User talk:Avenue/Archives/2011

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Australasian Gannet (Morus serrator) in flight, from above.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Very good. --PetarM 13:25, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! South African praying mantis eating a fly.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Top! --Kuli 20:05, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Nets wound up on fishing boat.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Nice colours. --Cayambe 15:46, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Mountain flax flower (Phormium cookianum) 1.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Very good to me. --Bartiebert 19:05, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Australasian Gannet greeting mate.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments High in quality and EV. --IdLoveOne 00:33, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Mountain flax flower (Phormium cookianum) 2.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  RequestIt would be better (as in more promote-able) if the tiny piece of some other flower on the lower right was cropped out... -- IdLoveOne 00:33, 14 February 2011 (UTC) Thank ya very much. --IdLoveOne 07:28, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! French marigold with raindrops.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments When I white-balanced this all the plants around it turned blue - why? -- IdLoveOne 23:55, 13 February 2011 (UTC) I don't know. It was taken in early evening, in the shade of a building under a mainly blue sky. --Avenue 07:46, 14 February 2011 (UTC)  Support Criteria satisfied, in my opinion. Useful. --Wsiegmund 16:41, 16 February 2011 (UTC)Fine but you really should see it white balanced... IdLoveOne 09:25, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

All right ?

Hi
I hope you didn't have problems with the earthquake, even if Christchurch is not very close to Auckland.
I suppose all New Zealand is shocked.
Very sad...
Friendly from Paris,--Jebulon (talk) 23:57, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

No one in Auckland even felt the quake. Of course we know the risks, but it's still shocking to see this sort of disaster happening here in NZ. Luckily my Christchurch relatives are unhurt, and only one of them has a badly damaged house. Thanks for your concern, Avenue (talk) 00:26, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

your beaked whale

Hi,

It is so great to see your photos of Gray's beaked whale from that mass stranding.

I would like to write to you but I can't find your emailaddress.

Could you please contact me?my email is <redacted> Thank you. Regards from Poland.

I've replied by email. For future reference, if you are logged in, there should be an "Email this user" link available to reach me in the Toolbox section on the left. --Avenue (talk) 14:03, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Leaf tip, New Zealand flax (Phormium tenax), backlit by evening sun.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good, needs maybe a little crop left and above (too much sky ?) but IMO downsizing was not a good idea... I feel your picture very impressive at full size !! One may make very interesting and strange cuts or close-up. Only an opinion... --Jebulon 01:11, 21 February 2011 (UTC) Yes, I think you're right about the crop. I've tried something, & reverted the downsizing. --Avenue 02:01, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Male monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus), about to take first flight.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Mbdortmund 19:11, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

File:White Terraces - Blomfield.jpg

Hi. :) I'm dealing with an OTRS ticket (Ticket:2011020710005645, for those who are OTRS ennabled) that claims that File:White Terraces - Blomfield.jpg is a mirror of the actual image. I'm told the original is now displayed correctly at [1] somewhere after having been also mirrored there, but I haven't found it there. The government-maintained Encyclopedia of New Zealand seems to confirm the orientation, though ([2]). What looks to be a variant painting (here) would also support the mirror view, with the line of bushes and rocks arranged as the one at the Encyclopedia of New Zealand. Since you uploaded the original, I thought I'd ask if you had any insight. If you agree that it's mirrored, are you able to flip it? I'm afraid that the computer I'm working on at the moment is woefully understocked. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:41, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

It does seem from those links that our version is mirrored. (Here's the relevant Rotorua Museum page.[3]) I'll upload a corrected version. It looks as though there are much better versions available, too, which might be useful. Thanks, --Avenue (talk) 20:05, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. :) I'll let our correspondent know. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:37, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Monarch butterfly with its pupa case.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --ComputerHotline 16:15, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Puawhananga flower (Clematis paniculata).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Nice and sharp imho.--V-wolf 03:23, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Mount Eden crater with Auckland CBD and Rangitoto skyline.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Sharp, beautiful composition, good DOF --Croucrou 11:24, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Paraglider prepares for take-off, Queenstown.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good dynamics and composition. --Quartl 13:26, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Thallose liverwort (Marchantia and Lunularia spp.) showing clonal plantlets in gemma cups.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Nice--Holleday 10:21, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Bowls laid out for sale at the Queenstown market.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Nice colours. --Cayambe 17:03, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Draft marks on a ship's bow, with reflections.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Carschten 16:20, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Parasailing high above Queenstown.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments very nice composition --Carschten 16:05, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Snow-making machine, at Remarkables ski field.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good.--Ankara 08:39, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Paragliding, edit

