User Talk: Cmglee

Server-side rendered snapshot of this editor's Wikipedia talk page discussions.

Category:Wikipedians in Cambridgeshire ↗
Category:WikiProject_Data_Visualization_participants ↗

{{User:Cmglee/talk nav}}{{TOC right}}

Template:Gallery remainders ↗

<div style="float:right; clear:right">{{Gallery remainders}}</div>
Hi Cmglee, I made some little layout changings in the template mentioned above. Are you fine with them? I hope. Best regards, W like wiki good to know ↗ 22:49, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

:{{ping|W like wiki}} Certainly, and thanks for updating it. I'm surprised with the interest it's garnered as it started as an experiment after I was bothered by galleries with runt ↗s – guess others might be too''!'' Cheers, '''cmɢʟee''' τaʟκ ↗ (please add <code>{{ping|cmglee}}</code> to your reply) 13:18, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Listing for discussion of :Template:Visual proof triangle area is inradius times semiperimeter.svg ↗

30px|link=|alt= ↗ :Template:Visual proof triangle area is inradius times semiperimeter.svg ↗ has been listed for discussion ↗, which may result in the template being merged ↗ or deleted ↗ by consensus ↗. You are invited to comment on the proposed action at '''the entry on the Templates for discussion page''' ↗. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:20, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Noted on Graphics Lab/Map workshop

