User talk:GeneralPunger
GeneralPunger, you are invited on a Wikipedia Adventure!
[edit]
|
Hi GeneralPunger!! You're invited: learn how to edit Wikipedia in under an hour. I hope to see you there! Ocaasi |
Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!
[edit]
- Hi GeneralPunger! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.
-- 02:18, Wednesday, January 11, 2017 (UTC)
| Mission 1 | Mission 2 | Mission 3 | Mission 4 | Mission 5 | Mission 6 | Mission 7 |
| Say Hello to the World | An Invitation to Earth | Small Changes, Big Impact | The Neutral Point of View | The Veil of Verifiability | The Civility Code | Looking Good Together |
Please claim your upload(s): File:R68 N train leaving 39th Ave.jpg
[edit]
Hi, Thank you, for uploading this file.
However, as part of ongoing efforts to ensure all media on English Wikipedia is correctly licensed and attributed it would be appreciated if you were able to confirm some details,
If it's your own work, please include {{own}}, amend the {{information}} added by a third party, and change the license to an appropriate "self" variant. You can also add |claimed=yes to the {{media by uploader}} or {{presumed_self}} tag if it is present to indicate that you've acknowledged the image, and license shown (and updated the {{information}} where appropriate).
If it's not your own work please provide as much sourcing/authorship information as you are able to.
It would also be appreciated if you could "claim" or update the source and licensing on other media you uploaded, You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.
This will assist those reviewing the many many "free" images on commons that have not yet been transferred to Commons. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:00, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
:_File:R68_N_train_leaving_39th_Ave.jpg){kind=link}
Can't edit due to auto IP ban
[edit]I was attempting to edit an article, but then it told me that I was unable to edit due to an auto IP ban caused by a person named "Lolgorkent." I don't know who this is, but clearly they are in the same building as me. If it isn't too much trouble, could someone unban me? I intend to only make useful edits, and am somewhat annoyed at this "Lolgorkent" for getting my current IP auto banned. However, it is not a terribly huge deal as I can make the edits later at home. I was told to copy-paste the following message, so here it is:
- GeneralPunger (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
- GeneralPunger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Block message:
Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Lolgorkent". The reason given for Lolgorkent's block is: "Abusing multiple accounts: Please see: w:en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DaRealDesmos".
- Blocking administrator: Sir Sputnik (talk • blocks)
Accept reason: I've cleared your autoblock. PhilKnight (talk) 15:24, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Your thread has been archived
[edit]
|
Hi GeneralPunger! You created a thread called Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing
|
Pictures
[edit]Would you please stop your disruptive editing? Wikipedia is not your personal album. You need to stop replacing every single picture with yours. Clearly your pictures are not better and no pictures should have to be replaced by yours.
I shall give examples of pictures that I think is good quality.
These pictures are good to me because they show the whole train, and the front of the train is shown clearly. It does not matter if the picture is old or new. Your pictures appear to not be as good as this one.
Now I shall describe the problems with your pictures.
This picture does not even show the whole train. It just shows the head. I'd rather have the infobox show the whole train.
The curve is not interesting at all. It fails to show the whole train.
My point is to stop replacing already fine pictures with yours. They are nowhere as near as good quality as the original pictures. I suggest that you leave things the way they are, because they are fine and do not need replacing. Eti15TrSf (talk) 07:20, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
- Disruptive editing? If anything, you're the one being disruptive as you're reverting things that no one else had particular contentions with. I replace a few photos with mine and you accuse me of replacing every single one and thinking of Wikipedia as my "personal album." I really do think you're stuck in the mindset that I'm doing this purely because I want to boost me ego and because they're recent, but that is untrue. If there were any good R160 Z train images available that were not a compositional carbon copy of the R179 picture above, I would have used one of them, but there weren't, so I used my own. And not once did I say that I did it simply because the photo was taken recently. You also say "clearly your pictures are not better" but that is based on what you think and your arbitrary only standard of "must show entire train." If I'm treating it as a "personal album," you're definitely treating it as a "personal collection." You don't like that I'm changing pictures based on what I deem better, yet you are doing the same thing.
