User talk:Quibik/Archive 1

Welcome...

Hello, Quibik, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
 * Introduction
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! 七星 (talk) 13:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

TUSC token 52e4a5b94bcca3e64085dbbe27482771
I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Linkspam
Hi Quibik.

You are doing a good job of vigilance on the linkspam. Keep it up! It's quite sufficient to write rm ls per WP:EL or just rm ls (= remove linkspam) as justification. Wwwhatsup (talk) 18:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Estonian banknotes
Hi there. Just a short question: If you know the tag to be incorrect on those files, why do you tag them for deletion instead of changing the licensing tag? Regards  So Why  19:34, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The license itself is not the problem. The real problem is, that the images do not comply with the copyright holder's (Bank of Estonia) requirements for using the images without prior authorisation. The requirements were explained in the correspondence with the Bank of Estonia, that a user on the Estonian wikipedia had: link. The mailed reply is in Estonian, but the translation for the important part is:


 * I hope this clarifies things and I apologize, if I have not followed the correct procedures in this case. Quibik (talk) 19:56, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, alternative versions, which meet the requirements, exist on Commons: link. Quibik (talk) 22:35, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Christian Joy
I've recently done a job on upgrading the entry for Christian Joy - twice previously deleted. I think it'll stand now. Thus IMHO it is possible, while I wouldn't call it linkspam, her website no longer needs to appear in the Karen O EL's as she is wikilinked earlier in the article. I leave it to your judgement. Wwwhatsup (talk) 07:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. Removed the link. Quibik (talk) 15:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Thx
Thanks for fixing the link in my tutorial. Tony  (talk)  13:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Demographics of Estonia
As a significant contributor to Demographics of Estonia at some time in the distant or recent past, I am asking you to look over the article for any factual errors that I may have introduced or overlooked in my recent cleanup of said article. I have no expertise at all regarding Estonia, but undertook to clean up the article anyway. My primary contribution was to create an introduction more in keeping with the provisions of WP:LEDE, and to introduce a more readable prose in place of the previous emphasis on tables and bullets. The current result is far from perfect, but I think it is much more reader-friendly. My concern is, is it factually accurate? If you are knowledgeable, please give it a lookover and make any necessary corrections. It would also be very appreciated if some additional sources could be added to the article. Thank you for your help. Un sch  ool  17:54, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:1193-05voniva16.jpg
File:1193-05voniva16.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Lay Lay, of the group Von Iva, performing live at Cake Shop NYC on Aug 25, 2007.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case:. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 09:11, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * File:Ladytron2009.jpg is now available as Commons:File:Ladytron2009.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 14:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

EstDomains and Tartu
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tartu&diff=314066093&oldid=314019587

When one writes an article about a city, one includes a listing of notable companies headquartered there.

This is why EstDomains is such a big deal (and why it has an article on here). The former domain is well-known for supplying domains to criminals, and the domain was shut down after the CEO was convicted of crimes. The sources at EstDomains tell a lot about that. With that known, EstDomains was headquartered in Tartu, so it must be mentioned somewhere in the article. EstDomains was one of the largest web registrars in the world, as the F-Secure article here says: http://www.f-secure.com/weblog/archives/00001522.html - Not all of the websites were malicious, but a lot of them were. WhisperToMe (talk) 12:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 22:09, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

AutoSpell
Thanks for your suggestions. I've been checking in somewhat sporadically recently, so I didn't see your message until today. I will reply here in a few minutes. Symplectic Map (talk) 14:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!
Hi Quibik, thanks for fixing my spelling goofs in the Colonel William Dudley article. Spelling has never been a strong point of mine. Perhaps you can help me with something else, I've tried to read up on how to correctly reference things in the Wikipedia instructions but its too confusing for me, I'm not too computer literate. Could you reply to me here or on my talk page to help me understand how to do this? 1812Soldier —Preceding undated comment added 21:42, 22 October 2009 (UTC).