:::{{ping|cmglee}}, Hi I Noted what you said. and here are sources.<ref>https://www.fec.gov/resources/cms-content/documents/FederalElections2000_PresidentialGeneralElectionResultsbyState.pdf ↗</ref><ref>https://www.fec.gov/introduction-campaign-finance/election-results-and-voting-information/federal-elections-2000/president2000/ ↗</ref> Muaza Husni (talk) 07:30, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
Thanks, {{ping|Muaza Husni}} I didn't doubt your sources, but instead wanted to mention that the template ↗ is currently in flux. I'd recommend waiting until the dust settles before making a map with the template. '''cmɢʟee''' τaʟκ ↗ (please add <code>{{ping|cmglee}}</code> to your reply) 15:08, 20 March 2026 (UTC)
: How long would that so called dust settles, how long would I have to wait?. You can recommend me waiting but I won't be willing to wait forever.Muaza Husni (talk) 05:02, 21 March 2026 (UTC)
::{{ping|Muaza Husni}} I've no idea. Nevertheless, feel free to use it if you want. It's just that some users object to both the presence and absence, and the presentation of certain elements. Unless you merge new changes over, your map will be styled as the current one is. '''cmɢʟee''' τaʟκ ↗ (please add <code>{{ping|cmglee}}</code> to your reply) 01:52, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
::{{ping|cmglee}} I'm confused, you say feel free to use it if you want? How can I use it, if the map hasn't been made yet??Muaza Husni (talk) 04:37, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
:::{{ping|Muaza Husni}} Here's the situation: The template I created two years ago has been used to make several similar choropleth maps ↗.
:::Earlier this year, {{user|GeogSage}}, {{user|Timeshifter}} and {{user|Fiveby}} <s>objected to</s> '''commented on''' several aspects of the original version, namely lack of
:::# source info on the map itself
:::# projection info
:::# scale info (and that Alaska, Hawaii and continental US are at different scales)
:::# orientation indicator
:::# non-divergent colour scheme
:::# colour-blind-friendly colour scheme
:::# support for dark state shading (black text on a dark background is illegible)
:::# separator between insets
:::# hatching for states with no data
:::# distinct leader lines to state labels
:::# meaningful data bins in the legend
:::# optional notes
:::# optional subtitle
:::and others which I've likely forgotten about. These issues have not been resolved and I've no idea when or if they will ever be. (To be honest, I found the resolution to worsen the map in some ways, especially by adding clutter. The compass rose is even slightly wrong; previously, there wasn't one.)
:::Due to the above, and as you wrote, "I won't be willing to wait forever," I suggested that you carry on using it if you wanted to, the drawback being they (or others) may also not be satisfied with your map.
:::On the bright side, the data-entry part (data format) is stable for now, so even if changes need to be made, they can likely be merged without much trouble. The only bit that might concern you are the title, subtitle and source line, and the colour scheme.
:::Does this clarify things? '''cmɢʟee''' τaʟκ ↗ (please add <code>{{ping|cmglee}}</code> to your reply) 16:19, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
::::Hi, hope you didn't take any of my comments as objections? Just observations. Frankly from reading the conversations you linked i was unsure why you needed to satisfy anyone but yourself and those who wished to use you work. fiveby(zero) 16:38, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
:::::{{ping|Fiveby}} Thanks for your response. I definitely wish to satisfy those who wish you use my work, or I wouldn't have bothered making it.
:::::On the one hand, it's only the three of you who have given me concrete feedback about the map (some of it rather harshly), but on the other, I recognise that I'm not an expert on cartography; I may have preferences on what I think things should look like but {{u|GeogSage}} made it sound like what I did was completely unprofessional, which was why I posted on the Science Reference Desk to get a second opinion.
:::::I'm willing to learn from all parties, though conflicting feedback makes it hard to make the right call. '''cmɢʟee''' τaʟκ ↗ (please add <code>{{ping|cmglee}}</code> to your reply) 17:26, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
::::::Just to make sure I'm clear, it is completely unprofessional. I cited several sources on professional ethics, and while the map itself is best described as amateur cartography like most of the maps on Wikipedia, encouraging the use of templates in this way violates several professional standards. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 19:17, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
:::::::{{ping|GeogSage}} perhaps it is, but instead of picking on this series of maps, I'd rather you had addressed it in a wider forum as your recommendations affect many other maps on Wikipedia/Commons.
:::::::Personally, I'd rather have diagrams that violate standards but clearly convey the topic in question than one with unnecessary clutter, such as knowing what projection is used, or which way is north on common US map (having a compass rose is wrong anyway, as the direction of north varies across the map – adding a proper graticule adds further clutter). '''cmɢʟee''' τaʟκ ↗ (please add <code>{{ping|cmglee}}</code> to your reply) 22:05, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
::::::::<nowiki>{{Green|having a compass rose is wrong anyway, as the direction of north varies across the map – adding a proper graticule adds further clutter}}</nowiki>
::::::::If a map is being used for navigation reasons, then yes. However thematic maps are not used for navigation, and while a compass rose won't allow you to take headings, it will tell you how enumeration units are generally oriented near each other. Washington is West of Idaho, California is South of Maine. You can't draw lines between cities and expect to get a good heading, but you'll get the broad relationship of if something is North, South, East, or West of another unit. This works for contiguous U.S. at least, especially when looking at states. If you think a graticule would be more appropriate, then that is a valid alternative. There is some debate ↗ on them, generally I don't trust the general public to know where "West" is though.