- Yes, I can certainly see why the four examples you gave would be considered good images. I can also see why mine would be considered good in their own right and how the four examples would be considered repetitive if placed right above one another. And by the way all those images are much higher resolution and quality than that old R160 Z train image, which is hardly what I'd consider a "fine image." Once again I make my case. The only thing going for the old R160 Z train image is that it "shows the whole train." Otherwise, once again, it is blurry, low quality, and most importantly is a compositional carbon copy of the R179 J train picture above. With that picture above it, the old one looks repetitive. As a reader, I would rather see two pictures that are different to spice up the page a little than see two pictures that show the entire trains but look exactly the same.
- You are arguing from a point of fetishism, and I from a point of composition. Not that one is intrinsically better or worse, but I am attempting to persuade you that perhaps having the one single requirement of "showing the entire train" is inadequate and that more variables ought to be considered, but if you decide not to listen and continue to revert the articles, I won't stop you this time as I'd rather not waste my time duking it out with someone with an affinity for edit wars. Have a nice Saturday. GeneralPunger (talk) 16:15, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message
[edit] | Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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 |
December 2020
[edit]
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Cards84664 03:32, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Continuing talk about R32/R42 pictures.
[edit]Hello, so recently I've read your messages, unfortunately my pictures were not up to par for the page according to your points. Though; from my own observations after a bit of research and also some of my own memory and digging through my photo gallery, the lighting in these cars does in fact seem to have a tint of yellowish-green. I'd presume this is from age and time taking a toll on the discoloration on the lighting, but I've also noticed pictures show sides of the coloring more then the other, for instance, your pictures seem to show more so the yellow then the greenish tones, whilst my raw pictures show more greenish-yellow then strictly yellow. There's also multiple pictures of mine that seem to have a more yellow difference in lighting, although I have noticed on multiple occasions trains do have replacement lights. Majority of my pictures however seems to be more of a green tint then yellow.
After these observations, I understand my photos, with my color correcting may be over-exaggerated with the green color of both pictures. With the R42 picture, understandably, the view is fairly awkward, even I would think so uploading it in, despite doing it anyway considering my technique of picture taking interiors was fairly the same as I usually had done it. About the R32 picture, I can attempt to color correct and update the picture, if that is a reasonable solution. If not, thank you for you feedback with my changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EmperorOfNYC (talk • contribs) 21:35, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
- @EmperorOfNYC: Yeah, I understand about the lighting, I too have noticed that the lights in R32s and R42s are generally greener than other models. It just all has to do with relativity. Your pictures were so far on the green side already, that, with the addition of the pictures above them, the interiors looked almost literally green, as if painted, rather than just being a tint from the lights. In other words they contrasted greatly with the colors of the picture above, which only furthered that "green illusion." And there's also the business with angle versus no angle and quite honestly a case could be made for either; I personally lean towards angles because I feel it not only reveals the space more but also adds a bit of visual spice to the article. Also, generally speaking, RAW files right out of the camera don't really show colors quite 100% right, since it has all that unprocessed information; you have to tinker with it a bit to get the colors right. That's why I usually take both JPEG and RAW at the same time, the JPEG being for quick sharing but also being my reference for when I process the RAW.
- Looking back at both articles I now see that Eti15TrSf has changed the images back to yours, and as expected he hasn't given a reason. Most likely this is due in part to his grudge against me, which I don't understand why he has but nonetheless has had for a while. Frankly, right now, I don't feel like butting heads with this guy for the umpteenth time, so I'm just gonna leave it. You or someone else can change it or whatever.
- Anyway, glad I could help and thank you for being cordial. Though, at the risk of sounding rude, I'd suggest you don't go overboard with the articulation in your texts (messages, edit descriptions, etc.) since it kind of muddles what you're really trying to say. Cheers! :) GeneralPunger (talk) 22:34, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Clarifying Something
[edit]Hi there GeneralPunger, I noticed you and a few others were going at it with an individual on the 1 train page. Just to clarify, I do not know who the ROBLOX Guest person is nor is it my alt account if you were thinking this. I simply just uploaded a photo of the 1 that I thought was good and left it at that. I noticed he edited my picture to make the quality worse as well, so that was a yikes. Anyways, I used my photo again but I changed the lighting a bit to appear more reasonably realistic as opposed to what he used. In my opinion however, I don’t think the whole train needs to be shown, because it’s easy to see the front and side of the train. Most of the train you can clearly see anyways. The rear being blocked by sunlight isn’t too important because this is more-so about a subway line, not the R62A fleet. You usually cannot see the rear of the train most of the time anyways, so I don’t think it’s much of an issue. With this being said, I hope you respond back to me.