 * I made a reply on your talk page. —Quibik (talk) 12:53, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Possessive form for Gauss
I noticed you made some changes from Gauss' to Gauss's. I found that Wikipedia style allows either apostrophe alone or apostrophe s as long as it's used consistently for all such possessives in each article. However, I can't find a rule that addresses the plural of a name that ends in two s's. I'd like to find out about this rule and wondered if you would share your source for it? I also wondered if you'd checked the articles where you made the changes to ensure they were using the same rule you are. Thanks Jojalozzo (talk) 04:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Regretfully I must say it had more to do with me being too hasty. I looked at the Gauss's law and Gauss's law for magnetism articles and presumed there must be a consensus for the spelling. This version simply felt more suitable as well, I guess. It was only after I found the Gauss' law for gravity article, which was consistently using the opposite version, that I started to really wonder, if there indeed was a consensus. This topic has been discussed in Talk:Gauss's law and Talk:Gauss's law. They seem to prefer Gauss's, but mostly as a personal preference. After that I decided to stop, since both versions are indeed acceptable and the Gauss' law for gravity was using it consistently as well. So I apologize for my thoughtlessness, if you disagree with my edits. —Quibik (talk) 09:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * No apology required. I appreciate your attempts to get things right but was concerned that your broad approach may have overlooked the different styles adopted in different articles. I also found that the rules talked about possessives for nouns ending in a single 's' and hoped you had found one that addressed the double 's' ending. Jojalozzo (talk) 17:20, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Economy of Europe
Please excuse my bad manners. The article you mentioned on my talk page - Economy of Europe was updated by me, indeed. The data were taken directly from List of European countries by GNI (nominal) per capita. I assume the source you are asking me for is the same as the source of the later article, or GNI (nominal) per capita 2008, World Development Indicators database. Is that correct? If it is I will add it to Economy of Europe. As for the depreciated tag, I haven't payed attention I admit. Regards, BloodIce (talk) 16:02, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, this certainly clears things up for me. I was not aware that this map was a duplicate from another article. I updated the article to reflect this more clearly. The numbers in the table and on the map do seem to match, so you can go ahead and add the ref to the Economy of Europe article (you can just copy it from the other article, I guess). The data in the other article is actually a bit outdated too – more than a year old – this could use an update, really. I might just do that myself in the weekend, if I have the time. Cheers, Quibik (talk) 16:41, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Karl-Tönisson-postkaart.gif
u wrote (I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear.)U mean the page what I created or postcard ? The postcard belongs to me I mean original,,, so what ownership or copyright is needed to use it? Noone.Or u have something against the content of page what I created? --VanemTao (talk) 14:15, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi! The image has been deleted for almost 2 months now, so I unfortunately don't remember all the details of the file description that was provided by you. However, the description was pretty much the same as on Estonian wikipedia, I think. What it lacked was the details on the original author of the postcard and the publication date of the postcard. Technically, even though you created the image by scanning it (I presume), the copyright still belongs to the original photographer or the publisher of the image. An image like this can only be in the public domain and free to use, if the author of the image has died more than 70 years ago. So, if you know these details I mentioned and the author has been dead for at least 70 years, then you are more than welcome to upload it again! And even if these requirements aren't fulfilled, it can still be uploaded and used. The only difference is that you have to provide a fair use rationale – the reasoning, why the image can still be used in an article, even though the image is copyrighted – on the image page. For help on writing one you can read Non-free use rationale guideline. I can even write one for you, if you find it too confusing. Further more, you can turn to me with any other copyright questions that might arise and I'll be happy to help! —Quibik (talk) 18:47, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Looking again at the image description on etwiki, it seems that the author problem has been cleared – it should be Karl Tönisson himself. —Quibik (talk) 18:56, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Katie_White-Variety_Playhouse.JPG Edit
Thank you for taking time to edit my photo of Katie_White-Variety_Playhouse.JPG, it looks great! Yours, 98.252.181.99 (talk) 04:37, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Albert Einstein: YouTube historical material
Dear Quibik,

You just removed external links to YouTube historical material on Albert Einstein because the links infringe copyright according to you. I just wonder: 1. does the 70-year limit apply? 2. Might the material be free under US law? 3. Wikipedia is not liable for infringement, as we do not host only link to this material? Media copyright questions doesn't help me out. Thank you, JMMuller (talk) 16:44, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * You raise some good points with #1 and #2. It's quite possible much of the content you linked to is out of copyright due to age. However, since the authors and their death years are unknown, it's not too certain. About #3: please see WP:ELNEVER (or WP:YOUTUBE). Anyway, I admit I might have been too hasty and I encourage you to re-add any links which you believe to be non-infringing. As a side note, I'd much rather like to see that content hosted here or in Commons, if any of the material really is in the public domain. Best wishes, Quibik (talk) 17:14, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Eclipse-logo vector.
Hi, I was lazy and didn't write that I took the Eclipse-logo image. I didn't find the right font, but I've uploaded what i've done here. Please replace that image with your copy. Feel free to take from the one i've done too. --Beao 00:03, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Hello and thanks for sharing your work with me! However, my plan on vectorizing the logo was a bit different and more straightforward. I intended to convert to SVG one of the readily available logos at http://www.eclipse.org/artwork/. Unfortunately this turned out to be too much for me to bite through. The blends used in the Illustrator file seem to be near impossible to convert correctly into a SVG. Rasterization looked like the only viable option for these. So, I have given up. Have you perhaps got any ideas on how to make it work? Either way, you are more than welcome to continue working on the image, if you wish to. I personally start to think a bitmap image would be more reasonable. —Quibik (talk) 22:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I guess. It's a non-free logo so we shouldn't spend too much time on it. --Beao 05:54, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Harry Männil
You've been doing quite a lot of work with Harry Männil article - why not improve it to GA-status? There should be plenty of sources about him now, both Estonian and English, including mentions in sources found by Google Scholar and Google Books. Lack of images could be an issue, but perhaps a relative of his could be connected and asked for GDFL-licenced portrait.

It would be the third WikiProject Estonia GA-status articles (fourth, if you include only tangentially related Welles Declaration) and not all that much work would be needed to improve it to GA.
 * -- Sander Säde 10:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for the encouragement! I might just do that after I'm done with my exams (end of January). It all really depends on the sources I manage to dig up. I've looked through the majority of relevant articles about him in the Estonian media, I think. This has had an unfortunate side-effect on the article, too – it has a noticeable Estonia-centric bias. His life in Venezuela has been described rather generically in the Estonian media. I hope I can find some sources from the other side of the ocean. I'm a also a bit worried that I might have been a bit too synthesizing in parts of his biography. Anyway, I think I'll give it a shot when I have the time. —Quibik (talk) 17:56, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: Referencing
Thank you for the welcome and the advice on referencing. I went ahead and added citations to the article. Best wishes.Rahvusooper (talk) 17:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Kazaa
I have no idea who you are but I am the copywrite owner of Kazaa. If you have any questions you can contact our lawyer Don Moody or our media contact Michael Speck.

