User talk:Kigsz

For all of my deleted files and deletion requests, please visit the archive.

Your flickr uploads

Before uploading an image from flickr, look at its copyright license symbols, if they contain a crossed dollar sign, it means "non-commercial", i.e. may not be uploaded to Commons. Cheers. Materialscientist (talk) 10:57, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Did not know that. Thanks. --Kigsz (talk) 11:27, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Guy Fawkes signature

You erased the immediately post-torture Fawkes signature in the name of "removing dead space". I guess you didn't read the image's description. At all. Anyway, please don't do that again. Thanks. Dziban303 (talk) 05:26, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'll be damned... I am sorry, it must have slipped my eyes. It won't happen again. --Kigsz (talk) 12:33, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Vector logos

Hi Kigsz, I noticed that you uploaded several game logos. They seems to be produced with some kind of vector graphic program, so I want to ask you if you could import them again as SVG vector format? :) thanks Shaddim (talk) 17:39, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but the graphic program I use does not have the ability to save SVG files. Someone might be able to grab my PNG files and convert them... :) --Kigsz (talk) 23:55, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

File:Kim Deal in Dayton Ohio.jpg

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Kim Deal.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Best in Scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 15:58, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:47, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
John Dolmayan.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Best in Scope --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 16:00, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:47, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Bertil Ohlin.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support If the picture is free, I think it could be promoted as best in scope.--Jebulon (talk) 14:54, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:48, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Christoph Schneider.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Best in Scope, according to my son's opinion.--Jebulon (talk) 14:57, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 17:50, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted ★
Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope:
Christian Lorenz.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

 Support Useful --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 09:06, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Result: 1 support, 0 oppose =>
promoted. Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:28, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the use of the Guy Fawkes mask

Dear Kigsz,

I am emailing to ask permission to use one of your images of the Guy Fawkes mask without including the required attribution. The project I am working on is an animated educational series for children, teaching them about Religions.

Though in an ideal world we would be able to suitably credit the use of your image, the way the animations are designed is to introduce the children to an imaginary world they can really immerse themselves in so any unrelated text would spoil this effect.

The alternative option would be to add a credit at the end, but unfortunately as embedded educational content there are no credits, even we don't get one!

The other images we have used have been copyright free with no need for attribution, however we particularly like your image of the Guy Fawkes mask and feel it suits our purposes perfectly and so it would be fantastic if you would allow us to use it without attribution.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:GuyFawkesMask.jpg

Let us know if this is something you could allow us to do, we would be very grateful if so. Please see a link to a similar project we have recently completed to give you an idea of what we are hoping to achieve (and therefore why we cannot attribute).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nVJV8iEAm88

Many Thanks,

Mosaic

See reply here. --Kigsz (talk) 14:10, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Overwriting existing files

Hello.
You might deserve some indulgence because Scandinavian translations of

• Commons: Overwriting existing files,
• Help: JPEG

are seemingly absent. Ask if something isn’t clear. Do not make “improvements” to other people’s uploads unless you know what are you doing. If unsure, go to Commons: Graphics village pump. By the way, don’t prompt other people to go as far as Special:CentralAuth/Kigsz to learn about your language skills – make a user page. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:06, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

This got me confused as most of the time, if not all of the time, any improvements I do are considered minor improvements according to the guideline such as "replacement with higher resolution versions of the same file" or "minor cropping", so to be honest I am not sure exactly what your are referring to. --Kigsz (talk) 18:40, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

In File:MissingNo.png#filehistory you replaced a 3 KiB original with a 285 KiB image which is essentially nothing but rescaled original. If one wants a 302px-wide rendering, why don’t do it with MediaWiki (see file_talk)? But even if you have a legitimate cause to upload a 302px-wide derivative, then you should not spoil the original file which is lightweight and, hence, quick to load. Your 285 KiB require more than two seconds to pass through a 1 Mbit/s bandwidth. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 19:07, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

So, you decided to bash me for one file you felt was an incompetent overwrite? If you felt the higher resolution upload I did was unnecessary that is fine with me, you could have just reverted the image and I would have accepted it. But to belittle my skills in the English language simply because there are no "Scandinavian translations" of the guidelines is not something I consider to be tolerable behaviour. I do not understand why the country I come from or which languages I speak has to do with anything. I have nothing more to add to the discussion but to wish you a good day. --Kigsz (talk) 19:20, 8 February 2018 (UTC)