::::::::This "series" came across my feed, so I addressed it. Maps, not "diagrams", that violate standards are misinformation. More important then the north indication, your template has three scales, and three projections, with no indication what what these are. As one variable shown in choropleths is the size of the enumeration units being investigated, and how enumeration units are spatially related to each other, showing Alaska and Hawaii in callout boxes at different scales makes it impossible to compare them with the rest of the map. A continuous color ramp as the default is not an ideal color scheme. In terms of unnecessary clutter, placing the values as labels is redundant to the legend. Wikipedia has no enforced standards for maps though, and trying to explain them ultimately seems to result in people with no understanding on the topic dismissing the concerns as not a big deal. You're essentially creating the digital equivalent to a coloring book page, which would be fine, if it wasn't for the fact these coloring book pages are going to look authoritative when used on Wikipedia.
::::::::thumb|Usgs map albers equal area conic ↗ GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 22:56, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::{{ping|GeogSage}} Re scale, just like the direction of north, the scale also varies throughout the map so any attempt to indicate scale (perhaps with the exception of Tissot's indicatrices) is also disingenuous.
:::::::::Looking back at our prior interaction, I see only criticism (however warranted) without any work to fix it. Despite my disagreement with some of Timeshifter's ideas, I at least see their effort to prototype changes, update documentation etc which would make me more supportive of their proposals.
:::::::::Most of us are volunteers here. Despite my adding projection, orientation etc, I haven't seen an iota of gratitude other than from Timeshifter, only more criticism, making me wonder why I should bother with this topic. '''cmɢʟee''' τaʟκ ↗ (please add <code>{{ping|cmglee}}</code> to your reply) 23:31, 22 March 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::Indication of scale is necessary on maps, and on a map displayed on a computer screen, scale bars are really the only option as they are maintained regardless of screen size as long as the aspect ratio is maintained. When using a projection centered on the study area, for example USA Contiguous Albers Equal Area Conic, the distortion is minimized in the area of interest. A scale bar on a thematic map is serving the function of giving some idea of the scale, while on a map used for navigation it is designed to measure precise distances. All maps "lie," all maps are wrong in some way and we make compromises to meet our objectives. This does not mean we ignore the problem completely on a map that has three different scales and three different projections. A map like this needs an indication of scale and projection more then one just showing the contiguous U.S.
::::::::::Don't expect any gratitude from me, as I stated in the past, the creation of default templates like this is problematic from the inception. The method of editing only encourages really bad cartography on the project, I've never seen anyone use this approach outside of Wikipedia. It is like people are reinventing the wheel rather then spending five minutes to read up on the various options readily available. From a professional standpoint, ''' I'm completely against the idea of templates like this existing, each dataset and map will need it's own approach.''' Borden Dent ↗ defined a code of ethics in his book ''Thematic Map Design,'' and among these are "don’t let defaults drive your design." This is a design template with built in defaults, it is antithetical to this code of ethics. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 00:49, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
:Hi {{ping|cmglee}}, I will be using the map if you make it. I hope you make it.Muaza Husni (talk) 04:36, 23 March 2026 (UTC)
::{{ping|GeogSage}} hey mister, I've put in the source, projection, orientation indicator etc due to your critique despite the clutter. I'd remove all that if it weren't even more effort. Good luck with whatever you're doing but don't expect any more effort from me.
::{{ping|Muaza Husni}} Try asking {{user|Timeshifter}} if they're willing to help. I've overcommitted in this endeavour and shall give it a rest for now.
::Best wishes, '''cmɢʟee''' τaʟκ ↗ (please add <code>{{ping|cmglee}}</code> to your reply) 06:07, 24 March 2026 (UTC)
:::Your entire effort is unethical, and as a professional I would not be upholding my own ethical responsibility if I let it go unchallenged. My specific criticism is aimed at the specific map, not the use as a template. Even if one individual map were absolutely perfect for the underlying data it represents, encouraging the use of a default template in this manner will enable misinformation through incompetence or malice. No appropriate template exists in the manner you're intending. Defaults are why the Mercator projection became used inappropriately for thematic maps historically, why Web Mercator is inappropriately used on maps today, and have had an overall negative impact that is not outweighed by any minor benefit. Compromises you've made to enable the use of a this as a template, like using a continuous color ramp without any method I can see for defining class breaks, are frowned upon in the literature in most cases. I've cited sources on these, you've ignored them because they don't validate what it is you want to do, but have certainly adopted sides of the debate when they validate a decision you want to make. GeogSage (⚔Chat?⚔) 06:22, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Speaking of three files

