User talk:Firebrace

Unsigned comments will be deleted.

If it's about an article, use the article's talk page. Start your message with {{ping|Firebrace}} to get my attention.

At the RfC you wrote, "Why do you keep talking about layers? It's a jpeg, there is only one layer." so I thought I'd leave you a message here to explain more about how Photoshop layers work in case you didn't understand, rather than taking the RfC off-topic. Please note that I'm not here to discuss the RfC, and if you have any further comments about that then you should make them there.

With previous versions of Photoshop making certain adjustments, such as brightness/contrast, exposure, hue/saturation, vibrance/saturation, threshold, etc., was a destructive edit, meaning that once you made the adjustment it was 'baked in' to the layer you were working on, and could only be undone, selectively undone using the History Brush (itself a destructive edit) or, more commonly, by first making a new layer, making the adjustment to that, then applying a layer mask to that layer which can be worked on, or adjusting the opacity of that layer. Some years ago Adobe introduced non-destructive adjustments, which are themselves layers with their own masks. With this you can make an adjustment then work on it without permanently affecting other layers. You can even alter the parameters of the adjustment at any time and instantly see the results, making as many changes as you want until you are happy, and the layer only constitutes a single adjustment. What you end up with is a stack of layers, normally with the original image as a background layer with various adjustment layers above that. This gives you the option of, for example, increasing or decreasing saturation a little more than may be necessary, then simply reducing the opacity of the adjustment layer as your eyes adapt to the new colour.

From what you'd written at the RfC it seemed like you may have been used to using an old version of Photoshop where you make an adjustment destructively, then make further adjustments, the end result being worse than could be achieved using a single adjustment (due to successive

).

As for Adobe Camera Raw, I'd encourage you to try it sometime on a JPG. If you click on File > Open As... you can select your image, then using the drop-down box select Camera Raw. ACR can also do things that the main program cannot do, such as adjusting the white balance. nagualdesign 01:42, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your help at Talk:Elizabeth II. I realise that it can sometimes be painful to have your work critiqued by others, and I'm thankful that you've taken the issues on board without taking offense or becoming defensive. This is, of course, about what's best for Wikipedia rather than who did what, and your comments to other editors since striking your Strongly oppose, and your efforts to keep the discussion on track, have been very helpful. nagualdesign 22:24, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Now that the RfC has finally ended...

...I want to thank you again for all your help. Your assistance in pushing through with the RfC was invaluable, given the misconceptions that many of the voters had, and if I was a lone voice trying to get everyone to realize what it was they'd misunderstood I don't think I would have stood a chance. All the best, nagualdesign 12:18, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The language of the Mughals, primarily after Jahangir was Urdu. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RahulRamchandani (talk • contribs) 02:40, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

command of their native language is substandard, as they never bother to learn it academically. "Bill (verb) - To declare or describe officially; proclaim: a policy that was billed as an important departure for the administration." ( https://www.thefreedictionary.com/bill ).Axxxion (talk) 22:54, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Axxxion: The Free Dictionary cites the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language as the source for that entry. We're using British English in the article. There is no such definition of "bill" in the Oxford English Dictionary. Firebrace (talk) 23:07, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough!Axxxion (talk) 23:13, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you point out the guideline? I already know it, but whatever. Was making a suggestion canvassing? Or how else was I canvassing? Thanks. George Ho (talk) 16:34, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You might be interested in this. Johnbod (talk) 15:31, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to say thank you for linking the PDF-report from the french expedition to Tham Luang cave in 1986 & 87! It is a fantastic resource, i wanted to get my hands on the past few days, but could not find it anywhere online. Jawei (talk) 21:43, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Crown Jewels of the United Kingdom, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Christening (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:30, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Honours of Scotland, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Royal warrant (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:49, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My sincere apologies if this is just reopening an old wound, but I'd meant to drop by for a while to say that I was very sorry I didn't get to review the above at FAC and to express the hope that you'll think about resubmitting. Tim emailed me when it was open and urged me to review it as he'd been impressed by the sheer quality of the article. I wish I had found the time. It is an article of very high quality, and I'd really suggest you consider resubmitting at some point. FAC can be tough, and seeing one's efforts knocked can be hard - as I know from recent experience! But it is a great article and it does merit a little bronze star. If you do get round to it, just ping me and I promise to be right there. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 15:46, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

what?

]

@

Brycehughes: Don't delete others' replies. Firebrace (talk) 17:32, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Ha! Bizarre. I honestly have no idea how that happened. I never saw your reply. Sorry about that.

