You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold when contributing and assume good faith when interacting with others. This is a wiki.
The picture of those flowers are in grand army plaza (Manhattan,NYC) in south east of central park. I'm not sure if they still be there.As the picture was for years ago.thanks again for your interest.Simsala111 (talk) 17:39, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Grand Army Plaza is in Brooklyn, not close to Central Park. If you really mean Grand Army Plaza, I suppose the picture was probably taken in Prospect Park, as Prospect Park opens up onto Grand Army Plaza, whereas the Brooklyn Botanic Gardens are nearby but do not border on Grand Army Plaza. Alternatively, you may be confusing Grand Army Plaza with the Plaza Hotel, which is indeed just south of the southeast corner of Central Park. I'm not sure where there's a big rose garden in that area of Central Park, however. Please try your best to resolve this ambiguity. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:50, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Blurred background in FPC images of animals etc.[edit]
Hi - I noticed you opposed my kingbird image because you didn't like blurred background - naturally everyone has their own opinions and you have accepted this on the fruit picture but not opposed it. I just wondered why you had chosen to oppose only my image? Charles (talk) 17:49, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't actually support the fruit picture; I just didn't oppose it, despite my problem with the bokeh. The reason is that the background in the fruit picture, though blurred beyond recognition, was not absolutely completely blurred, and looking at it didn't make me feel physically dizzy. Sorry, nothing personal. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:51, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure it wasn't personal, but an oppose like this can look unfair when the oppose vote is not made using the established FP criteria. There are dozens of FPC I don't like, but that doesn't mean I can just oppose them on a whim. I'm sensitive! Charles (talk) 12:38, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I hold back a lot on opposing pictures I have aesthetic disagreements with, either by not commenting at all on their nominations or by commenting without voting. This produced a disagreeable physical reaction in me. I'm sorry if you think that's not a fair reason to oppose featuring a picture. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:51, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I just wanted to let you know that I have grantedautopatrol rights to your account; the reason for this is that I believe you are sufficiently trustworthy and experienced to have your contributions automatically marked as "reviewed". This has no effect on your editing, it is simply intended to make it easier for users that are monitoring Recent changes or Recent uploads to find unproductive edits amidst the productive ones like yours. In addition, the Flickr upload feature and an increased number of batch-uploads in UploadWizard, uploading of freely licensed MP3 files, overwriting files uploaded by others and an increased limit for page renames per minute are now available to you. Thank you. --Hedwig in Washington(mail?)03:16, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm intrigued that you like the background on this image, saying "what looks almost like a brushily painted background, which partly because of the more or less dark greens and partly due to its texture, is not assertive (as when I complain of an "aggressively blurred background" that may contain a grainy surface)". I agree the soft dark and mono-colour-green background helps the flower stand out but am confused about your description of texture. Perhaps the lack of "grainy surface" is because it has been saved with a low-quality JPG setting that softens any pixel-level noise, which may otherwise be visible in out-of-focus areas or single-colour areas like sky. The image background is really quite posterised. By that I mean it has relatively few colour tones and there are noticeable jumps from one tone to another. This can happen when one takes a JPG (which has only 8-bits per red, green and blue channel) and processes it to alter the brightness levels. It may also be the result of heavy JPG compression. The JPG algorithm works on 8-by-8 pixel squares so when a heavy compression is used, these squares start showing up in the image with noticable borders from one square to another especially in areas that lack fine detail that might hide these artefacts. Another clue to the heavy compression is that the file size is only 518KB whereas I would expect closer to 2MB and often more for an image of this size.
Btw, I assume from your comments you aren't a digital photographer, and this sort of information is useful to you. But let me know if you know it all already. -- Colin (talk) 22:13, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have taken some digital photographs (at least several thousand), but I concentrate on the composition and try to get satisfactory light and, certainly, focus, but don't use expensive equipment or get into professional-level settings, so the most that I would normally fool with would be to toggle between "night", "day" and other such general settings. I guess I like dark, posterized bokeh better than bright, grainy bokeh. I feel like calling attention to a part of a picture that's really out of focus is usually not the right thing to do. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:38, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings, Ikan. Simple question. Can I remove my own FA photo nomination? It seems there is no hope and if this is the inevitable course, I would like to do it myself, if possible. Cheers --Caballero//Historiador☊06:29, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Ikan. There was no instruction about removing any pic or text. It just said to "add" the template. So, the nomination is still there, but with the template, "Withdrawn" on it. But new listing could occupy its space, instead. If deleted, it could be easier to move through the entire candidate list. What do you think? Thanks.--Caballero//Historiador☊07:01, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Good evening Ikan Kekek, Thank you for your FP recommendation of my photo: File:Mountain of Gimillan (1805m.) Colle Tsa Sètse Cogne Valley (Italy). Waterfall above Gimillan partly in fog 03.jpg.
I hope that more people appreciate the picture. Sincerely, Dominicus Bergsma (Famberhorst).--Famberhorst (talk) 18:28, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I thought you'd like to know that I've put up a restoration as an alternative. Sorry for the delay, but as you can imagine, an approximately 54 megapixel image does take some time to do right. Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:24, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Ikan. I would like to thank you for nominating one of my recent Poertschach images as a FP candidate. It was a real surprise to find that photo there. I did not consider a nomination at all. So let`s see, what happens, I wonder. Anyway it is a very friendly gesture of yours and I want to show you my gratefulness. ;=) Kind regards from Carinthia. --Johann Jaritz (talk) 13:05, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you think the picture is an opportunity, you can nominate the picture. Personally, I think it's a beautiful picture.
Thank you for your effort Sincerely,
Dominicus Bergsma --Famberhorst (talk) 15:59, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I got happy when I read your review here. It is a very good way to decline a nomination; to give concrete constructive criticism, and at the same time give appraisal for other contributions and encouragements. I think it is a very helpful approach, collegial, freindly and forthcoming without compromising the FP standards. -- Slaunger (talk) 22:01, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Slaunger. I try to do this kind of thing when I can. I love the great photos that a few regulars contribute, but I also think it's great when more photographers are able to up their level and get featured, as more photographers mean more diversity and more perspectives. For example, it looks like User:Halavar will get his first Featured Photo shortly. He's contributed loads of Quality Images, so moving a step up is great. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:22, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Invitation - Wiki Loves Earth Brasil 2016 - Jury[edit]
Hello, based in the quality and level of your contributions, I would like to invite you to join the WLE Brasil Jury that will be responsible to evaluate the TOP500 pictures and elect the Brazilian winners that will be selected for the international phase of the contest.
Our contest will be running until June 30 and the filtering proccess and winners election will be after that date.
Normally we receive something between 6.000 - 12.000 pictures. We have an special team to filter all the pictures selecting the TOP 500 for the judges final evaluation. We are using the tool created by Wikimedia Ukraine that show all pictures in sequence and each judge can rank the pictures from 0-5 stars (including half star), it's really easy and quick. It will not demand a lot of hours. We will add all judges info and names in our site and future blog posts, including credits on a possible photo exhibition. Rodrigo Padula (talk) 19:04, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
When do you need a yes or no response? I found judging the final round of Commons Picture of the Year very challenging, but that was because I would have liked to pick the top 5, rather than top 3. It did take some time to look through it all, though: I take responsibilities like that seriously, although of course I volunteered to do that. I'm very busy with performances until at least June 15 and could see how things go after that. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:13, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The contest will go unil the end of June, so will be important to announce the complete jury until middle of june, I guess. My idea is to have from 5-10 judges, great part from other countries to have a neutral point of view. I'm inviting people that are participating in the picture evaluation/promotion on commons to have a better result, compatible with the rules and quality recommendations.Best regards. Rodrigo Padula (talk) 12:27, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'm wondering how the tool you describe above works. Does it show all the pictures in sequence at full size or just full-page size? I feel like it's important to look at pictures at both those sizes. All the best, Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:35, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot. I'm looking at the comments of jurors in this photo, and I simply lack that kind of technical expertise on photography, so I think it's really best for me to decline. Definitely ask people who make comments at Commons:Quality images candidates, because they have the technical expertise I lack. So do most of the other people who participate at Commons:Featured picture candidates. I participate as a musician who loves good photographs, dabbles in photography a bit and had a father who was a great painter (my brother is a professional photographer, too, though mostly non-practicing right now). I can tell people what I see, but I miss a lot of things really good photographers can see at a glance, like some of the chromatic aberration, slight tilts, and some types of overprocessing. I also can't advise people on how to correct things, but at best, only on what I see that perhaps they might fix. And I mostly care greatly about the experience of the viewer and photography as a visual art. So I think it's fine for me to be one judge at FPC, but I am unqualified to take on a teaching function. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:20, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's a more exciting photo, but it would have to be offered separately, as it's not an alternate version of the photo you nominated. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:04, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, that's what I was thinking of. I feel a bit bad for the photographer, as I only approached him after the nomination and the FPC discussions can be a bit brutal to discover if it's your photograph. I'll let the current one fizzle out and think about quietly nominating this one later on. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 16:46, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I will consider it at that time. I think it has a better chance of being featured. I don't think he's received brutal criticism, though. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:48, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for the compliment. But I have a "small problem". Meanwhile I have uploded more than 1.100 shells. Many of them could be nominated as FP, but I think, one should not nominate too much, for it will be boaring to the others to see one or two shell nominations every week. So I nominate mainly shell, which are in my opinion outstanding, interesting and/or curious. But often an outside person has a different look on the picture in comparison with the author. So, if I you think, that a shell picture is worth to be nomiated, please do so.
(Concerning especially Helicigona lapicida: There are two subspecies, Helicigona lapicida lapicida and Helicigona lapicida andorrica whose pictures are, I think, are of the same quality. As it is, in addition, not an outstanding, but a "normal" shell (in my opinion), I dindn't nominate it.) --Llez (talk) 07:20, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. I like the Helicigona lapicida andorrica picture better, because it's brighter and prettier, the shells are larger (more zoomed in, I imagine) and to my eyes, also better in focus. I will in all likelihood nominate it pretty soon, when I get around to it. I definitely see your point about not nominating two shell pictures every week, but we don't see them so often, so I think a couple every 3-4 weeks probably won't bore people. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:28, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for the nomination. I never thought that such an "ordinary shell" would have such a success. --Llez (talk) 18:44, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently, the rest of us either didn't consider it ordinary (I didn't) and/or considered the photo to be so good that its ordinariness didn't matter. Either way, I'm very pleased to have nominated the photo. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:47, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your recommendation of my photo file: Image of Saint Christopher in Broekhuizen (Horst aan de Maas) in the province of Limburg in the Netherlands 01.jpg. Hopefully Will there be some more for voters. Sincerely,
Dominicus Bergsma (Famberhorst).--Famberhorst (talk) 14:45, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ikan, I could really use your advice about a pic. The county I live in has the highest density of petroglyphs in Sweden, the ones at the neighboring town Tanum are even on the World Heritage List. The figure that started the whole petroglyph research science in 1627 is a big depiction of a weather god, one of the largest rock carvings of a figure in Sweden. Because of its size and placing, you need a crane or a drone to get a full frontal photo of it, so all of the photos of it so far have severe perspective distortions. I got the idea of using the panorama technique and it worked beautifully. The resulting pic is, no my knowledge, the first photo of it with all the proportions correct. Since it is such a significant carving and this photo shows it in correct proportions, I would love to nominate it for FP. BUT the image is slightly problematic since the good people who made it some 3000 years ago had different values than we have... This is also why it is seldom used as an illustration in schoolbooks and such, where normally the ships and horses are used instead. So what to do... Would people be offended by it, should it be nominated as a "Place" or "Artwork" and so on. Thoughts? w.carter-Talk08:24, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand why this picture wouldn't be used in an elementary school textbook, but I seriously doubt the judges at FPC would take offense to it. The category I'm seeing for this nomination is /Static non-photographic media/Religion. Great photo, and a fascinating subject! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:41, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I appreciate your advice and comment very much since you are more experienced than me in these matters. I always try to be very careful on international sites since you never know what might set people off. I'll get it through QI first and then I'll nominate it. I think it is unusual enough. w.carter-Talk08:58, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the nomination, I really didn't expect to be so much supported. If you have spotted any other photo from those in Serifos (or any other photo) that you think that may stand a fair chase for a FP, please inform me (if this is not considered canvassing). --C messier (talk) 15:23, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'll let you know if I see anything. I'm happy to help spread around the features to more worthy candidates. Your photo is great and deserved the feature. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:17, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I like it a lot. Too bad about the car being cut off, but to me, that incidental thing is no big deal. I'd vote for a feature for this photo. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:57, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's sort of a special QI because it's one I took when I was still using a DP/S. It's very hard to get those to QI ... they can be nicely composed, have detail but they're often very noisy. Daniel Case (talk) 06:41, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. I was happy to nominate that photo. I spent 9 days in Bard College until Monday and edited Wikivoyage articles on Red Hook and some other nearby places, so your photo came up and I felt it looked like a QI. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:54, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I'll do it soon (that was shot with my older DP/S, which had a much greater tendency to distort things like that when you shot from that close to such a large subject. Ideally, at some point, I should get back up there and shoot it again with my D3X, like I did last summer in Albany). Daniel Case (talk) 16:26, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I just did it. I actually taught myself how to do this better in the future by trying (I realized you can use the scale tool to get back things you lose during perspective correction). So thanks for getting me to do that! Daniel Case (talk) 05:30, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Thank you for nominating my picture to FP. I think it will be better to withdraw this nomination. I don't know how to offer the alternative version of the picture. What are rules? Who should to do it, I as an author of the picture or you as a nominator? In day or two I try to upload better version of the picture as a new file. --Kroton (talk) 06:42, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Totally a matter of taste, but I like the first version better. I like the greater brightness and contrast, the greater amount of foliage and the bit of sidewalk as compositional elements. But one of the complaints was about the cars. Do you have the chance to take another picture of this view with different (or no) cars? I think that if there are dark-colored cars parked there, the composition will appeal to more people, but if you have a possibility of getting there at a time when there are no or fewer cars, that would be even better. In terms of the light, I like it but I also think that a slightly brighter day or time of day could work well for this motif. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:29, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hallo Ikan Kekek, Dein Votum für mein Foto einer fahrenden BMW Isetta hat mich irritiert. Ich kann nicht verstehen, wie jemand die Bewegungsunschärfe im Vordergrund und im Hintergrund des Fahrzeugs als gravierenden Mangel werten kann. Aber meinetwegen! Ich habe die Bewerbung zurückgezogen, obwohl ich nach wie vor von der Bildgestaltung überzeugt bin. Gruß -- Spurzem (talk) 19:55, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I'll respond in English, as my German is not advanced. I was not commenting on motion blur. The car is moving and could be blurry. Are you saying that the blur of the grass in the foreground and background was all due to a strong wind? I don't think that would be true. Instead, it looked like you made an artistic choice that I disagreed with, to make everything except for the car bokeh, and the type of blurred foreground/background, being grasses, was blurry in a way that distracted me.
I regret that you found my vote irritating, but as you see, I'm happy to support your nominations when I find them meritorious. This time, I didn't. Next time, I hope I will. But either way, I will respectfully say that I won't make my decisions based on the degree of likelihood of your finding my votes irritating.
Obviously you did never try to take good photos of moving cars. Otherwise you would know that blurry foreground and blurry background let feel the speed. -- Spurzem (talk) 20:14, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've voted in favor of several photos of cars you've submitted that didn't have a distracting kind of blurring. I plead guilty to being more a viewer than a taker of photographs. If you think that people who haven't passed some kind of photography test shouldn't be allowed to vote at FPC, you should propose a new rule on the appropriate talk page. I will oppose, based on the important idea that all arts are judged at least as much by their audiences as by their creators/performers (speaking as a professional musician and composer of music, myself). Meanwhile, my observation is that you always seem to take great personal offense any time anyone opposes any of your photos for any reason, but I'm not sure I remember you thanking me for supporting any of your photos, including the time when I argued pointedly and effectively that excellent photos of cars in similar motifs should be featured, regardless of how many of them there are. But as I said, I will not be influenced to either support or oppose any photo of yours based on your attitude. Have a nice day, and next time, consider not contacting me to express irritation over a clearly explained vote, simply because you disagree with it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:26, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Je te remercie de cette agréable initiative. Je ne viens plus en QI depuis des années. J’ai été effrayé de la quantité de photographies qui arrivent dans COMMONS et de la difficulté de pérenniser notre travail. C’est pour cela que je me consacre entièrement au label VI qui est le plus à même de donner du sens à notre travail.
Thank you for this nice initiative. I do not come in IQ for years. I was scared of the amount of photographs that arrive in COMMONS and the difficulty of perpetuating our work. That is why I fully devote myself to the VI label that is most likely to give meaning to our work. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:38, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
De rien. J'aime beaucoup ce foto et j'ai la pensee de le nominer pour FP eventuellement.
Merci beaucoup pour cette suggestion, mais je trouve que l'image en taille maximum est de trop mauvaise qualité, avec beaucoup de flou et d'aberration chromatique. Si tu veux la proposer toi-même, surtout n'hésite pas !--Jebulon (talk) 08:34, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for this suggestion, but I think that this image is of too bad quality at full size, unsharp and full of CA. But if you want to nominate it by yourself, please don't hesitate !--Jebulon (talk) 08:34, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I much prefer reading your reviews than some "!like" support vote with no qualification. I do wonder sometimes though if you are trying too hard to persuade yourself/others of the qualities of an image. Like you are spending more time thinking about the image than the photographer did when they took it. I mean, if you want to create a timeless photo of the charms of Venice bridges and canals, then you can wait a minute for the guy in the big pink and black stripy top to get out of the frame. Perhaps think not just about what interested you in the photo but also about what flaws other people might object to. Is the lighting dull or flat? Could the composition be improved by a crop? Are areas not just bright or dark but actually blown-white or crushed/black (and is that important for that image). Am I judging the photo or the scenery? I had a quick look through your "possible nominations" page. Apart from the shells (which don't really interest me -- they seem to get promoted if sharp enough) I only went wow at the two of Arild's photos that had impressive skies. The Egyptian goose in particular is a classic QI. Photographing tame water birds at a park pond is not exactly going to make anyone's heart race, especially when the concrete edge of the pond is visible. It's not sharp either, so might not even make QI depending on the reviewer.
The vote you did recently for a stained-glass-window, comparing our FPs with the many many thousands of good quality windows and this subject, was encouraging. Whereas the Basque mountain horse not so (though you didn't actually support, I suspect you might have if others had't opposed). Did you compare that to our other horse or animal FPs and QIs to see if it was exceptional? Because that's what I think FP should be aiming for -- exceptionally good photos. Not just nice or ok. Not just a pretty scene (for which the credit belongs to others) but an excellent image for which we can clearly see the work/talent of the photographer shining through. -- Colin (talk) 12:17, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Colin, I appreciate your post and the time you took to post it. I actually do try to think of what people are likely to object to, but I often don't notice or think about some things that end up bothering FPC voters. My list of possible nominations is pruned and added to from time to time as I consider whether I really consider something a FP. Anyway, I'll definitely try to think more about photos in comparison to others that are already FPs in the same or similar categories.
I'd like a little more explanation of what you mean by this, though: "Not just a pretty scene (for which the credit belongs to others) but an excellent image for which we can clearly see the work/talent of the photographer shining through." In particular, what do you mean by a pretty scene for which the credit belongs to others? Could you give an example or two that might help me understand? Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:28, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I mean that a great photograph not only requires a great subject but also for the photographer to contribute, either with their strong technical ability or by artistic and creative acts. It isn't enough to stand in front of something interesting/pretty/attractive/impressive and just press the shutter. A great church interior, like Paisley Abbey can be captured like this or like this. I'm particularly proud of that image because the technical achievement was possible through the help and advice of people on Commons like David Illif (as well, as getting his hand-me-down panoramic head), but also because I think it succeeds in capturing the majesty of the building, credit for which goes to those who designed and built it. I had to choose exactly where to stand, what bracketed exposure levels were needed to capture the dynamic range, what depth-of-field was required, where to focus, what extent of the field-of-view I would capture and finally crop, how to adjust the lighting in Lightroom, what sharpening and noise reduction to apply, and what final size was reasonable at 100%. It isn't a snapshot. Similarly, Jee's butterflies and moths are amazing subjects, and the credit for those belongs to God, or whatever you believe in. He has some good kit, which certainly is required, but to capture these requires field skills in approaching the insects, carefully aligning the camera with the wings so they are all in focus, choosing the camera settings appropriately, and processing them to ensure a sharp subject but controlling noise. And we don't get to see the many many rejects that are common in macro photography.
Sometimes the subject isn't inherently great but careful framing and lighting can produce a good image. This photo of a window painter is imo a good composition (odd numbers, like three, work well) and carefully arranged in the frame. This photo of my camera makes use of low-key lighting for product photography, and this photo of my iron has high-key lighting in product photography. The requirement here for me is to create an image of an ordinary subject and make it visually appealing. I didn't want to just create an image suitable to sell the item on ebay. The camera photo was used for the cover photo of the bestselling book on the camera, so I think it succeeded. These images required learning about lighting, constructing a set and appropriate lights (a home-made softbox for the camera), and practising with photos till it worked.