Contact: Michael Speck +61 437437194 jspeck(at)altnet(dot)com

I am requesting that this page become semi protected. I need an editor to get involved please contact us. Emanuel (talk) 17:56, 06 February 2010 (UTC) Emanuel (at) Kazaa (dot) com

Thank You

 * Thank you! :) —Quibik (talk) 12:49, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

143.53.155.115
Thanks for reporting that curious vandal - WHOIS shows it's the University of Bradford (you'd hope they'd know better) and though the vandalism was at longish intervals it was sneaky and deliberate and the pattern suggested it was all the same guy. I've given him a month off. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 18:53, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: Geometrical shapes logos
Yes, I would disagree with your interpretation of File:Globalwinnipeg.svg's copyright status. All we have is a simple red greater than symbol or a chevron (flip 90 degrees and you would have a check mark). I would hardly call any of these complex shapes. If you disagree, you can always bring it to WP:PUF, but I would think that most people would agree that the logo would be simple enough to qualify for public domain status. єmarsee •  Speak up!  23:45, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Featured picture nomination
Someone has nominated for a featured picture: FPC. I'm letting you know since you put at least as much time into the image as I did!! --Steve (talk) 04:01, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
 * What a pleasant surprise! To help with the nomination I fixed a few small imperfections in the image. Thanks for letting me know. —Quibik (talk) 16:44, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Vector Image of Mil-Unit-Stub
I'm a newbie to SVG world (and Wiki). I thought of taking up the Mil-Unit-Stub image for converting. New version uploaded to. Comments are most welcome. Ruminaglass (talk) 07:14, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Uhh.. apologies, I wrote a nice long helpful welcome message for you but accidentally closed the tab before finishing it... I'll have to be brief (or otherwise I'll be asleep before even finishing).
 * Hi and welcome to Wikipedia! :) I'm happy that you are interested in helping out in vector graphics, Wikipedia can definitely use more illustrators. You did a good job with the soldier icon. Thanks! I tweaked it a bit further, to add some more detail here and there. Take a look and feel free to further modify it!
 * A few general tips you might find useful:


 * You might find the tool derivativeFX useful when uploading derivative works (such as this one was) to Commons. (Although in this case it would have not helped as the original work was not in Commons). It will help you with filling in the details and choosing the correct license.
 * You can link to other projects with project-specific prefixes. For example: Commons:Commons:Image casebook (Commons:Commons:Image casebook) or en:Main page (en:Main page)
 * From the SVG information I saw that you used Microsoft Visio to create the image. I can't comment on that software, as I don't have any experienc with it. What I can say, though, is that the prodeuced code is not too good: it is not valid (use http://validator.w3c.org to validate your SVG files) and has a lot of (typical Microsoft) junk embedded in it. You might want to take a look at the 2 main other alternatives: Inkscape (open source) and Adobe Illustrator (proprietary).
 * Finally, if you feel like it, you are encouraged to take a peek at Five pillars, List of policies and List of guidelines (WP:Manual of Style as well, perhaps). They are certainly helpful, but you can take your time, as there's no need to know it all at once.
 * Again, welcome. I hope you decide to stay :) —Quibik (talk) 21:48, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the welcome. I used Visio since it is quite easy to draw (as compared to Illustrator, IMO). Sorry, wasn't aware of the W3 standards for SVG. I am sure Microsoft never intended Visio to be a SVG creator, rather a tool to create fancy smancy charts and flow diagrams. I will give Inkscape a shot, I will have to use the Portable version (can't install any software on my office desktop).
 * Thanks once more for the tips and yes, I have decided to stay :) Ruminaglass (talk) 03:42, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Source code
How do you cleanup source code? What should I look for? I believe you edit the SVG manually? --Shandristhe azylean 12:50, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
Ks0stm If you reply here, please leave me a  message on my talk page. 19:01, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
Sander Säde 16:48, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
Ks0stm If you reply here, please leave me a  message on my talk page. 19:34, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Again... Ks0stm If you reply here, please leave me a  message on my talk page. 17:35, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

South African Scout Association
Did my explanation make sense? --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 02:47, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, that did clear clear things up for me. I still have to get around to vectorizing it, though... I'll try to get that done today. —Quibik (talk) 09:30, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

PD-EE images
They have either all been deleted as copyright violations or moved to the Wikimedia Commons as of today. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 18:32, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Great! Thanks for taking care of this! I'll try to clean up the descriptions and licenses where necessary. —Quibik (talk) 19:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Estonian SVG stuff
I know there is a lot of SVG files out there, but I just kept the PNG's so I could move all of the images easier and quicker. There should be no PD-EE images anymore on the English Wikipedia. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:33, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Article´s outline
Should there be two lines between article´s last line and templates? Because in some articles there is 1 line, and in some articles there are two lines. For example look Estonia national football team - Pelmeen10 (talk) 20:47, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I usually leave only a single line between the last sentence and a navigation box, as 2 would generate too much whitespace, I think. I've never seen this issue mentioned in any guideline, though. Stub templates, on the other hand, are generally preceded by 2 blank lines (see MOS:APPENDIX). Hope this helps! —Quibik (talk) 20:58, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Tricky Nixon (band)
Thank you for the work on this page! Very much appreciated. (Banginon (talk) 16:18, 25 June 2010 (UTC))
 * You're welcome! I'm not too sure whether it can be considered notable enough (WP:BAND) to move into the main space, though... —Quibik (talk) 16:41, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, good point. My principal reason for feeling that it was notable was the connection to The Joy Formidable. I thought it might meet the criteria in number1 of WP:BAND as they were written about in several magazines at the the time and were regularly on television?...(Banginon (talk) 20:40, 25 June 2010 (UTC))

File:WandJseal.png
Someone reduced the size of File:WandJseal.png and totally reversed the transparency work that you did. I'm wondering if you would kindly be able to look at File:WandJseal.png again and restore the transparency. Also could you check and see if the shrinking of the image caused any artifacts? Sorry to bother you again...--GrapedApe (talk) 21:44, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No bother. I re-did the downsample with the transparency intact. By the way, maybe the seal falls into the public domain due to age? For example, according to this, p. 20, the first known use of the seal is from 1902. What do you think? —Quibik (talk) 22:33, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * By gum, I think you're right. I'll move it to commons right now! Thanks!--GrapedApe (talk) 03:10, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The Graphic Designer's Barnstar

 * It has been a pleasure working with you too. Thank you! :) —Quibik (talk) 11:03, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!
Dear Quibik - thanks for the tip. I'm not the greatest Wikipedia expert yet - but I'm keen on learning. - User:atomicbre —Preceding undated comment added 20:57, 6 July 2010 (UTC).

