User talk:Dragons flight

Welcome to the Commons, Dragons flight!

First steps tutorial Our first steps help file and our FAQ will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy. You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold contributing here and assume good faith for the intentions of others. This is a wiki - it is really easy. Getting help More information is available at the Community Portal. You may ask questions at the Help desk, Village Pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons. You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at Commons talk:Licensing.		Goodies, tips and tricks Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak and indicate your Graphics abilities. All your uploads are stored in your personal Gallery Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~ Use the CommonSense tool to find good categories for your files (then other people can find them too!) To link to an image page, write this: [[:Image:Foo.jpg]], it makes this: Image:Foo.jpg If you're copying files from another project, be sure to use the CommonsHelper Made a mistake? Did you want to rename or move a file? Simply upload the file again and mark the old one like this: {{bad name|Correct name}} For more information read the full Deletion guidelines
(P.S. Would you like to provide feedback on this message?)

     (This seems long overdue!) <G> // FrankB 20:38, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Category:Global Warming Art images license

A big license problem!

Category:Global Warming Art images license

1. GNU Free Documentation License Version 1.2; with no Invariant Sections, Front-Cover Texts, or Back-Cover Texts.
2. The Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike License Version 2.5

These two licenses are incompatibles, and the Creative license (NonCommercial) isn't free!

Zimbres 19:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

A copyright holder, i.e. me, is always free to grant mutually incompatible licenses. The reuser needs only follow one of them. For Wikipedia that would be the GFDL, but I think it important to note that it is also available under simpler terms (and by the way, CC-NC-BY-SA is more free than GFDL to most everyone who is not a Wikipedian). Dragons flight 17:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Solar-cycle-data.png

Hi Robert! First off thanks so much on behalf of everyone for all the work you've done to provide Wikimedia and its users with your wonderful graphs relating to climate change. I'm currently in the process of translating the English article on global warming into Finnish, and the graphics along with it. I was wondering if you could provide me (and the rest of the world alongside) with an empty template version of Image:Solar-cycle-data.png to make the future job easier. Thanks a lot in advance and keep up the good work! –Dilaudid 20:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Standards for images

There is a dicussion about setting standards for images going on at the graphics lab talk page. I thought this might be of interest to you. (We need to get enough voices, and get the project moved to the English wiki rather than the French.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Graphic_Lab/Images_to_improve#IMPORTANT_: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Graphic_Lab/Images_to_improve#Some_standards_of_our_own Sagredo

Copyleft unfree?

A pity Gmaxwell won't bother to explain or (probably) even read the discussion here on-wiki. (I've found him extremely unresponsive in the past.) And I don't participate on the mailing lists. Anyway, I'd like to point out that anything I wrote (and write, and will write) is my personal opinion. Others may disagree. My reading of the WMF licensing policy and the freedomdefined.org definition is that viral licenses are not "free" in that sense. Though the freedomdefined.org definition just says "should not", not "must not". So I have not informed you that "adding binding copyleft [1] provisions to my work would be incompatible with the concept of "free works" that Commons employs.", as you wrote on the mailing list, but rather that my reading of the freedomdefined.org definition is so. Minor difference :-) I try to make reasonable arguments, but please don't take my word as the ultimate authority on anything, especially not on legal stuff. I'm not a lawyer, and even if I were: lawyers disagree among themselves all the time, too, don't they?

But anyway: given the subtleties that surfaced in that discussion, it's maybe better anyway to wait until there really is a strongly viral CC license? There are so many pitfalls in crafting your own one... Lupo 11:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

ONE_MORE_Template ;)

Hi, according recent talk on COM:VP I tried to go one step further and "kind-of-create" a "KISS" [=acronym] template for non-wikipedians willing to allow some of their work to be used by wikipedia under free license cc-by-3.0 (I personally would not offer any more anything else to a friend of mine, therefore, not to anybody at all.)

Actually, the basic work is done by rocket.

In case you like, and have the time, please have a look at User_talk:WeHaWoe/TestSite and contribute to the talk (which does not yet seem ideal to be discussed at COM:VP, at this time, I think). Best, -- WeHaWoe 17:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

JSF images

FYI, I added your deletion request to today's log, so you don't have to do that step. howcheng {chat} 19:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

You're getting a little ahead of me cause I am still tracking some of these down. Dragons flight (talk) 20:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Images PD in source country, but not in the U.S.

Re your message on the mailing list: are you aware of the following?