Of course sometimes one can get lucky by being in the right place at the right time with the right equipment to capture a great image. But equally one can try one's best and still end up with an image that people find small faults in and oppose.
The Myanmar lake photo (which you've changed your mind on) reminds me a bit of some great travel photos I've seen (including some in photography books I own) but it isn't itself a great photo. Similarly the Pismo Beach photo reminds me of Saffron's much better Clevedon Pier photo. I just wonder if sometimes you are seeing an echo of a greater work, or the potential for a great work, and following through with that into your support rationale, rather than critically stopping and assessing that actually this isn't a great work.
Of course, we are all inconsistent with our reviews, and all different in our tastes and appreciations. Perhaps I am reading something into your reviews, and many people don't even both to explain their support. -- Colin (talk) 21:41, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I really appreciate all the explanations and examples you've given me. Undoubtedly, I sometimes like photos because they remind me of great paintings or other great photos, so you're not wrong on that, and I don't think it's wrong for me to react that way, but I take all your points. I will think about all of this. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:53, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ikan, thank you for promoting my image. May you add your signature to the promotion? I think QICbot will have a problem, if there is no timestamp ;-) Thanks! --Ajepbah (talk) 17:27, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I was thinking exactly along the same lines and that's why I nominated it. It's not a "wow" photo but a "think" photo, just didn't want to influence the nom by writing anything about that. I wanted to see if other people saw the same thing in the photo. A strong photo usually speaks for itself. cart-Talk10:39, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Of course people will object, mostly about tech things, and some will fail to see the emotional/poetical side of it, but I find the photo strong enough to give it a try. "Outside the box" as usual... ;) cart-Talk10:44, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO your perspective of FP and what the program started as 7 years ago when I first started contributing are not the same. I think I would rather not participate in the FP with your negative comments similar toned comments appearing within seconds of my posting anything. Have fun, your comment have me flying out of that section. --WPPilot (talk) 09:01, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry you're taking things personally. Nothing whatsoever personal on my side. Did you contribute featured pictures years ago? I'd like to see them. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:08, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you care to look at my profile go right ahead, IMHO your rude comments would drive anyone away from that section of the project. I am done with FP & you. --WPPilot (talk) 09:19, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
All I can say is I'm sorry you feel that way, but I'm not going to lower my standards for fear of upsetting someone's feelings, nor do I think others should. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:21, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Being condescending on every contribution keeps any others from even commenting and or participating. You go ahead and dominate the section, I work with real cameras and don't have time to waste with people that have no manners. --WPPilot (talk) 09:27, 22 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]
In over 7 years my photos have won 10 FP's on the EN site. Treating me like a second grader every time you post is ahh well offending. You want to do something productive, go ahead and nominate one of MY photos, I have contributed close to 1500 with almost 300 Aerial photos that litter the project around the world. Nominate one of MY photos (and share with us why you feel its worthy under your overly critical standards) and I might reconsider. --WPPilot (talk) 09:31, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[Edit conflict] I am sorry I offended you. But if your objection is to what I say and not how I vote (which I won't change for fear of upsetting someone), why don't you suggest a form of words that would express my viewpoint equally clearly but be less likely to offend? I'll listen if you give me some specific recommendations. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:36, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also, sorry, but I don't think I have an obligation to nominate your photos, though I wouldn't shrink from doing so if I saw one I considered really wowing for COM:FPC. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:36, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for not explaining anything. I am upset to have provoked this kind of reaction, but you just say I'm being condescending, treating you like a 2nd grader, etc., and refuse my request for a form of words that would express my opinion just as clearly without offending you. I don't know who you think that would help. Good night. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:45, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your invited to send me a e mail if you care to continue this conversation. It was not intended to upset you. My e mail is available on the front of my user page. Thank you. --WPPilot (talk) 09:56, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather not email. I know you were upset and I didn't think you meant to upset me. Instead, the way I read you is that perhaps you thought I didn't give a damn if anyone was upset, but it's not like that. I vote the way I do without considering whether my vote might upset someone, and my words, whether supporting or opposing, are meant to be clear but not gratuitously mean. Anyway, have a good night/day/whatever. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:02, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ikan, I think the thing that was rude about your review was suggesting he was so incompetent that he needed to go through the kindergarten of QI in order to get a feel for the appropriate quality standard at FP. Few of the established FP nominators use QI for images they feel are FP. I think before saying such, you really really need to check they are a newbie. And for established nominators sometimes it is polite to say "Sorry, but I don't think this is one of your best..." or to start with some positives, in order to soften the blow. I know I'm far from good at that myself. But you also learn what nominators have thick skin, which are your friends (and so you can get away with more bluntness in a friendly way) and which you need to treat with kid gloves. As I said, I'm not perfect in this. But remember you are often the first reviewer for every image so it could be seen that you "dominate the section" as noted above. Perhaps sometimes worth waiting a little while -- sometimes your reviews say you are undecided and want to see what others thing.. well why don't you just sit on your hands then rather than rush to post your unfinished thoughts? Sometimes I look at images at lunchtime and then return to them in the evening. And while I know you were both angry in the conversation above, advice I always try to follow is: an apology does not contain the word "but". -- Colin (talk) 10:05, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WPPilot, Ikan is a valued reviewer at FPC because so many are unwilling to post criticism and the FPC process only works if there are negative votes. A system of only positive support would not work with out 7 support threshold. At Photo Challenge I created an environment where only positive support was given, precisely because the harsh opposes at FPC can feel like a slap in the face, and I wanted PC to be especially welcoming to newbies. Ikan doesn't upload here, so doesn't know what that feels like and I know your pain. But you've been here long enough to know that FPC needs a thick skin and you just have to accept every nomination is a bit of a gamble and not everyone will pick up on what you love about an image. I do think Commons would be better if it adopted an approach where the nominator explained why they think this image should be featured, as sometimes it isn't immediately apparent what is special or challenging. I hope you can accept Ikan was a bit clumsy with his wording here, but he had no ill intent and was trying to be helpful even if it all came out wrong. I hope to see you both at FPC. -- Colin (talk) 10:05, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Colin thank you for taking the time to chime in and I too agree that perhaps having a section that allows something to be offered by the creator in regard to its nomination. Most issues that evolve here are based on a lack of communication and I think that perhaps this could be another part of it. You are correct in that every post I have offered was in fact first "tagged" for lack of a better phrase by Ikan, and I was directed to read up on what a FP is. I know that you Colin are well aware of my years of contributions here, and FP on commons just was not one of the areas that I had worked in or contributed to, but, after a series of nomination were "blackballed" by Ikan here the thickness of my skin seemed to thin rather quickly when the remarks were designed in a manner that IMHO dissuaded others from even commenting, much less voting. That is as you mention, dominating a section. I would like to participate still so thank you for bringing it up... I forgive Ikan... --WPPilot (talk) 10:20, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(Edit conflict) I too noticed this discussion and the quick withdrawal of two nominations by WPPilot. I agree mostly with Colin here. I too think what provoked him is he got oppose votes from Ikan for most of his nominations recently. And most of the time as a first vote. The first voter may influance other casual voters; but not the experienced one. So I suggest WPPilot to wait and see for more votes. See; I too get harsh votes once in a while (" too distracting to come anywhere near the high bar we've set for flower pictures"). But the same user had appreciated many of my noms. What we need to understand from this is the reviewer is reviewing/harsh reviewing the work; not us. Since FPC is the top layer of the "reviewed pictures" section(FP/QI/VI), it can be very harsh. Take it light and enjoy participating! Jee10:33, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WPPilot, I also apologize because I am still relatively new at FPC, so I didn't know your history from memory, and I didn't do due diligence in checking. Thanks for your time and advice, Colin. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:24, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Both, I'm glad things have improved here. FWIW, I hadn't noticed previous recent nominations by WPPilot, I assumed this was your first for a while and that you and Ikan hadn't met at FPC yet. Ikan, having looked again at the nomination, I think also the initial sentence is a problem with the " and that's without addressing compositional issues". It sort of hints at it being so irredeemably bad that you can't bring yourself to list more faults. So perhaps you could amend things by keeping only the first two clauses of your review, and delete the rest -- doing so doesn't change your oppose reasons. WPPilot quite a few nominators do add their own opinions on the image when nominating and there is still time for you to do so here (though please stick to opinions on the image, not on Ikan!!). It is a little soft at 100% perhaps due to f/11 on a crop camera, and as you know, for good or bad, PFC is quite fussy about sharpness at 100%. But you might encourage some supports if you explain yourself also why you support. -- Colin (talk) 10:37, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ikan Kekek, you're now a filemover. When moving files please respect the following advice:
Use the CommonsDelinker link in the {{Rename}} template to order a bot to replace all ocurrences of the old title with the new one. Or, if there was no rename-request, please use the Move & Replace-tab.
Please leave a redirect behind unless you have a valid reason not to do so. Other projects, including those using InstantCommons, might be using the file even though they don't show up in the global usage. Deleting the redirects would break their file references. Please see this section of the file rename guideline for more information.
Ikan Kekek, I first want to again let you know I have no hard feelings whatsoever with our interactions, I accept your apology and extend mine in return.. My friends call me Don, I ask that you do the same :).
Misunderstandings here are a part of the site that you learn to deal with and I am glad that some of the others assisted in helping you understand my frustrations, sorry I was not more concise right off the top. I accept your apology and would like to see if you are perhaps willing to assist in a objective that I have. I am thankful to Colin Jee and W.carter for there understanding & chiming in on this....
I have been for the last 2 years deep in a number of projects (Film) but I hope you have had a moment to review my 1400+ contributions. It is clear that many people enjoy your commentary and the "FP group" has respect for your contributions and as such I extend the same courtesy to you. I would like to rephrase my rather frustrated "request" above and see if perhaps I can enlist your help.
I do not really do much in contributing to the QP as many others have done it for me over the 7 years I have been submitting content. I now have 2 FP's in Commons and need a total of 10 to list myself in the Photographers of Wikicommons directory, something that I think I am clearly worthy of, and perhaps you might be willing to assist.
It can be tough at any given time to know what the current FP req's are. For me it is even tougher to pick my own work. You seem to be right on top of it so, if you would be willing to take the time to suggest the shots I have provided that you think are worthy of submission, I would really appreciate it. Cheers, Don a.k.a. --WPPilot (talk) 23:02, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Don. I'll be happy to look through some of your work in the coming weeks and see if I find photos that look like likely FPs to me. As I don't submit any of my own photos (my profession is music, and my photos are nowhere near good enough for FP), I submit only other people's work at FPC, and sometimes QIC.
Ikan, first thank you for your offer to review my work. Many of them are "by products of my hobbies/job and the others are in fact production stills so as you will notice, I get around. I seem to be having issues delisting the control tower photo as well as the other photos that were listed and would rather stick to the two aerial pics but as I discovered we have a limit of 2 at a time. Opps. Can you help me delist the others so that the 2 Aerial shots of Laguna can run? Thank you, --WPPilot (talk) 04:54, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. The way you withdraw a nomination is explained in the introductory section of FPC, but unless you know where to look, it can be hard to find:
Nominators and authors can withdraw their nominated pictures at any time. This is done by adding the following template: {{Withdraw}} ~~~~
But since it's your nomination of your own work, you need to post that template; others can't do it for you.
I like the control tower pic and like the idea of it being submitted to VIC.
The Teamwork Barnstar is awarded when several editors work together. Cheers you to both you and Jee and Colin for both understanding my just frustrations, but more off taking the time to understand and defuse the situation , thank you very much for your continued support. --WPPilot (talk) 05:07, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification. In German you have the term "ein bewegendes Foto" with the exact meaning that you had in mind. It is indeed a "bewegendes Foto". --Tuxyso (talk) 07:42, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reviews at QIC! :) Your extra pair of eyes is much appreciated since the number of photos sometimes exceeds the number of reviewers. Also nice that you like this place. It's my favorite hangout and I spend many evenings on that bench unwinding after work, watching the sun set on the other side of the fjord. Not surprisingly, I've taken a lot of photos there. cart-Talk11:48, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's definitely a very nice place. Very good photo, too. And you're welcome. I figured that I trawl QIC for possible FP candidates, anyway, so why not review photos when I'm reasonably confident there is nothing I'm missing that's better left to a good photographer with a better eye for chromatic aberration, slight tilt and the like to review. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:55, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I second that, sorry we got off on a momentary wrong foot Ikan and glad that we are now on the same page, so to speak & thank you to the both of you for your support of my current nominations, I will try to be more selective moving forward. Would you two mind giving me feedback on this shot: Racing Yacht TNT - shot with Panasonic Lumix After a lifetime shooting stills with Nikon, I went ahead and bought a MFT camera (P GH 4) and while it was originally to give my Drones lenses something to do and it turns out that the images are quite nice.User:W.carter & I see you shoot with the Panasonic Lumix too. As our production cameras are Canon and my Still cameras have been Nikon, this is new ground for me, do you have any advice for a new Panasonic Lumix user? While the Lumix does not have quite the sensor size of my full frame Nikon, I am impressed with the photo quality sharp and crisp...WPPilot (talk) 22:29, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's a nice pic. Whether people would be wowed if it were nominated for FP is another matter; I'm guessing not, but I can't read people's minds that well. :-) Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:40, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@WPPilot: Hi! It's a very nice shot, but I don't think it stand a chance at FPC, people are extremely picky about boat pics for some strange reason, I tried this one which I thought had a good mood and a bit of action but it got turned down immediately. Judging by my experience, I don't think people at Commons (or Wikipedia) are used to boats and ships so it has to be something rather spectacular to be appreciated.
Re tips for the Lumix. It's strength is the Leica lens so you can get marvelous detail from it, check this out. The settings are a bit limited so I prefer the Aperture setting. When you shoot mid ranged objects, be sure to work with the range of different focus options, those are great and easy to switch between! When shooting at close range, the auto focus is out and you should use the manual focus. It is damned easy to use because of the blue fringe you get at the focus point in the viewer and you can go much closer than you think. I sucks a bit in dark places since you can't go above 1 sek with it in the settings (as I discovered here). At first I thought the "flippable" view screen was just a fancy gadget, but boy has that little gadget grown on me, allowing me to go for impossible angles. It takes a while to learn all the different buttons and settings, but overall I love it more the more I use it. Also because you hardly have to do any postprocessing like denoising or removing CA thanks to the lens (which is why I bought it in the first place). Cheers, cart-Talk23:09, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Raindrops on white cedar
@WPPilot: and Ikan, this is proof of why I love my new camera. I was testing the camera's settings by taking shots out the window during a sunlit light rain, when I saw this little opening in my neighbor's hedge. This looks like I'm just shoving the lens between two bushes, but I'm actually standing about 50 feet (!) away and I'm getting this detail. :) cart-Talk23:45, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wow is right that is really nice, I have to agree that Leica glass, next to Zeiss both are top of the line. I have the 4 prime MFT Panasonic/Leica lenses and a wonderful 35 to 100 F 2.8 Panasonic/Leica that I have yet to even use yet. I never really considered the pic above for a FP, I had just noticed that you also shoot with the Lumix and that was about the 4th pic I took with that new camera body. I bought it for its 4k but its size grows on you quickly... Thanks for the feedback. --WPPilot (talk) 07:35, 27 October 2016 (UTC)-[reply]
Wrt boat pics and picky reviews and what people are used to. I hadn't noticed a trend about boat pics but have noticed that portrait FPC are picky and that very very few people at Commons actually take such pictures. So perhaps, like boats and aerial shots, there's an ignorance of the challenges and lack of appreciation of the achievements. Images from external sources (rather than Commoners) can also get more criticism and it is awkward about how to fix the minor issues with them as the author isn't available to reprocess their raw file. But the culture at FP can change and (all three of you) can help shift it if you persevere. -- Colin (talk) 07:39, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Colin: Thanks for the comment, I totally agree with you. The lack of sailors and people actually being on boats, here and on Wikipedia, rather than just reading and writing about them in historical contexts was something I discovered as soon as I came to these sites. You bet I'm doing my darnedest to add what I know and can do. I think you've noticed that I try do do the same by photographing other things that are scarce on the site. ;)
@Ikan Kekek: Thanks for not yelling at us for using your page for this discussion. I have noticed a similar phenomenon on en-wiki when constructive discussions tend to take place in a friendly, informal environment on some benevolent user's talk page. :) cart-Talk09:03, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
First thanks Ikan. In regard to sailing, it is in my blood. My grandfather sailed to the USA, as a young man and never returned home to Sweden living on a crab fishing boat in Eureka California to his last day of his life. Sailing and the ocean are a big part of my life. I have sailed since the age of 6, so in the local area I get to sail on some top notch yachts due to my experience level. I have contributed a large number of file sailing photos to the site. If anyone care to select one or two I will put them in the FP cue and we will see if we can get some swabies on deck and support the nomination. Ikan, I repect your willingness to find the flaws and invite you to again select some of these wonderful sailing shots and lets see if we can convince the "jury" that these are worthy. I took this just a few days ago: Classic Sailing Yacht in Newport Harbor bit I would rather have your collective input before we nominate anything. Thanks everyone! I really appreciate the Aerial photo support but would LOVE to see more of my Natical photos, gain FP, that would be really nice. I too agree that like at EN we should starting providing the story/background and details about the pic, with the nomination. We can simply update the template and note the new change, but we should also post in on the programs page in a banner that details what were doing, and why.. --WPPilot (talk) 10:32, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@WPPilot: So we have the Swedish sea roots in common, who'da thought. I was part-time raised on a boat so I got my first skipper's licence when I was 15. (and I've lived in San Diego, a lifetime ago...) It's a small world. cart-Talk10:53, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WPPilot, that's a nice boat photo, but my gut feeling is that people would find it lacking in "wow" if it were nominated. The other thing I want to mention is that there are a whole bunch of really spectacular photos I want to nominate. I keep a list of User:Ikan Kekek/Possible nominations. Some of these end up getting pruned by me in the long run and are never nominated, but you can see links to some pretty amazing photos by Poco a poco, AWeith, Jkadavoor and some other folks there. I will nominate your reflection picture that I like, but with 2 possible concurrent nominations, I'm likely to mostly stick to photos that have really wowed me, which are particularly in the second half of my list. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:50, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it is just a photo of a "60 year old wood racing yacht" but the framing with the tree's of CDM and the outline of the local business area make it interesting needless to say. As User:W.carter can confirm, there are not a lot of 60 year old yachts that float still, much less race! I need to organize my shots. Our filming season is about over and I have time from now till early next year so that might be one of my projects. Looks like both the Aerials I did on either coast of the US are going to make FP, that is really cool and I too have some that I would like to nominate, but if you would do the reflection one that would be grand. Thank you very much.--WPPilot (talk) 20:04, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WPPilot, I would love to be able to help you, but right now Colin seems to be tracing all my edits/comments to point out all the things I say or do wrong, so I'm sorry but I'm in no mood for more of that right now. I'll also be away for the weekend with only my tablet so I can't assess pictures the way I usually do. Cheers, cart-Talk21:26, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your comment here. Yep, the discussion is not so intense at the moment at FPC since many, many of the regulars there are acting as judges in the WLM competition right now. I for one have, along with some other FPC folks, just sifted through hundreds of photos of the Bangladesh cultural heritage. The voting is in it's final stages right now so most will resume their normal activities here soon. cart-Talk10:23, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments on the image of skipjack Sigsbee. The dust spotting is an increasing problem because I use the camera for work on construction sites that are by their nature dusty. It needs a holiday at the Canon service center for a cleaning. On the FP prospects for the picture, I think it's a pretty good picture but not quite FP. The shoreline in the background is distracting and I don't think the image has quite the visual pop that I'd like to see. I've been meaning to go through some of my other QIs and evaluate for FP, but haven't had the time to do so. If you see something on my userpage (I have all my QIs there) that you like, please let me know and I'll give it a shot. I tend go for QIs that have more than purely technical merit in any case. Acroterion (talk) 17:14, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank's for the support, but I do have to say that I like Hearts idea, that would remove the oversaturation in the blinds and give balance to the color. Just so happens that I have a set of Panavision Tiffen Schneider 4x5.65 filters. These are more commonly used for industrial cameras and film production but I have been wanting a reason to try them out so I might try to reshoot it, weather permitting one morning this week. If I recall that was shot on the guard rail by hand. Moments later we rolled video cameras and this is the result: "from :02 to :20 here" turned out quite nice if I do say so, myself :) Cheers Ikan. --WPPilot (talk) 04:40, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Really good film! Why don't you nominate that? One erratum: "a equation" should be "an equation". But I found the film engrossing from beginning to end and really liked the cinematography and editing. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:59, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nice of you to say thank you very much. It not done, just a WIP or work in progress. Cinematography and editing as you might have noticed, I have down to the art required in this industry today. I will fix the "erratum" in the next edit, thanks it will include this footage as well, to fill some gaps in continuity that, perhaps only I see.... :) Here is a nice production that you are sure to enjoy, can not talk about it publicly but I have a busy 2017 in the works. Thank you again for the compliment and where would I nominate it, if I could ask?? It is not on commons and I have no desire to assign CC to it. I might have mentioned before, my stills are for the most part - a byproduct of my productions. A nice soda and perhaps some popcorn are in order now?. Your welcome to buzz throught this public profile on that account I bet it find the time worth the investment, time for a shoe shine too perhaps? :) ... --WPPilot (talk) 07:03, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have a look at all your links; thank you. :-) Yeah, doesn't sound like you would want to upload these to Commons and nominate them. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:29, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Tell ya what, find us some cool PD music that has a nice beat and tempo & I will make a video and produce it for commons under cc 4 just for drill and in the hopes that I can get more of the millions of drone users to contribute here. Don't forget the popcorn.. --WPPilot (talk) 07:37, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So I updated that first video, added the cuts I wanted and knowing I am unable to accept anything other then perfect, I am sure I will make another pass at some point. LMK your thoughts & check out the ending. --WPPilot (talk) 21:06, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So I think you might enjoy this, I added the just released Nikon KeyMission 360 camera to my kit and it does some rather cool shots. While I did learn that no place is safe from this lens, the camera has to be mounted to a pole/tripod to work as my arm in the left side clearly demonstrates, it does a wonderful job:
360 degree shot using the new Nikon 360 camera from the boat in Newport Harbor
and I am looking forward to seeing what it can really do the more I learn to work with it. I was shocked a moment ago to see the limited amount of Data the its ECIF creates, but you have to take what you can get, right.. LMK your thoughts, I know both Chris W and David I have done some shots that were done with a pano head, this is IMHO a worthy tool to have in your bag of tricks.... Have a great day, Cheers! --WPPilot (talk) 15:58, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The picture in taken begin november. Daylight but many clouds. I was interested for the green color of the water. (sorry, i reed and understand english, but write it not good).