Hello Avenue. I like your picture very much, even if I've opposed in FPC. I've tried to make an "edit" of your image, with a left-below part less dark. It is not perfect, because done very quickly, but maybe you will enjoy, nevertheless, and understand my idea. Feel free to use it if you agree. Thanks. And sorry again for opposing !--Jebulon (talk) 22:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm glad you like it. No need to be sorry for opposing. I see your point; in fact I had tried to fix this issue earlier, but was not as successful as you. You've inspired me to try again, and I've uploaded a new version which I think is much better than the original. --Avenue (talk) 15:19, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Red Moki (Cheilodactylus spectabilis).jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Mbdortmund 19:54, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Northern Fulmar (Fulmarus glacialis) flying, side-on.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments High resolution. Good depth of field. No subject motion apparent. Good lighting and exposure. First rate. --Wsiegmund 23:33, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Boats moored in Reykjavík harbour.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments very good --Ralf Roletschek 17:29, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Iceberg in the river draining Jökulsárlón.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments nice colors --Ralf Roletschek 08:59, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Sailor rights capsized boat, under a rainbow.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments great! --Carschten 18:17, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Grey Lynn carved archway detail T2i IMG 104 2777 shrp curves.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments  Support QI for me --Archaeodontosaurus 16:21, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! White-fronted terns (Sterna striata) at Takapuna.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments {{{3}}}

Abigail Breslin

Hi Avenue - how are you? Thank you for the improvement on Breslin - I think it looks better. I saw the discussion on the QIP page, and I wanted to say that relying on one photograph by a professional agency isn't exactly accurate. The agencies always change the color that it doesn't reflect the actual person there. Take the Breslin photograph, here are many different interpretations by for-pay photographers on what she looked like that night. When I would shoot at these events and then refer to the other shots taken to establish some kind of baseline, I found it impossible because the people were different colors in every shot. I only bring this up because I think your interpretation is good, but I wouldn't say mine was exactly off - she was very, very pale, perhaps because she is currently shooting a vampire film with Julianne Moore. (As one of the Getty photographers said to me, "She's such a ghost she keeps blowing out my shots." Anyway, thanks again, I think it was an improvement. --David Shankbone (talk) 03:54, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi, David. You're right, relying on a single photograph isn't a great idea. Your original is within the range of what other photographers chose, and definitely not clearly wrong, so my QI review was probably too harsh - sorry. I don't have a lot of experience with portraits, and I did get a greater appreciation for how much leeway there is regarding colours while I was fiddling with yours. I'm glad you like my version. Perhaps it would be better uploaded separately, though, so that people can use either version. It's a very nice shot - well done. --Avenue (talk) 07:50, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Avenue - the wide disparity in professional photographer's shots of the exact same person used to drive me a little nuts, because I couldn't always remember their exact skin/hair color from when I was there with them. I had that problem also with my Category:Julia Roberts - the other photos from the same event have her hair orange, auburn, red or brown, and I wanted to get it right since her hair is a trademark. Sigh. People who are fair-skinned are particularly problematic, because apparently the industry standard is to make everyone seem peachy, flush and tan, which isn't accurate and seems a little "POV" to me. I decided to rely on my own memory. I have more Breslins - I'll upload some more pale ones in time. Thanks for taking the time to work on this one. --David Shankbone (talk) 17:41, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome - it's a pleasure working with good material. I take your point about the industry standard being somewhat POV. I hope I didn't make the photo inaccurate; I did at least try not to make her look too tanned. Look forward to seeing more of your work in due course, Avenue (talk) 13:55, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Two sailboats on the main Takapuna boat ramp.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good quality. --Raghith 18:00, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Cricketer bowled.jpg

