User talk:Madelgarius

Madelgarius (talk) 10:37, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1933 Doube Eagle

Hello, Madelgarius. You have new messages at Diiscool's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Your free 1-year Questia online library account is approved ready

Good news! You are approved for access to 77,000 full-text books and 4 million journal, magazine, newspaper articles, and encyclopedia entries. Check your Wikipedia email!

Go to https://www.questia.com/specialoffer
Input your unique Offer ID and Promotional code. Click Continue. (Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive).
Create your account by entering the requested information. (This is private and no one from Wikipedia will see it).
You'll then see the welcome page with your Login ID. (The account is now active for 1 year).

If you need help, please first ask Ocaasi at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com and, second, email QuestiaHelp@cengage.com along with your Offer ID and Promotional Code (subject: Wikipedia).

A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a Questia article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free Questia pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:Questia/Citations.
Questia would love to hear feedback at WP:Questia/Experiences
Show off your Questia access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/Questia_userbox}} on your userpage
When the 1-year period is up, check the applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi EdwardsBot (talk) 05:09, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SOE image

Please stop adding your self-published image Special operations executive.png or similar images to the info. box in the article Special Operations Executive. SOE never had any capbadge, colours, tartan or armbadge, so no image would be appropriate for this article. (If you have a reliable cite that the organisation had some recognised badge, produce it. Otherwise, this is fantasy art, and remains out.) HLGallon (talk) 00:51, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Armée secrète

Salut!
Serait-il possible d'ajouter un éccusson pour l'article Armée secrète (Belgium) comme ceux que tu as déjà trouvé pour des autres groupes belges? Beau travail!
Bien à toi,--Brigade Piron (talk) 14:50, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merci beaucoup! Je cherche encore pour un éccusson pour Mouvement national royaliste, Witte Brigade et Partisans Armés ;) ---Brigade Piron (talk) 23:29, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bon effort! C'est très utile. Pourrais-tu faire un pour OMBR et Légion Belge? Merci! --Brigade Piron (talk) 22:21, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Salut Madelgarius. Tellement beau travail! Je suis en train d’améliorer les articles au sujet de nos résistants pendant la DGM et puis, tous les articles au sein de la Belgique entre 1940-5. Je ne suppose pas que tu peux ajouter des images des journaux clandestines belges aussi ;) ? Il y a une image superbe pour La Voix des Belges mais j’en cherche encore pour Faux Soir et puis Het Vrije Woord. Amicalement, ---Brigade Piron (talk) 16:06, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merci! --Brigade Piron (talk) 19:51, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tu peux trouver une image pour Kempische Legioen, Service D ou Milices Patriotiques? Merci! ---Brigade Piron (talk) 22:36, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Super! Merci. --Brigade Piron (talk) 17:27, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Salut! Serait-il possible de revenir à la première version du fichier pour Armée secrète (Belgium). Sans le bouclier, on aurait pu l’utilise pour Brigade Piron aussi… --Brigade Piron (talk) 12:38, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

February 2013

Please do not add or change content, as you did to Special Operations Executive, without verifying it by citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. McGeddon (talk) 22:29, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just had a look at the messages you left at User_talk:HLGallon#SOE, and Wikipedia really needs a better source if it's going to claim that this image was SOE's official emblem. The sources you provide - a merchandise key-ring/paperweight/fridge-magnet set, a WWII reenactment society patch and a Year 6 student's essay - do not meet reliable source standards, and make it look like this was maybe something invented after the event by reenactment societies who wanted something for the SOE guys to wear. Are there any better sources out there? --McGeddon (talk) 22:38, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Armée Belge de 1940

Salut Madelgarius!
Tu pourrais m'aider? Je cherche une photo de quelques soldats belges en luttant pendant la campagne de 1940. Maintenant, il n’y a que des photos allemands des belges en train de capituler. Si tu peux trouver un exemple, ça sera super ! Bien à toi , ---Brigade Piron (talk) 17:43, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter

Books and Bytes

Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013

by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs)

Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...

New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian

Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.

New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??

New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges

News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY

Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions

New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration

Read the full newsletter

Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 20:12, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Library Survey

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi^{t | c} 14:57, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Shroud of Turin Research Project, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Los Angeles County Museum and Ray Rogers. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

March 2015

Hi there! Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

I noticed your recent edit to Garbo does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. Thanks!