• User:Lupo/Hairy_copyright#Works PD in source country, but copyrighted in the U.S., especially this?
• Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2007Apr#Commons:Freedom_of_panorama
• Template:Not-PD-US-URAA and its categories Category:Works copyrighted in the U.S. and Category:Works possibly copyrighted in the U.S.

For FOP, indeed the current practice is "source country only", or even "ignore laws completely". For U.S. sculptures, there's an effort underway at Template talk:PD-US-statue/proposal to define under which conditions images of U.S. sculptures might be OK. For {{PD-Art}}, current practice "U.S. law only". All highly inconsistent. And many people don't bother to tag FOP images with {{FOP}}. Lupo 23:13, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I haven't seen all of that, though I have certainly encountered similar things. Nice to know someone was reading the mailing list, I was beginning to wonder. The inconsistency has been a pet peeve of mine for a while, though my proximal motivational was yesterday's PotD, which is claimed under the Mexican FOP, and would never fly in the US. Essentially it's a photograph of a contemporary exhibit by a artisan in a public museum, and the argument is made (perhaps even correctly!) that Mexico's FOP rights extend even to artistic works photographed in the interiors of public buildings. Dragons flight (talk) 00:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Same here. But I don't see what could be done about it. If even the foundation (c.f. Anthère's talk page at meta) confirms the problem, but then says "don't delete, we'll think of something", the best we can do is tag the images appropriately. I doubt they'll ever think of something, though.

It's a perennial problem here at the commons. Related problem areas are non-U.S. photos from the turn of the century (1900 +/- a few decades) where we don't know the author, or photos of French buildings. In the former case, people often just assert PD-ness even though a little research might well unearth the photographer's name and sometimes even a death date. In the latter case, people often enough argue that the photos were fine because of "who cares", "french law is stupid", or "it's ok in my country". Oh well... Lupo 07:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a favorite tag for "Why is this free in the US?" I've been thinking of doing some labeling/categorizing myself.

As for anything actually changing, I'm not optimistic, but I haven't entirely given up hope. I still remember fighting for a year about the abuses in Missing Encyclopedia Articles project, and then in a blaze of glory the magic of Jimbo Says annihilated dozens of problematic pages in an afternoon. That was very gratifying.

On a related note, why does it take so long for deletion requests to close around here? Care to look at this one from August? Dragons flight (talk) 07:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

On the tag: no, we don't have one, but we may create one in the spirit of the "no licensing" tag.

On DRs: it takes so much time because (a) we have not enough admins active in closing DRs and (b) some cases are not straightforward and are best closed by admins who do have a good grasp of copyright. Some DRs even necessitate deliberations by the closing admin; it's more than just determining consensus. Sometimes consensus goes clearly the wrong way, and in such cases, the closing admin should have the guts to override consensus. Most of the time, a well-reasoned override is accepted, only the really contentious cases then show up at COM:UNDEL.

On changing things: it took me about a year to get PD-Soviet resolved. It was a very frustrating year, but afterwards, I was rewarded by even ru-WP adopting the correction and even initiating its update when Russian law changed again per January 1, 2008. (The frustration still outweighs the satisfaction, though.) But of course, people still think that an image PD in Russia (or any other non-U.S. country) were automatically PD in the U.S. too; copyright restorations in general and the URAA in particular are beyond the understanding of most uploaders. As are the "non-commercial use only" restrictions on FOP images from Eastern European countries. Ah well. At least that nasty PD-Soviet issue got us a full set of articles about copyright in Russia.

FOP is hard to change because it affects so many images taken by the uploaders themselves and because many WPs actually operate under local law only, not under our dual policy of "local law + U.S. law" and under many local laws, such images are perfectly fine.

A rule for turn-of-the-century images is equally hard to get consensus on because for many people its just unbelievable that there could still be a copyright on such images, many images are actually orphan works (not accounted for in the laws of most countries), and the research that would be necessary to make a credible claim of "highly probable PD" or "anonymous" is too burdensome for most uploaders. Yes, many are just lazy. There's countless examples for that. Also, we have a sizeable population of uploaders from the German WP, where they have the rule of thumb to accept images older than 100 years with unknown (to us/them) authors. They don't require any research to substantiate these "unknown author" claims. These uploaders just don't understand why we don't have that rule.

Oh, and I closed the JSF case (and a related one I found) as "delete". Lupo 09:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

License Migration Task Force

Hello. Wanted to invite you to join the License Migration Task Force. Kaldari (talk) 18:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations, Dear Administrator!

---

An offering for our new administrator from your comrades...