Brycehughes (talk) 17:48, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Honours of Scotland, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Restoration (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:10, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Great article creation in 'ceremonial maces in the United Kingdom'! Keep it up! Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 19:55, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you; I'll save the pie for Christmas. Firebrace (talk) 22:05, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ceremonial maces in the United Kingdom, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Foster (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:26, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The text you removed from Princess Diana's Jewels page about Queen Mary's Lover's Knot Tiara. That was given to Diana on a lifetime loan. Uncoveringcelebrityhistory (talk) 13:22, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Uncoveringcelebrityhistory: How could it be a lifetime loan when the tiara was returned to the Queen after Charles and Diana separated in 1994? Go and look up 'lifetime' in a dictionary, and when you have done that spend a few hours reading Wikipedia's policies before you contribute any further. Firebrace (talk) 10:34, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It was on lifetime loan to the Princess, provided she stay married to the POW/be apart of the royal family. Have you not read anything on the rules regulations that members of the Royal Family have to follow? I have. Infact I have one of the largest collections of celebrity memorabilia, including jewels on by Diana, Princess of Wales to gowns owned by Marilyn Monroe. I have written multiple books on the royals and other celebrities. Please dont talk down to me. I am doing my best to perfect Diana's page. Why don't you spend more hours actually helping people with their wiki pages, particularly on the tree house and get of your high horse.

Love always

X — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uncoveringcelebrityhistory (talk • contribs) 12:09, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's nice dear. But there's a difference between what you do and writing for Wikipedia. Our standards are much higher, so learn the rules. Hugs 'n' kisses. Firebrace (talk) 17:02, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey,

page, and I don't need to your smartass edit summaries and patronizing BS at my Talk page. I've been at Wikipedia for well over a decade and have over 40,000 constructive edits to date. Don't be dumping this "Maybe this beginnner's lesson" will help you crap there. And lose the taunting on the edit summaries. "Factually incorrect. Don't double down, you'll just make it worse.". Hey, you've made nearly 1,000 edits to the Crown Jewels page alone. How about being constructive here and altering the wording till we both can agree on it. I'm just using the same language I learned reading Wikipedia articles on Crown Jewel related pages, which indeed state that Cromwell sold off the lot for a mere 1,500 pounds.

You don't have a monopoly on British history. If you know it better than me, a non-native, fine, then help me out, help us all out, and be helpful, not a jobsworth.

Now I'm going to go back and repeat my valid edits. If you'd like to edit war over it, then we'll just have to get an administrator in here to see that you get in line with reasonable behavior here, which you are not remotely observing. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 20:12, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:SPS

; if you still don't know this having been here for more than a DECADE then I respectfully suggest you get a new hobby.

The funny thing is I did try to help you out by explaining that Oliver Cromwell didn't become Lord Protector until 1653 (link), but you didn't listen. Then you tell me your edits are 100% valid and constructive, and you've been here 11 years so you must be absolutely perfect (and probably think you have an IQ of 140 like the other tenured Wikipedians). Are you Donald Trump? He also thinks he has nothing to learn. Firebrace (talk) 22:41, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You should do stand-up, User:Firebrace. You know you've done nothing but be as obstreperous and jobsworthy as you can be throughout this. The English Monarachs web page is not a suitable reference for Wikipedia...it's not accurate, comprehensive, clear, and the very first thing that comes up via a Google search, set off on its own as a masthead within a box with Wikipedia's picture of the Imperial State Crown, the copy "Oliver Cromwell sold the jewel along with the rest of the British Crown Jewels, during the Interregnum...", and the link: The Crown Jewels - English Monarchs www.englishmonarchs.co.uk/crown_jewels.htm, stating what is unambigously the consensus account of the matter as stated for readers of a proletarian "encyclopedia that anyone can edit", as attested by any manner of similar or near verbatim wordings of the same basic tale from other "published" sources. Fine, split hairs, throw your arms around the MOS till you crush it. That's the spirit here, alright. Right, Jimmy Wales?

There is nothing about I have been seeking to convey throughout which is not, did not start out, in accord with commonly accepted history...at least that could not have been easily sorted out if needed by a cooperative and better informed editor with a few unobserved keystrokes. Not a summary revert, an edit war, baiting edit summaries, and demeaning ad hominum attacks. That tree would have fallen in the forest, perhaps with a thoughtful ping at my Talk page, if had even been necessary, saying "There were some nuances about British History that weren't quite right. I've tweaked them a bit so that everything squares. Perhaps this page will give you a better understanding of how the events played out. Yours...." That editor would have slept soundly at night knowing they'd both helped improve the encyclopedia and aid a good faith editor. The other one slept just as soundly knowing they had not.

How is this...

• "The original Crown Jewels were destroyed by Oliver Cromwell following the execution of Charles I in 1649, as they were then considered to be redundant. In an appalling act of historical vandalism, Cromwell had the entire collection sold or melted down and made into coin."^[1]

...an inaccurate or mischaracterization of history as it is told in any number of references already quietly at rest at Wikipedia or elsewhere:

• "With the exception of the Coronation Chair and several other items, Cromwell had the principal symbols of the king's power – the Crown Jewels – disassembled and sold, and the gold was melted down and made into coins."^[2]
• "Britain’s original royal regalia had been melted down and sold off in 1649 during Cromwell’s rule, "^[3]
• "After the execution of Charles I in 1649 many of the Crown Jewels were sold or destroyed. Oliver Cromwell ordered that the orb and sceptres should be broken as they stood for the ‘detestable rule of kings’. All the gemstones were removed and sold and the precious metal was used to make coins."^[4]
• "The Crown Jewels suffered their most disastrous fate following the execution of Charles I in the seventeenth century. In 1649 Cromwell ordered that the Royal regalia 'be totally broken' as being symbolic of the 'detestable rule of kings'. The regalia's precious stones were sold separately and the precious metal sent to the Mint to be coined....^[5]

