalmed, i was like wtf
 * Hi, that is a lot to read... I did not understand everything, i.e. I have no idea what "omg facepalmed, i was like wtf" means. However, there is no bot included in my uploads, I am all doing this by hand. It is common on Commons to alter the pictures, if the colours are wrong or the levels etc. There is even a link on each page to alter the photo using an external application. If you take the recent U.S. National archives bot, we have all pictures at least twice (tif and jpeg). The jpegs, however, often have a frame or damages etc. See File:USS Barb (SS-220) off Pearl Harbor June 1945.jpg. If you take the orginal IWM photos that were available until recently, you will notice that they all included watermarks "Imperial War Museum" and the photo ID. Some users cut it off or tried to erase them. Now, some photos have frames or black areas, not visible on the photos before. Most photos had a different shade of grey before. Which one is now the original one? The most important thing in my opinion is to give the correct source. If you have noticed, it is now for the first time possible to give the direct link to the IWM photo. I do always include this. Every user can look up the "original". But then there is the problem with the descriptions. Here File:HMS Ark Royal USS Nimitz Norfolk1 1978.jpeg both the carrier and the year were incorrect. Also often you have wartime descriptions which are more propaganda than everything else. There are also censored pictures, where the radar antennas have been erased, but sometimes the same photo exists, not censored. Some photos are inverted File:Gen. Erwin Rommel with the 15th Panzer Division between Tobruk and Sidi Omar - NARA - 540147.tif. Which one is now the original one? You can see the earlier versions of the photos underneath each photo and now you even have the possiblity to request a rotation of a photo. I think what you propose (if I understood it correctly), it would complicate things unnecessarily - and it would make a lot of work. One could add the template "retouchedpicture" like here File:Puget Sound Naval Shipyard aerial photo 1940.jpg, I think this would be enough. Cheers Cobatfor ( talk ) 08:56, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * okay i was too antiedit yesterday, its fine for me that we have edited versions as well, and i respect the beautification of colours (not so much the mods of blackandwhite images and rotations) you making to many, but i still feel the best to either first upload the uncropped-unaltered ver, and only then overwrite it with the edit, or make 2 versions. with a few of the images i already did it (ul-ing separately the orig.). as for your question, of course the new, 800px ares the original. the old 350px watermarked ones are not only small but already cropped-edited-improved by iwm, this is obvious and explains all your doubts about different grays etc. we shouldnt follow these low-res versions. yes, the source. i agree with you, and even fixed a lot of them today, as (what comes, identified during such an originalversion-upload and crosslinking), that the iwm template has exatly yesterday changed and the old links arent working anymore. and yes we can look up it but its much more a hassle than if it were just 1 click away and here on commons. as for slightly changing descs, i have nothing against! adding template... well that is what i feel too much (useless, as uploadhistory or crosslink it makes clear that it changed) and lot of work. also, doing so little changes then resaving (tripling file size as a side effect) is also a lot of work. examples:
 * File:HMSEskimoBowTorpedoDamageMay1940.jpg - nothing change (why did you do this?), 3x filesize, lot of work. yes, the original is available, but the noob user dont know or dont care to grab it from there, and we end up such a file on our computer and on wiki server. also it is not so easy to download it as they dont allow righclick on the large size so we have to get it out from 'page's data -> media' window, many extra steps. who will take this just to save an image?
 * File:Hellcats 1840 NAS in flight 1944.jpg - cropping with no reason, and not using 'jpegcrop' (search for the program in google, really the way to crop jpgs, or in 'irfanview' one can ctrl+shift+j a selection, both are lossless, no need to resave, but in this example, not to crop either)
 * File:Heinkel He 111 during the Battle of Britain.jpg - this was the downsize i called dummy. as i wrote above, it is such a grand mission and a fortunate possibility that we can have all these images on commons and therefore linkable on wikis. why only transfer a blurred hand-altered (lots of work) version for our use?
 * File:HMS Indomitable (92) underway 1943.jpg - this and File:HMS Barham in Suda Bay.jpg this: very-very little rotation, not bothering anyone, 'lots of work', yet your image is 2-3x size, and looking very blurred.
 * File:Supermarinespitfire.JPG - here, that you replace the picture with this is an excellent idea, i love it. but you wanted to make the propertions (x / y) of it to be similar to the old, and shouldnt have been - the new looks VERY beautiful in its full variant, no need for such a sacrifice. (and more work too). it will look a little different but who cares :P
 * your enhancements of colours and levels on colour photos however, are very useful and nice. (example: 100px
 * i placed many of your new images i liked to other wikis, example File:404 Sqn RCAF Beaufighters Feb 1945.jpg (this too very little unneccessary change, more work, less ideal state for reusers and bandwidth), and i will keep doing in the following days, but it looks so saddening to me to see on the grey photos almost never the original.
 * and as a last thought, it might be more inspiring to try and less troublesome to other editors who may want to do another change to a pic to work from the original one here on commons and not having to go to the iwm site, in your current way maybe they wont have the idea of using the very useful link you always provide, and will start from your already changed ones. or noobs may think that what you uploaded here is the same as what is foundable on the link. the only thing which alerted me that i saw surprisingly large kilobytes and not the familiar 800px site, but how could they know if they never saw a real recent iwm photo. they will believe your is the real thing. so maybe, -forget template, way too much-, when you are uploading a changed one, dont just say 'iwm photo' but that what did you change, and maybe, crop rarely only, and maybe in the case of not very bad images, where you would do only a very little change, then dont do that, or i dont know... i dont want to discourage you! just think that this way might be better... sorry for writing too long, i tried to in my first post to show other ways of doing cropping and resaving. Cheers :), Aaa3-other ( talk ) 07:11, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Rotation: Well, I rotate the pictures normally to get the horizon level, if possible. I also think it is absolutely necessary to provide the IWM link - just for licensing reasons. It is not my picture, easily to find out, since I wasn't even born then. I also think that Commons is no public archive. The IWM is the archive, not Commons. Some users worte "post-work: User:xyz". I don't want to alter the pictures - in a sense of making them historically different, I want to make them better. Take i.e. User:Hohum, who is very proficient in getting the right colours of photos. I think you could have this discussion with hundereds of Commons-users. I would be glad, if you do not re-upload all the IWM photos. There are so many good pictures now, I think we are making unnecessary double work. Cheers to Hungary Cobatfor ( talk ) 07:34, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * ok. well i never said not to make the links. i love that you make the links. i only say many will not click and use your versions as a base to making further-edited versions. and of course i reuploaded only a few of them, i used judgement. many of it i left as it was because your edits made them better. but could you tell why yyou did the strange thing to the destroyer and the heinkel? just curious. rotation: i think if difference is below 3°, better not rotate, as it takes away many detail and sharpness for nearly nothing. hundreds of commons-users...: well, many i noticed uploaded the originals, not immediately cropped versions with creating the illusion that it is the same as on iwm. Cheers to Germany too --Aaa3-other ( talk ) 09:06, 17 December 2011 (UTC) p.s. it is interesting what you say about commons is not the archive only the iwm... but i dont know.
 * p.p.s. sorry, i was meaning the „retouched”-template always (one can use the uploadlog for that) when saying „toomuch”, never meant the source-template!
 * Well, the He 111 photo, I don't know how that went. The destroyer image, well, the IWM images are 24 colour, but mostly I revert them to true grey scale, as sometimes the 24 colour gives them a brownish tint. Nothing else, the photo wasn't changed otherwise. I still stick to the opinion that Commons is no public archive and ho harm is done, when you tell the others what you have done. The source template explains - in my opinion - where the original is to be found. For further information see Licensing -> "Acceptable licenses" where it is stated "Publication of derivative work must be allowed." Cheers Cobatfor ( talk ) 10:51, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * ok:) thanks. then as a last ask, can you tell instead of 'iwm photo', just shortly, some of the main changes when you upload? it'd be informative to anyone viewing it. cheers aaa3, and p.s. to if any1 finds this later, i place a copy of this to the only talkpage i use, on enwiki en:User_talk:Aaa3-other if he want to further commnet to me without disturbing him
 * p.s. to you, here i give the link this jpegcrop can revert an image to greyscale losslessly and then when you save it it remains smaller size, not bigger (because there is no re-encode, it just deletes color info directly from file). one just clicks the greyscale button and ctrl+s. (set and save „settings” as i wrote above (huffopt+progress). use for cropping color photos too, when no level or rot is done, but that's rare because they really look aged etc)
 * p.s. to you, here i give the link this jpegcrop can revert an image to greyscale losslessly and then when you save it it remains smaller size, not bigger (because there is no re-encode, it just deletes color info directly from file). one just clicks the greyscale button and ctrl+s. (set and save „settings” as i wrote above (huffopt+progress). use for cropping color photos too, when no level or rot is done, but that's rare because they really look aged etc)