Look – this nomination perfectly illustrates what I feel about FPC. This is most certainly not one of the best images on Commons, it’s barely mediocre – WB off, bad lighting, background overexposed, poor detail. Only explanation for the photographer to keep it at all is a personal remembrance linked to it, IMHO. As an image, I’d have tossed this into the bin on first sight; on FPC it deserves nothing but a kick in the butt. However, first vote is a support with "I like it". Second vote is a (correct but not comprehensive) comment without verdict. Have this voters understood that FPC is not about "do I like it" but "do I consider this to be one of the very best images on Commons"? This is not image assessment, this is purely kindergarten, sorry. --Kreuzschnabel09:42, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I wish you would make that argument (though maybe without the reference to kindergarten) in the response thread. I couldn't figure out why it was nominated and hadn't yet formulated a response. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:45, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your answer to my unqualified rant :-) I have made that argument over and over again on candidates that were as hopeless as this one in my opinion. No effect, and some of them got featured on votings who seemed to mistake FPC for kind of Commons Facebook. You see why I don’t really feel good to be the bad guy any time? I do believe in democracy, and as the majority on FPC seems to be happy with that, I have to live with that approach or withdraw. There has to be a reason why excellent photographers such as Diliff hardly ever vote in there. --Kreuzschnabel09:53, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's because Diliff is busy with his young baby, probably. But the thing is, when you participate, you help remind me of what FP really is. It has an effect on my voting. I can't speak for anyone else. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:56, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think the kindergarten reference hits it. "Ooooh, what a beautiful drawing, Kevin. Your mom will be so proud to put it on her fridge!" --Kreuzschnabel09:58, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, FPC only works if people voice their opinions on the review page and vote oppose and keep reminding everyone about the "finest on Commons" requirement. Without that reminder, I think it does have a tendency towards !like voting. However, phrases like "bin on first sight" and "kick in the butt" and "kindergarten" are not helpful. Sometimes the reasons for people to warm to a photo are hard to fathom. Code is an experienced photographer and reviewer, so I'm a bit surprised at his vote (perhaps his account has been hacked like Jimbo's, he he). Diliff is busy in real life, so that explains his absense. I think most reasonable people do not regard the oppose voters as "bad guys". There's always one or two who think they are being picked on, but that's usually because they fail to see all the other oppose votes one has made. And there is the odd revenge vote or for some other reason unrelated to the image. The "bad guys" imo, are those who travel up the FPC list supporting as much as they can before nominating their own image :-). If your oppose is well-reasoned then please keep doing it. And I repeat that I think it would help if nominators were required to explain why they think their nomination is "among our finest". It might make one or two think twice. -- Colin (talk) 10:06, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. Look at the current argument on the new agate photo nomination. But I gotta tell you, I get really annoyed now and then when INC criticizes me harshly for opposing a photo for a stated reason. He seems to vote for almost everything (I'm guessing his votes are supporting about 80% of the time). I don't criticize him for that, but then he goes and attacks me ad hominem for a good argument that ultimately carries the day. It sure won't change my voting, but it's conduct rather unbecoming of an admin, I think. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:13, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Guys, please calm down. I know very well what FPC is about. You might disagree with my vote but I find it a bit harsh to say my voting was "kindergarten"-like. There will be always votes you agree with and votes you don't agree with. I check every image very carefully before voting and I always have reasons why I vote in this way or the other. Regarding this one I felt that the light and especially the vignetting are very well chosen and fit well with the subject. I couldn't see any banding at all but I have to admit that this might be a problem with my current display (I'm saving up for a new one since half a year). It's not that I'm supporting each and every nomination like others do (see here, for example). On the other hand I'm sorry to say this, but I think you're focusing too much on technical aspects, Kreuzschnabel, and you're often too strict. I'd consider myself a pixelpeeper as well but I always try to consider that mitigating reasons can sometimes compensate a lack of technical quality. When I look at QIC I often see lots of technically perfect photographs which are in most cases nothing but boring. That's not what FPC is about IMO. QIC bores me that much that I don't spend a lot of time there anymore. When you're trying to present an interesting, more artistical photograph there you immediately get a decline, remember my pizza photograph which I still find excellent although it might be that it wasn't technically perfect in terms of QI (Ikan declined it and some others did as well). --Code (talk) 10:34, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it was an interesting photo but not a QI, because I didn't see the rationale for presenting only a small part of the pizza clearly and having all the rest of it be a blur, if a basic guideline of QIC is that "the subject should be sharp". Anyway, I hope you don't feel like I attacked you in any way. I don't think you'll find that in this thread. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:44, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Of course not. I just wanted to make clear that even if we disagree with each other's vote we shouldn't speak of each other as "kindergarten" children like Kreuzschnabel did. --Code (talk) 11:08, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with much of what Code wrote (except for liking that Jesus photo). Especially about boring photos passing QI. I'll add there are technically not so great photos that are still great and useful images not passing QI. You didn't link to the Pizza photo but if "the subject should be sharp" is being taken literally then I'm worried. I remember in the past some discussion on QI that expected every photo to be noise-free because the guidelines demanded it. So a slightly noisy concert photo, which was great and very useful, was rejected. Same for exposure. I see too many "blown sky" votes for a bright sky, like nobody ever looked up at the clouds on a sunny day and found their eyes hurting! And I agree about INC liking everything. When that happens, it just lowers the bar for all photos, and to be honest, I fail to see the point in participating if you !like everything. -- Colin (talk) 11:49, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not only do loads of boring photos pass at QIC, but also a lot of mediocre photos that are quite arguably not high-quality. I don't think that sharpness is being taken strictly literally, because a lot of photos with a pretty questionable degree of graininess are passed at QIC. However, photos that really have an extreme blur of a subject seem to directly contradict the criteria at QIC. It seems like FPC is the only one of the three feature reviewing sub-sites (VIC, QIC, FPC) where photos have a chance to be accepted on the basis of pure artistry, but even at FPC, there is a limit placed on "overly arty" photographs. I wouldn't mind discussing that at Talk:FPC, but it seems to be a pretty ingrained sort-of (sub-?)cultural thing. Maybe we need a fourth type of feature for pure artistry, or would that just be "too much like Flickr" or whatever? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:35, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I keep meaning to start a page to replace the awful [[Commons:Image guidelines]. It's far too prescriptive. QI needs a full rethink IMO to re-orient it towards a purpose of assessing images that have "good quality", both with reasonable technical achievement but also good standards of light, composition and subject. It's UI is just too poor. I don't think we need to separate "arty" photos, just to shift the culture. I wouldn't want us to end up like Flickr or worse 500px where everything is super-saturated high-contrast and heavily Photoshopped. But I think there is a place for Commons to recognise artistic images can have educational value. Currently, there's too much very simplistic "photograph of X" imagery. -- Colin (talk) 19:53, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I though a lot whether I need to comment here. Kreuzschnabel is a good, strict reviewer except the choice of words as above. I think his reviewing standard is much similar to Carschten who is also not very active nowadays. But he was very gentle in his choice of words. I think it will be nice if Kreuzschnabel can give some (more) consideration to the "wow" factor too which is the main difference of FP compared to QI. To me, "wow" is not just the extra punch which makes an image the finest among the best; it is the place to add extra weights to many distinguishing factors like newsworthy timing, rarity of the subject, difficulty to photograph, lack of availability of good photos from a geographical location, etc. Don't expect people of Nepal or Venezuela going to use a great camera. Jee12:34, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, much better. I can't guarantee what would happen if you renominated it, as there could still be some objections to some of the highlights in FPC, but you eliminated the big blown area. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:47, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reviewing my tanker pic. :) That plant is one of my pet project to make some good photographs of since it has so many interesting things and at night it is simply awesome, like some space port. Unfortunately it sit on a peninsula that is almost sealed off. Everything there is enclosed with chain-link fences and barb or razor wire, monitored by cc-tv and every 30 m there is a large yellow sign saying that photography is strictly forbidden. I snuck in a couple of times with my old cameras and made a quick getaway before someone saw me. I'll try some other time with my new camera since I think it would be awesome to get a good pic of this at night. :) As it is now, the nearest you can legally get is that point I shot from about 600 m away across the fjord.
On another note, I see that your talk page is getting a bit long, do you want me to set up an archiving BOT/thing for you on it? cart-Talk14:23, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I could always just archive some of it myself, as I do on Wikivoyage now and then. Don't put yourself in danger to get a good photograph, though! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:35, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, it's the nerd-side of me to offer tech support a bit too often. ;) Don't worry, I can take care of myself, just liked to tell you why there are so few photos of that awesome place. cart-Talk14:53, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your encouragement to nominate the image with the fisherman on Lake Woerth/Austria. After a long period of absence in FP I nominated that image. Hopefully the folks will like it. Let us see! Kind regards. --Johann Jaritz (talk) 07:12, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please excuse me spamming you. As a regular on Feature Picture Candidatess you will recognise User:The Photographer, who has 86 Featured Pictures. His contributions cover the architecture and culture of Brazil and Venezuela. He has basic photographic equipment: an old D300 camera and 35mm lens, and lives in a poor country where photographic equipment is expensive. The Photographer has recently taken several images using the technique where multiple frames are stitched together to create a high-resolution panorama. However, many times frustrated with the stitching errors that result from trying to take such photos without a proper panoramic head for his tripod. This special equipment permits the camera to be rotated around the entrance pupil of the lens, and eliminates such errors. Having a panoramic head would greatly increase the potential for The Photographer to create sharp high-resolution images for Commons. In addition, the purchase of a fisheye lens would enable 180 × 360° panoramas to be taken, which are a great way to explore a scene as though one is really there.
Worthy cause, but I have a declining bank balance right now and feel that I need to devote my scarce contributions to organizations effectively fighting against the ruination likely to overtake my country in the next 4 years. I wish The Photographer the best of luck and offer him my moral support. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:54, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, those pictures were taken over a year ago. But I probably do need to do something about the dust ... either clean the sensor (which I could do myself but I'm always scared I'll screw up) or take one of those dust-off reference photos (need to find the right background for it, though).
Thanks. And thanks for promoting the one I've worked on so far.
I think it might also have to do with having done those on my laptop ... it's easier to see the spots on my desktop. Plus the laptop can sometimes be cranky and take a while to do the healing brush thing. Daniel Case (talk) 07:42, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I caught a few more besides the one you noted from this one. Those may have been harder to catch because I was zoomed a little bit, blurring them, and they show less well against a blue sky.
Actually it is. I just hadn't looked for the command where I thought it had been once.
I suspect some of the spots you came across may have been the result of healing other ones out ... the color under the brush doesn't always match exactly right afterwards, and sometimes it is necessary to do it again.
In any event, thanks for being such a stickler. You have a good eye ... can I thank your father for teaching you to look so closely at paintings? Daniel Case (talk) 01:41, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure. It might just come from practice in looking at digital photos on Commons. Anyway, I'm glad to help, especially when the photos are so good otherwise. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:31, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Let me clarify a bit: for being Public Domain, the most relevant question is if it was built in the Russian Empire (that is what I mean saying pre-1918), as everything created there is PD regardless of the death year of the creator (see {{PD-RusEmpire}}). Which is quite less obvious for something created in the USSR before 1939, but after 1918 (and Azerbaijan was part of the Russian Empire, as well as Soviet Republic since 1920). Also, consider that the style of this building is completely uncommon for Soviet architecture, especially for 1920s/30s years. So this building may either be pre-1918 and PD, or post-1991 and copyrighted; anything else is highly unlikely from my understanding. Thanks --A.Savin16:49, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your father might have liked where I was when I took most of the pictures in this category. At that time of year, that far north, those pictures were taken over the course of a full hour from 10:30 to 11:30 p.m. I have not seen any other sunset so languid and beautiful (OK, some of them are a little souped up, but not by too much. However, the processing is evident enough that I would not nominate any of them for even QI). Daniel Case (talk) 19:37, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
He probably would have. I know he and my mother took a cruise to Alaska fairly late in their lives and enjoyed visiting Juneau and Anchorage. However, I don't remember seeing any art from that trip, and I don't think he even sketched anything on that trip. He did enjoy a bunch of summers in New England and Upstate New York. Maine may not be Yellowknife, but it's still somewhat far north. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:44, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Good evening Ikan Kekek,
Thank you for your compliment with photo: File: The sun is trying through the fog to break. Location, Langweerderwielen (Langwarder Wheels) and environment 01.jpg.
In that place, I made several photos. Which are among as: other versions, but I think this is the best.
Maybe I offer it to the picture for FP. but currently there are already two of mine.
Again thanks a lot.
Sincerely,
Dominicus Bergsma.--Famberhorst (talk) 17:37, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't get, " Are the patterns being illustrated by the shapes in the dust? The object looks like it's made from wood and metal." could you pleas re-phrase? And I removed the table, that had most of the dust. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m01:47, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I didn't and still don't understand what you mean(t). You wrote that the object was made from dust, didn't you? But to me, the object was the table (if you removed it, what's left?), and maybe what I was viewing as dust is really sand. I have problems with that page, too, sometimes. The most common problem is when I try to use a "discussion" template, which doesn't exist, though "discuss" does. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:05, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. And I literally removed the table that Chladni plate is on just for the photo, that had real dust, the other the thing all over is sawdust, I can't clean it. Did you entered here:
If you don't get to listing the WP link and clarifying, I'll try to get to it later, but I'm kind of busy, so it might take a while (possibly as much as 2 days or more). Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:11, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if there's a category, all the images showing it should be deleted, and I guess it will fall to me to make the request (If you go to the English WP article, you'll see the photo there is hosted on the English Wikipedia, under fair use, as it should be). Just because someone uploaded them under a free license and someone else was asleep at the switch and didn't realize this (this happens a lot, most people don't understand FoP all that well) doesn't mean we can keep them.
Look, I did this once before in FP, a while back ... someone nominated a picture of two of the Star Trek actors who played Klingons, in costume at a parade passing out candy, and I had to point out to them that per COM:COSTUME not only could it not be FP, we would have to delete it since the appearance of Klingons is covered by Paramount's copyrights for Star Trek. I found a whole bunch more in Category:Klingon and nominated all of them; as a result that category was down to just two images of the Klingon flag for a while (Now I'm going to have to do it again).
It's even happened to me ... see this image I took of the Pirelli Tower in Milan last summer, which had to be deleted since Italy doesn't have any FoP (the building is still under the original architect's copyright). King of Hearts had the idea for me to upload it back to enwiki since it was a lot better than the picture we had been using in that article.
I agree in the case of Cloud Gate, but the law against photographing Christmas lights in the US may be a dead letter, and I seriously doubt they'd go after Wikimedia first, if they did decide to go after anyone. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:05, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
thank you for your remarks about me overcategorizig images. when i see a beautiful and unique pictures i can't help myself ː)
and in that subject - can you help me promote that pic here to VI ? first time am doing it and not sure i did it right. thx alot --מינוזיג (talk) 14:22, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome, and Chag Chanukah Sameach! For the scope, you should subtract "Category:". The scope is fine if it's the best photo of the bird on Commons and also better than other free images that could be uploaded here. We'll see what people think. I will try to at least look at all the other photos in its category on Commons, but might not get to it for a couple of days. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:27, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, I wasn't offensed by your comment, first version (that's why I used this diff above :-) ). Even if a comment consists only of something not usable for distilling out some photographic knowledge, it'll still be useful to get a knack for the expectations of the public (read: the FPC community). That's why I would like to ask you to counsel me about potential VIC procedures, namely a possible scope. What do you think about this matter? Would a scope "light signalisation" and/or "stray light in fog" be acceptable? Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 13:32, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Grand-Duc! I'm not nearly as familiar with the standards at VIC as at FPC or QIC, but in general, they want the scope to be as specific as possible, within reason, so I think that mentioning both signal and fog would be the right way to go. I would also suggest a QIC nomination, because I think your photo is of high technical quality. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:50, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
English: Hellow Ikan Kekek, Merci/Gracias/Thanks my friend for do it posible, this family of Commons, beleave that we can change world improving the educational media disponible. Take care by your self --The Photographer03:01, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you please, fill this line in your votes.
|status=nominated <!-- Change to supported, opposed or discussed as appropriate when adding reviews -->
Thank you for your constructive work. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 12:39, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
★Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted★ Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope: West facade of Vézelay. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
Added to Wikivoyage Vézelay (why doesn't en.voy work, and what Wiki code needs to be used for a sister-site link to English Wikivoyage?), w:Vézelay, w:Vézelay Abbey in place of another file that I don't think is as good. I don't really understand the requirement, though. Is the idea that if a file is used more, it's more useful, rather than that if it's more useful, it should and likely will be used more? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:34, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If you think this image has value then you have to give it life. A few days before you can place it in different wiki. The fact that it is accepted will give weight to your choice. A labeled image VI which is not used has no interest. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 12:33, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I saw, that for some time you spend a lot of time to check my images nominated to QI. I don't know why, but almost everytime you see lots of problems in my images. Other users don't, but you almost everytime. I think you are expecting too much from me. I don't know why. Maybe because when you came here in QIC, few months ago, at that time I nominated images from Malaysia and that was interesting for you... As you know, I've got a long and big experience in QIC, having more than 2200 Quality Images. Now I realize, that you don't have even one QI, you haven't uploaded any single image to Wikimedia Commons. That is strange... It would be more fair, to upload images made by themselves, images of course with great quality, easily promoted to QI. According to all these things, please be less critical. --Halavar (talk) 16:37, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're right: I don't upload images, and I don't actually take many photos myself. Instead, I'm a musician, and of course my work is subject to appraisal and criticism by non-musicians as well as musicians. I'm sorry if you feel I'm picking on you in particular. I like your compositions, but I would love it if your pictures were sharper more often, partly because I'd like to nominate more of them to FPC. You're not the only person whose photos provoke that reaction from me.