What would be the best option to fix these three files below?:
<gallery>
Copa Merconorte logo.svg| Copa Merconorte (references on the file's page)
Copa Mercosul logo.svg| Copa Mercosul
Copa Mercosur logo.svg| Copa Mercosur
</gallery>
These were autotraced. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 17:43, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

:{{ping|Candidyeoman55}} First, it's best to check if it's legally fine to use it on Wikimedia Commons.
:If so, the best way is to find the original vector file but it's likely proprietary. There is no easy way to fix poor autotracing. Try asking on
:# :commons:Commons:Graphic_Lab/Illustration_workshop ↗ or
:# Wikipedia:Graphics_Lab/Illustration_workshop ↗
:to see if anyone is willing to help. Cheers, '''cmɢʟee''' τaʟκ ↗ (please add <code>{{ping|cmglee}}</code> to your reply) 01:45, 28 March 2026 (UTC)

Heliograph_operation.svg shows operation of handheld signalling mirrors, not heliographs.

'''SUMMARY'''

Your diagram, <nowiki>https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Heliograph_operation.svg</nowiki>, is an excellent depiction of two ways to use handheld signalling mirrors. However the tripod-mounted heliographs that <nowiki>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliograph</nowiki> describes were not used in this fashion.

For the tripod-mounted heliographs:

- double-sided mirrors were never used

- the operator did not look through the mirror while signalling

- the "vane" was never used together with the second mirror in British Imperial or American heliographs.

I see your file is included in the "signalling mirrors" Wikimedia category, where it is a great addition, but I request that you remove it from heliograph-related articles and categories.

'''DETAILS'''

'''''Handheld Signalling Mirrors for Distress Signals'''''

Your diagram is a good description of the "foresight"[1-2] and "rearsight"[1-3] methods of using handheld emergency signalling mirrors as distress signals. Since at least 1948, such mirrors are required worldwide under the SOLAS Convention to be carried on all ocean-going lifeboats and liferafts, and are a standard item in military and hiking survival kits.

While such handheld mirrors are sometimes called "heliographs" in Commonwealth countries, "heliograph" is not the internationally preferred term. The SOLAS documents have called them '''"daylight-signalling mirror"''' since at least 1948, and the 2006 section of ISO 18813 is "§4.23 '''Mirror, signalling, daylight''' (LR, LB - LSA Code 4.1.5.1.15, 4.4.8.17)". US military specifications initially called them "'''Emergency Signalling Mirror'''" (1944), then dropped the 2nd "l" to call them "'''Mirrors, Emergency Signaling'''". The colloquial term is "'''signal mirror'''".

While handheld emergency signalling mirrors do have a Wikimedia category: <nowiki>https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Signalling_mirrors</nowiki> , they sadly lack an English Wikipedia page - the only signalling mirror page I've found is this one in the German Wikipedia: <nowiki>https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonnenspiegel</nowiki>

It is on my "wish list" to create such a page, but I have other projects scheduled through October 2026, so I don't expect to get to that soon. If you'd like to spearhead it, though, I'll be happy to help. References [1-3] would provide a nucleus of supporting references.

'''''Heliographs - Tripod-mounted Mirrors for Solar Telegraphy'''''

The subject of the page <nowiki>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliograph</nowiki> is the type of heliographs used as solar telegraph systems for general communication, most frequently by Morse Code.

Human hands aren't steady enough for reliable Morse Code transmission by self-contained handheld mirrors. The "solar telegraph" heliographs were invariably on fixed mounts - usually tripods, but sometimes piers or tables.

The procedure for operating the most common type of paragraph, the British Mance heliograph, is briefly summarized in the first three paragraphs of <nowiki>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliograph#Description</nowiki>

Heliographs were operated and initially sighted-in as two different procedures, with different operator head positions [7-10].

Unlike with handheld emergency signalling mirrors, in neither step did the heliograph manuals recommend looking through the hole in the center of the mirror. The two steps were:

(1) During actual signalling, the mode your diagram attempts to illustrate, the operator looked at the "shadow spot" on the sighting vane in single-mirror mode, and at the "shadow spot"on a paper target on the duplex mirror in dual-mirror mode.

You can see video of the "shadow spot" in use on the sighting vane at [4], and with a second mirror at [5].

The primary purpose of the hole in the center of the heliograph was to act as an "unsilvered spot" to create the "shadow spot", not to act as a sighting hole.