Please don't just revert a non-vandalism edit with absolutely no explanation. I removed your entry because it was a duplicate. The page already lists Joan Pujol Garcia (he is the 6th bullet point under People). Artichoker^[talk] 00:17, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Lindell

Hi Madelgarius, after repeated vandalism of Mary Lindell I asked for help. Could you please look at the remarks at my talk page? Kattiel (talk) 19:57, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bonjour, merci d'avoir corrigé "Smallchief" en réinsérant le commentaire qu'il avait retiré, en mentionnant la source "Lady mensonges" de Marie Laure le Foulon. --Patrick Guerisse (talk) 12:07, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

de rien, cela faisait quatre ans qu'il n'y avait plus eu de tentative en ce sens...

--Madelgarius (talk) 13:17, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Talk:Titan submersible implosion

Hey, Madelgarius. I just wanted to give an explanation for why I reverted your edit here. I believe you might have meant to post this elsewhere as you appeared to have used a template for a user's talk page on an article's talk page. If I am wrong, then I apologize for the trouble in advance and feel free to revert. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:23, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AI upscaled photos

Please don't add AI upscaled versions of historical photos to articles, as you did at Nellie Spindler, per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Images#Editing_images. The original photograph is more useful. Belbury (talk) 12:31, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Belbury, it seems you've come to a rather hasty conclusion, hasn't it? The former colorized image was a perfect example of what not to do. You cancel my contribution (a few hours' work) and note that I'm the uploader of the original original photograph that wasn't uploaded by the author of the colorization massacre (own work, he said). Then, you pick my upload of the original And you come and lecture me... Is initiating a discussion within your grasp? --Madelgarius (talk) 12:55, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I initially misread your edit as replacing a black and white photo with a colorised one, having seen that your Commons upload linked to the original. I immediately corrected my talk page message above when I realised you were actually replacing a bad colorisation job with a good one.

But Wikipedia shouldn't be using user-colorised photos or AI-upscaled ones, under the MOS. The Nellie Spindler article should only be using the historical File:Nellie Spindler (1891-1917) (original).jpg image. Thank you for uploading that one to Commons. Belbury (talk) 14:18, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've taken part in quite a few discussions on Commons (on village pump/bistrot in both French and English) and on fr:WP on these issues. You should stop talking about upscaling, today's AIs are capable of much more (for better or worse). Here, I'm in charge (I'm a real human being) and this colorized version corresponds in every way to what I promote, with others, on wikipedia in French: illustration processing. best regards, --Madelgarius (talk) 14:52, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I expect different projects vary in their attitudes - at the time of writing (and only since relatively recently) the English Wikipedia manual of style takes the stance that Original historical images should always be used in place of AI upscaled versions. If an AI-upscaled image is used in an article, this fact should be noted in its caption. AI enhancement of images is very impressive, but as a viewer one cannot always know what additional details the AI has speculatively introduced.

The colorisation question is separate from that. If you're regarded here as enough of an expert to meet the colorized by their creator, an expert, or a reliable source requirement of the MOS for colorisation, that's fair enough. Belbury (talk) 15:03, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On fr:WP, I've created an "artificial intelligence processing" template that automatically links the image to its original ("see original") and places the page in question in a maintenance category "page featuring an image modified by an AI". Recent example: Edith Cavell. This involves far more precautions than are the wild uploads of photographs processed by people who have no regard for verifiability, measure and discernment. Best regards, --Madelgarius (talk) 15:50, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting idea, I don't know whether the same approach would fly at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images. There wasn't much very discussion of the current guidline for the use of AI upscaled images, although the responses it did get were quite strongly against the use of AI.

Where are we on the colorisation issue for Nellie Spindler? Is the English Wikipedia project on record as regarding as you as a colorisation expert for the purposes of Images that were colorized by their creator, an expert, or a reliable source may sometimes be acceptable? Belbury (talk) 14:29, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't know if I'm an expert, I've been doing it for over twenty years. Many of my colorizations have been reproduced, including for book covers, and not always with due credit. I do extensive research before colorizing an image. Here are a few examples:

Migrant mother
Gustav Klimt
Abraham Lincoln
Nellie Bly whose photography on WD (and therefore on fr: and en:WP) has been distorted for years

--Madelgarius (talk) 14:40, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Marie-José Villiers, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mons. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 17:55, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:27, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]