Thanks
Thanks for adding to the caption on the image on the Darwin plate (nicely restored by PawelMM) in The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals. I was in a bit of a hurry when I placed it there, and you added just the right extra information so the image made sense in the context. MarmadukePercy (talk) 07:11, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Graphic Lab interview at The Signpost
Hello Quibik. You seem active at the Graphic Lab, so I wanted to invite you to participate in The Signpost's interview of the project. The report is being written by Rock drum and will be published September 13; this is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Please stop by and answer some interview questions here. Thank you,  â�³ ono

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Mono at 03:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC).

Päevaleht (1905)

 * Thank you! —Quibik (talk) 16:15, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Sky Sport 4-7 NZ.PNG
 Thanks for uploading File:Sky Sport 4-7 NZ.PNG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:41, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello
Hi Quibik, hope you're well. As an editor who has used the services of the Guild of Copy Editors, I thought you might be interested in knowing that the Guild is currently holding elections for its coordinators. To view the discussion and voice your opinion, please visit the election page. Thanks! Lunalet (talk) 10:32, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference
Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion, guidelines for use at WP:MINOR). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to  in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and all users will still be able to manually mark their edits as being minor in the usual way.

For well-established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 20:44, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

thanks!
... for your changes to my recently uploaded picture. It looks massively better. I'd like to correct the same problems with the others I've uploaded - could you point me in the direction of how to do this in GIMP? U+003F? 17:23, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The basic procedure is explained in Wikibooks:GIMP/Remove Coherent Noise. A comment about the tutorial, though: 95%+ of the time you won't have to bother with decomposing the RGB channels. Simply run the FFT straight on the image. Actually... that tutorial is really not that great. I've been thinking about expanding/rewriting it for a while. I'll try to make a quick summary of my method instead.
 * You don't actually need a deep knowledge of the Fourier transform to use the tools, but being somewhat familiar to it is beneficial. Seeing that you have a science/math background, it's quite possible you already have some knowledge on this topic already. The main tool that you will need is the FFT plugin (FFT – Fast Fourier transform). By running the plugin on an image you'll transform it into the frequency domain. Each pixel on the transformed image now represents a frequency, starting from the center of the image with 0 Hz. The angle from the central pixel matches the direction of the "wave" on the original image. In the frequency domain, each frequency has a corresponding phase and amplitude component. What you see in the transformed image are only the amplitude components – the plugin takes care of retaining the phases but does not show them. Color 128, 128, 128 in RGB (mid-gray) corresponds to 0 amplitude. Now, the most common picture you'll see after applying the transform is most of the spectrum lying in the center of the image with a horizontal and a vertical stripe passing through it. Further from the center you should see some areas (usually dots or crosses) with strong amplitudes: these are likely caused by the coherent noise you are set out to remove. Erase them by covering them with the mid-gray color (I usually use a soft brush, but that's not too important). After the alterations simply apply an inverse transform. This is the basic idea. Some additional tips:


 * The most useful one: after transforming the image, add a mid-gray-colored layer atop to it and set its mode to "difference". That way you'll see the absolute values of the spectral amplitudes, which is much clearer to look at. You can also add a second mid-gray layer atop it and set it to "divide" to stretch the maximal values from 128 to 255.
 * Quite often the frequencies you want to erase lie on the vertical or horizontal stripe and erasing them there would cause some noticeable ringing artifacts on the image edges. What you need to know, first of all, is that these stripes in the spectrum are – roughly speaking – caused by the abrupt drop of the value to zero outside the image borders – fast change requires more shorter frequency components. Related to that, you should always crop any empty (white or black) pixels around the image for the same reason. This problem can be resolved using the wavelet decompose plugin. Simply apply it and work on the layer in which the noise is located.
 * Useful to know: Fourier transform is linear, which means that adding or subtracting image layers is equivalent to doing the same in the frequency domain. This is relevant to the aforementioned wavelet decompose plugin.
 * To keep in mind: some patterned objects in the image (e.g. tiles, fences, posts) show up in the spectrum as well. These parts of the spectrum are usually distinguishable by being much hazier.
 * This is all for now. I could add a few more thoughts, but I've probably already said much more that you wanted to know. I should probably also mention that you can always tag images with coherent noise with, which adds them to Commons:Category:Images containing regular noise. I hope this has helped you get started. Cheers, Quibik (talk) 21:53, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Guinness World Records logo
Hi there - the Guinness World Records logo has now changed, is there any chance you could update this?