The act of signalling is covered as Step 7 on page 17 of the 1922 heliograph manual ([8]), which says in part: "But above all, constant attention must be paid to the sighting vane, so that the shadow spot may not be allowed to wander, and for this reason the habit should be acquired of looking constantly at the vane and not at the distant station or mark representing it." You can see the operating pose in this (fleeting) 1941 movie segment: <nowiki>https://youtu.be/8ZbcNF67Dp4?t=1m29s</nowiki>

(2) Initial sighting-in. Here the operator preferably stood between the mirror and the target, and looked at the target's reflection in the mirror, not through the sighting hole. This step is illustrated in cigarette card #3 at [6]. This was the preferred method, because it worked in both single and dual-mirror mode. Early manuals also offered an alternative mode for use with the single mirror (only) where the operator looked through the hole in the mirror at the sighting vane, as per your illustration, but British signals manuals from 1919 on taught only the reflection method.

The 1922 heliograph manual [8] was enough for me to learn to successfully signal at 22 mile range. Alternatively, the procedure table in the 1919 manual[7] is very methodical.

'''MODIFICATIONS TO DIAGRAM FOR HELIOGRAPH APPLICATIONS'''

As you can gather from scanning the table in [7], the setup and operation of a heliograph required many steps, and doesn't much lend itself to a single diagram. I think the simplest action would be to remove your diagram and reserve it against the time that Wikipedia has a "'''signalling mirror'''" page.

If you want to go further, you could see if one of the historical diagrams in [7-10] would serve.

If you want to make a modified diagram that applies to heliographs ( it is fine as-is for signalling mirrors), here are some of the deletions I feel are needed:

- For heliographs, the lower half of the diagram should be removed entirely. The "double-sided mirror" sighting technique was never used in heliographs. That sighting method was developed ca. 1942-1943 (independently in Australia and the USA - see p. 17, column 2 & footnote in [2]) for hand-held emergency signalling mirrors.

Moving on to the upper half of the diagram:

- The operator did not look through the hole in the signalling mirror while operating a heliograph. The operator looked at the "shadow spot" on the sighting vane in single-mirror mode, and on a paper target on the duplex mirror in dual-mirror mode. Therefore, the "heads" and dotted-line lines of sight in these diagrams are incorrect, and should be removed.

- Because of the above, the "thought bubble" sight diagrams in the diagram are also incorrect for heliographs, and should be removed.

- The "sighting vane" was not even mounted in the dual-mirror case, so the figure of the sighting vane should be removed from the "sun is behind" case

- The legend at far left indicates that the sighting vane was used in both "Sun is behind" and "sun is in front" case. it wasn't, and once the sighting vane is removed from the "Sun is behind" case, perhaps this legend can be removed entirely.

After all that, though, there is not much to the diagram, and I don't know that it would be all that worthwhile.

[1] "Signaling with Mirror - R. S. Hunter Finds Device is "Extremely Valuable" Rescue Aid". Air Sea Rescue Bulletin. July 1944, pp. 6-11

<nowiki>https://books.google.com/books?id=ZLJIAQAAIAAJ&dq=Mirror&pg=PP50</nowiki>

[2] Hunter, Richard S., National Bureau of Standards, "Heliographic Signaling Mirrors", Air-Sea Rescue Bulletin, NAVCG 128 Vol. III No. 3 March 1946 RESTRICTED, U.S. Coast Guard, pp. 24-29, 48

<nowiki>https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.c2656672&seq=734&view=2up</nowiki>

[3] "The Signaling Mirror: WWII US Military Training Film, August 1943"

<nowiki>https://youtu.be/k0VxOBb1c9I</nowiki>

[4] VMARS Heliograph Demonstration 2

[ Use of the "shadow spot" with the foresight]

<nowiki>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f8nVkVaHZ4Q</nowiki>

[5] Heliograph: Mance Mark V HD

[ Use of the "shadow spot" with the second mirror]

<nowiki>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0JjPiQBM6Ds</nowiki>