I'll also say that you definitely have a point in that you've uploaded so many good images and I've only pretty recently started reviewing at QIC. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:14, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Halavar I think your above judgement is not really fair, as the quality of Ikan Kekek's reviews is mostly very good, despite the fact he himself is relatively new here and doesn't take photos; I wish some longstanding top QIC photographers would review other people's nominations as careful. On the other hand, some of your photos (for example those from Armenia) are indeed not as sharp as they could have been (though many of them still OK for QI). Maybe it is due to not very good focus, I'm not sure. But I know very well what I'm saying, because I use similar 20Mpix Canon camera and there's mostly no issue with photos of buildings.. --A.Savin20:09, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A.Savin There is a big difference between my old nominations in QIC and new ones. You are right, that some of my old images (taken by old Canon 500D and not so great lens) have problems with focus. But since October 2015 I've got a great full frame camera Canon 6D with very good lens (2 months ago I bought second one) and photos made by new equipment are much, much better. Ikan Kekek came here - on QIC - few months ago, when I started to upload my images from Malaysia, and all of them was taken by new equipment. Only this one user is talking about my not-focused images. Other users, experienced users, do not seee problems with focus in my images. --Halavar (talk) 21:16, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Halavar, do you really mean to suggest that it's my optical illusion that there are other photos that are sharper than the ones of yours that I think should be sharper? You probably have a better, more experienced eye than I do. If you objectively compare some of your photos that I find problematic with some of the images by some other people you could doubtless name, do you really think that yours are optimally sharp compared to theirs, and that it's impossible for you to up the general level of sharpness in your photos? I don't. I've seen some sharp images of excellent quality from you, and while I don't know what the technical difficulties are in attaining that level more often, I'd love for you to do that. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:52, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Halavar: Take for example this photo (already promoted by Hubertl). The sharpness in all areas are below the level I consider sufficient for my own photos. For my part, I wouldn't have promoted this photo. You may compare with some of my last year's photos. My camera: Canon 7DII with also 20mpix. Unlike 6D, it has crop sensor (=more noise). Maybe the lens is also a difference. I never used 24-105, but in general, such wide zoom ranges do the quality not good. But when we take this particular photo, I would say: quality issues not because of the camera / the lens; but poor focusing. It is always useful a) take several shots of the same motif (to choose the best one afterwards), and b) check each photo on your camera display at 100% zoom straight afterwards. That may sound trivial, but I've nonetheless the impression that many people don't do this way )) --A.Savin06:11, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I can give an example, too. Halavar, do you really think File:2016 Singapur, Chinatown, Ulica Ann Siang, Domy-sklepy (01).jpg is of optimal sharpness, and that it's impossible for you to get greater sharpness? If it were solely up to me, I would have declined that as not a really high-quality image, but then I guess I would like for some of the standards for QI to be upped, and upsetting "the way it's always been" can always be expected to draw resistance. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:23, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
File:2016 Singapur, Chinatown, Ulica Ann Siang, Domy-sklepy (01).jpg - this image has got enough level of sharpness to promote it as QI. Hundreds of images with that sharpness was promoted by many users. Of course, sharpness is not perfect, and can be better, but this is not a reason to not promote this image. Most images nominated in QIC might have better sharpness, because always images can be better. But we are not there, in QIC to discuss about that. If image fulfill QI standards, we should promote it. Sharpness level depends of many things, and one of them is weather conditions, or more precise light. Most my images from Singapore and Malaysia was taken in a cloudy days, without enough level of light, so they are not perfect as they might be taken in a sunny day. But experienced users know that and they shouldn't decline images because they are not fulfill very high personal standards ("image might be sharper"). Period. --Halavar (talk) 21:40, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Halavar: Sharpness has nothing to do with weather conditions. I've plenty photos of cloudy weather which are sharp and QI, for example here. If you want my opinion, sharpness depends above all on focusing. When the focusing is correct, the rest depends on the quality of the optics, the resolution, the postprocessing. The only casuality between lighting and sharpness may be when you must apply high ISO levels and then loose sharpness by post-NR. But in daylight, even with heavy clouds and grey sky, you rarely have to use high ISO values --A.Savin07:09, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) I could not help seeing this. Well, I have to say that I understand the frustration uttered by Halavar regarding sharpness. File:2016 Singapur, Chinatown, Ulica Ann Siang, Domy-sklepy (01).jpg is in my opinon a perfectly QI-sharp photo, something I could not achieve if I upsampled my photos from my dated lower resolution sensor to 17.5 Mpixels. I think it is unfair just because users happen to have a sensor with a very fine pixel resolution that sharpness is evaluated by blowing it up to 100% and pixel peep regarding sharpness. A user, using the same optics and lens setting but a 10 Mpixel sensor achieves a much larger perceived sharpness if you compare side by side at 100% zoom. In my opinion, a fair assessment is to look at a picture at a magnification where you have the entire photo on a screen and see if it is sharp in the areas, where it should be sharp. Also OK to zoom in moderately to something like 5-10 Mpixels and assess imprtant areas of the image with high information content. By doing the reviews at 100% you encourage people to downsample, which leads to information loss. It is not natural anyway to look so closely at a detail in an image, where you cannot see the entirety. For the particular image I would have reviewed it with "Good quality, but there is quite some visible noise in the upper right corner in the shadow of the roof, that you may consider denoising further". The noise is again most notable in full resolution, but it is in a part of the image that is not interesting, and when viewed in its entirety you would not noice it, thus the recommendation. I think you are trying to make QI to more than it is, and I think that wrt sharpness, we are discussing such details, that 99% of any ordinary re-users of a QI would not at all notice what is being discussed, and wouldn't care. As a side comment, although CA has not been discussed here, slight CA is another defect, which I would claim that 99% of re-users don't care about. I think it would be more important to get more focus on adequate lightning, reasonable colors and a fair composition, than discussing these pixel details about sharpness. That said, I think Ikan does in general a very good job in revieweing photos, and I appreciate very much that he, e.g., spotted an HDR processing artifact in one my images just the other day, a clear defect, I had not noticed myself in my own assessment. -- Slaunger (talk) 22:21, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your points. I still think that all things being equal, at least images should be as sharp as they can be, which means preferably sharpening them when that improves the picture before nominating them. I will try to be a bit conservative about declining large files (what would qualify as large, though? Over 6 MP? Over 8 MP? Please advise), but if a file could be made sharper, I think it should be - again, all things being equal, because oversharpening isn't good, either. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:23, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Another (talk page stalker): The initial post by the OP is very negative; it looks like a request to stop criticizing than asking more explanation for the oppose. Now Slaunger made some good points; I wish to add some from my side too. I agree with the argument that we can't expect same sharpness in 100% view of a single shot large file compared to less than 6MP photos. But sharpness feel can be somewhat improved in post processing, a trick I learnt recently. The processing tools have infinite options and we need to be willing to learn day by day until we passed away. Attitudes like I made X QIs; so nothing more to learn will be a stopping block. I checked the two photos mentioned here. This is taken in f/4.5 at 70mm; so we can expect a DOF issue. Here the settings seems fine; but the result is a bit noisy. Are they handheld shots? Jee03:51, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
★Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted★ Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope: Exterior of the Chrysler Building, Spire. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
★Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted★ Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope: Lamprotornis chalybaeus nordmanni (Angola Greater Blue-eared Glossy Starling). If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
review
Note: I'm not sure if it's irregular to bring this up in a nomination, but it would be helpful for other photos of this subspecies to be moved into the new Category:Lamprotornis chalybaeus nordmanni from the general category Category:Lamprotornis chalybaeus, and I could use some expert help with this. User:Charlesjsharp, if you would like to take on this mission... Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:07, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I see from your WV userpage that you may be in NYC. In case you have not heard previously, consider this an invitation to Wikipedia Day 2017 on 1/15 at the Ace Hotel. If you've never been to such an event, know that it's very relaxed, with a pretty good mix of people who attend for various reasons (some are multipurpose wikimedian folks, some are long-time Wikipedians, many are librarians or educators with varying levels of engagement, some are active on one or more sister projects, some are open access enthusiasts, etc.). It'll be unconference style, roughly, so you can talk about something if you want to, or just hang out and eat free food. :) — Rhododendritestalk | 05:33, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding this, you mentioned an unsharp strip in the foreground. Assuming you didn't mean the strip at the very top of the image, would you mind describing or annotating where you mean?
★Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted★ Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope: Krupnik liqueurs: Krupnik plum liqueur. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
★Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted★ Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope: Krupnik liqueurs: Krupnik cherry liqueur. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
★Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted★ Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope: Ballantine's, Ballantine's Finest Scotch whisky. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
★Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted★ Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope: Ballantine's, selection of whiskies produced by the company in their bottles. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
Comment - I hope the scope is OK. This is clearly the best photo of a selection of Ballantine's whiskies on Commons, and it should be, because it's publicity from Pernod Ricard. If I haven't defined the scope in the best way, please advise, or just change the scope accordingly if you like. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:07, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you're looking for more pictures to nominate at FPC[edit]
Hi Ikan; I see you thanked me for nominating Chensiyuan's image; I know you like to nominate a lot of different peoples' images, so I'd suggest checking out that userpage (if you haven't already) - there are a lot of very high-quality panoramas there, which aren't yet featured here, and I don't have the time to go through them. Cheers! -- Thennicke (talk) 10:32, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Following up on your comment at QIC. I appreciate that the standards are technically the same, and perhaps this line of thinking makes more sense with regard to FPC, but it seems to me that standards for e.g. sharpness would vary when comparing, say, a macro photo of a stationary object to a more animated and/or difficult subject, no? BTW did you make it to Wikipedia Day? — Rhododendritestalk | 21:34, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. So, for example, the crowd scenes you shot would be judged more generously in terms of focus than a studio portrait. No, I didn't make it to Wikipedia Day but went to a friend's party that day. Thanks for going to the Women's March and taking those pictures! I especially like the one with the two guys holding the rainbow flag. My girlfriend and I marched yesterday, too. It was great, and I definitely hope there will be another march next month, and the month after that, etc. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:41, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's more or less what I figured re: standards. Thanks. The turnout yesterday was pretty incredible. There were big crowds at previous Trump-related protests, but this time it seemed like the majority of people traveling along the entire length of the route I took were going to the same place (i.e. at every stop in Brooklyn, crowds of people were waiting to board with signs, etc.). Then it probably took as much time to make our way out of Grand Central as it did to get there. Huge crush of people (and a moment of localized panic when someone's balloon popped while nobody could move). Chaotic, but there seemed to be some sense of shared purpose such that despite the crowds I didn't see anyone being a jerk... which is noteworthy. — Rhododendritestalk | 22:59, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I marched from the entry point at 47st St. and 3rd to the end (which took from 2:30-6:50), and the crowd seemed completely friendly and good-spirited to me. There were a couple of Trump supporters who ranted and raved on the sidelines, and from what I could see, they were completely ignored. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:03, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for replying the same please can u just brief me up in such cases as I am new and unaware of nominating I have gone through the procedure and requirements but it's doesn't seems helpful in explaining me do assist me 😀--Tiven2240 (talk) 08:08, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You figured it out. I did explain what to do:
The scope is Gateway of India, and you needed to link it to Category:Gateway to India (look at other Valued image nominees in edit mode to see how it's done).
So did that work, or did you figure out the format a different way?
There's also something you're not aware of: I'm pretty new to VIC, myself, so these things are hardly second nature to me. But in any case, I gave you what seemed to me like enough information for you to go on. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:12, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I thank you for your encouragement and I understand that the same thing is expected of me ... if I have sometimes given my appreciation, I am unable to express myself with sufficient precision in a language That I do not practice; So I actually leave my pictures to the appreciation of the participants and can not really argue or defend validly my point of view on the exposed photos that generally are promoted when they meet the quality criteria.
Excuse this language too dependent on google ... and rest assured of my interest for this contest for which I try to provide interesting images among those that I realize at the Museum of Toulouse. Best regards. --Ercé (talk) 14:05, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ercé, vous n'avez pas compri ce qu'on vous a dit. Il n'y a aucun probleme avec vos photos, pas de tout, et en fait, tout le monde est plus riche culturellement parce que vous genereusement les soumettez. Le probleme est que vous ne juge aucun autre photo. On expecte que quand un individu soumet beaucoup de photos 'a Commons, il jugerait au moins quelques photos des autres. Je comprends perfectement qu'il y a un question de langue, mais je penserais qu'il est bien possible pour vous d'ecrire <<good quality>> pour un photo qui vous jugez soit de bonne qualite. C'est tout. Si ils y ont des problemes compliques avec des photos, il ne faut pas que vous jugiez ces photos. C'est clair maintenant?
By the way, I'm applying for a Wikimedia grant for a line scan camera. This is a high-speed camera that only captures a single column (or row) of pixels, and I hope to use one for capturing scenes similar to the work of Adam Magyar [1], as well as rollout photos such as [2] (but of a much higher resolution than can be achieved with a typical video camera).
Hi, Ikan. I thank you for my promotion in QI, a few years ago that it had not happened. It is a good contest but one must have time. I am also very pleased with your interest in VI, which as you know now is not an easy contest, especially in its management. Sincerely.--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:32, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to do it. Yes, VI is somewhat time-consuming because you have to compare files to every other file in scope.
★Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted★ Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope: Forests in Idaho, checkerboard forest photographed from the International Space Station.. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
review
Comment A very interesting image, but if is to be of any use as a VI, we need a little more information. Do you have a latitude and longitude so that I can find this location on a map? What is the scale of the image? Is the image aligned north-south? If not, what is it's alignment? Without this information, it is of little educational use. Martinvl (talk) 17:16, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Koavf: Could you include that text in the both the image and the VI nomination. Also, if you are going to include "20 degrees clockwise", the correct term is "rotated", not "shifted". (Sorry about being pedantic, but this is one of the topics that I tutor in maths). Martinvl (talk) 17:33, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Info@Koavf: There was no indication of scale, so I amended the text of the image descriptin to include the size of the checkerboard squares. Maybe somebody would like to cross-check my amendment. (I used Google Earth). Martinvl (talk) 07:59, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Checkerboard forests are common in the western United States, but this is an extremely atypical example of that phenomenon.
Checkerboards usually result from a mixture of public and private ownership, where the privately held parcels were originally granted as alternating square miles to railroad companies, and subsequently purchased by timber companies. Where private land is intermingled with National Forest land, the private land tends to be more heavily logged. Where private and Bureau of Land Management lands are intermingled, the BLM land may be more heavily logged.
In this photo the checkerboard area is entirely owned by the state of Idaho, and the squares are much smaller than normal (1/16 mile instead of 1 mile). Go here and search for "Whitetail Butte Idaho" to see ownership. A more typical example of National Forest/private checkerboarding can be seen just south of "Avery Idaho".
This image would NOT be appropriate for illustrating the topic described at en:Checkerboarding (land). Checkerboarding is a notable subject, and there's plenty of information on the internet about it (e.g. [3][4]). It would be misleading to promote this image when it's likely to be interpreted as example of checkerboarding in land ownership (as happened here, for example). Plantdrew (talk) 20:13, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Plantdrew: I have to be honest that this is nonsensical to me: the image has merits irrespective of how someone else might misuse or misunderstand it. Especially if the description that we provide is accurate. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯02:00, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That is because it is not done from RAW and I was not really thorough with the fixing since this was only to show what could be done. --cart-Talk00:13, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was a bagger I deposit a large piece of land surrounded by an earthen rampart. In those huge "bathtub" is mud mixed with water pumped away. The water drops slowly from the dredging. after a period of time the (sometimes up polluted) remains about dredging.
Sincerely,
Dominicus Bergsma --Famberhorst (talk) 06:18, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's not common. Even in Bukittinggi, where it's a traditional beverage, I could only get it at a few places. My friend, who is originally from that city, has never had it; she didn't even join me in consuming (eating? drinking? those "Es Whatever" drinks can be confusing) it. But it was good... I had two bowls.
I'm going to Kuala Lumpur next May. I'll have to try the have to sago gula Melaka. I didn't like sago the last time I had it (kapurung, in Makassar), but it's worth a shot. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:24, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply. I love sago gula Melaka! The sago is really just a texture. It's the gula Melaka and the condensed milk that are the real stars of that dessert, which they eat there with a spoon, from what I remember (increasingly long-range memory, as the last time I was in Malaysia was 2003). I've never been to the Indonesian Minangkabau country (I did visit Negeri Sembilan, the Malaysian state with lots of Minangkabau heritage). Was it an interesting trip? Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:47, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Quite! I'm based in Java, so the culture shock was more Java - Minang than Canada - Minang, but there were still quite a few things to discover. The sate being served off the skewers (i.e. on a plate), with a coconut milk-rich sauce, was a very pleasant one. Another nice one was Ngarai Sianok, which was quite beautiful. We also went to most of the landmarks in Bukttinggi. We only had a day in Padang, but fortunately the weather was kind to us.
Sadly, I didn't see any performances of traditional art while I was there, and I had to miss out on the Taufik Ismail and HAMKA libraries (I'm a literature major, so both would have been nice). It was a working trip, so I was in and out of university campuses. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:54, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is something wrong with my file photo: Mountain of parking in central Malga Mare to Lago Lungo 42.jpg the Valued image candidates page, but I do not know how to solve it.
Sincerely,
--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:58, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question: I will withdraw the photo and File: Mountain of parking in central Malga Mare to Lago Lungo 45.jpg nominate? The building work employees of Hydro Dolomiti Energia. 600m increase is the lake Lago del Careser. --Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:36, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean it's 600m above that lake? Anyway, you don't have to agree with my opinion, but try to phrase the scope in clear English, and let me know if I can help you with that. I regret that I know only a few words of Dutch, and I probably forgot some of those. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:18, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I took many more photos of the Raja cultivar of Asian Pears (different scope from the one that just got supported). I picked these to upload: User_talk:PumpkinSky#Asian_Pear_Blossom_gallery. I was wondering if you could be so kind as to comment there and let me know if any are VI-worthy or if I should delete some too. Thank you. PumpkinSkytalk20:17, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Normally, there is only 1 VI per scope, but good pictures can be nominated for Quality Image, and if truly exceptional, for Featured Picture. If you're not sure which picture would be best for a VI scope, though, you could nominate 2 or more for a "Most Valued Review". I'd never suggest for anyone to delete a photo uploaded in good faith. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:00, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is no VI in the Raja cultivar scope. My other VI from 2014 is in scope ": Pyrus pyrifolia (Asian Pear) blossom" (it probably should have had Raja in the scope) and the photo is File:Pyrus pyrifolia (Raja) blossom.jpg. The one just supported is in culta variety, so all three are different scopes. My 2014 one is not nearly as good as the ones I took today. The best of today should replace the 2014 for one, the 2014 one should have the VI designation removed, and the best of today (on my talk page) should become VI for the Raja scope. What's the best way to do all that? PumpkinSkytalk21:21, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The way I've seen it done is that the current VI is faced off in a Most Valued Review with the best (or other best) candidates, then if one of the other ones wins the contest, the one that had been VI is demoted to "former VI" (or some similar phrasing). -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:27, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's likely what I'll do then. But first, could you go to my talk page and comment as to which of the 6 photos are the best? I also posted this same question on Archaeodontosaurus' talk page and hope he responds too. Then I'll likely do the MVR. Thanks for responding. PumpkinSkytalk21:31, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've made a slightly cropped version of photo 7 and put both of them and the current VI for Pyrus pyrifolia in an MVR. It's my first one and hope I did it correctly. PumpkinSkytalk13:05, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Ikan Kekek. First of all, feel free to nominate anything you like from my recent photos. I choose my uploads very carefully, so that nearly everything I've submitted here in the last three, four years, should be "not bad" at the very least ;-) Only for pictures where there is an alternative on the same subject (like it was the case with the Kourion photos) it is better when you ask me for advice first. As for the Fonvizinskaya station, however, I have only this one photo. Of course I also like it, and I would support it. It might be seen as a bit too dark though (compare to this photo). True HDRI would have been the optimal solution here of course, but it needs the usage of a tripod and it is unfortuntely not allowed to use a tripod in Moscow Metro, so we always have to find a (hopefully good) compromise. With that said, feel free to nominate, and best of luck! Thanks. --A.Savin12:24, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked at the original picture and can only add to the top, but nothing on the bottom. It might be better to withdraw the nomination.
Thanks again you have given to my attention picture.
Sure. I don't think anyone was asking you to add more to the bottom, but rather, to crop some of it. But anyway, sure, I'll withdraw. Sorry about the outcome; I still think it's a great picture. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:39, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure when I'll have time to look at these. Do you know about the COM:Photo critiques page? It could be useful for these kinds of questions. There are way more experienced and knowledgeable people than I. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:30, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Archaeodontosaurus, Ikan Kekek, El Grafo, and Charles; you have all been very kind and helpful in showing how the VI and QI processes work (I'm nowhere near the FP level yet as you know) and giving me tips on taking better pictures. I know I have a lot to learn about photos. I do truly appreciate all your help. PumpkinSkytalk21:53, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Per your question here. If you'd like to, go ahead ... I am always very flattered when someone else sees a picture I took as worthy of recognition and nominates it themselves. That's how this imagegot to FP after all.
Yes, I was very impressed with how that image came out. I had had hopes for the opposite view, since it takes in the upper spire, but even if that guy in the front hadn't been so large and there weren't scaffolding on the spires (apparently there always is on some part of the Duomo, owing to its age), it still gets too diffracted at the top.
The view to the west, on the other hand, survived being perspective-corrected quite well, and doesn't have the diffraction issues (Note the difference in aperture settings ... one for the kit bag. I had just finished shooting some of the skyline pics I took, but then decided to take a break to a) get in the shade a bit and b) wait for the sun perhaps to come out. It didn't quite get out from behind that altocumulus layer, which may actually have helped the photography that day as I didn't have to worry about sharp contrasts when processing them.
I'm not one to complain about tourists in pictures—a lot of the time these spaces were designed centuries ago with the idea that large groups of people would be using them firmly in mind (see this image I took at the Forbidden City, although I think their original builders and designers might well do a double-take at how large crowds of tourists use them now. The tourists are part of the story, and I very much like taking the sort of picture that acknowledges that.