- MTAEnthusiast10 (talk contribs) 21:24, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
- MTAEnthusiast10 Thanks for the four notifications lol. I'll take your word that Roblox guest the helper isn't you. Honestly, I didn't really suspect that, since the editing description wording was so different, but I do think he is probably the alt of someone else. Anyway, I still have a bit of a "complaint" with the brightened picture, and it's not really that you can't see the end of the train. It’s more that the flare on the end creates a strange contrast with the brightened shadow, of which swallows most of the front. Pardon my perhaps abstract wording but, despite the front taking up most of the image and being the central focus, it’s as if the flare of the back draws my focus squarely there, making the front, which is supposed to be the focus, a bit of a "dead zone,” if that makes any sense. I can definitely understand why you'd want to use this picture, since, ignoring the lighting thing I just mentioned, the composition is relatively robust and the Broadway Bridge is an interesting area on the 1. But I personally still find the old picture better, because it has no such lighting awkwardness, is quite clear, and has a bit of an interesting angle going on with it being looked down from above.
- Btw, not sure if you found this out already but you can type "~~~~" at the end of your message to sign it! General Punger talk 01:55, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
- My fault on blowing up your notifications haha, I was making a few edits to my original message. I'm still new to the talking pages so I didn't know about the signatures until earlier today. Yeah I can see where you're coming from with the issue of my 1 train photo. Fun fact though, I have a camera and before I took that photo of the 1, I wasn't using manual mode mainly because I was kind of nervous/didn't know how to properly change my settings on it. I was using Shutter Priority mode for all of 2020 since that's the only thing I knew how to use. I wasn't focusing too much on interesting angles either, so a lot of my shots were more on the generic side. A lot of my photos that I've uploaded here are a hit or miss as well, so I can see why you changed some of my other photos and reverted and/or used your own photos. After that day of railfanning back in December of 2020, my friend taught me some Manual settings on my camera so I ended up playing around and getting used to it. I've been able to manipulate some of my photos and in turn a lot of them have been a lot better than what I've produced, even though some photos I have snapped back then still look decent to me. I am confident enough that in the future I will be snapping better shots and uploading some to the wiki to replace some older photos that haven't aged so well, and I know you're doing the same with yours, so kudos to you. I think you are using phone pictures (correct me if I'm wrong), but don't think I haven't noticed but I know some of them are actually really good shots, so keep up the work! MTAEnthusiast10 (talk) 02:35, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
- MTAEnthusiast10 Yeah, I've had that same nervosity before. I'd recommend doing some "test trips" where you just go out and take pictures of things you may not care about a whole lot while trying different settings, options, etc. That's what I did when I was getting used to my new camera. And speaking of my new camera, I'm actually using a GH5 for pictures, not a phone, though a bit over a third of the pictures I've uploaded to Commons thus far were taken with my older and less powerful LX-100. I've also had issues with running out of space on my small memory card (I have to get bigger ones!), resulting in a few lesser quality pictures. But anyway, I'm going to revert the picture on the 1 train article for now, given my thoughts (I didn't do so earlier cause I got very busy), but by all means upload a new picture whenever. I think if you redo that picture with better natural lighting and perhaps some post tweaks, you could get a much better version! That also reminds me, do you have any sort of metadata editing software, for instance Adobe Lightroom? If you take RAW files, using metadata editing software can help with "repairing" oddities, or just messing around. I for instance take both JPEG and RAW (jpeg for fast viewing/reference and raw for backup/tweaking), and quite a few of the pictures I've uploaded to Commons went through Lightroom, to fix lighting, color balance, or just make them more poppy.