[6] "More about the heliograph"

<nowiki>https://www.marquis-kyle.com.au/mt/001944.php</nowiki>

[7] Signal Training, Part K. Visual Telegraphy. May, 1919, pages 33-40:

"Section 42. –– Heliograph Drill (to Set up and Align)"

<nowiki>https://www.google.com/books/edition/Manual_of_instruction_in_army_signalling/U7glfOTBFFEC?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PA33</nowiki>

[8] Signal Training, Volume III. Pamphlet No. 2. HELIOGRAPH, 5-inch, Mark V. 1922 Page 16. (Diagram)

<nowiki>https://books.google.com/books?id=7FkBDq49OmgC&pg=RA11-PA16&dq=Diagrams</nowiki>

[9] 1942 Signal Training (All Arms) Pamphlet No. 2 Visual Signalling, London,

page 14, "Fig. 14 – Use of Heliograph"

<nowiki>https://www.facebook.com/groups/776510812960897/permalink/1195972517681389/</nowiki>

[10] Training Manual -- Signalling, 1907 (revised, May 1911)

Great Britain. War Office, Publisher H.M. Stationery Office, 1911

(i) Simple diagram of "angle of incidence equals angle of reflection"

<nowiki>https://books.google.com/books?id=vR0xAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA65</nowiki>

(ii) Diagram of path of sun's rays through signalling mirror and duplex mirror

<nowiki>https://books.google.com/books?id=vR0xAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA79</nowiki>

(iii) Diagram of signaller's eye line of sight to station with duplex & signalling mirror

<nowiki>https://books.google.com/books?id=vR0xAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA83</nowiki>

(iv) Diagrams of process of aligning heliograph by looking at target in mirror

<nowiki>https://books.google.com/books?id=vR0xAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA82</nowiki>

<nowiki>~~~</nowiki> Macchess (talk) 02:52, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
{{ping|cmglee}}

:Thanks for your feedback, {{ping|Macchess}} that's a lot to take in so I'll address the issues one at a time.
:Regarding the name, I've come across signalling mirrors being considered heliographs, so I asked on Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Language#Are_simple_signalling_mirrors_heliographs? ↗ and inferred from the response that they are. If you disagree, would you mind sharing your view on that forum? Thanks, '''cmɢʟee''' τaʟκ ↗ (please add <code>{{ping|cmglee}}</code> to your reply) 14:54, 17 April 2026 (UTC)
::Some handheld signalling mirrors are definitely called heliographs, especially the "tethered foresight" subtype developed ca. 1942 by the Royal Air Force, whose fabric case was stamped "HELIOGRAPH" - see https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Signal_Mirror_British_Dinghy_Heliograph_4inch_1943.jpg . The usage of "heliograph" to refer to handheld signalling mirrors is most common in the UK, and next most common in Australia. In the US and Canada, it is rare. More detail on the forum, as you requested.
::Macchess (talk) 17:31, 17 April 2026 (UTC) <code><nowiki>{{ping|cmglee}}</nowiki></code>

Refreshed animal hearing range chart

thumb ↗
thumb ↗
Hi Cmglee,

Just letting you know I had a go at reformatting this chart you made in 2014. I also tried making a
linear version ↗, which feels like it better represents the data to me, except it has the obvious problem that the low frequency ranges become impossible to distinguish. At this stage, I haven't done anything else other than reformatting it, so there's no new animals. Anyway, just letting you know about it.