Yeah, you know. You get it. But you'd prefer to wage a sniping war of attrition and other petty games hoping to wear other users down, get them to abjectly submit to threats and taunts, or flee in tears at your insults. Good Grief. Take a long look in the mirror. Over 900 edits at a page does not make it your personal page and you its curator. When you're done looking at that mirror try to be helpful, not an impediment to others seeking to be, flaws and all. Yours, Wikiuser100 (talk) 16:54, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I get it: You've been here longer, therefore you're able to do as you please. Anyway, those sources are garbage; see Talk:Crown_Jewels_of_the_United_Kingdom#Intereggnum. Firebrace (talk) 18:17, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So the British National Archives and the Royal Family have it all wrong - their sources are "garbage". Oh me, Oh my. Perhaps you could spend some of your free time straightening them out. Yours, 13:24, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Firebrace, you are not helping yourself here. Whatever the technical legalities of England after the army's coup d'etat, Cromwell controlled the government, and these sources are merely using a convenient shorthand, as we still do with "Trump, Bush, Thatcher etc did such and such", when technically the measure was ordered by a minister/government agency/passed by a legislature" enacting the wish of the head of government. Such statements, and sources making them, are not reasonably described as "garbage". Johnbod (talk) 15:23, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Johnbod, he's getting all this from biased / ropey online sources which contain other factual mistakes or white lies (see Talk:Crown Jewels of the United Kingdom#Sources). No serious book on the subject attributes the destruction of the Crown Jewels to Oliver Cromwell. Firebrace (talk) 15:31, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[1] EEng 18:33, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@EEng: "Ablaze" more than twice as popular as "aflame" in 2000. Thanks for proving my point. Firebrace (talk) 19:15, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. If there's a choice of synonyms or shades of meaning we should always simply use the most common word. Example: suppose we have a situation in which we might describe someone as happy, cheerful, joyful, jovial, elated, or things like that. Obviously we should just pick happy, because happy is by far the most common of those [2]. This way, eventually all those other unnecessary words will die out and everyone can just be happy all the time. Life will be much simpler, dictionaries will be smaller – the benefits are legion. EEng 20:34, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reviving obsolete words isn't what Wikipedia is for... Firebrace (talk) 22:03, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You probably should look up obsolete. EEng 01:19, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Get a life. Firebrace (talk) 21:36, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ref was pointing to the same settlement. Ref.--Vin09 (talk) 13:51, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello User:Vin09, there are two Kollurs in Guntur district, Andhra Pradesh, around 200km apart The old mining settlement is uninhabited and lies under water for most of the year, since the area was flooded by the Pulichinthala Project. Firebrace (talk) 20:29, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was searching for this info. Thanks for the explanation. Cheers!--Vin09 (talk) 03:19, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Addition by a user This was added by some user on 12 November 2018, so by seeing that I got a doubt.--Vin09 (talk) 03:23, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The 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 2019 election, please review NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:19, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply ]

Hi! I'm Superchilum, admin on Italian Wikipedia.

I'm collaborating with two social researchers, Oscar Ricci from the University of Milano-Bicocca and Sergio Splendore from Università Statale of Milan. We are interested in exploring what Wikipedians think about the approach of Wikipedia to breaking news.

So, we have prepared a survey with a bunch of open questions. We will be very grateful if you would accept to answer those questions for us and let us know your point of view. Of course it will be strictly anonymous and the answers will be used only for research purposes. Moreover, you don't have to write in English, but you can use your native language.

If you want to help us (thank you!) I will send you the questions, and we would appreciate very much receiving the answers by next December 2nd; otherwise, let me know so I can ask more people.

Thank you very much for your attention, and have a nice day.

--Superchilum^{(talk to me!)} 21:41, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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 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 NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:47, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply ]

I wanted to share my thinking behind the "too long/overly-detailed" template above the plot summary of HyperNormalisation. I appreciate the film is nearly three hours long and that it deals with a wide range of complex issues. Wikipedia's manual of style nevertheless recommends that film plot descriptions run between 400 and 700 words. At my count, this plot description is over 1,500 words. It is also not in summary style: as an example, the lyrics Barbara Mandrell's "Standing Room Only", shorn of context, do not help the reader understand the film's events and arguments. I added the template so any editor who trims the plot summary down to appropriate length is not accused of vandalising the page. I have reinstated the template. If you disagree, please start a discussion on the article's talk page.CPClegg (talk) 10:35, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:10, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Firebrace: The royal family really was on a torrent site, I can confirm that. Only, I'm a bit doubtful how that should be referenced. Surely we can't link directly to that? Ideas welcome. Spiny Norman (talk) 13:34, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've written a summary of the first episode of on the talk page, I think I'll go mad if I try and condense it! I'm not sure how to create a future content section. Thanks for your great work on the page. No Swan So Fine (talk) 13:34, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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 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 NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:47, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply ]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Portland Tiara, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cartier.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated

]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on

their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by

]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message