User talk:Jared/archive12

Re:Panoramas
Hi Jared, Yeah the (relative) success of my panorams is due to decent stitching software - w/o you don't have a chance to get a good panorama. I use Arcsoft Panorama 4 which is a really easy to use program which gives decent results. However for a more advance one (bit more expensive but probably better for advanced users than Arcsoft) Panorama Factory is quite good. Diliff I know relies on PTGUI which I think is quite good but I've never got the hang of - it would be well worth you talking to him as he is far better at panoramic work then me. However a good start to a good panorama is to use a tripod where possible. If not lock your elbows in close to your body and rotate around on your hips. Not having the ability to lock exposure is a bit of a problem, but Panorama Maker usually can blend differently exposed images fairly well (as long as they are not too different). Good luck! --Fir0002 22:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia Week
The best existing proposal I can, in my own limited way, think of for the previously discussed "appreciation week" can now be found at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week. Any comments or responses would be more than welcome. Badbilltucker 15:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Panoramas
I use a few specific techniques to maximise the quality of panoramas. Firstly, I do use exposure and white balance lock on the individual photos to minimise the differences between frames. Also, a good stitching program is pretty essential (I use a program called PTGui which isn't free, but I've heard that autopano is also good and free, haven't tried it though). Without this, even with the best technique, it will be quite time consuming the results won't be much good. It is still possible to take panoramas without full manual control but you are far more limited in what you can do. Its hard to be more specific though as each scene is different and there are different tricks in different circumstances. Hope that helps, sorry I've taken so long to reply. Diliff  | (Talk)   (Contribs) 15:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Nomination of Image:Normal distribution and scales.gif for deletion
Hi. I saw on Images and media for deletion/2007 January 14 that you nominated Image:Normal distribution and scales.gif for deletion. This image is actually stored at Wikimedia Commons, a project that stores images for Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects to use. Wikipedia has no jurisdiction over its images - they show up automatically. Please see Commons:Commons:Deletion requests if you would like to request its deletion there. Thank you. --BigDT 20:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Wellll
I just like the X with the symbol better in ex link form. :) And no, I'm not breaking a rule since the anti-ex link-signature rule is to keep people from having lists of external links in their signatures of say, their myspace, or facebook, or personal website, or livejournal, or blog, or instant messenger screenname, IRC, their favorite websites, and such. Happy January 17! X [' Mac Davis '] ( DESK | How's my driving? ) 12:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Olympic Games
Are you able to work further on this to address some of the concerns from the its featured article review? I know something things have been taken care of, but issues remain; the referencing is patchy, for instance. Let people know on the FAR. Marskell 15:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry it had to lose the star and thanks for being good humoured about it. Good luck bringing it back up to speed. Marskell 14:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Your RfA
Hello! I respectfully suggest that you now withdraw your RfA, as the 'oppose' opinions are now quite clear that you require substantial amounts of admin-related experience before you can be considered as a useful administrator here. This doesn't say anything about your usefulness as an editor, which is not in doubt at all. I recommend that you take the advice to heart and work hard on implementing it over the next three or four months before considering reapplying for adminship. Regards, (aeropagitica) 17:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It's a pity you withdrew too early because I intended to support you (I need time to see your contributions). Just forget it and begin a new approach. If you nominate the 3rd time, I'd be pleased to support you. You are a good editor, but you should do something to make others think you can be a good admin, too. In fact, I like a type of admin like you: frankly stating your opinion (though it's not good for admin thing), give answers from what you think (not the kind of factitiously formula-based ones that I often see at RfA). I also like you because you contribute many to main articles instead of "those are in areas that require admin action.....admin tools at this point". Of course, if you want to be an admin, you must meet their requirement and my sole vote can't help you all. Lastly, try your best and I think one day you will be successful. Cheers! Causesobad --> Talk) 07:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with you about your opinion on Bush. Causesobad --> Talk) 07:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Why do you have the intention of "pulling out"? Believe me, just exert yourself and you'll be paid off. Don't give in so easily. I have some advice for you. Begin from now:

1. Visit 'admin areas' more frequently: WP:RFAR; WP:CHU; AN; WP:ANI; WP:DRV; WP:AFD; WP:MFD etc. (all the things that they call "admin tools). Try to put your name there as regularly as possible and they will think you are very active and you have penetrated every policy of Wiki (although in fact you may deeply seize the rules without having to appear everywhere).

2. Keep calm (as cool as a cucumber) and select your words thoroughly in each debate (become an admin also means that you are limited in expressing your opinion), or they will delve out a smallest word you had said (which you may have forgotten) to analyze it and conclude that you aren't fitted for adminship (do you understand what I mean?) without regarding all your attempts before.

3. Try to reduce your signature (^_^), or they will make it a fine reason to oppose you.

4. Increase your edit count.

5. Make good relationship with some 'reputable' ones (if you can).


 * These ones I got from one of my friends who want to be an admin. I myself never want the admin thing so I don't make use of much from the advice. Last but not least, I hope that you won't give in, chance won't never close to the person who tries his best. Causesobad --> Talk) 08:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Oops, I forget one thing: 6. You should cite some Wiki rules or policy in your writing as frequently as possible, which shows you thorough grasp of them. (eg: this quotion I get from my talk page: "In the future, if you want comments and other users viewpoints, do not immediately resort to WP:AFD. We have a lot of dispute resolution systems in place, you can learn about them at WP:DR. For your purposes, WP:RFC would have worked just fine". That's it!!). Ahh, about Bush thing, I said that I don't agree with you about your comment on your user page that "I think President Bush is doing and has done a fine job as leader of my country." Causesobad --> Talk) 09:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Miscellany_for_deletion
I responded to your query that you placed on my talk page. My response can be found here. If the message isn't on my talk page, please see the archives for the time period of your original message. Feel free to post any further comments on my talk page, and I'll respond to you as soon as possible. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 03:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I deleted that userpage because it was falsely implying that he was an administrator with dozens of barnstars. He can create himself a fresh userpage if he wants. DS 20:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

This is a test
The following is a test of the emergency broadcast system. If there were a real emergency, please follow the instructions after the alert.
 * FOOBAR

Thank you.— Ryūlóng ( 竜 龍 ) 19:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ramone and Frunkis
You might like to look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ramone_and_Frunkis which contains a post which I *suspect* has been edited (deliberately or not) to make it appear you said something you did not. The post currently reads: "* Delete. The page has been poorly put together and is only one sentence long. However it should be noted that Ramone and Frunkis is and has been mentioned numerous times and while you may not google search the show and find other references, it should be noted that Wikipedia puts the issue to the forefront regarding its existence or non existence and its mention on CNBC which is not disputed. Google hits: 10. (I do commend the effort of the editor in trying to source it, but the source if YouTube, which really isn't too reliable, save for a video.) → JARED (t)  20:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)" Hobson 01:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you. └ Jared ┘┌ talk ┐&ensp; 01:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)