I can give you it to update if necessary, thank you! Dangerawesome (talk) 17:03, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I updated it, but I don't think an SVG version is possible. The image is a bit too complex for that and the GWR does not make their logos openly available either. —Quibik (talk) 17:47, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Converse All Star logo.svg
 Thanks for uploading File:Converse All Star logo.svg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude2 (talk) 05:29, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Watermark
Hi Quibik, I was wondering if you could do a watermark removal on File:Peter Dawson.jpg, File:Charles Stewart Pingle.jpg and File:William Eakin.jpg (also at WP:GL/P) - I apologize for the large number of requests. The Provincial Archives of Alberta only started watermarking images a couple years ago, when they found us uploading their images here without their consent. A shame, really in the sense of the extra work this creates for us. I'd do it myself, but my graphic editing software (Photoshop CS3 Extended) doesn't really have any other ways to to this, other than the clone stamp (which I'm awful at). Many thanks in advance. Connormah (talk) 04:04, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi! I can do them later this week – I'm a bit busy at the moment. I would appreciate if you added the link to the image description page at the archive for each of the images you mentioned. (For this particular watermark, I use different sizes of the image to combine the unwatermarked areas.) —Quibik (talk) 22:18, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, will do. Thanks. Connormah (talk) 22:53, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks again, though if you're not too busy, would you also consider removing the watermark at File:Daniel Webster - circa 1847.jpg and maybe enhancing it a bit? I seem to have lost my editing touch lately, this would be much appreciated! Connormah (talk) 23:38, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * BTW, found another PAA image that needs watermark removal. File:John Hugill legislature portrait.jpg. Sigh. A shame that they've watermarked all of their stuff. Connormah (talk) 23:52, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * One more - could you also give this image File:Thomas E. Bramlette (Kentucky).jpg a shot at watermark removal? May be tough, I understand if it's not doable. As always, no rush. Thanks! Connormah (talk) 00:23, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Fixed the first two. The third one is doable, but it will be blurry. (and that Daniel Webster guy has some really creepy eyes...) —Quibik (talk) 02:28, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, as always. Too bad the watermark on the third is so dominating, like I said, a shame... Connormah (talk) 02:45, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The third one is now fixed too. I think it would probably benefit from cropping as well, but I'll leave that for you to decide. Cheers, Quibik (talk) 17:57, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank a bunch. I can try and make a crop, or if you'd like to it, that's fine as well. Thanks again Connormah (talk) 22:52, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

A request
Hi, Quibik. Sometime ago you made an excelent work on a photograph which I had uploaded. I don't know if you would have the interest on doing it, but I was wondering if you could take a look at this. I would be very, very grateful if you could help me out with this one. Thanks a lot, --Lecen (talk) 06:58, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the late response. It seems that others have already cleaned it up somewhat. I prefer not to do color adjustment work on images as my laptop screen has a very bad color balance. But I can give it a try, if you are still interested. —Quibik (talk) 15:03, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Converse All Star logo.svg
 Thanks for uploading File:Converse All Star logo.svg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:06, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

James David Forbes/John Lee
How did you remove the watermark? JBarta (talk) 23:01, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I scanned the archive page for images with minimal content and extracted a rough watermark using their thumbnails (the watermark was additive). I did that with multiple images and also combined the watermark with a mirrored copy to get rid of any random junk and average away the noise. Then, after using the watermark on the requested images, I used FFT filtering to remove remaining thin horizontal and vertical lines (JPEG artifacts). Of course, some cloning and blurring was also necessary. The watermark at the top was removed by simply cloning or cropping. —Quibik (talk) 00:20, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "using the watermark on the requested images"... could you explain this a little further? Or possibly point me in a useful direction? JBarta (talk) 00:55, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I meant: paste the watermark image that was extracted, set the layer mode to "grain merge" or "grain extract" (I don't how it's called in Photoshop), and possibly do some aligning. Then merge. That's all. Just a note: some watermarks are created using "multiply" (which can thus be extracted by dividing) or even a combination of "grain merge" and "multiply" modes. If you'd like, I could e-mail you the watermark image I extracted? I guess that would make this a bit more clear for you. —Quibik (talk) 01:33, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


 * That was some seriously cool watermark removal, I agree. An old blog thing I found says GIMP's grain extract/merge blending modes are not available in PS, but hints that it's a less extreme version of Hard light. – Kerαu noςco pia ◁ gala xies 08:02, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Wow. I'm really quite surprised to see that photoshop does not have a direct equivalent of "grain merge" or "grain extract". Their mathematical definition is (calling our 2 layers top and bottom): bottom+(top−128) for "grain merge" and bottom−(top−128) for "grain extract". That is, you are basically doing addition and subtraction with the two layers, but the top layer's zero point is set to 128. This means you can represent both negative and positive values inside a layer. I guess I should mention then that by extracting (in my first response) I meant "grain extract". By looking at the mathematical definitions and the official manual of Photoshop's layer modes, the closest ones are perhaps "Linear Dodge" and "Subtract". At least CS5 seems to have added "divide" mode which is necessary for working with watermarks that were added by using "multiply" (a very common case). —Quibik (talk) 09:39, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I noticed you using this template over at Commons. Is this something that should be done more frequently by anyone removing watermarks? I don't know how to edit EXIF data though. If it's not a complicated process, then we could bring it up on the talk page (or maybe even start some sort of special how-to/tutorial pages). Great work as always! – Kerαu noςco pia ◁ gala xies 08:02, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. As the Commons:Template:Attribution metadata from licensed image implies, the legality of removing watermarks from licenses requiring attribution is unclear. So, at least until this issue is cleared up, this template should probably be used. Changing to  requires the same amount of effort as simply removing it anyway. One positive side effect of doing it is that dewatermarked images are placed to Commons:Category:Attribution metadata from licensed image. As for the EXIF data, I have never placed any attribution information there (partly because GIMP does not have any tools for that). I've so far considered having the authorship information on the image's information page sufficient. Though adding attribution information to EXIF tags would certainly be a polite thing to do and perhaps is legally a bit more certain. —Quibik (talk) 09:39, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, I wasn't aware of this template until yesterday, and I think it would be good practice to implement this and ask others to do the same (their prerogative, I guess). I read the two archived discussions listed in the template's documentation and it's interesting stuff, but like you said, it's all unclear and any resolution sort of drops off the face of the earth, though in this discussion, Deco concludes, "Short-term: We continue to remove visible watermarks from images, because they fundamentally limit derivative works, and tag all these images with [ ] specifying that this information was moved into the metadata and/or image description page. If anyone asserts that this violates their license, we delete their images." I'll post a discussion at the Graphics Lab talk page with a link to it on the Top 4 talk page.