That said ... this picture does handle that much better than the other view. All the people visiting are clearly visible, no doubt, as I would not want to hide them, but by a very nice coincidence which hadn't occurred to me until you remarked on it they are all sort of in the shade, some distance from the camera, dressed in mostly neutral colors, and thus they don't distract from their surroundings the way the guy taking the picture in the other view does.
Hey, while we have this open, here's what I've been considering from my own work as the next one I'd like to nominate for FP. What do you think? Would you support it? Daniel Case (talk) 20:50, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure. I like igloo-shaped churches - there's another one in Iqaluit, Baffin Island - but ideally, I'd like the crosses to line up vertically, and I realize the tree might be in the way of doing that. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:25, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
you surely remember the non-featureable hawthorn image with any encyclopedic value? Someone whom I don't know put it in this article in the French Wikipedia: fr:Aubépine.
Many thanks for the QI promotion and kind words! There's always some risk when you're outside and lightning is close enough to be clearly visible, but I only ever shoot retreating storms where the closest strikes are at least 5 miles away. At that point, I would judge the odds of a close call to be about on par with a rogue wave washing you away while shooting on a rocky coast, or an animal charging you during wildlife photography, etc... problematic enough to necessitate vigilance, but unlikely to be an issue if you're careful and only do it occasionally. While I'm not a believer in the "anything for the shot" attitude, lightning photography is something I enjoy and it has the potential to yield some very special images, so for me, it's an acceptable risk a couple times out of the year. Incidentally, I'm still a little bitter about having missed the most photogenic lightning bolt of that particular evening just a fraction of a second before tripping the shutter for the first time... ah well. :) Best, –Juliancolton | Talk23:06, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I thought you may find this interesting. I had my camera on a tripod and was playing with settings to capture water droplets. It was nighttime so there was only the kitchen light bulb, no sunlight, and my camera. Please see User:PumpkinSky/Uploads/2017#Studies_in_water_droplets. In photo 1 you can clearly see the camera lens and my right arm and shoulder in the water droplet. In the other four, there's an inverted mirror reflection of this making a zero and something else that reflected and inverted making a one--not sure what this is. Together they make a "10". The best example of this is photo 5. I can find many reflections in water drops on commons and the internet, but none of the photographer. While these aren't anything remarkable by photo standards, I thought you may find the reflections interesting. Best wishes. PumpkinSkytalk01:21, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ikan, please explain this as I don't understand. I know I'm a novice at taking good photos, and you and others have helped and I'm learning, but I just had two VI noms go undecided, and one of these is a QI. They didn't even get an oppose vote. The odds of this happening are extremely low. The links are:
I invite myself in the conversation. The first image is very successful, the second is a little too yellow. But both will deserve to be promoted in VI. I was very sad that nobody voted. I will have done it with pleasure from the first day if they had been used at least by an encyclopedia. I checked every day hoping they would. I will never vote negative if an image is not used but I will avoid voting if it does not have it. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 07:56, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the crux of this: "But both will deserve to be promoted in VI." Given we all agree on this, they should be promoted. We even agree it's sad they weren't. Some of these arguments are self-defeating and counter to the goal of VI. In essence what happened here is that two deserving photos weren't promoted because no one felt like looking at them. Furthermore, there is no where in the VI criteria where it says being used by an encyclopedia is a requirement. What happened here is a prime example of a wiki project shooting itself in the foot. I am dumbfounded by this and completely unmotivated. PumpkinSkytalk09:21, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, there was a recent debate on whether a file's use outside of Commons could be made a criterion for whether it is eligible for VI, and the proposal was defeated. But there's no way to force anyone to vote, and I doubt that withholding a vote for an improper reason (as opposed to actually opposing for an improper reason) is punishable. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:26, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, but that doesn't solve the problem of known worthy images not getting promoted. In essence here's the rule "encourage deserving photos to be nom'd but if no one votes on them after 7 days we're going to drop them because we want to reduce our backlog". What a crock. PumpkinSkytalk09:49, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For my part, I'm simply very busy offline and found my eyes glazing over when I looked at the category of that particular kind of flower being pollinated. I resent that people who do consider it best in scope are unwilling to vote for it, but as we say in New York, dem's de breaks. You've gotten a bunch of photos advanced to VI and at least one passed at QIC. Maybe some people are feeling a bit bored with looking at photos of nashi flowers and you might try again in a couple of months. In the meantime, you could work on trying to get more photos advanced to QI, which might be easier to do. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:04, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I've only got two VIs, and one of them wasn't taken by me. QI has higher tech requirements, so I consider it harder. I was taking nashi flowers because they're in season. It's not like taking a photo of your dog. I shouldn't have to resubmit them, they should be left in the queue until they're voted up or down. Thanks for the inputs. And yes, knowing enough about a photo to know it's deserving and not voting for it makes no sense whatsoever, especially when you're inventing your own rules. I have no motivation for VI anymore. PumpkinSkytalk10:17, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not an admin on Commons; my participation here is solely recreational and I don't feel any great responsibility for the site. You might want to present your complaints to a panel of admins and see what they think of it. I have no idea whether that could help or not, but complaining to me isn't really going to help because I have no authority on this board and just don't care beyond having some sympathy for you. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:23, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I think admins couldn't do much because it's a VI issue not an admin issue. Thank you for listening and allowing me to vent and I apologize that I was overly excited last night. PumpkinSkytalk22:49, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ikan, I'm going to take you up on your offer. I truly was not going to renom, but since you made the suggestion on your own accord, I will give it another shot. The two photos will be up again in a few minutes. PumpkinSkytalk23:02, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reminder: Round 2 of Picture of the Year 2016 is open![edit]
You are receiving this message because you voted in R1 of the 2016 Picture of the Year contest.
Dear Ikan Kekek,
Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the second round of the 2016 Picture of the Year competition is now open. This year will be the eleventh edition of the annual Wikimedia Commons photo competition, which recognizes exceptional contributions by users on Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favorite images featured on Commons during the last year (2016) to produce a single Picture of the Year.
Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year were entered in this competition. These images include professional animal and plant shots, breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historical images, photographs portraying the world's best architecture, impressive human portraits, and so much more.
There are two total rounds of voting. In the first round, you voted for as many images as you liked. In Round 1, there were 1475 candidate images. There are 58 finalists in Round 2, comprised of the top 30 overall as well as the top #1 and #2 from each sub-category.
In the final round, you may vote for just one or maximal three image to become the Picture of the Year.
Ikan Kekek, it's a bad photo, the most impressive thing is the human element, however in this photo it's in the dark, not properly exposed, and seems to suffer some distortion. The boat in the right is cut, and all others are too close to the end of the frame, with all that, there is a huge space with no information at top right corner, changing the angle we could have more of the boats, and less of the blue sky. Got it? That's what's behind "bad photo". It's just a snapshot.
I hope you didn't take that remark too personally. I wasn't assuming anything about your position, and your explanation is perfectly understandable. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:08, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just curious. I don't really get the need for geo data on VI images. It's not needed for QI and FP, so why for VI? Especially when where something is located is known, such as the Statue of Liberty, Golden Gate Bridge, Denver, Berlin Wall, etc. Any insight on this? Thanks. PumpkinSkytalk18:09, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's supposed to be needed for all kinds of features, I thought. But VIs, in particular, should have encyclopedic usefulness. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:49, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's not listed in QI nor FP requirements. IMHO it's a really lame and unnecessary requirement, especially when it's a known location or the uploader puts the location in the description, such as "Tower Bridge in London". But eh. PumpkinSkytalk22:12, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
★Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted★ Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope: Prunus sect. Cerasus flower buds. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
Question - Anyone else have an opinion? I looked at the possibility of inserting a thumbnail of this photo into a relevant Wikipedia article, for those who refuse to support anything that isn't already linked outside of Commons, but there simply isn't any room in any relevant Wikipedia article. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:17, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Ikan Kekek, thanks for Your interest in my file. I have carefully examined the criticism and have detained the answer to completely to see my mistakes. In the next 3-4 days I'll try to fix them. Sorry for machine translation from Russian. Thanks again. ---AlixSaz 11:39, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello Ikan, Thanks for including one of my photos on the WikiVoyage page. I knew nothing about this page until your message. Question: It seems that Leadville Historic District on Wikipedia does not link to WikiVoage page. Rather than add additional photos to the WikiVoyage page, wouldn't it be more efficent to just link to the Leadville Historic District page? Otherwise I'd be happy to paste all of the District page to the the Leadville WikiVoyage page, or is that not recommended? Also, how does WikiVoyage differ from the Wikipedia site--couldn't this be folded into the Wikipedia page on Leadville? Obviously I'm not understanding the difference between the two! Best, Steve. --Steven C. Price (talk) 14:32, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot for your reply! The Wikipedia page could be linked in one field of a listing for the Historic District, but it probably wouldn't be appropriate to copy and paste all the contents of the Wikipedia article wholesale; some summarizing and/or paraphrasing is usually needed due to differences in goals and style between the two sites. voy:Wikivoyage:Welcome, Wikipedians details differences between Wikivoyage (a travel guide) and Wikivoyage (an encyclopedia). In its "Content sharing" section, the following is stated:
While Wikivoyage and Wikipedia have different goals, we do have overlap in some of the content we produce, and ideally, we will be able to take advantage of our Creative Commons licensing to share that content [although note that Wikipedia's licensing and Wikivoyage's Copyleft policy both require that credit be given when borrowing content from Wikipedia; a brief note in an edit summary is suffficient].
Firstly, Wikipedia is not a travel guide. If you see content that is travel or tourism related on Wikipedia, it may be better suited to Wikivoyage. You can migrate the content, while ensuring that it is properly attributed. Otherwise, if you are planning to copy large amounts of text content from Wikipedia to Wikivoyage, please ensure it is suitable for Wikivoyage. Remember, we prefer to have lively, non-encyclopedic and original writing with the traveler in mind.
I know. Not sure why. I tried copying the template from the Sgraffito in Charleroi nom and inputting the correct info. Anyway, it's working now. I actually think DeFacto is probably right. Consider the possibility that Poco a poco or someone equally good takes a superb day picture of the theatre. It seems to be hard to change the scope of a picture after the fact, such as if it made sense to keep this in the scope of a night picture and elevate something, say, of FP quality over it that was taken during the day. I doubt DeFacto is disagreeing with you just to disagree. You and I have our disagreements, too. In the scheme of things, it's not that important: No-one will live a day longer or shorter because of such disagreements, unlike in politics or medicine or how people drive their cars. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:33, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
★Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted★ Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope: Maria Filotti Theatre, Façade, Illuminated. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
Support I have checked this submission agains all six criteria and am satisfied that they are met. For the record, I wikilinked some of the text. Martinvl (talk) 11:48, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I'm a little concerned that the scope does not include the fact that this is an artificially illuminated night-time scene as there is a clause in the buildings scope guidelines suggesting that generally the image should be taken in daylight. So this scope does exclude a guideline-compliant daytime image being promoted for the same building. But I won't oppose if others think that contravention to be acceptable. DeFacto (talk). 19:52, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
DeFacto, I'm supposing that the general case wouldn't include the illuminated image being this vastly superior to any other picture. However, if going forward, you think it would be best to limit this picture's scope, I see no reason to object. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:43, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ikan Kekek: I don't think we should assume that no-one will ever produce a gem of a photo the same building in daylight. We could/should leave that scope free, in case that happens. We could just add "illuminated", or similar, to the scope here, to allow for, or even encourage, a valuable future daylight photo. DeFacto (talk). 15:29, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ikan Kekek and DeFacto: The standard procedure is to set up a MVR and if the new image is judged to be better than this image, then this image will lose its VI status which will be passed to the new image. Martinvl (talk) 18:10, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Martinvl: that might be the case if both images were for the same scope. But my point is that there is room here for more than one scope.I think this image should be in a scope qualified as "illuminated", which would leave the current scope used here vacant for an image in normal daylight (as recommended by the guideline I linked to above). DeFacto (talk). 18:37, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please notify previous voters of this change. Remember: "A support vote that was made before a change of scope is not counted unless it is reconfirmed afterwards; an oppose vote is counted unless it is changed or withdrawn".
Comment The change is fine, but I will take this opportunity to register my disagreement with the change of scope. In my view, the image shoudlk either be accepted as the best image available for the theatre (with which I agree) or be disqualified for being taken by floodlight (which I think is pushing the rules too far). I totally disagree with creating a special scope "(illuminated)". Martinvl (talk) 11:47, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
★Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted★ Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope: Gate of All Nations in Persepolis, Frontal view. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
Why, considering where the category link goes? What would happen when people look for a VI in Category:Persepolis after this is a VI? Wouldn't this photo come up? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:25, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please notify previous voters of this change. Remember: "A support vote that was made before a change of scope is not counted unless it is reconfirmed afterwards; an oppose vote is counted unless it is changed or withdrawn".
Comment - I still don't really see why this change is necessary, and please sign your post above. However, I don't want to waste time just to make an unimportant point, and it doesn't actually hurt to add the parent category to the scope. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:27, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ikan, a bit of further elaborating on the "humility" aspect of Bangladeshi photographers. Read the interview with him in Huffpost], be destroyed by the first of his picture (and remember you have 11 left), then go back to the nom we discussed (amuptee kid) and look/read again. I hope that'll make it more clear what I meant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KennyOMG (talk • contribs) 13:23, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I understand. This is a photojournalist who tells the women's and girls' stories and photographs them. I'll have to look at the nom again. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:22, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hallo! Ich schreibe einfach mal auf Deutsch, Englisch fällt mir etwas schwerer. Das fällt mir leichter. Und ich hoffe, dass du es verstehen kannst. Ich möchte auf deine Frage bei FP eingehen. Es ist nicht einfach, Bilder als Kandidat für FP zu finden. Ich wähle aus, was geeignet sein kann. Es ist aber nach meinem Geschmack nicht alles geeignet. Dafür gibt es Bilder, die andere gut finden, mir aber nicht aufgefallen wären. So kommt es zu dem Bild der Wassermühle. Wenn ein Bild gar nicht geeignet ist, nehme ich es wieder aus der Bewertung. Man muss es ja nicht stehen lassen, wenn es nicht geeignet ist. Oft schaue ich auch, was andere nominieren und wähle danach aus. Das heißt aber nicht, dass es dann wirklich geeignet ist. Dafür sind die Geschmäcker zu unterschiedlich. So wie manche keine Schwarzweiß-Bilder oder Glasfassaden mögen, so mag ich keine Gemälde, da dort eigentlich eher die Leistung des Malers beurteilt wird und nicht die des Fotografen. (Aber ein Contra setze ich dort auch nicht. ;-) ) Irgendwann ist meine Liste abgearbeitet, es sind noch maximal 10 Bilder im Vorrat. Mal schauen, was dann kommt. Und da ich schon schreibe: Vielen Dank für deine immer hilfsbereiten und sachlichen Anmerkungen! So stelle ich mir das Miteinander hier bei Wikimedia Commons vor. --XRaytalk13:51, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My German is mediocre, so I read some but also used Google Translate. Anyway, I understand completely. But just to say that when I ask something like "Please tell us what you find special about the photo", it's because I'm not sure but would like to get the nominator's views and would consider them. I realize, of course, that it can be difficult to put into words why a work of art is special to a person, but we can try, anyway. I also don't vote on every photo. There are some photos I don't find that impressive but a consensus of other people do, so I don't vote for that reason; others that I don't vote on are often photos I'm simply not quite sure whether to support or not and never decide. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:18, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, my explanations are often too short. Hopefully just long enough. (Mathematican. ;-) ) I'll try to make it better. --XRaytalk10:37, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. By the way, I share some of your issues with photography of artworks. I don't normally vote for photographs of paintings at FPC if I'm not familiar enough with the painter's style or the painting in question to judge the quality of the reproduction. I do make an exception for frescos, because in that case, it's not just a painting that's being focused on but there's a wider context, and there are often other photographs to compare to. I may well have made mistakes in such votes, though. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:08, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I almost missed the coud front coming in over the house, but I remembered our conversation just in time. :) This is how it looked, File:Cloud front over Gåseberg.jpg, only thing I did was to adjust the white balance since this was very grey and light the landscape a bit since it became very dark. Some weeks ago, I caught some beautiful cloud shapes in some photos, 1, 2, 3. In my mind this is what some symphonies would look like if they were photographed. --cart-Talk17:45, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
★Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted★ Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope: Picnic Bay Jetty on Magnetic Island, Queensland. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
Hi, I'll try to explain. Maybe it's kind of subjective POV, but for me, oversharpened means excessive sharpening (via Photoshop etc.) in order to compensate otherwise low level of detail (e.g. due to misplaced focus, camera shake, motion blur). This does not provide more detail, but makes some border areas look sharper, but also adds unpleasant artefacts, which you certainly can see in this picture. Sometimes the sharpening goes automatically while the camera is generating the JPG file, so that it's not necessarily a postprocessing issue. In general, sharpening is not a panacea; it may make a photo, which is already sharp, look a bit more sharp, but it cannot make an unsharp photo sharp. Thanks --A.Savin07:04, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I think I see what you mean in that photo: The details on the roof don't pop out at me like they do in really clear pictures, but the left margin of the dome looks like it has a thin black border on it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:11, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, youngster! I'm 52! Born in 1965 - "Downtown" by Petula Clark was the #1 hit the week I was born, "Wooly Bully" by Sam the Sham and the Pharaohs was the #1 hit for the year, although it was never above #2 in any given week that year. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:23, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comment on my photo File: Hondsrug, De Strubben-Kniphorstbosch 004.jpg.
If you think that the picture is a chance, I want to offer him for FPC.
Sincerely,--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:06, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) I find FPC totally baffling as to what will and won't pass. I like that photo too. The tree has some shadows but it's sharp and I like the way it stands out from the grass and trees in the background. PumpkinSkytalk19:21, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I thank you for Cephonodes kingii in QI, it is nice to receive a promotion. But mostly enjoying working with you who have a good mind and desire to do well. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 05:52, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comment on my photo. If you think the photo is a chance, you can offer the photo for FP. Personally, I can always difficult to assess whether a picture for FP has a chance.