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or  located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 16:52, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * know know, using only forgetting always --Aaa3-other | Talk | Contribs 16:55, 24 December 2011 (UTC)


 * TUSC was needed, no chapter. 2011 dec 31

TUSC token a64f3c68a08725f6a5599c69b859bc91
f@%k, it said summary! i hate cluttering histories!!!!! aWW!!!!

Season's tidings!
FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:44, 25 December 2011 (UTC).

MtC drive
You have forgot to add yourself to the logs subpage. It would be too bad if you transfered thousands of files but didn't get any barnstars. Ebe 123 → report on my contribs. 20:20, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * hmm yeah, thanks :)--Aaa3-other | Talk | Contribs 20:48, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * As the drive has not started, I have put a line after the two just to seperate the files. A note for image #1. I would mark it as bad as the name is non-descriptive and should of been changed.   Ebe 123  → report on my contribs. 22:11, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
 * oh ok, i thought names should b identical so no edits needed to be done on wikis. i put a request template on it. btw, what does that mean that it has not yet been started? that everything before a specific start announcement are disqualified? not that it hits me terrinbly ;) as i never intended 2b a serious competitor, but... i think the deadline instead of this should be the date at when the strange "drive" templates were starting to appear on the files themselves. maybe. --Aaa3-other | Talk | Contribs 22:32, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

March 2012 Move-to-Commons drive
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Images and Media at 07:36, 29 February 2012 (UTC).

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:33, 24 November 2015 (UTC)