 * Now... I'm wondering how to handle it for derivative works uploaded as separate files, where a piece of watermark was extant in the crop, but removed, and then uploaded as a new file: the image description page won't have that "original" upload history. I guess that would be yet another separate discussion... – Kerαu noςco pia ◁ gala xies 21:13, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Ladytron Ghosts cover.png
 Thanks for uploading File:Ladytron Ghosts cover.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude2 (talk) 05:26, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Request
Thanks for the great job you did de-watermarking File:Thomas E. Bramlette (Kentucky).jpg. I wonder if you might be able to do anything with this. It came from the LOC that way. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 20:27, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I would like to help you, but I'm rather busy at the moment. Sorry. You can make a request at the photography workshop instead. —Quibik (talk) 22:55, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * No problem. Thanks anyway. Still appreciate the work on the Bramlette photo. Acdixon (talk • contribs • count) 00:13, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Theodore Dwight Woolsey
Any chance you could do this one: File:TD Woolsey.jpg? Thanks. Connormah (talk) 23:09, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ No problem. —Quibik (talk) 02:50, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Philip C H Primrose.jpg
That was my very first experience with watermark removal and I would be much interested to learn the steps in your procedure (which was uncomparably better than mine). I used the "heal selection" plugin in GIMP, without anything else (masking, layers, etc.). Materialscientist (talk) 11:30, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I've got it. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 08:39, 25 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I honestly did intend to do answer your question any time now. Sorry. If you are still interested, then this is the procedure I used.
 * The image gallery this image came from has unwatermarked thumbnails available for all images. By comparing them against a watermarked version, you can figure out the watermarking method used: addition, multiplication or alpha blending (all of them reversible). These specific images use multiplication. The next step then was to extract the watermark mask image (using the "divide" layer mode). For that you can look around the gallery site for a few relatively empty images, extract it from these and then combine and average them together for noise reduction. Now that you have the watermark mask, watermark removal from any image can be done in just seconds.
 * Again, apologies for my late response! —Quibik (talk) 09:53, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No problem. I've read the thread above where you've explained that, and had a hunch before when you asked for more images from the same site (you've got a clean mask). FFT doesn't always work with me. Compare (I used FFT filtering there but very little) with your version. I was also disappointed with FFT on File:Boccaccio by Morghen.jpg (I consider it an interesting test for FFT) and didn't save the result, though on some images it works very well. Materialscientist (talk) 10:07, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Your version of Rajaji Governor General.jpg was actually quite nice already. I only assumed that you did not use FFT because of the wave pattern on his robe. Unless the noise pattern is very high frequency, you'll usually have to do some additional filtering on smaller areas separately (especially on the edges of things... it's only a guess, but the noise pattern seems to be convoluted with the image in the frequency space, rather than multiplied). The Boccaccio image you picked is an interesting example, but it's a bit more complex than is usual. The background pattern was easy to remove, but the other patterns have quite diffuse frequencies. Anyway, have you seen Commons:Category:Images containing regular noise? If you feel like it, you could do some cleaning up on these images. People with FFT skills are unfortunately quite rare around here, so I highly encourage you to give it a shot. This tool can help you prioritize these images. Also, have you used the Wavelet Decompose plugin for GIMP? It's one of the most powerful plugins I use, actually. This is especially helpful for FFT – for example, you can separate the frequency range you need, then mask the unaffected areas (with mid-gray) and as a result get a much more pronounced FFT image and a cleaner end result. I've also listed some suggestions for FFT here as well, if you're interested. –Quibik (talk) 11:06, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I am a self-taught photographer, constantly learning and keen to learn. On wikipedia, I was picking up images which I stumbled upon, and only recently discovered the Graphic lab. Frankly, I still don't understand how some retouching is done there, like Tamba's work with File:Vladimir vs Pervaz-i Bahri.jpg. FFT is easier for me because it is a standard tool in electron microscopy (periodic lattice images). I'll need to digest your information. You probably know the gmic plugin for GIMP. It has many enhancement functions. For example, it does some wavelet decomposition in FFT. It even has an FFT watermark removal, which is funny - it tries to remove the watermark starting from the letters which you enter in a text window. Materialscientist (talk) 11:32, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * G'MIC is another excellent plugin. I've been using it for quite a while, too. I have noticed the FFT tools offered there, but find them to be a bit clumsy. I very much prefer the Fourier plugin. G'MIC is still very handy in other areas, like denoising, though. And welcome to the Graphic Lab, I hope you enjoy your stay! :) —Quibik (talk) 11:53, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot for links. Wavelet decomposition indeed gives cleaner results when FFT noise is mixed up with the image frequencies (as I realized by playing with File:Nero-nancy.jpg) and for semi-manual noise cleanup. I'm slowly emptying Commons:Category:Images containing regular noise, mostly by finding a better image on the web :-) (many were much too poor to work with). Materialscientist (talk) 09:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm glad to hear that you've found the links useful. On the Nero-nancy.jpg image you linked: you've already done an excellent job cleaning it up, but you might also want to remove the few high-frequency wave patterns that are still left. It's only a minor issue, though. Either way, thanks for all the hard work you've put into cleaning up the category! I really appreciate it. :) —Quibik (talk) 12:05, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