Thanks for your comments at QIP regarding this image: I've rotated the image as requested, but am none too confident about removing the clutter in the background. If you want to have a stab at this yourself though, feel free! Harrias (talk) 17:22, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I've tried to remove it. Hopefully we'll see what another reviewer thinks soon. --Avenue (talk) 09:53, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

re

Thank you, I see. Sorry for the mistake. I can delete one vote now? --Johnlong (talk) 17:45, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the rule is about deleting votes after voting closed. I imagine it can't hurt to delete one, anyway. --Avenue (talk) 18:14, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

User:JamesTaylorRichardson

why it the user not valid for a POTY 2010 voting here: Commons:Picture_of_the_Year/2010/Final/File:Wismut_Kristall_und_1cm3_Wuerfel.jpg? He hat more then 200 edits on the englisch Wikipedia: [4] --Alchemist-hp (talk) 19:26, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Alchemist-hp, he only had 196 en wiki edits at the end of 2010,[5] so he didn't quite qualify, sorry. --Avenue (talk) 23:57, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Cornischong

and here similar: [[6]] ? --Alchemist-hp (talk) 19:35, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

This case is a bit different. Cornischong's de wiki account is not attached to the Commons account of the same name via SUL (i.e. there is no global account for this username).[7] Either of Cornischong@dewiki or Cornischong@enwiki[8] would have had enough votes qualify to vote in POTY2010, if only they had added a link to the Commons user page from their user page on one of these wikis. (This exception to the SUL requirement is not mentioned at Commons:Picture of the Year/2010/Eligibility, but the procedure has been explained on the discussion page.) There is no such link at either user page,[9][10] however, so they were not eligible to vote. --Avenue (talk) 00:33, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Multi-voters

Could you check the votes on the image that got disqualified. Some folks are suggesting we should list it along with the others based on how many votes it had when it got DQed, an issue about which I have no opinion. However, everyone agrees that the votes should be checked if we're going to do that. Thanks.--Chaser (talk) 15:22, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I've responded at Commons_talk:Picture_of_the_Year/2010#Done_-_results. --Avenue (talk) 16:42, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Commons POTY

Top ten are unchanged, and the range is such that even if the number of votes changes, their ranking is unlikely to (minimum four between each one). I think we have enough to post. I will mock up the top ten and the category tops like last years and then once you approve, I think we should post it. No one else has been working on this lately.--Chaser (talk) 02:52, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, I did a mock-up of what we should put in the 2010 section of the main POTY page: Commons:Picture of the Year/2010/Front --> Commons:Picture of the Year#2010. If you're happy with it, it's straight copy-paste. I can't figure out how they did the rest of this last year.--Chaser (talk) 03:37, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I think the mock-up looks good. (I made one minor correction.) I still have concerns about the consistency of vote checking for non-SUL accounts, outlined Commons talk:Picture of the Year/2010/Results/Final/Checking. But these shouldn't affect the order of the top three anyway. --Avenue (talk) 16:55, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for checking. Can we close the competition? Please see [[Commons talk:Picture of the Year/2010/Preparation#The Final results|here]].--miya (talk) 00:40, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know about that discussion. Sorry I didn't see this until now. --Avenue (talk) 16:07, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the Kilauea photo edit!

Looks much better now. For completeness, would you consider adding {{Cc0}} to the page to release your touchup into the public domain? Thanks again! Hike395 (talk) 03:01, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome! I've now added the cc0 license. I doubt the retouching is creative enough to attract a copyright in the US, but maybe it would in other jurisdictions, so it's good to be clear. --Avenue (talk) 13:02, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Hone Harawira - cropped.jpg

File:Hone Harawira - cropped.jpg 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 file, 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, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. 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!

Martin H. (talk) 14:18, 28 December 2011 (UTC)