Sincerely, Dominicus --Famberhorst (talk) 05:30, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There's no deadline, in that you can always renominate if the time to consider elapses. But as long as your nomination hasn't yet been declined, try uploading it there. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:18, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ikan and @W.carter: . I was back at that wooden bridge today, it was all cloudy so it was worth a stop there. The left side of the stream is useless for a good photo. Actually standing in the stream is maybe a good spot but I think even better is one I found a couple meters closer and to the left of where I took the one currently at FPC. My left foot was about 20 cm from the water and was in a good bit of mud. I've processed it but not cropped it yet. Care to offer any thoughts? PumpkinSkytalk22:59, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your QIC comment about File:Ship in the SF Bay fog (40406).jpg. I like the image very much, personally -- it looks like a ship that's lost in the most dramatic, literary sense of that word -- but would not have considered it for FPC. Might be worth giving a shot, though. Could you elaborate on the crop you envision? Placing the ship near the center? — Rhododendritestalk | 19:34, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know whether it's a good FP nominee or not, but I envision cropping a lot of the foreground. How much, I'd leave to your discretion. Maybe about half? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:13, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Ikan,
Thanks for your reviews, please, if you are interesed and have the time, take a look to the raw file and see if it could be improved. Thanks --The Photographer17:31, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's a nice gift, thank you. These days I have had some good news: my Milanese and Toulouse friends described a kind of crocodile from the pieces that were previously in my collections. I will place the images of the publication in some time in COMMONS. Razanandrongobe --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:09, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's disturbing. Admittedly, I did come home tipsy last night, but I wasn't unconsciously drunk or anything like that, don't remember reading the crap that was posted in my name and definitely wouldn't have copied it or posted it anywhere. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:07, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No other weird edits under my name on Commons yesterday. I can't imagine what I might have accidentally copied and pasted, if that's what happened. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:50, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ikan, I've uploaded a new version of this file. I could do the same with this other one, but that will take pretty long, as I need not just to clone but regenerate content, that's a couple of hours of work. So, if you believe that it's worth it, I'd do it this weekend. Best, Poco218:04, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The updated photo looks beautiful. I think the other one is totally up to you. I don't know if it would have a good shot at FPC: It's quite a striking building, but perhaps some people might object to the building to its left and where it's cropped. It's hard to predict voting at FPC. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:33, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I know that this doesn't have a real relevancy but still I've the need to express it. Since you showed up here you have incarnated the desinterested contributor, the fair team player and the tireless contributor. Thank you, Ikan! Poco219:49, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hallo Ikan, I don't succeed to answer on the page of VI. Therefore here: The man with the ship in the image with bishop Kleinermeilert was the model maker. He died many years ago. Best regards -- Lothar Spurzem (talk) 09:58, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
File:Antwerpen, centraal station oeg7051 IMG 1179 2017-08-27 14.34.jpg[edit]
Many thanks for your comment. You are absolutely right; the center of the photo (see personal note) is too hazy. I have tried to enlarge the contrast and make the photo a bit darker, but I don't see any improvement. Do you have any idea how to make it just a bit sharper? I did not use a tripod, but I could support my camera at the railing. I also doubt if my focus was really perfect. If nothing helps I realize I have to withdraw the nomination. Again, thanks for your comment, I learn by making mistakes --Michielverbeek (talk) 22:39, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have another question. On the photo with two flowers currently at QIC CR, you said you think not QI but good for FP. How so? At first thought that sounds backwards. PumpkinSkytalk12:17, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I can see that, but I also think it also comes down to individuals and how they interpret the guidelines; such the FPC I just closed that went 14-7-1. What is WOW or great composition, etc for one person is not so for some other people. Thanks. PumpkinSkytalk13:00, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. "Wow" is expressly subjective. Elements of a compelling composition get somewhat more agreement but also are often differed on, too. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:05, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Czech Republic map as featured picture candidate[edit]
Hi, Ikan Kekek. Thank you for the comments on the Czech Republic map proposal for featured picture candidate. My main purpose is to improve at maximum the maps' generation and therefore I think your comments are very useful. I just want to understand your idea about the needs for more details. Do you mean that you would like to see also the names of geographical items on it such as mountains, valleys etc.? Or may be you mean something else? I will be happy to have your detailed feedback. Regarding the size, please note that the maps I am generating are in SVG format and as such they can be printed in bigger size than the one they are generated. I can increase the size but the issue is that they may become unreadable when included in the articles as thumbnails. The same issue appears when they are too detailed. That's why I personally prefer to create different maps with the required details instead putting everything in one map. This also the advantage of the electronic format compared to paper. You can see an example of a map I made here and another one with details only about relief here Thank you --Ikonact (talk) 08:45, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to address your question as well as I can. In my opinion, for an optimal map, everything should be clearly labeled - every stream, every mountain, every road and railway line where relevant, etc. And if you could use a digital format that could be enlarged to a very high degree, that would be ideal. Your maps are certainly good, even quite good, but if you want them to be really optimal, I suggest these things. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:44, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks, understood. I am currently working on another map and may be I can apply your recommendations. So I will make it bigger (around 8 000 x 8 000 px ), add geographical information and road numbers. I do not know if I can provide more information for the railways but I will see. I still need to find a good balance between detailed map and possibility to be readable when included in the article. May be I can withdraw the current nomination and come back once the new map is ready. Thank you --Ikonact (talk) 10:43, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't recommend for you to withdraw the current nomination, which looks like it will be promoted very comfortably. Instead, you should feel free to offer the new map as a substitute when it's ready. One way to provide a balance between labeling and readability is to provide a legend that explains your symbols and consider using different colors or shapes (double lines, striped lines, etc.) for different major highways or railways. Depending on your emphasis, this may not be necessary, but I would definitely suggest labeling every village, every stream and every mountain, and distinguishing in your symbols between superhighways, secondary roads and tertiary roads. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:49, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Thank you for the QI promotion of File:Ex shell überseering 35 07.jpg! You asked if it has been judged before. Yes it has, but the process was not brought to an end. If you take a look at the archived discussion out of November 2015, you find that there was quite a lot of talk, but it was never formally ended and so the image was neither promoted nor declined. I wanted a formal decision, because this image is one of the Top 100 images from WLM Germany 2015. And of course, because I like some of the images out of this series. ;-) Greetings, --Dirtsc (talk) 09:55, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings to you. Thanks for the information about the previous discussion. I can understand why it was one of the top 100 images from WLM Germany in 2015. It's a good photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:59, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for trying, but there is too much subjectivity in this label, which is prestigious but does not have much interest. Only VI deserves the time that one passes there. It is a pleasure to work with you, your interventions are always measured contructive and sincere. Happy Christmas for you and your family.
--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:37, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, and I wish the same to you and your family. I will try to remember to nominate it for QI; I think it will pass QIC without any controversy. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:54, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merry Christmas, Happy New Year, and wishing for eternal Peace in world[edit]
I truly wish you, your family, and your friends Merry Christmas, Happy New Year, and wishing for eternal Peace in world. Have a great holiday season. PumpkinSkytalk15:28, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Mais oui!, yes I'm living here and Yesterday I felt for the first time a pleasant temperature of -43 degrees Celsius. I am not here on vacation, I am living in this small city, it has been a big change after coming from Sao Paulo, not so much because of the weather but the culture is really different. Also I bought a yamaha p115 to spend my spare time learning to play this instrument. --The Photographer18:08, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. I'm more likely to visit Montreal, where my girlfriend has friends from her days in graduate school at McGill, but it could happen. Let me know if you have occasion to get down to New York. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:55, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
NYC is a nice place to know and it strikes me to visit especially the museums and all these emblematic sites. I'm going to talk to Beria, maybe we can go next year. --The Photographer19:07, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) FYI there's going to be a Wikipedia Day event in NYC next month. Probably about 100-150 people gathered at the Ace Hotel in Midtown Manhattan. Free to attend, with free food and cake. You should both come! In fact, if you'd be interested to participate on a panel, give a lightning talk, etc. we're still doing some last minute planning (but no pressure, of course). Typically a fun event. More information here: en:Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Wikipedia Day 2018. — Rhododendritestalk | 21:26, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The shell photos are composed of 5 single, focus stacked images with an unicoloured (normally black) background. Then I cut out the single pictures (not exactly along the border of the shell but with a black border) and arrange them in one picture. If the background colour of the single picture is not exactly the same colour as the background colour of the composite (e.g. a bit brighter, as in this case, when I adjusted the brightness of some of shell views to an equal level and forgot to darken the black part again), you can see the contour of the cut-out single shell. This I call a masking error (Masking = to cut out the contour of a photographed object). Greetings --Llez (talk) 12:42, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Ikan, I saw your comment and uploaded a new version with some denoising in those areas that I believe would need it more, not everywhere. What do you think, is it good to go? Poco220:45, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for working on it. I'm not sure whether it's good to go or not. It looks good at 300% of full screen on my laptop now, but at full size, it might still be noisier than the other big panorama pics we've been promoting to FP. You might ask someone else for a second opinion. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:27, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Re this: Mindful of how some of my recent noms have turned up dust spots I missed, I have been carefully looking over any new ones for subtler dust spots, and in fact have found a few such. If you look at the file histories, you'll see I uploaded new versions of all three of those images last night.
I'm not faulting you for pointing it out. Just letting you know I'm aware of the issue (especially after you really took me to school on those ones of the cliffs ). Daniel Case (talk) 18:05, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I absolutely assume you'd look for them, but I'll let you know when I still see some.
Thank you for your help. Is it correct now ? See : Commons:Valued image candidates/Most valued review candidate list. And : Commons:Valued image candidates/Accademia - La tempesta - Giorgione.jpg and Commons:Valued image candidates. Sincerely. (Ismoon (talk) 10:57, 5 March 2018 (UTC))[reply]
★Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted★ Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope: Infrared urban panorama. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
review
Comment I'm not sure anout this one Ikan Kekek. We discourage night views in favour of days view; does the same logic not apply to infra-red? If not, this could result in an image for every building. However, if this is submitted to be the VI that demonstrate the technology of infra-red photography, then it would have to be the best example we have of Infrared (cityscape) or something like that. Charles (talk) 11:36, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - As you said, this is submitted as a subset of infrared photography, not views of Montreal. Would you like for me to change the scope to "infrared urban panorama"? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:39, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please notify previous voters of this change. Remember: "A support vote that was made before a change of scope is not counted unless it is reconfirmed afterwards; an oppose vote is counted unless it is changed or withdrawn".
I wasn't sure whether to post the comments at that FP, the other FP, or on talk-FP. It seems that comparing these two images at equal size was a useful exercise. I saw a significant risk that this image would be pixel-peep opposed, because the votes were headed in that direction, rather than accumulating support. And I see it as hugely unfair that simultaneously the other image was actually being praised for being downsized to 3.8MP. Xray was being denied support because he'd uploaded 30MP rather than 3.8MP. I pinged you and the others, because etiquette is that you should tell people that there's a discussion that involves what they've said/done, and not because I wanted to single out any one voter.
The one vote-rationale I did single out was, by quite some margin, the worst and most harmful vote-rationale I've seen on Commons in 2018. It is one thing to not notice the small size, or to notice and judge on balance that the image is so great anyway, but I don't think you or I want Commons FP to be one where "downsizing for the web 3.8MP" is actively and specifically praised and encouraged.
We now have both images at similar full size, and it is clear which photographer is more talented with processing. -- Colin (talk) 08:05, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is. But my remarks on that particular nomination by XRay were very high praise. I in fact suggested the nomination in the response thread at QIC and would have nominated it myself if XRay hadn't gotten around to it soon, though you probably didn't know any of that. As for the other image, I didn't realize it had been downsized and simply reacted to what I saw. Considering that no-one had opposed - or indeed has opposed - the nomination in question, I think you seriously overreacted and would have been better placed to simply post your upsized photo in the thread of the other photo. Meanwhile, about that snide remark that I "really do pixel peep the 30MP images to death", when you see an instance of what looks like that to you, comment on it specifically in the relevant thread and see if you can convince me to lift an oppose vote, but don't just flail about making global accusations. Thanks in advance, and good day. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:39, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ikan, I've fixed my comment there to say "Some of these same reviewers". It was rather careless of me to make it appear I was critical of all of the other voters pixel peeping record. Or even most of them. Three votes had commented on the pixel issues, and each time getting a bit stronger, with Donald's neutral vote representing a refusal to support because of pixel issues. Of course we'll never now how it might have developed from there, but I have seen many many nominations build up a collection of negative voting over these pixel issues, and for some it is death. Clearly from the fp-talk discussion ("We have a serious problem"), x-ray is also concerned his images are being unfairly reviewed at 100%. We both know initial impressions count, and not everyone returns to fix up earlier votes. You may be right I posted in the wrong place.
As for "I didn't realize it had been downsized and simply reacted to what I saw" there is a useful script you can add to your User:Ikan Kekek/vector.js
//
// Calculate Megapixels on image pages
//
function calculateMegapixels() {
var data = $('.fileInfo').text();
pixel_filter = /([\d,]+) × ([\d,]+)/;
if(pixel_filter.test(data)) {
pixel_filter.exec(data);
var wt = RegExp.$1, ht = RegExp.$2
, w = parseFloat( wt.replace(/,/,) )
, h = parseFloat( ht.replace(/,/,) );
$('.fileInfo').append( $('').text(' (' + ((w*h)/1e6).toFixed(2) + ' Megapixel)' ) );
}
}
if( wgAction == 'view' && wgNamespaceNumber == 6 ) $j(document).ready(calculateMegapixels);
This adds e.g. "(30.08 Megapixel)" to the dimensions on the file description page. I wish there was a way to add it to the FP nomination page. I think you are one of the more thoughtful and considerate reviewers, and open to reconsidering your votes. I didn't mean to drag you into the pixel-peeing criticism. -- Colin (talk) 13:40, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Colin, that's nice of you. And of course I get your point. I'm not sure I understand how to add this script to a redlink, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:09, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you click on the redlink, there should be text in blue saying "create this page". Click on that and then insert the above text into the box. Publish. You may need to use Ctrl-F5 to refresh any already-opened pages. -- Colin (talk) 18:20, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's logically argued. I don't think I'd express an opinion about it in a discussion, but I'd be happy to accept any consensus. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:58, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The NY Transit Museum does tours of the City Hall station a few times a year. They don't make it easy, though. You have to become a member, know the day the tickets go on sale (quarterly), get to the website within a few minutes before they sell out, and pay almost as much as the membership for each ticket, up to the number of people on the membership, then send them each photos of each person's id a month in advance. It's a pretty rare opportunity to do some legal urban exploration, though. :) You can also see the station from the 6 train when it uses the City Hall loop from its end (?). More here if interested: Category:Photographs taken by Rhododendrites - City Hall Station — Rhododendritestalk | 14:32, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ikan, I just saw your question about my Alaska trip. I was up there 3 weeks, the first one was a cruise from Vancouver to Seward and then I took a car for 2 weeks and followed a kind of 8-shape route with Tok in the connecting point and Dawson City, Denali, Haines an Anchorage in the circles. Are you enjoying it? there is yet more to come :) Poco206:03, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ikan for promoting File:The Spire.jpg! I did not think that this could be a featured picture and now it is a candidate for the picture of the year contest!
yeah this was great, also that it is in the gallery of architecture is astonishing! You may have some time to browse through my current pictures and detect another one that could be a featured picture, that would be cool because I am not always sure how good they really are. If you have other stuff to do thanks anyway and dont feel forced to do that :). --A,Ocram (talk) 10:05, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure. I think I prefer a photo without the other building in the foreground on the left, or another possibility would be more room to the left of that building.
I'd rather someone else passes judgment on it first, as I think I've been first to vote on each of your nominations so far. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:19, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comment at QIC. Regarding this guy, he did in deed have a little space under his elbows. I went back and forth between getting the lines behind him just right and having that extra space at the bottom. :) I've uploaded the other version. The perspective adjustment is slightly different in order to have a different crop. I was hoping more people would pass in front of that yellow background, but it was sort of off the parade path. Was happy to catch him there -- his face/umbrella combo might've been my favorite costume there. Ever been? — Rhododendritestalk | 15:27, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've been vaguely aware of it for a while, but had no idea it was as popular as it is (one of the city's biggest annual events, apparently). Decided to go this year, and paid the $40 to get a "photographer's pass" into the staging area, in the amphitheater there on the boardwalk. On the upside, it gave an opportunity to take pictures away from the crowds, bustle, and harsh sun; the down side is it removed the context of the parade and made for more boring backgrounds. Meh. This pic is obviously outside, though, near the end of the parade route. FYI Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Mermaid Parade (61042).jpg. — Rhododendritestalk | 19:48, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ikan, I want to bring to your attention these few troll-made accounts (maybe bot-made?). They have been randomly spamming extremely low-quality image nominations on QIC. The accounts were all made 20 minutes apart, with the exception of the last one, which is used by the perpetrator to "promote" his own pictures (despite not passing the requirements for voters).
Hey Ikan, now that I've refined this image the best I can, do you think it would fare well in a re-nomination (if I renom'd it)? If it were the first time you were seeing the picture, would you have supported it? GerifalteDelSabana (talk) 14:41, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The nomination is still under consideration. See how that plays out. If it doesn't pass, I would suggest for you not to renominate it. I like the photo, but you are probably capable of taking better photos than that, although in my opinion, it's very good. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:44, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What about this one? The one aforementioned had -17 vibrance on lightroom, I moved this one to -7 just in case someone dislikes it. I also have zero sharpening on both pictures to reduce any artifacting and posterizing. I forgot to change the file name, which was a big mistake. Now, I'm just waiting for the file to be moved to an appropriate name. GerifalteDelSabana (talk) 06:44, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ikan, do you know of any way I can log out centrally on every device I have ever used to log into Wikipedia? I'm having some major problems right now. GerifalteDelSabana23:33, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hallo Ikan, my picture Water of a fountain is still in the consensual review. Today I had the chance to repeat the photo. You proposed to use a shorter shutter speed (1/4000). I tried it, but it was still not convaincant. So I tried 1/8000 which is better IMO. I replaced the former 1/2000 version by the 1/8000 version. Could you please have a look at it again in the consensual review? Thanks. --Llez (talk) 11:49, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Quality images candidates/candidate list/মানিকতলা চালতাবাগান দূর্গা পূজা ২০১৭[edit]
I have re-done the given panorama from scratch, applied de-noise and then an output sharpner.
My constraint was that I did not had a sufficient fast lens with a wide coverage at that time, so I tried to do a handheld panorama using my 35mm f/1.8 dx.
However couple of frame are simplu out of focus and cannot be recovered beyond a point.
I am not liking the quality and would like to withdraw it from the quality image nomination.
Sure thing. Just to let you know: I have been checking FPC, QIC and VIC frequently, so it's unnecessary to post to my user talk page, as I'll see whatever you post at those pages. Or you could continue to post here - that's fine, too.
Capitole Toulouse - Grand escalier - Les Pâtres - Jean-Pierre Laurens 1912.jpg[edit]
I only saw the question late. Shepherds may be referred to as Pâtre , a more poetic term. But I did not find the right word in English I finally put "Shepard", we understand better even if the poetry loses. Thank you for your always constructive remarks. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:35, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Shepherd" is the more common spelling. "Pastor" is fine, though. Nowadays, we most commonly use "pastor" to mean a preacher, but that's because the congregation is the flock, and it's by analogy with a pastor tending his sheep. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:14, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Subject: Drenched turkey tails (Trametes versicolor) on a dead branch. That is my problem. I do not know which is the best photo. I think File: Elfenbankje (Tramways versicolor) (d.j.b.) 01.jpg or File: Elfenbankje (Trams versicolor) (d.j.b.) 03.jpg. The choice is yours. With kind regards, Dominicus Bergsma.--Famberhorst (talk) 06:26, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
This painting gave me work because the title is weird, I had to intrest to the genealogy of the English souvrains to restore the title. It is possible that Danloux painted it by nature because in 1794 he was in England. If you have information I'm interested ... --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 10:29, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to give you this humble recognition for your positive way of being, always waiting and giving the best in the wiki in a tireless way. Happy year 2019 dear friend Photographer01:39, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Pan de jamón and Hallaca are a typical Christmas dish of my country, and I would like to share it with you, wishing you the best year 2019.. I would like to give you this humble recognition. Happy year 2019 dear!!! Photographer01:44, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I did my butterfly trip to the Balkans with a professional player called Benjamin who used to work with Royal Opera House and Opus Arte. Really nice guy. We talked for ever about music... Charles (talk) 16:29, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This time reaching out to you - and what this Wiki is about[edit]
Hi Ikan,
on the QI candidates page you have just written something to me that reflects a misunderstanding of my intentions. And by telling me that this Wiki is not a private discussion space you have crossed a border of mutual respect, since of course I know that, and judging from your user page, I know that for nearly eight years longer than you.
I do not want to start a debate or write lengthy stuff about every disagreement among reviewers or image authors. That's an impression you probably got because just we two have collided with our views of quality twice within a few weeks. If it comes to lengthy statements on the QI candidates page, it is usually an indication that already something else went wrong before. I have seen people explode alarmingly often on the page during the last weeks, repeatedly changing to writing German in their excitment.
You have written: We're all volunteers here with limited time, and some of us are just using our eyes and mind to make judgments and might not be able to advise you on what to do differently. If you think that's not legitimate, then you don't respect the right of the viewer to make up his/her mind about what s/he's looking at. As I understand this, your writing reflects a very special view about what the work on the QI page is about. It is a legitimate view in some sense, and I respect that view. But I want to tell you that it is just a very special one (as might be mine, of course).
Quality - in what field soever, photography or elsewhere - is not a matter of majorities, and not a thing that everyone can judge about in any field. On the other hand, Wikipedia or Wikimedia is for everyone. It is a community project where everyone is invited to contribute. That's a discrepancy that Wikipedia has to live with in general, and it has been astonishingly successful in spite of it. Nevertheless it is a discrepancy. Hierarchical structures like roles with approval rights or admin roles can only mitigate the problem. At the same time the situation is aggravated by the volunteer character of its contributors. The majority of project members are probably amateurs in their fields. All contributions are just for free, and therefore professionals presumably stay away. I did not make a single Wikipedia edit on the fields where I earn my money from in normal life or where I hold a university degree. If I look at the image contributions on Commons I observe the same: I am quite sure that professional photographers are a minority there.
So what is the QI page about in my observation? As far as I remember, it was created when in the early days of this Wiki amateurs and photographic laymen began to upload any shots they had in order to illustrate the Wikipedia articles. Some more advanced photographers could not bear to see the blown-out white skies, distorted buildings and sharpening halos any more. Therefore they created the QI initative. It was meant to improve the quality of Commons by spreading photographic knowledge among contributors. Ten years ago, I experienced the QI page as a page for image authors to work together.
If I look at the page today, after being less active on it for considerable time, the impression is a bit different. There seem to be more nominations in shorter time, and most important, there is the filtering feature on Commons, where you can select out all QI from a category to be displayed in prominent position. This feature is nice for finding good pictures, and actually I suggested it many years ago. (I don't know if anyone remembered this at the time when the feature was really created. Anyone could have had this idea too.) But on the other hand, the feature increases the desire for QI status, resulting not only in better quality, but also in more review work load.
If you write that you are a volunteer doing reviews with limited time, you seem to reflect the new spirit of the page to me, which lies in the purpose of filtering much nominations in limited time. This is a legitimate aspect, as collecting and categorizing is an important acitivity. Some people seem to specialize on it also for other Wikis. It is important work, and therefore it is legitmate that you ask for respect for reviewers. On the other hand, you would have nothing to review, if no one would create images. Therefore let me urgently ask you for respect also for image creators!