Dragons flight, congratulations! You now have administrator rights on Commons. Please take a moment to read the Commons:Administrators page and watchlist related pages (in particular Commons:Administrators' noticeboard and its subpages), before launching yourself into page deletions, page protections, account blockings or modifications of protected pages. The majority of the actions of administrators can be reversed by the other admins, except for history merges which must thus be treated with particular care. Have a look at the list of Gadgets (on the bottom there are the ones specifically for admins – however, for example the UserMessages are very helpful too).

Please feel free to join us on IRC: #wikimedia-commons ^webchat on irc.libera.chat. There is also a channel for Commons admins, which may be useful for more sensitive topics, or coordination among administrators: #wikimedia-commons-admin ^webchat.

You may find Commons:Guide to adminship to be useful reading. You can find the admin backlog overview at COM:AB.

Please also check or add your entry to the List of administrators and the related lists by language and date it references.

I have went ahead and flipped your bit (a bit) early. I'm letting the discussion run the full time though. I've not added you to the lists myself as this is a temporary thing, but feel free to if you like. Thanks for offering to help out, and for your patience. Let the community know when you're done, will you? Please advise of any questions or concerns. ++Lar: t/c 02:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Dragons flight (talk) 03:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

{{Self}}

I don't know what you want to accomplish by this change, but this is a tremendous hack which wasn't discussed at the talk page first (see {{Heavily used template}}). I'm going to revert you now. Multichill (talk) 09:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Template:License migration

Hi. I think that this template doesn't work with copyright tags like {{GFDL-user-it}}. See, for example, File:Ferrania condor I.jpg. What do you think about? Thanks in advance--Trixt (talk) 22:01, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I fixed {{GFDL-user-it}} so now it does. There are an enormous number of these specialized templates. Undoubtedly it isn't the only one that was missed. Dragons flight (talk) 22:16, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Your input is requested on an opt-out discussion

Hi Dragons flight,

I (and other Commons users) have had some discussions going with Fir0002 about a license change from {{GFDL}} to {{GFDL-1.2}} which related to opting out from the license migration.

• Discussion at the village pump
• User talk:Fir0002#The GFDL to GFDL-1.2 thingie again again again

Fir and I have a difference of opinion as to whether Fir has gotten acceptance from the community to do such a license change or not. Since you were involved with the original discussion with Fir I would appreciate if you could clarify your views on the whole situation (and how to interprete your earlier posts) on Firs talk page.

Thanks in advance, --Slaunger (talk) 06:57, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

CC templates with disclaimers

I was wondering if you could explain for me the logic behind templates such as {{Cc-by-sa-3.0-migrated-with-disclaimers}}. The Relicensing section of GFDL 1.3 says nothing about preserving disclaimers. The section that talks about preserving disclaimers is the Modifications section which specifically deals with releasing derivative works under the GFDL (not Creative Commons). There's no reason the Creative Commons relicensing should be subject to disclaimers as well. I'm aware that a strict reading of GFDL 1.3 leads to several contradictions and is logically impossible to interpret in a strict sense, but I think it's fairly safe to say that the CC relicensing was never meant to be subject to GFDL-mandated disclaimers. Indeed, the issue with disclaimers was one of the reasons we wanted to migrate away from the GFDL in the first place. Kaldari (talk) 18:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't know how I can explain the logic for you, when I don't know what it is. Have you asked the person who came up with the template what the thinking is? MGodwin (talk) 19:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The question above is directed to Dragons flight, the person who created the template. I was just wondering if you had any opinion you could add about whether or not CC relicensing had to include GFDL disclaimers. Kaldari (talk) 19:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

There was a debate at the time of the migration about whether the disclaimers were removable or not (both GFDL and CC-BY-SA explicitly call for the preservation of disclaimers). The cautious approach was to preserve them. Some time later (weeks or months) Mike offered the opinion that they probably weren't necessary on migrated content, and I believe the -with-disclaimers variant was removed from enwiki, but I guess no one followed up on the issue here. Dragons flight (talk) 20:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

To be explicit, CC-BY-SA sections 4a and 4b explicitly require the preservation of notices regarding the "disclaimer of warranties". It is slightly different language than the GFDL but arguably serves a similar purpose. At the time of the migration vote, the supporting documents (e.g. [1]) assumed disclaimers would be preserved, so it is a misunderstanding if you thought removing the disclaimers was a motivation for the migration. Nonetheless, it may be possible to remove them. It turns on a nuanced question of what the relationship between the disclaimers and the license actually is and how that relates to relicensing. I don't claim to be an expert on this, and don't mind acquiescing to Mike's prior opinion that the disclaimers are unnecessary. Dragons flight (talk) 20:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