How did you cleanup File:Gray1239.png? I saw it and thought to separate the leg and all the captions (hand selection, which is what I do mostly) to avoid blurring and then paste and realign. Materialscientist (talk) 13:31, 1 July 2011 (UTC) Ah, and I don't really understand how to remove very low frequency noise like File:Polish P-11 camouflaged in airfield 1939.jpg with FFT; better say, I know how to remove such noise in one dimensional spectra, but have no tools at hand to do that in 2D spectra. Materialscientist (talk) 13:37, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * File:Gray1239.png: I made a rectangular selection of the leg and applied FFT to it (I could have done the same to the whole image, but the spectrum would have been less clear). After that I brushed over the unwanted frequencies and did an inverse FFT. To get rid of the new noise in previously clear areas I simply added the original image on top as a layer and erased (added transparency to) the areas that I wanted to be clean and finally flattened the image.
 * File:Polish P-11 camouflaged in airfield 1939.jpg and other images with low frequency noise are always quite tricky to clean up. My usual procedure is as follows:
 * Apply wavelet decompose and merge the layers that contain the unwanted frequencies (let's call it layer X).
 * Now create a new layer filled with mid-gray and add a (black) layer mask to it. Apply white to the layer mask on the areas of the image that do not contain the wave patterns (using a pencil, so the mask edges would be sharp).
 * Use the "New from visible" layer operation.
 * Apply FFT and remove and remove any frequencies that stick out using a soft brush. Inverse-FFT. The image should now be free of the low-frequency patterns.
 * Add a mask to the cleaned up layer and copy the previously used mask to it. Reverse the mask colors. Now merge this layer with the layer X. You'll likely want to do some small adjustments to the mask before you do that, though.
 * After recombining all the wavelet-decomposed layers, you should see a clean image. That is not always the case though. Quite often you'll just have to do some clonging or use the burn/lighten brush.
 * Alternatively, you can: create a duplicate layer of the original layer (or of the one created with layer decompose), select a rectangular area from it and do some FFT filtering on it. Then erase (with transparency) the parts of the filtered area that gained some defects and merge the two laters together. This is faster and easier, but not quite as nearly effective as the previously mentioned method.
 * I'd like to ask one thing – for FFT, do you use the G'MIC's FFT functions or the Fourier plugin (or perhaps something else entirely)? That way I can have a clearer idea of the workflow you use. Cheers, Quibik (talk) 22:02, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I actually don't use G'MIC at all :-), and use the FFT plugin (+heal selection and standard GIMP tools). The FFT plugin is quite poor in showing the FFT contrast (even after contrasting it with a second layer) - dedicated FFT programs use other algorithms with much more pronounced results. However, those programs lack the GIMP's power of image handling, and those "pronounced" FFTs are more sensitive than the GIMP plugin to changes to the FFT pattern when doing reverse transformation (maybe because of specific "envelope" function applied with FFT, and some smoothing).
 * Thanks a lot for explanation. For quick practice, I've reproduced your manipulation with File:Polish P-11 camouflaged in airfield 1939.jpg and tidied File:Ferdinand William Hutchison.jpg using the masking technique. Materialscientist (talk) 14:38, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

A variation of FFT cleanup
I applied a modification of your method to File:Charles de Varigny (1829–1899).jpg as follows: Select dark (face) parts with a color selection tool, amend with the lasso tool, keep it as a mask. Duplicate the original image as a new layer. Add a gray overlayer to it, with the prepared before mask. Merge. Then fill the opaque masked area with some color nearby (light gray in this case); ideally it should be a striped pattern from nearby areas. This keeps the image relatively continuous that helps FFT. Clean it up with FFT (wavelets could be integrated into this procedure). Reverse and cleanup with regular tools. Re-apply the mask to the cleaned up layer, apply its invert to the original layer and combine them. Done.

I took a wrong mask while experimenting and thus my cleanup was not that good, but the procedure worked. Its advantages: (i) FFT produces ghosts on a sharp dark mask. Ideally, the mask should be filled with the continuation of the stripes, but even filling it with nearby colors helps a lot. (ii) After inverse FFT, it is easier to clean up, because when the opaque mask is reapplied, it tidies the borders and overlaps. Maybe this modification is not needed, and some clever way of masking FFT spikes is easier - I couldn't achieve it by usual means. Regards. Materialscientist (talk) 07:27, 3 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Your method worked very nicely for the image you linked. However, if I understand you correctly, you did not do a wavelet decompose as a first step? I'd still recommend doing that (and merging the layers with the frequency range you want). The great advantage of this is that you effectively subtract the lower-frequency components from the image and are left with a mostly gray image that is easy to mask with mid-gray without distorting the spectrum. Thus, this should yield the same effect you described, but with a somewhat smaller effort. —Quibik (talk) 14:04, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Wavelets can surely be integrated into this procedure (and I've done that too), just in some images the stripes extend into nearly all frequencies making the wavelets redundant.

