User talk:Just-fix-it

high-res
There was a reason why I changed Image:Avatar Wii.JPG. It was too high resolution for a fair use claim, and it was watermarked. Please don't revert it again, as high-res fair use images are eligible for deletion. --Pekaje 16:47, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Template:Non-free media rationale ^ Images must generally be of low resolution. The rule of thumb for raster images is no more than 300 pixels in width or height, which ensures that the image's resolution is less than 0.1 megapixels. If you are using an image of higher resolution, please explain why.

it's okay to have a big pic.Just-fix-it 16:59, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I left a note on the image talk page explaining why it's unacceptable to have a large picture. --Pekaje 18:44, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello again. If I came across as rude before, I apologize. I'm simply interested in making sure all the rules are followed, so important fair-use images don't get deleted. As for why you couldn't upload a new image, I'm guessing it's because your account was still new at the time. I believe it's 4-5 days before you're allowed to create new articles, upload images, and move pages. Quick check to see if you can upload now is to see if you have the 'move' tab. If you're going to be uploading fair-use copyrighted images, please make sure you rescale them so they don't show more than necessary. Typically some 250-300px for stuff like game and DVD covers. The rule of thumb with a maximum of 0.1 megapixels should be sufficient for most images, though some very tall or very wide images can be a bit more troublesome. If you're replacing a reduced-size watermarked version, it's probably best to use the same resolution to avoid unexpected results in the page. Also don't forget the detailed fair use rationale.

PS. If you don't mind, could we keep the discussion on just one of our talk pages? It tends to get confusing when a conversation is split between two talk pages. I'll be keeping your talk page on my watchlist for a week or two at least, so I will see any reply here. Have fun, but edit responsibly :-) --Pekaje 19:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It worked woho! I fixed cars thaks a lot
 * I see. It's always nice to replace those ugly watermarked versions.  However, may I suggest that you trim the excessive whitespace and maybe rescale the image for fair use, the next time?  My preferred tool for doing this is The GIMP, which is free.  It also has a good sharpening filter in case the shrinking process blurred the image (particularly visible in stylized graphics).  For this particular image, I took the liberty of doing these steps, so as to visually improve the article, though I won't tag the older version for deletion (it's over allowable size, but not ridiculously so). --Pekaje 21:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay I'll ask my dad to show me how. Then I can fix the ones Pak21 was yelling at me about. lol I want to do it right but Wikipedia can be so unhelpfull with the rules like "Typically" "Commonly" "Preferably"! Well, is it or not? Boy this starting to get hard. :0)


 * I can understand that. Many things are policies and must obviously be followed.  Other things are just guidelines that can be bent, given sufficient reason.  There have been several attempts to set a policy for specifically what constitutes low resolution, but the outcome has always been horrible (if you start to think about it, you can always come up with a new situation that was not covered previously).  In the end it's a bit of a judgment call, though there is somewhat of a consensus for certain classes of fair-use images.  If you do upload a reduced size version of something, don't forget to tag the image with , so an admin can come by and delete the high-res version.  IIRC, it will still be available to admins in case it should ever be needed. --Pekaje 22:43, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello again. Just a hint for when adding fair-use rationales to high-resolution images (like Image:Aff1.jpg): If you don't feel like resizing them yourself, just tag them with non-free reduce. This places them in Category:Non-free image size reduction request, and eventually someone will come around and reduce the size. Other than that, just keep up the good work! --Pekaje 07:28, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationales
While I appreciate what you are trying to do with rationales, please ensure they are accurate. For instance, claiming that Image:Forge of War1.jpg is a "low resolution" copy is simply untrue. --Pak21 21:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, you did claim it to be a low resolution copy, specifically in this edit. If you don't understand what you're adding to these images, please stop doing it. --Pak21 08:57, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Honestly, there are many places I could start. Let's look at Image:Archfiends.jpg: you claimed this to be "used as the primary means of visual identification of the article topic." However, the only place this image is being used is in the Dungeons & Dragons Miniatures Game article. How is the Archfiends logo the primary means of visual identification of the article topic? And how can there be 12 of these images, each being used as the primary means (as you tagged them). Secondly, could you please list the other websites this image is being used on? To take another one, you claim that Image:Forge of War1.jpg is a "low resolution copy". Yet the image is 1280 x 1978 pixels, massively in excess of the 300 pixels suggested at Non-free media rationale. Could you please tell me what you would consider high resolution? --Pak21 15:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * With respect to the miniatures images, that would be a valid rationale if they were used in an article on the set itself. However, that's not where they're being used, which is in the article on Dungeons & Dragons Miniatures Game. The rationale needs to be specific to each individual use of the image, not as a general way this image could be used. Currently, the use fails criterion 8: "Non-free media is not used unless it contributes significantly to an article. It needs to significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic in a way that words alone cannot. The use of non-free media in lists, galleries, and navigational and user-interface elements is normally regarded as merely decorative, and is thus unacceptable." (my emphasis). The rationale needs to explain why it is so important that these images are used on the page. For the Forge of War image, why is being able to see details of the art important? The details of the art aren't mentioned at all on the article page. Where are the citations saying that this art is particuarly good? If these citations don't exist, I see no justification for using such a large image. --Pak21 16:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

good work
Looks like pak is at it again. He is the self appointed wikipedia sheriff. He not happy unless everything is done his way not that ever dose anything then harass people. Just ignore him and keep up the good work little girl.

RE: Fair use rationale guideline
Thanks for the help and advice... new to this wiki stuff, so I'm blundering as I learn. I see from your message page that they are pretty rigid and unforgiving on here! :o) Fennis2000 21:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism
Sorry 'bout that. :-) ۝ ۞ ░ 22:31, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

watermark
It look like Image:DnD fantasy adventure.jpg has a watermark I'll see if i can find a better one24.9.212.71 00:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:DnD fantasy adventure.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:DnD fantasy adventure.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at 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 it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 03:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Survey
Hi Just-fix-it!

I have put together a survey for female editors of Wikipedia (and related projects) in order to explore, in greater detail, women's experiences and roles within the Wikimedia movement. It'd be wonderful if you could participate!

It's an independent survey, done by me, as a fellow volunteer Wikimedian. It is not being done on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation. I hope you'll participate!

Just click this link to participate in this survey, via Google!

Any questions or concerns, feel free to email me or stop by my user talk page. Also, feel free to share this any other female Wikimedians you may know. It is in English, but any language Wikimedia participants are encouraged to participate. I appreciate your contributions - to the survey and to Wikipedia! Thank you! SarahStierch (talk) 21:01, 29 September 2011 (UTC)