By golly, you're right. Why does every free license on the planet include ridiculous terms in the fine print that no one in their right mind would ever want to follow? Well, this puts things back at square one. Unfortunately, we have to decide this issue one way or another, because if we are going to include disclaimers, we also need to create templates like {{Cc-by-sa-3.0-with-disclaimers}} for derivative works of {{Cc-by-sa-3.0-migrated-with-disclaimers}} images! And yes, this situation does actually exist on Commons already. What a mess. Kaldari (talk) 22:02, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, I got an email from Mike saying simply "I don't think the template makes any sense, myself." Kaldari (talk) 22:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Tip: Categorizing images

---

Hello, Dragons flight!

Tip: Add categories to your files

Thanks a lot for contributing to the Wikimedia Commons! Here's a tip to make your uploads more useful: Why not add some categories to describe them? This will help more people to find and use them.

Here's how:

1) If you're using the UploadWizard, you can add categories to each file when you describe it. Just click "more options" for the file and add the categories which make sense:

2) You can also pick the file from your list of uploads, edit the file description page, and manually add the category code at the end of the page.

[[Category:Category name]]

For example, if you are uploading a diagram showing the orbits of comets, you add the following code:

[[Category:Astronomical diagrams]]

[[Category:Comets]]

This will make the diagram show up in the categories "Astronomical diagrams" and "Comets".

When picking categories, try to choose a specific category ("Astronomical diagrams") over a generic one ("Illustrations").

Thanks again for your uploads! More information about categorization can be found in Commons:Categories, and don't hesitate to leave a note on the help desk.

CategorizationBot (talk) 13:54, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

• Image:Wikipedia 2.0-new prototype.png was uncategorized on 10 August 2010 CategorizationBot (talk) 13:54, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
• Image:Wikipedia-logo-bolder2.svg was uncategorized on 10 August 2010 CategorizationBot (talk) 13:54, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
• Image:Venezuela Oil Reserves.png was uncategorized on 21 January 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 10:50, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Congrats on the new job!

• Robert Rohde at Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project

Sounds like an interesting project, and Muller is an interesting scientist. Good luck, and I look forward to the results! Cheers -- PDTillman (talk) 21:40, 7 March 2011 (UTC), professional geologist, amateur paleoclimatologist.

Template:PD-Afghanistan

Template:PD-Afghanistan has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this template, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

-- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 21:19, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

File:Carbon Dioxide 400kyr.png

I am not talking about the scientific understanding of ice core records and paleoclimate. I am talking about the scientific understanding of sampling and aliasing. I will take my time to improve your current comment, I feel it does not address the (im)possibility of comparing those two incompatible graphs. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 01:24, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Aliasing only matters if you assume that the signal changes rapidly, for paleoclimate and CO2 we have good reasons to believe that such rapid changes do not occur in general. Secondly, even if one is worried about aliasing, it is still relevant to compare the range of variations during the ice ages to the range of variation since the industrial revolution. Specifically, even if one admits the possibility that you are missing some fluctuations, it is nonetheless useful to think about the fluctuations that have been measured. The comparison is still useful and widely made in the paleoclimate literature. Dragons flight (talk) 02:56, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Quote: "we have good reasons to believe that such rapid changes do not occur in general" Good reasons? A clincher to me! Good reasons are not enough, Proof should support such a statement. In general? So rapid changes do occur but not to often? Is that what you believe? The point is, there are hardly reasons to believe that (and I believe, believe is for the faithful, not for scientists). The fact that rapid changes are not measured in the ice core does not mean they did not happen. The last century gives evidence for the contrary, unless you regard this by default as an anomaly. (But that is what we are trying to prove, so you should not assume that beforehand.) The point I am making is that it is an error to compare a year by year graph to a graph that is made of samples hundreds of years apart of over hundreds of years diffused and evaporated CO2. There is no validation for that. Measurements of the CO2-level 100 to 400 thousand years ago only gives you an idea of the slow trend (still containing aliasing errors), not about the year by year divergences. Compare the variation in the peak of ca. 130 thousand years ago with the one ca 330 thousand years ago. The variation is much more rapid, indicating that age averages. As for aliasing errors, this occurs when a proces is sampled without in advance being filtered for to high frequency content of the process. Filtering is not possible afterwards. Aliasing errors are therefore a property, an inseperable part of these measurements. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 15:32, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, aliasing is a real process. No, scientists don't believe we are missing large CO2 changes because of it due to the indirect evidence from other sources (e.g. temperature responsive isotopes of O and H, carbon cycle responsive isotopes of C, models of ocean / atmosphere carbon cycle response, etc.) You seem to want to introduce criticism of this plot that goes much further than what the scientific community currently believes. That sort of original research is not really appropriate here. Dragons flight (talk) 19:21, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