I would appreciate your quick advice on the following two issues: (i) How to heal colors in File:Jean Thurel 1788 (1804), par Antoine Vestier.jpg (there is at least one historical image with the same color problem); (ii) I am unhappy with my quick "enhancements" in File:Robert Louis Stevenson Knox Series.jpg, File:John frederick inglis.jpg, File:Ewai Kawaguchi just before leaving Japan c. 1891.jpg (there is caching delay on commons, thus click my last version; revert me where I really crossed the line). Can you tell what is wrong (general look of the image before and after)? One thing that could clarify matters - noise rendering looks quite different in those few computers I use. Materialscientist (talk) 00:41, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Helle Meri
Thank you for the correction there. *facepalm*. Best, --joe deckertalk to me 00:47, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

The Joy Formidable article
Hi there,

Thanks for your message.

I am indeed close to the band: I am their manager. Therefore, I am of course very much concerned about how they are represented. History and journalism SHOULD be true and unbiased. This is actually something that has been of great value to the band as they have been aided by truthful writing rather than hype. This is how it should be and we encourage it. The difficulty arises when subjectivity on one journalist/writer's part is exploited by other (lazy) writers as to eventually morph into a type of 'truth'. Many magazine's and websites actually use the band's wiki page as a 'biog' these days, therefore it is of the upmost importance to me that they are represented correctly and that key lines and quotes are valid and current. I know this shouldn't be wiki's concern but I hope you appreciate the reality of the situation and how misinformed journalism can start a unfair and detrimental chain reaction. Music is very subjective and unless every single bit of history is covered in the article (this would be too long and dull I'm sure you'll agree!) then I feel certain edits should be made.

I am quite new to the procedures so I apologies for blank deleting. How would you like me to proceed with my edits?

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by RDafydd (talk • contribs) 16:16, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

The Joy Formidable
Hi there,

Thanks for your message.

I am indeed close to the band: I am their manager. Therefore, I am of course very much concerned about how they are represented. History and journalism SHOULD be true and unbiased. This is actually something that has been of great value to the band as they have been aided by truthful writing rather than hype. This is how it should be and we encourage it. The difficulty arises when subjectivity on one journalist/writer's part is exploited by other (lazy) writers as to eventually morph into a type of 'truth'. Many magazine's and websites actually use the band's wiki page as a 'biog' these days, therefore it is of the upmost importance to me that they are represented correctly and that key lines and quotes are valid and current. I know this shouldn't be wiki's concern but I hope you appreciate the reality of the situation and how misinformed journalism can start a unfair and detrimental chain reaction. Music is very subjective and unless every single bit of history is covered in the article (this would be too long and dull I'm sure you'll agree!) then I feel certain edits should be made.

I am quite new to the procedures so I apologies for blank deleting. How would you like me to proceed with my edits? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RDafydd (talk • contribs) 12:54, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

The Joy Formidable
Following my previous comment please edit the biog to:

Childhood friends Ritzy Bryan and bassist Rhydian Dafydd originally played together as part of Manchester, England indie rock band Tricky Nixon,[1] which later reformed into a New Wave/post-punk band Sidecar Kisses.[2] After Sidecar Kisses split up in 2007 they regrouped, returning to their home town of Mold, Wales, and formed The Joy Formidable with Justin Stahley on drums.[3]

For six months, the pair wrote together, experimenting with different sonic approaches. As the sessions began yielding, signature tunes like "Austere" and "Cradle" - tracks that combined the duo's interest in thick, textured noises with clear, shimmering pop hooks - took form. "We'd always been into writing strong melodies," Bryan says. "The sparks really flew when we started messing with things that were choral and symphonic, mixed with what both of us had already enjoyed separately: dirty, loud, rhythmic guitars and thick bass-lines."[4]

The Joy Formidable released "Austere" as a single in July 2008, followed by "Cradle" on double 7" later that summer, and quickly produced an eight-track EP, A Balloon Called Moaning, which they released themselves in the UK in early 2009. Also in 2009 Justin Stahley was replaced by Matt Thomas on drums. Having relocated to London, the trio quickly earned a reputation for blistering live performances. "We love and encourage the beautiful double-pedal," says Bryan, with a chuckle. "We do lean towards a slightly metal aesthetic when it comes to drums, which makes it very loud and heavy and all the things we want to be as a live entity. The new album definitely explores those elements, and that's because of Matt being in the band."[4]

The trio spent 2009 touring the UK, Europe and Australia with bands including Editors, Temper Trap and Passion Pit, mastering tiny clubs and festival stages alike. Their introduction to American audiences came when Passion Pit invited The Joy Formidable to open a pair of sold-out shows at New York's Terminal 5.[4]

In late April 2009, they teamed with a new label started by Passion Pit's Ayad Al Adhamy, Black Bell Records, to release A Balloon Called Moaning in the U.S. The New York Times' Jon Pareles praised the EP highly and it's "cryptic lyrics that glint with urgency". They've also earned critical raves from NME, The Guardian, the London Times, Spin and Pitchfork, heavy rotation on Sirius XM's indie rock channel, Sirius XMU, and praise from Garbage's Shirley Manson, Hayley Williams, Dave Grohl and Steve Nieve among others.

In summer 2010, the band signed with Canvasback Records, and released their debut album "The Big Roar", on 24 January 2011. The band worked on writing and tracking the material for "The Big Roar" when they weren't on the road. Dafydd said about the album that "(it) covers a lot of emotional range. It's captured the battle between the eternal optimist and the manic depressive." Their debut was produced by themselves, with help from engineer Neak Menter, and traveled to Los Angeles this summer to mix it with producer Rich Costey (Mew, Muse, Foo Fighters, Glasvegas). The first single from those sessions, "I Don't Want To See You Like This", was released in autumn of 2010.

-

No major changes. Just a bit more current. Let me know if this is a good way to proceed. Many thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by RDafydd (talk • contribs) 13:08, 12 July 2011 (UTC)