Also I've just discovered you've made excellent illustrations of multiple things I've been searching for the name of for years (Hoberman sphere and Egg of Columbus puzzle). Very cool. —Pengo 04:36, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

:{{ping|Pengo}} Many thanks for your kind words.
:Re the chart, your formatting certainly looks more polished than mine. You're right that when plotted linearly, all the low frequencies are squashed together. A logarithmic scale better reflects how we perceive pitch.
:Keep up the good work and let me know if you'd like to collaborate on anything. Cheers, '''cmɢʟee''' τaʟκ ↗ (please add <code>{{ping|cmglee}}</code> to your reply) 15:05, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you

{| style="background-color: var(--background-color-success-subtle, #fdffe7); border: 1px solid var(--border-color-success, #fceb92); color: var(--color-base, #202122);"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | 100px ↗
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | '''Thank you'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | Thanks for your assistance with this featured picture delist and replace process ↗. ↠Pine (✉) 01:02, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
|}

:{{ping|Pine}} My pleasure and thank you too – good collaboration''!'' '''cmɢʟee''' τaʟκ ↗ (please add <code>{{ping|cmglee}}</code> to your reply) 15:06, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Ways to improve Seven Wells Waterfall

Hello, Cmglee,

Thank you for creating Seven Wells Waterfall ↗.

I have tagged the page ↗ as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process ↗ and note that:

{{Quote|1=there are three dead links (1 reference and 2 External links)}}

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with <code><nowiki>{{Re|</nowiki>Joseywales1961<nowiki>}}</nowiki></code>. Remember to sign your reply with <code><nowiki>~~~~</nowiki></code>. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse ↗.

Delivered via the Page Curation ↗ tool, on behalf of the reviewer. 

''Josey Wales'' ''Parley'' 20:37, 19 May 2026 (UTC)
:Please let me know whether the references I added have resolved the issue. Thanks, '''cmɢʟee''' τaʟκ ↗ (please add <code>{{ping|cmglee}}</code> to your reply) 15:47, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

{| style="background-color: var(--background-color-success-subtle, #fdffe7); border: 1px solid var(--border-color-success, #fceb92); color: var(--color-base, #202122);"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | 100px ↗
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | '''The Special Barnstar'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | Thank you for fixing my SVG. It was a pain in the neck for me personally, so it was really nice of you to come 'round and fix it for me. Inactive000 (talk) | Political and geographical. 23:32, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
|}
{{ping|Inactive000}} Thanks very much and my pleasure. Glad to help''!'' '''cmɢʟee''' τaʟκ ↗ (please add <code>{{ping|cmglee}}</code> to your reply) 00:21, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

What's your opinion on the logos below?

<gallery>
United States Soccer Federation logo (1930-1934).png|United States Soccer Federation (1930-1934)
United States Soccer Federation logo (1930-1934).svg|This problematic SVG should eventually be fixed.
United States Soccer Federation logo (1934-1936).png|United States Soccer Federation (1934-1936)
United States Soccer Federation logo (1934-1936).svg|This problematic SVG should eventually be fixed.
United States Soccer Federation logo (1950, variant 1).png|United States Soccer Federation (1950)
United States Soccer Federation logo (1950, variant 1).svg|Issues: Curved edges when they should be sharp. The typeface I think is Eurostile.
United States Soccer Federation logo (1950, variant 2).png|United States Soccer Federation (1950)
United States Soccer Federation logo (1950, variant 2).svg|This problematic SVG should eventually be fixed.
United States national soccer team logo (1984-1986).png|United States national soccer team (1984-1986)
United States national soccer team logo (1984-1986).svg|This problematic SVG should eventually be fixed. Helvetica should be used if the right typeface can't be found.
United States national soccer team logo (1984-1986, alternate).png|United States national soccer team (1984-1986, alternate)
United States national soccer team logo (1984-1986, alternate).svg|This problematic SVG should eventually be fixed. Helvetica should be used if the right typeface can't be found.
</gallery>

Just your opinion about the vectorization of these logos. I tried to get them vectorized outside Wikimedia projects and it didn't go as planned. I meant I tried to get an outside graphist to vectorize it and he completely botched it. Candidyeoman55 (talk) 20:52, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

:{{ping|Candidyeoman55}} They look good enough a thumbnail size. I do not have any plans to work on these diagrams. '''cmɢʟee''' τaʟκ ↗ (please add <code>{{ping|cmglee}}</code> to your reply) 17:13, 15 June 2026 (UTC)