Image creators are volunteers too, as are reviewers. (Most people assume both roles anyway.) Image creators might even invest more of their limited time than reviewers. Therefore, if I do a review, I try to respect the image creator. This does not mean that lengthy explanations of reviews or even advice on improvement procedures are necessary. If the situation is simple, simple headwords are sufficient. But if it is more complicated and the author has questions, I feel obliged to explain. That's a matter of respect for the image author. In some cases, I even help someone to improve the image, but only if he or she asks for it explicitly. I do it voluntarily, although my time is also very limited. And it is possible, because there is no project plan that says I should work on as many images as I can in my limited time. I did not invent this mode of working. I learned it from others.
I know from your writing that your intentions may be different. That's OK in the sense of a division of work. But don't exaggerate. Just writing "bad quality", as some people do, is kind of insulting for the nominator. (You did not write exactly this and I did not receive it. But it is an extreme example from the page.) A nominated image may be even obvious trash, but if someone nominated it, he or she did not want to do any harm usually, but just was not able to perceive the problem, and therefore deserves respect by the reviewer nevertheless. To say it more clearly: If you feel not to have the time for paying a minimum of respect to the image creator by providing him or her with a clarification of your findings, you should not review the image at all after my opinion.
In summary: There are many aspects that make up this Wiki project. At the heart there is collaboration among volunteers. If you aim at collaboration on a high level of quality, this is neither a matter of majorities, nor can it be judged in an incontrovertible, absolutely objective way. There has to be discussion, here on the Wiki as in normal life, and that's the reason why every article on Wikipedia has its discussion page.
So yes, this Wiki is not a private discussion space. But in the above sense, it is a public one.
P.S.: Hope you don't blame me for having made you discussion page so much longer...
All of this makes sense, and thanks for recounting the history. It's certainly good to be reminded to be sensitive toward the photographers who choose to upload their own work to this site. That said, if something isn't sharp enough in my opinion for the QI designation, it should be clear enough to state that in my opinion, it's not sharp enough for the QI designation. If people don't agree, that's what Consensual Review is for.
If you still think that even after a question an image author cannot expect more than just pointing your thumb down (for the current case in terms of sharpness), it seems that I have not reached you with my plea. Some keywords where exactly on the image you see a problem in a less obvious situation would cost you only seconds and require no technical background. I did not want to make you change your judgement. I just hoped to create more sensitivity for communication. The name for the Wiki keyword that sends images to consensual review was not randomly chosen to be /Discuss instead of just /Vote.
Anyway, I have to thank you for your kind acceptance of a discussion on the review procedure at least, if not on the image itself.
You mean pointing out where I mainly was seeing the unsharpness? It was on the left side of the building, but at least one other person pointed that out. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:23, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thank you finally. And yes, meanwhile user "King of Hearts" gave that hint, but much, much later. There is indeed a distinct difference in sharpness between the left and the right part. I did not take notice too much before, because I considered it more as background and concentrated on the castle. And still I don't find it too serious, but this is of course up to the reviewer to decide. The reason is the natural decrease of sharpness towards the image border, which is present for any lens, only somewhat less for the very expensive ones. This together with a non-centered crop made the effect most likely. --JRff (talk) 20:48, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I only recently realized that you never post pictures on QIC and all your FPC nominations are those of other photographers. Thank you very much for your avid selfless quality work on Commons! --Trougnouf (talk) 12:47, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comment on my photo of Cyclamen coum. This pink flowering cyclamen was the most beautiful one I could find under the trees of the avenue. Flowering cyclamen in various colors are currently blooming. From white to this pink and many colors in between. I have selected 4 photos. The other 3 are under this picture. Personally, I do not think these are the best because they have been photographed from above. and the others from the side. The flowers stand on fairly long stems above the marbled leaves.--Famberhorst (talk) 17:26, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply] PS: I can always make a difficult choice.
"Ruïne Casti Munt Sorn Gieri (Burg Jörgenberg)" doesn't look English to me and is identical to your Dutch text. It's the ruins of a castle, right? So "Ruins of [Name, I suppose Munt Sorn Gieri] Castle (Burg Jörgenberg)" or something like that. If anything is unclear, let me know. I regret that I know so little Dutch. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:46, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your explanation. I have adjusted the text. Hopefully it is good now. We speak in our province Frisian. That is a minority language.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:31, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thank you very much for your review of photo in QIC. And If you like to see; all my photos of Moioio Island are here. Do you think that one of this images has a FP potential? And can you see my photos here? Do you think that they are enough good for I nominate for FP? Thank you one's again and have a nice day! Tournasol7 (talk) 14:35, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Tournasol7. No time to look at everything now, but I'll try to get to this. The second link is red, though.
I'm not sure how best to help. Maybe User:XRay has some advice on how to find the best categories, beyond the remarks that have been made in your Quality Image Candidates nominations. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:56, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Alexandr frolov: Just an answer here ... I gave an hint for the categories: Commons:Categories. Please read it. There are a lot of hints. IMO the best way for categorization. For me these things are important: Categories are not tags, look for categories for everything seen on your photograph, look for the categorization of other photographs in the appropriate category. --XRaytalk09:00, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The dialogue speaks for itself. Address the arguments where they're given and don't talk to me about this on my user talk page. Thank you. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:45, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'm doing fine. I think this is a good compositional idea. I'm not sure it's possible to take an FP of this motif, but greater sharpness would be good.
Hello Ikan,
about 2000 pictures of about 500 different types. I myself am surprised about the amount. The effort is not so big when the cars come by in short intervals. You only need sun for short shutter speeds and a lot of time to classify the models. Last year I found time for four events. This year it will probably be less. Thank you for your tireless and always objective work.
Regards --Ermell (talk) 08:00, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ikan, thanks for this edit. You're absolutely free to vote as you like, either positively or negatively. The reason of our long discussion is partly due to my misunderstanding of your text, either because English is not my mother tongue, and because your review destabilized me at the beginning. Bootshift immediately voted "per Ikan", and I could imagine this painting being quickly disqualified by a rude succession of red votes following each others, as it happens sometimes in FPC, until a fatal configuration it becomes almost impossible for any potential supporter to share their feelings without considering it will just be a waste of time, since the result is already done. Yes I think the coloration of the texts below an FPC is influential and can also determine the further participation. Although maybe that's wrong, and in any case that's the "game" (or the process). This is a painting I appreciate very much, and finding it in good quality was a good surprise, thus an immediate disqualification in FPC was hard to follow from my side. Now of course I feel more relax and confident after other's supports, but I don't know what would have been the result (which is still not completely done) if my natural behavior had been total indifference. We can't change the past, only see what happens at the present. Also my first sight towards this painting was similar to yours as stated in your first comment, since I found strange the sculptor works on a wrapped subject with this uncovered lady, but only after a second interpretation, the work appeared funny and interesting to me, and as a consequence when I read your oppose I wondered if your personal view was superficial or legitimate. Now I'm still unsure but it doesn't matter, I just want to explain my misunderstanding of this sentence "you would never appreciate my father's art, since at the moment, it sells for 5 and not 6 figures." Talking about prices, in France (or maybe only in my neighborhood), we most often refer to the number of zeros. So, for example a piece of art sold 50'000 € has a price with 4 zeros. This is sometimes a matter of joke when talking about expensive things, we say "this is not 3 but 4 zeros", or "you can add one more zero and you're closer to reality", etc. On the contrary, I'm not really familiar with these "figures" you mentioned, until I catch their meaning in the context. So the confusion started here. There was 5 zeros in Dantan's price, so you were likely to mean your father's paintings were sold for 6 zeros, which means millions ! In your sentence, the it in "it sells" referred for me to Dantan's painting, while obviously you were talking about your father's. This has become very clear afterwards, but believe me at this stage, in my hurry reading, it was not, and I honestly thought you were saying your father sells masterpieces for more than 1'000'000 USD. So yes, you can imagine how dubitative I was, because one (or five or nine) million dollars for a painting is such a high price, usually artists don't paint only one but many pieces. However, as surprising it would have been, I was not completely mistrusting you, since you seem a honest person, and thought perhaps I missed something (sometimes family stories are very complex, family links too), and you could have an extremely successful ancestor doing some kind of powerful abstract art selling very well in some corners of New York, and making you just completely allergic towards other styles, or you could have added a bit of romance but not so much to the story, so finally, to be frank my first reaction was half skeptical and half curious and embarrassed. That's why I answered this slightly ironic text requesting more details. Sorry this could have been avoided if my English had been better, my reading less hurried, my contrariety weaker, and my knowledge better concerning the description of prices through "figures". I apologize for the mess resulted, since my error was fixed while I did not completely adopt your point of view either, but it would have been more hurting to strike completely my sentence after your valid explanations (you were right to defend a truth, but the truth also gives credit to my own position in this context). Well, finally this message on your talk page is above all to let you know that I have absolutely no judgement on your father's art, for the simple reason I don't know what he did. Perhaps I would be extremely admirative, perhaps at the inverse totally sick, or perhaps just 100% neutral. I don't think this is important here, but prefer to bring a bit of light, since the discussion can be confused or confusing. Debates are fine in FPC in general but this was not a great debate in my view. Maybe next time :-) Kind regards -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:06, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this message. Of course I realize I have the right to vote pro or con, but I considered people's remarks about why the content of the painting is interesting or funny and ultimately found that a meritorious argument. Besides, after living with the painting for a while, while I still don't love it, at least from the reproduction (and no matter how good a reproduction is, the experience of seeing an artwork in person is different), it's really not as bad as it seemed to me at first.
Thanks for the review. I had the same reservations, and I'm not fond of the busy background with the hangars and porta-potties, but the alien-looking plane with the sun gleaming on it and the sunrays were too good to pass up in the 30 seconds available. It was intermittently raining, and there were occasional opportunities for sparkle. Acroterion (talk) 12:17, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Eatcha, I hope you don't regret inviting me now. I may be serving as a giant buzzkill at FSC, but I'm an opinionated professional musician with high standards. I hope everyone on that board doesn't hate me now. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:23, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What ? Why would I regret ? I actually want more musicians & audiophiles to participate in that project, I don't want some nonsense crap to get featured. And your proposal to start a Valued sound project is nice, but I agree with others that we first need to get the FSC up and stable until we don't have about 20 regular participants, I also started a project for featuring videos, but now I'm sure that it will crash within next few weeks, want to know why ? See this. The number of videos is just 0.259% of all the files on commons, want to know about sounds ? It's just about 2%, on the other hand pictures are more than 90% of what commons is. But I hope that commons will change and we'll see some more diversity. ————Eatcha (Talk-Page) 17:17, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I get you. But I don't think that's a reason to shelve the featured video project. It can be quiet for a while but continue in the background. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:53, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I want to award you with this barnstar. This is my way of apologizing for all the trouble I caused recently. Thank you BoothSift23:11, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the review of my picture. I would like to learn from it, so i looked up the category of similar pictures. There are 11 pictures shot from nearly the same position. None of those seems sharper to me. At least mine is the one, where the inscription above and to the right of the main portal is readable best. So my question is: What did I do wrong and could I really have done better? Thanks for advice and best regards --Cyberolm (talk) 13:36, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I can't address how other people may have reviewed other pictures. Reviewing at Quality Image Candidates is very inconsistent because different people are reviewing at different times. I also can't really tell you technically what you did wrong, except for what I said in the review: The Duomo is out of focus, and then it looks to me like you tried to sharpen it with software, but that resulted in a lot of unpleasant noise while not making it sharp. So all I can suggest is, make sure to have a better focus. The composition is very good, so I hope you have a chance to retake the picture. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:58, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The original definitely looks too red, but I think you've drained too much of the color. At least on my monitor, it looks too white now. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:44, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear! Not a good combination. I was wondering where you were and I was hoping you were on vacation. I assume you will also have an upcoming struggle with an insurance company. Take care now, best you can. --Cart(talk)15:13, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have no renter's insurance, so I have to deal directly with the landlord and haven't yet gotten a response to any of my emails or my one voicemail so far, so it's time for a certified letter. Fortunately, I didn't take much of a financial hit or lose any irreplaceable art or documents in this flood, but it's a problem not to be able to live in the apartment I'm paying rent for. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:58, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I had forgotten how tricky landlords in NY can be.:-( My sister divides her time between Sweden and an apartment in Queens, so I've heard a few things. I'm glad you at least have friends you can stay with while you sort this out. Hope you get well soon so you'll have the strength to deal with all of it. Do drop in here or on FPC from time to time so we'll know you're ok. --Cart(talk)23:18, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Things are a bit unsettled, in that I was informed today that I have to leave this apartment in a week and my girlfriend's mother says I could stay with her for a few days but should contact other people. So I'll call my godmother and one or two other friends. I also am likely to have the phone number of a pro bono tenants' lawyer tomorrow and can discuss things with him/her. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:01, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. This isn't fun. I have hopes that when it's all over, my apartment will be in much better shape than before the flood, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:47, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Basile. The necessary repairs have been approved but are now delayed because I'm recovering from pneumonia. But at least I'm staying with my cousins and one of them is a nurse practitioner. They also have good Wi-Fi.
Thank you. That's very sweet of you two! My apartment is definitely still a work in progress. For example, I threw away my old office chair and haven't bought a new one yet, and there are still a bunch of things on my desk and nowhere to put my computer. Etc., etc. I just cleaned the dishrack this afternoon, as it was dirty from when they sanded the floor, and I haven't dealt with the things on the stove and turned the gas back on yet. But I am back as of this past Thursday night. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:27, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The chattery sparrows you see most are probably house sparrows, which don't really have much of a song. The next most common in NY is, I think, the white-throated sparrow. They have a song but it's pretty boring ("Oh sweet canada" is the goofy wording people give it). There are plenty of song sparrows, too, but they're less common than the other two. They do have a cute little song. So there's that. :) And yeah, it was snacking when I came across it. — Rhododendritestalk | 14:40, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'd forgotten the sparrows I see all the time are called house sparrows. The song sparrow looks very similar, so I mistook it for being the same species. That is a sweet song. I don't remember seeing white-throated sparrows before. They're really pretty. Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:17, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
White-throated are cute enough and common enough that I feel like I should've had better luck taking pictures of them. Alas, they are still small and jumpy. Best effort is probably this handsome fellow (perhaps if it were 2005, it would be a good candidate for FP :) ). — Rhododendritestalk | 18:21, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fun fact: white-throated and song sparrows are native here. House sparrows, though I think the most abundant bird in the world (and in the US), were only introduced because some guy in New York imported some from England, hoping they'd help kill some moths. Now here we are. Starlings, too... super common bird only here because some guy in New York decided to try to bring all of the birds mentioned by Shakespeare into the US. Now both species are extremely common and pushing out other bird populations :/ — Rhododendritestalk | 18:31, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, and the house sparrows, instead of concentrating on eating insects, preferred to go after the oats fed to horses. That picture you linked is impressive to me, quite a bit larger than life. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:34, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Trijnstel. They're probably all featurable. I have to wonder what kinds of hoops a Dutch athlete had to jump through to compete during the Nazi occupation. Clearly, they had to be Aryans, but did they have to be Nazis or the Dutch equivalent, or would it have been tolerated for them not to be members of a party but to simply salute German officials when called to do so and so on? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:46, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as far as I can read people used sport in the Netherlands to be distracted from the horrors of World War II. I have no idea whether or not it was required to sign an agreement or so. Of course, Jewish people weren't allowed sport and NSB'ers (the Dutch Nazi's) had a special rank. Trijnsteltalk19:59, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ikan, you reviewed File:Aerial view of Hardinge Bridge and Lalon Shah Bridge.jpg as "too noisy for QI". I can see dust and JPEG compression artefacts or over-sharpening? and lots of micro-structures (waves, power cables, ...). What are you exactly referring to as noise? As a reviewer and someone with knowledge in this area, do you have a guess how a digital photo can be noisy with an ISO speed of 100? -- Rillke(q?)14:27, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the water in particular, especially closer to the near bank. Unless those patches of different colors are accurate, that seems to me like a lot of color noise. Also, look at the view on the other side of the river. Some of that has to be smog, but it looks very noisy, though the noise isn't colorful like it is on the river. But feel free to support the photo and change the photo's status to "Discuss" if you think it's a QI, or feel free to add your own comment if you feel that I've incorrectly described the problems with the photo. I'm not an expert on photographic techniques and go more by what I see, so I could easily be wrong in my terminology. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:31, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Did you notice the photo most likely taken by a drone? Not sure about the colour patches in the water. Never visited Bangladesh, though it's possible that chemicals together with the low sun create them. You can compare to similar photos taken with the same device on Category:Taken with Hasselblad L1D-20c. -- Rillke(q?)23:44, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A community discussion has been closed where the consensus was to grant all file movers the suppressredirect user right. This will allow file movers to not leave behind a redirect when moving files and instead automatically have the original file name deleted. Policy never requires you to suppress the redirect, suppression of redirects is entirely optional.
Possible acceptable uses of this ability:
To move recently uploaded files with an obvious error in the file name where that error would not be a reasonable redirect. For example: moving "Sheep in a tree.jpg" to "Squirrel in a tree.jpg" when the image does in fact depict a squirrel.
Please note, this ability should be used only in certain circumstances and only if you are absolutely sure that it is not going to break the display of the file on any project. Redirects should never be suppressed if the file is in use on any project. When in doubt, leave a redirect. If you forget to suppress the redirect in case of file name vandalism or you are not fully certain if the original file name is actually vandalism, leave a redirect and tag the redirect for speedy deletion per G2.
The malicious or reckless breaking of file links via the suppressredirect user right is considered an abuse of the file mover right and is grounds for immediate revocation of that right. This message serves as both a notice that you have this right and as an official warning. Questions regarding this right should be directed to administrators. --Majora (talk) 21:35, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I'm glad the photo didn't get unnecessarily declined, though in that case, it could have always been resubmitted with the point made that the dust spot had been removed. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:19, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
★Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted★ Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope: Trappist beers. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
You now have the Patroller right and may call yourself a patroller! Please take a moment to read the updated Commons:Patrol to learn how Patrolling works and how we use it to fight vandalism.
As you know already, the patrolling functionality is enabled for all edits, not just for new-page creations. This enables us to keep track of, for example, edits made by anonymous users here on Commons.
Hallo Ikan, there were some problems with my nomination of the set of the Étang de Salses-Leucate. Cart proposed a new nomination and to delete the former, which I did. Could you please have a look again on the nomination and also make notes on the description page of the images concerning your remarks (" there looks to be a very light stitching error that's most visible at the top of the picture frame a bit to the right of the left corner, but it's not easy to see, and there's what might be one dust spot in the water, about a quarter of the way from left to right at the far end of the light part of the water"), not on the nomination page of the set. I will corredt it as soon as possible.