- I look forward to any new pictures, and thanks for the kind words. Cheers! General Punger talk 04:11, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Yep, I’ve been using Lightroom (mobile) since early January, and it definitely helps a lot. Majority of the photos I’ve uploaded on here haven’t been using any Lightroom edits. The recent A train photo I’ve uploaded does however, and it looks better than the original albeit it’s not a crazy change from the original. I’ve been shooting in RAW+FINE on my camera as opposed to just FINE after earlier February. I have an insta page where most of my shots go to (takeover.nyc). Whenever I have the time to fan again I’ll be sure to try and get some interesting shots & editing them later on so they’d be some content on the Wiki, especially since a lot of the older photos seem more generic to me. Some pages could definitely use some better photos, like the R68’s & the D page. I’ll be sure to maybe update and replace pages like those in a few months. But I appreciate the advice you’ve given me, will take them into account! MTAEnthusiast10 (talk) 12:43, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
R46 build plate
[edit]I have reverted your edit because despite your picture being more clearer the plate is not close enough. I suggest that you put your camera more closer to the build plate, like this. Thanks. ETI 15TrSF (Chat Box) 00:38, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
- Eti15TrSf The amount of space the builder plate takes up in the old image is literally only 0.2% more than in the new image. Please explain to me how that already arbitrary requirement trumps the glaring difference in quality, composition, and clarity/legibility? General Punger talk 01:53, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
- Its not arbitrary, someone else has taken a much better photo of a different build plate (which is this) and my personal preference is the build plate photo be like this. This is just my comment/suggestion but if you want to ignore that is totally fine. ETI 15TrSF (Chat Box) 01:59, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
- Eti15TrSf That's hardly an explanation to what I asked, and the R30 builder plate is irrelevant. The crux is which image of the R46 builder plate is better. Though, speaking of the R30 builder plate image, in very little way do I see the similarity to the old R46 builder plate that you seem to find so laudable. If anything that R30 builder plate image is more similar to my new R46 builder plate image because it was actually taken at a mostly straight angle. Once again, I do not understand what you mean by "not close enough." I made the calculation, the old one is only 0.2% larger in the image. How such a minuscule percentage trumps every other aspect of the images is beyond me. General Punger talk 02:17, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
- It looks like you are unable to take suggestions from others. I just gave you an example of what a better build plate picture would look like. But instead you gave me hostile remarks and fail to understand what is being said to you. ETI 15TrSF (Chat Box) 02:25, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
- Eti15TrSf I have no problem taking suggestions but once again that's not the purpose here. And yes, I am failing to understand as you haven't explained anything. You simply plopped the R30 image in there expecting me to understand what you're thinking, but I'm sorry, I don't. And you continue to not explain even after I ask twice. I mean come one, talk about burning bridges. Look, I am being completely honest, in absolutely no way do I find that R30 image and the old R46 image better than the new R46 one. If you maybe explained why you find the opposite to be so, then maybe I'd understand better what you're trying to say. But that hasn't happened yet, so... General Punger talk 02:38, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
- Well, the one thing I can certainly take away from this is that you fail to understand very basic suggestions. I have given you a picture of the R30 build plate in hopes that you could take a pic of the R46 build plate in the same way. However, as you said, you don't understand that. Whatever. I have more important things to do rather than to speak with you. Thanks for taking up my time. ETI 15TrSF (Chat Box) 03:32, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
- I fail to understand subjective things that are given without explanation, as you have repeatedly done. I wanted to know what you were thinking, I did, but alas you decided to burn the bridge that was already dilapidated. One thing I can take away from this is that you don't like to listen or try to elaborate to allow other people to understand. Mostly likely you just want and praise everything done the way you want it, and for lack of a better word spit at everything else. Anyway, I will not bother to notify you of this reply, as per your own message you have more "important things to do." Maybe you'll still see this, maybe you won't. But thank you for the practice of speaking with one who doesn't like to listen, it was entertaining, if not futile. General Punger talk 03:53, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message
[edit] | Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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 |
ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
[edit]Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:25, 29 November 2022 (UTC)