No, there is no original research in my comments. Sampling is a well understood mathematical concept. Anyone knows that the process in-between samples can not be reconstructed in higher detail. It annoys me, though, that you ignore the limitations of comparing those two graphs, with only a very general "we believe"-remark as an explanation, do not address my arguments, and now try to disqualify me with an original research accusation. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 20:30, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Sampling is well understood. The implications of sampling biases depend on the characteristics of the signal. A 500-year sampling is very bad if the underlying process has high spectral power at centennial scales, but it is generally adequate if the underlying process is dominated by changes over tens of thousands of years. One has consider additional information to draw conclusions about the underlying process, and this is well understood in the existing literature. You are making inferences based on sampling alone that ignores the additional information well-known to the climate science community that lead most scientists to conclude there isn't a significant missing signal here. Your broad statements such as "the shape of the graphs cannot be compared" are original research, and ignore the literature that routinely compares such graphs. Knowing that such comparisons are useful requires more information than is represented by these time series alone, but science doesn't occur in a vacuum. Writing about such series requires a knowledge of the larger context in which they occur. Dragons flight (talk) 23:17, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Df, the Nyquist frequency for a 500 years sampling rate is 1 per 1000 years. Again referring to the peak of the CO2 level at ca. 130 thousand years ago, variations in that velocity are not unthinkable. But I’d rather talk about your accusation of original research. To compare different graphs, they should be normalized. That means that the industrial revolution-graph should be down-sampled to one sample per 500 years (let’s stick with your number, if you think that represents the icecore-graph well). To prevent aliasing the data should be averaged first, to filter out frequency components on or above the Nyquist frequency. This is the only way to compare those graphs. It’s not original research, it’s mathematical common sense. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 23:08, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Pssst

Before you go classifying a ton of things, you might want to note this: Commons:Village pump#An Afghan copyright law. Dragons flight (talk) 01:22, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I was actually classifying really low quality images, images in the public domain for other reasons and images clearly not covered by afghan laws. -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 01:25, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Antarctica Without Ice Sheet.png

I correctly have a license? Strannik27 (talk) 14:07, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Antarctica Without Ice Sheet.png Strannik27 (talk) 06:40, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
• I would like to thank you for your long and in depth explanation. I tend to agree with your view of the unfortunate way these licences should work. Sinnamon (talk) 02:36, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Wikipedia-logo-v2-admin.png

Hello, I'm asking both you and User talk:ANGELUS#File:Wikipedia-logo-v2-admin.png in hopes that one of you can change File:Wikipedia-logo-v2-admin.png since it is based on both of your works put together (basically it's the enwp logo with mop and text). Thanks a bunch! Technical 13 (talk) 13:06, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Category:License_migration_not_eligible

License migration not eligible has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category. In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

FrankB 13:58, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

File:Annual Average Temperature Map.png

---

Hello, Dragons flight!

Tip: Add categories to your files

Thanks a lot for contributing to the Wikimedia Commons! Here's a tip to make your uploads more useful: Why not add some categories to describe them? This will help more people to find and use them.

Here's how:

1) If you're using the UploadWizard, you can add categories to each file when you describe it. Just click "more options" for the file and add the categories which make sense:

2) You can also pick the file from your list of uploads, edit the file description page, and manually add the category code at the end of the page.

[[Category:Category name]]

For example, if you are uploading a diagram showing the orbits of comets, you add the following code:

[[Category:Astronomical diagrams]]

[[Category:Comets]]

This will make the diagram show up in the categories "Astronomical diagrams" and "Comets".

When picking categories, try to choose a specific category ("Astronomical diagrams") over a generic one ("Illustrations").

Thanks again for your uploads! More information about categorization can be found in Commons:Categories, and don't hesitate to leave a note on the help desk.

Domdomegg (talk) 16:44, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png

Hi,

I was wanting to update some of the temperature graphs you've created to include the most recent figures and the 2016 high point. The 12kyr Holocene one is turning out a bit clumsy due to the inset... here's a version I've created just using the current PNG, trying to modify as little as possible.

Holocene Temperature Variations

Are you happy for me to update using this?

If you still have a version with the inset as a separate layer, or the original data in XL/CSV I could make it fit a lot neater.

Tobus (talk) 07:37, 4 May 2019 (UTC)