User talk:Ianare/Archives/2011
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Quality Image Promotion
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Chateau de Trigance.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.
|
Gorges du Verdon, panorama
Salut.
J'ai un peu modifié ton image, mais je suis revenu à ton original après mes modifications. Thoughts about ?
Si ça te convient, tu peux naturellement l'utiliser comme si c'était la tienne, je n'ai fait que "jouer" avec des masques et des niveaux.
J'ai fait ça très vite, on peut sûrement faire mieux.
Cordialement
--Jebulon (talk) 09:35, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion
.jpg) |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Stone house in Prapic (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.
|
Quality Image Promotion
.jpg) |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Stone house in Prapic (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.
|
Custom licensing question
I happened to look at your User:Ianare/permission - is this really what you want to say? You say "noncommercial uses aren't required to follow the Share Alike requirement". The Share Alike requirement is that modified images have to have the same license. But doesn't that mean that, if I wanted, I could crop one of your images, or put a frame around it, upload it right back here under a totally free license/public domain, and there would be no violation of the license? I'm not intending that, but I don't want you to have any disappointments... Wnt (talk) 03:17, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Tip: Categorizing images
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) 10:53, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
- Image:Shiphol Airport - tulips and bus.jpg was uncategorized on 18 June 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 10:53, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
- Image:Downtown Amsterdam at night.jpg was uncategorized on 18 June 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 10:53, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
- Image:SVG radial test.svg was uncategorized on 24 August 2011 CategorizationBot (talk) 11:47, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Amsterdam snack wagon.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.
|
Quality Image Promotion
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Amsterdam roadworks.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.
|
Quality Image Promotion
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Flint & brick detail.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.
|
Quality Image Promotion
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Graffiti and Honda CM125 Rue Vian Marseille .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.
|
Quality Image Promotion
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Graffiti Rue Des 3 Rois Marseille.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.
|
Quality Image Promotion
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Anti-establishment Grafitti, Marseille.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.
|
Quality Image Promotion
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! La Prudence de Joseph Marius Ramus.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.
|
Review of File:Wave on a rock in Biarritz.jpg
Hi, I do not understand your review on File:Wave on a rock in Biarritz.jpg: "Nice photo, but no reason to desaturate for Wikipedia." Maybe I'm wrong but here is what I think:
- The picture was taken with monochrome settings.
- Commons purpose is not only for Wikipedia.
I'd just like to understand what you meant in the review, so I can improve next time. PierreSelim (talk) 09:08, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- Whether it was taken in monochrome mode or desaturated in post processing is essentially the same thing : removal of colors by software. A CCD sensor always captures colors, in monochrome mode the on board camera software removes the color information before saving the file.
- Unless you are using a B&W film camera and scanning the developed prints, it's better to capture colors and remove them later in software.
- The reason I declined your photo is that by removing the color information you are making the image less valuable : one can always modify the image to remove the colors, but it is impossible to add them once removed. If you think the image looks better in monochrome, then you can upload a desaturated alternate version.
- It really is a nice image though, and is probably more artistically interesting and emotional in B&W than in color. But Wikimedia has a mainly educational or journalistic focus. The very best pictures on here (featured pictures) are the ones that realistically represent an interesting subject in an artistic fashion. As far as quality is concerned, I would promote a color version of this image, as it meets all the other QI criteria.
- ianaré (talk) 19:28, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for the explanations, by the way I still have the RAW, so I will try to upload the picture with the colors. Have a nice day. PierreSelim (talk) 09:35, 1 September 2011 (UTC)