From the former nomination:
"*Info Ok, there is a technical problem with this nom. When Llez created this page they accidentally removed the top lines in the nom with the link to the nomination page (now restored manually) and also the 'FPVotingPeriodFlag' (can't restore that, maybe some admin can, don't know). You can see there is no "Voting period ends on..." at the top of the page. Without it, the FPCBot will not able to handle this nom. It would be best if you just withdrew this page and made a new nomination so that the nom and photos have a chance to enter the system. You will prpbably have to use another set name though, like "Étang de Salses-Leucate-2" or something. --Cart(talk)10:19, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Llez, to be clear, do you mean the file page? It doesn't look like I can annotate the nomination page, but in the past, it's been considered vandalism to put these kinds of notations into file pages, so I want to make doubly sure that's OK with you. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:18, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just so you know, not all of my wikimedia files are Google Maps Images. So, I do not believe that it is entirely fair for WMSR to accuse me of doing so. I agree that there are quite a few Google Maps Images I may have uploaded but that doesnt mean that all my images are from Google Maps Street View. Also, when I have tried several times uploading Google Maps Images by stating it is from Google Maps and not my own work, Wikimedia commons keeps on removing them and saying that I cannot upload them, despite me giving fair credit to them and being legally allowed to
use them in wikipedia articles in their terms so long as I give them fair credit. I have tried to do this legitimately but wikipedia will not allow me to do so. I did not know that Wikipedia prohibited Google Maps Street View images from being posted in articles but I have strongly felt the need to place them in Wikipedia WMATA Metrobus Route articles as they sometimes provide pictures of bus routes, such as U2 & U8, which no longer exist. Also, for WMSR to paint me as being disruptive reptitively to Wikipedia and say that I should be permanently banned/banned for a long time just makes Wikipedia sound very corrupt/unforgiving and like it is controlled by a few elite members who rarely get their edits/articles questioned and want to oppress others. That makes me insulted as an editor that I am constantly being picked on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doctor of Directions (talk • contribs) 05:31, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
First, why haven't you replied to any of the messages on your user talk page? Second, just so you know, on all Wikis, the newest threads go at the end of the page, and the newest replies go at the end of the relevant thread. Third, please sign every post on a talk page by typing 4 tildes (~) in a row at the end of it. Fourth, this is Commons, not Wikipedia, so don't discuss your beefs about Wikipedia here, because I'm not part of that discussion. But the main point is that Google images are copyrighted, period. No-one has the right to upload any Google images to any other site, and Wikimedia sites uphold copyright laws to prevent users like you and the sites themselves from being sued. Google is a huge corporation that is in business to make money. Did you think Google was a service that offered images for your free, unrestricted use, include commercial use, as would be required on Commons? If so, please disabuse yourself of that notion. Uploading Google images, regardless of whether you credit them or not, is not "fair use". Please review Commons:Copyright rules. I strongly suggest you defend yourself at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#User:Doctor of Directions, where I called for you to be blocked for being a seemingly copyvio-only account and totally ignoring all posts to your user talk page since 2017. If you plan to stop uploading Google Street View images, I suggest you post that in that thread, and if it's untrue that all your uploads have been from Google, I suggest you mention there which ones are not. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:02, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I appreciate your feedback and based on what you have told me, I will never again use Google Maps Images in wikipedia articles. I did not know that it was against wikipedia's policy to do so. Also, I respectfully disagree with your claim that I have ever been disruptive to wikipedia intentionally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doctor of Directions (talk • contribs) 06:25, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Why didn't you post your reply at the bottom of the page? Why are you conflating me with another user? I didn't claim anything about your behavior on Wikipedia, which I'm entirely unfamiliar with. Finally, why are you still posting here, instead of posting at this link, which I gave you? Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#User:Doctor of Directions. Post there, where admins can read your remarks. I don't know if you absorbed the fact that I'm not an admin here, just someone who's started to patrol edits here and noticed the problem with your edits. Please stop replying here and go to that thread! Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:32, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
File:Saint Geraud church of Salles-Curan 07.jpg[edit]
According to one source the stained glass windows in this church are a gift from François d'Estaing, bishop of Rodez (1504-1529) [5]. However, they don't seem to be that old. In addition, some stained glass window shows the date 1874, and on the other, an inscription "renewed in 1879". Tournasol7 (talk) 18:38, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to thank you for the interest in my proposal for quality images. I have already taken into account your observations and put the geographic coordinates as recommended if that is enough to promote the two images 1 et 2. In fact I really don't know how to put comments on the images that's why I'm writing to you here. cordially.--Adoscam (talk) 14:11, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. The way you edit at Quality Images Candidates is to click the "Edit" button on the left above whichever date the photo was uploaded. For example, there's a heading of "January 14, 2020" with a horizontal line under it; "[edit]" is immediately to the right of it. In order to make it easier to find the particular upload I whose nomination discussion I want to edit, I select some text from it and search for it when I'm in edit mode. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:51, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there, first of all thanks for your feedback on the pictures of Vasco da Gama bridge (at sunrise and as viewed from parque Tejo that I nominated for QI.
I tried to address the issues you mentioned, would you please give them another look?
Hello, four years ago you took part in a featured picture nomination discussion where you asked a question about an artistic choice in a restoration and never received an answer. Reading through that conversation, you appeared to believe the nominator was the person who had done the restoration. That conversation ended without a reply and with that ended the nomination, which closed without a promotion since other participants valued your query.
Normally it wouldn't be worth revisiting such an old matter except for three factors: the image happens to be in wide use across dozens of Wikimedia projects, it is already a featured picture on four different language editions of Wikipedia, and I happen to be the person who restored it.
Until today I had no idea someone had nominated it for FP on Commons. A decade ago I stopped editing. (Not recalling my old login password at the moment, hence the red signature at the bottom of this comment).
So about your comment, here's what you wrote:
This is certainly an interesting photo, and I would support it for its historical significance, interest and good composition, but before I actually decide on how to vote: The original looks sepia-toned. Do you think that could have been an artistic choice, and if so, one we should respect?
So to compensate you for your long wait here's a detailed reply.
At the time when the original image was made the technology existed for three different types of photographic media: daguerrotype, glass plate negative, or albumen print. Daguerrotypes went into disuse as soon as other methods became available but glass plate negatives and albumen prints coexisted. Albumen prints acquire a sepia tone; glass plate negatives do not. Yet nineteenth century photographers probably selected between them for technical reasons rather than esthetics.
To explain by example, one rare instance where an individual photographer used both methods on the same subject and the same day was Alexander Gardener on July 7 1865, when he photographed the Abraham Lincoln assassination conspirators' execution. Unfortunately the only instance that comes to mind is this grisly topic: here[6] is one among a number of glass plate negatives Gardner took that day. This[7] is a stereoscopic albumen print--possibly the only albumen print he took that day--and this[File:Lincoln conspirators execution2.tif] is my restoration of the right frame from that stereoscope. Of course the glass plate negatives retain their original grayscale and the albumen print is sepia, but both the archivist's note and albumen print itself suggest a different artistic intention: the albumen image is the only one with motion blur and that blur occurs only in specific parts of the image. Albumen photography is more sensitive to light than glass plates. That was the closest Gardner could get to action photography. His choice to set up the albumen on a stereoscope reinforces that priority: he wanted to bring his audience as close as feasible to witnessing the moment when the condemned criminals met their deaths.
That technology remained unchanged a few years later when this FP nominated image was taken. So the most probable reason for choosing albumen in an unposed moment would be to get reasonably sharp focus and finish the exposure before anyone moved.
In discussion at FP candidacy the nominator mentioned that albumen would change color shortly after a print was taken. That much is true. What that person doesn't point out is the paper also aged for more than a century before the image was digitized. The original audiences for the image would not have seen the yellowing and fading that subsequently occurred. Although modern photographers occasionally add sepia to give a new image a vintage appearance, image degradation over time is not something photographers hope for. In the nineteenth century photographers made that clear by abandoning daguerrotypes as soon as they could.
That's a longwinded way of saying the esthetic options of modern digital editing sometimes lead us to forget the technical constraints of earlier eras.
Fast forward to this particular restoration. As you wisely noted when you posed your question, contrast and sepia adjustments are the decisions which are most open to challenge in this type of digital restoration. For this reason the small circle of editors who were doing this work made it standard practice to upload three copies for each restoration: one archival unrestored image, a second partial restoration where all the technical work such as dirt and stain removal had been done, and then a third version which had the restorer's best estimate of appropriate contrast and color/sepia fixes.
The notes for this restoration include "selective color adjustments," which was the phrasing for instances where an old print either had stains or acquired uneven tones as it aged. The latter happened in this instance: the left side has a yellow tint and the right side leans toward magenta. Stare at that a moment and it really jumps out once you know it's there. *Fixing this problem* motivated my decisions in the final edits. Once I corrected for that I did a partial desaturation (it isn't totally grayscaled) since the tonal qualities of the image were either the result of a minor technical glitch somewhere along the way from paper manufacture to archival storage.
Someday another image editor might want to second guess those final few restoration decisions. The File:Circumcision_central_Asia1.tif is there to facilitate that. It isn't uploaded to be an *alternate version* in the usual Commons sense--it's a separate file because otherwise this important stage of the process would get lost in image file history. That's the point in restoration where all the long hours of rote work are done. If anyone wanted to try their own curves edit, the partial restoration is the go-to right before the histogram gets choppy.
So either you're fascinated or your eyes glazed over eight paragraphs ago. On the off chance you're still reading I'll wave farewell from the bottom of this rabbit hole. Best regards. (And please excuse the rusty markup--it's been quite a while). Durova 2 (talk) 07:28, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Durova 2. I really appreciate this reply. I wish you had been there to give such a reply in that thread, as it might very well have changed my vote.
I am co-ordinator of Wiki Loves Folklore International photography contest on Wikimedia Commons. You have been highly recommended by some of our advisors. I would like to extend invitation to Wiki Loves Folklore in our Pre-Jury team.
The work will start from 1 March 2020 and will continue till 20 March 2020. There is a space for a week long extension should that is needed and the work will be done on Montage tool in about 2-3 rounds, each round may last a week or so.
Please let us know if you are available during this time to share your amazing expertise on Commons and photography.
That's very nice of you, and I strongly support this project and look forward to seeing some of the photos that come out of it, but I don't think I could commit the time for it.
for the notes on my photo. I have now hopefully removed the last stains according to your instructions. Sincerely,--Famberhorst (talk) 16:54, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
PS. sometimes the page needs to be reloaded a few times. But you probably know that[reply]
Hey Ikan-
I saw your comment about the UW image in FP noms and how the image was tiny... assuming a larger version exists and is uploaded pursuant to the guidelines/requirements, do you think the image would pass (the image in particular is the remarkably purple evening shot). I wanted to know just so I can get a picture of "is it worth" putting another version on FP noms. Thanks! Augend (talk) 17:31, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Probably not, but if you want to know, try doing two things: Nominating it at COM:QIC and posting it at COM:Photo critiques. I don't think the composition is that interesting, to be honest, but in addition, it would need perspective correction and more details. But you're likely to get more detailed comments at Photo critiques if you're patient (it sometimes takes time for the comments to start showing up there).
Downsized photos aren't even supposed to pass at QIC, though some allowances are made at times. Full size is needed, unless it's so humongous it will crash. What's the full size of the photo? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:17, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I think it's more impressive at full size. I will nominate it for FP when I have the chance in the next few weeks. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:05, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You could consider cropping out some of the unsharp foreground, but that's your call. Be prepared to interact with reviewers at FPC. I could post to your talk page when I nominate the photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:07, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ikan, the photo was too small previously, but now it has been uploaded with a larger file. It is now 3.2 MB. I hope it can no be re-considered. Syzygium moorei flowering.jpg. Thanks, Peter Poyt448 (talk) 04:11, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sure it can be, though note that it's MP (megapixels) that are at issue, not megabytes. If it was declined, just resubmit to QIC, noting that you uploaded a larger version. If it still hasn't yet been declined, post a message on the response thread to the nomination and tag me. I assume it's now at full size? If not, upload the full-size image (unless it's 500 MP or something outlandish like that). Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:52, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
pardonne-moi de te faire ce message en français. J’ai une grande confiance en toi tu as toujours monté un très bon esprit. Je quitte pour quelque temps, les Wiki à cause de problèmes matériels : ma maison a brulée. Pas de blessé mais plus d’ordinateur et beaucoup de soucis.
Anime VI qui est un bon label mais qui est fragile, il faut le soutenir.
Archaeodontosaurus, je suis très malheureux d'entendre que ta maison a brulée! C'est horrible! Je suis content qu'au moins, tu n'es pas blessé. Pour manque de travaille, j'ai temps pour aider à soutenir VIC. Fait n'importe quoi que c'est necessaire et reste santé. Je serai content de te revoir n'importe quand.
★Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted★ Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope: Canon Macro Ring Lite MR-14EX. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
Comment - Thanks. I've kept a list of photos to consider nominating to VIC and QIC as well as FPC, and now that I have a lot of time, I'm finally doing more nominations. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:22, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I reviewed other images under the category linked, and this indeed best represents the scope stated. It also has unanimous support in FPC and QIC. --pandakekok908:14, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
★Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted★ Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope: Myodes glareolus (Bank vole), carrying nest material. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
review
Comment - OK, I added this image to w:Bank vole, where it's questionable whether it fits well into that short article. Is that what had to happen to prove it's useful, or would someone like to pass judgment on whether it's best in scope, regardless of whether it remains in use at Wikipedia or not? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:20, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question - How do you know this is a female? Do only female voles make the nest and take care of the children? I don't know; do you? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:27, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I clearly made an unconscious assumption. I often find myself making wrong-word typos. In this case, I think I automatically added a word I thought was logical, but which I have no basis to claim to know. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:53, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello and thanks for your feedback at the QI nomination. I'm still a novice as far as 'technical aspects' like color noise are concerned. Do you mind advising me if it is possible to rectify this issue in the above image? Regards, Rahul Bott (talk) 11:11, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, sorry, I can spot the problem, but for help on how to fix it, you should ask any of the experienced digital photo editors on the site. Commons:Photography critiques is the place where you're probably most likely to get the advice you're looking for, though be patient because this isn't a huge wiki and it might take a week or two for people to start replying. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:59, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For your sense of justice, good humor, for always expecting the best from others and always looking at the positive side, you have brought a little light to this place. Thank you very much for being for us Wilfredor (talk) 00:09, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's very sweet of you, and I'm glad if I've had that effect. Looking at beautiful photos adds some happiness to my life during an extremely dangerous, scary, depressing period in my plagued city while all my gigs have been quite rightly cancelled through August. Thank you for being there! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:11, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hallo Ikan, Hello Ikan, you wrote to me after I had withdrawn my photo from the market square in Trier. I'm not aggressive, but maybe a bit ironic when I look at reviews like Peulle's. The lamppost in the picture is actually a bit crooked, but I can't change that; it is slightly bent at the top. But that's not what Peulle is about. For him, the overall composition of the picture is bad, in contrast to the works of art that he presents to us. Best regards -- Spurzem (talk) 09:20, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but I think it would have won in CR as long as you made just this statement. And there are times when I suggest for you to make a change but didn't say I'd vote against the photo, and you then withdrew it. It's very frustrating. I guess your feeling is that you present your photos and people can take or leave it, and that's fine, but even if so, why not let the process play out and contest declines when you feel they're unjustified? Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:57, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly intended to vote for the photo. But wilde waited until the last day. Because the photo had been 6 votes for a while. My experience is that the last day sometimes still against voters come along. Sincerely, Dominicus.--Famberhorst (talk) 15:39, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
PS. thanks again for submitting my photo.
Hello Ikan,
Since Archaeodontosaurus took his leave, I noticed that nominations are sticking around for much longer than necessary, and I feel like I am closing more nominations than before. It seems that Pandakekok9 and me are now doing most of the work, with Palauenc05 also helping occasionally. Would you mind closing some nominations as well? COM:VICL explains the process; it is not very difficult, and I think we would all appreciate it to have another helping hand. Best regards, —Percival Kestreltail (talk) 15:55, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ikan Kekek. I have a question about VI scope (you asked me to change it in my two nominations). Right now my scope is as follows: Via XX Settembre street in Piacenza, Italy (Category:Streets in Piacenza). I'm not 100% sure what is the recommended policy when the best scope doesn't have its own category. Should I just do Via XX Settembre street in Piacenza, Italy, without any links? The street doesn't have its own category, but is definitely one of most recognized streets in Piacenza, it is listed as a place of interest in Italian Wiki. Same thing about Port Kembla Steelworks, it doesn't have its own category. - Tupungato (talk) 12:50, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm not sure whether you see my edits on your watchlist, but you've been forgetting to change the status of a VIC after closing it. Don't forget to change the status parameter on the source code. :) Thanks, pandakekok901:32, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Quality images candidates/candidate list 28 April 2020[edit]
Hi Ikan Kekek, you wanted me to let you know when I've added the geographic coordinates in the file informations of: Double rainbow, Graz, Austria, 2020-04-27.jpg! Thank you for your request! Regards, --Dn@lor_01 (talk) 09:07, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your encouragement! I'm thinking it over ... ;-) Perhaps I'll find something in my archive, I'll try my best ... but without being stressed in this case! Some of my pics have already received promotions as you can see here [8], but it was long time ago ... --Dn@lor_01 (talk) 11:29, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is this is relevant to the deletion nomination of war photos or what? It would be best to link the relevant thread and post this link there, explaining how it shows the uploads couldn't be by the same photographer who took the photo. Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:00, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The image I chose (File:In the Spotlight by Edward Mason Eggleston (1882-1941).jpg ) for my first attempt at a feature picture didn’t go through, which I find fine. I wanted to see what the process was like. I am interested in trying to get one of Eggleston’s prints featured. I was wondering if you had a suggestion. The highest res images I’ve found include all the ones on this page. They are recently uploaded, though possibly not the highest resolutions. I’ve checked copyright renewals on them all, none were renewed (none of Eggleston’s works were renewed so far). I can work to clean one up if you think and have a chance. If nine of those are good, I created a gallery of his works, Edward Mason Eggleston. Thanks, Jacqke (talk) 00:01, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see those images on Heritage without signing in. I'm looking at your user uploads, and the most recent page of them are tiny. Which files are reasonably large? Maybe you could link those files here.
Hi Ikan from en Wiki:"Common over most of its range in woodland, the common blackbird has a preference for deciduous trees with dense undergrowth. However, gardens provide the best breeding habitat with up to 7.3 pairs per hectare (nearly three pairs per acre), with woodland typically holding about a tenth of that density, and open and very built-up habitats even less.". Normally, being black, they live in dense undergrowth to blend in better. Thank you --Sonya7iv (talk) 15:30, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. I saw them a lot in Berlin, Düsseldorf and Amsterdam hanging out in trees, on top of a pole and on a roof, when I was there during their breeding season a few years ago. That photo is probably another good FP candidate. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:38, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
★Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted★ Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope: Punições públicas : praça Santa Ana (Public Punishment in Santa Ana Square), lithograph by Johann Moritz Rugendas. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
★Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted★ Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope: Louis XVI, roi de France et de Navarre, revêtu du grand costume royal en 1779 (Louis XVI, King of France and Navarre, wearing his grand royal costume in 1779), oil on canvas by Antoine-François Callet. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
★Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted★ Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope: Sphynx mother cat, nursing kittens. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
Hi Ikan Kekek, thank you very much for both of your friendly VI-promotions of 2 of my VI-nominated pictures and for eliminating redundances from the scopes! Your help supports me in learning for the future! :-) Best regards and stay healthy! --Dn@lor_01 (talk) 07:33, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
★Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted★ Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope: Allegoric figure of Charity with a pelican in a grisaille fresco by Enrico Albrici on the facade of the Santa Maria della Carità Church in Brescia. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
★Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted★ Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope: Sun and Moon pagodas, Guilin, at night. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
Thank you for your concern. My health is fine but my computer isn't booting up to Windows. When I've solved the problem, I'll resume my usual activities here. All my best to all of you and kisses back to you, Sonya! Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:42, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(Used English-language name shown at Category:Cercis canadensis. You can't assume that just literally translating the Frisian or Dutch name will produce the English name. Always look at the vernacular names under the general category.) Thank you very much for your correction! We try to do it as well as possible. But sometimes things go wrong again. Sincerely,--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 18:08, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Totally understood, and thank you for uploading so many beautiful photographs!
Hi. I don't know where to ask this but you seem very active at FPC. Charles has posted a comment and oppose on 4 photos saying the photos must be taken by wiki photographers. Where is such a rule? I thought only QI had such a rule. Seven Pandas (talk) 19:16, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I say "nothing is really sharp" is an absurd argument that attempts to directly punish Poco for nominating a full-size photo. If you look at the compound eye at 50%, it's still a tremendous magnification. Not sharp enough for you? Are you serious?
Please do not make up things (argument about directly punishing somebody for something) and avoid derogatory comments about other users. Thank you --Ivar (talk) 15:20, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'm allowed to express my opinion. Your opposition may not have been motivated by a desire to punish Poco, but it has that effect. I don't see where I attacked you personally; I only attacked your opposition and argument. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:36, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All that said, I'm sorry my words caused you to feel personally attacked. I have a lot of respect for you and was surprised by your argument; that's all. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:06, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Traditional dropping-by-to-see-how-you-are-gift-basket
...to see how you are doing these days. I know you've had problems with your computer and working now during the corona lockdown. How are you coping? As I have my own godson in New York, I always think about Wiki-co-workers who live there too. --Cart(talk)17:45, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's really sweet of you, Cart! I replaced the hard drive on my computer about 2 1/2 weeks after the computer crashed, so I have way more disk space now (119G-500G now). New York has fairly low rates of infection now and the city is in Stage 3 of the phased reopening, so things feel more relaxed but I'm being just as careful as ever except that I do leave the apartment more and walk around when it's not torrentially raining, which it's doing now and has been doing a fair amount lately. How are things for you? I know that Sweden has suffered a lot from COVID-19. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:07, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds nice with your new hard drive. Having a working computer is a must in a situation like this. Also good to hear that you can move about a bit more freely. Things here are pretty chaotic, mostly due to bad/naive/conflicting actions by those in charge on so many levels. I'm in a risk group (bad lungs) so the first part of the year was a struggle to just survive and make ends meet. Now with summer here, businesses and politics are at a standstill and people are on vacation. Unfortunately the vacationers are not standing still, respecting social distancing or staying at home. It's a bit like anarchy. I have a lot of open space here with the fjords and the forests, but in my local grocery store, I feel like I'm in a life-sized Pac-Man game, moving up and down the aisles to grab the food I want while monstersyounger people, who don't care about any proximity rules, move in on me. At least I have som time for photography and Commons for a while. Things will probably heat up again in the middle of August or so. --Cart(talk)23:37, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry; that sounds very difficult. Is it possible to order deliveries from grocery stores there? Here in New York, you are not permitted to enter stores without a face covering. I've seen a few violations, but this is mostly observed. I'm also in a risk group, in that I am a hypertension patient, but this is well-controlled with medicines. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:40, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to hear that. You can order deliveries if you live in a city, but it's not possible out here in the country. Elderly people often get help from neighbors instead. You probably won't believe it, but ever since this whole thing started, I haven't seen one single person IRL around here with a face mask!! Sounds crazy, I know, but that's the way it is. I've only seen it on tv. I use those blue latex gloves when I go shopping and people stare at me for wearing them. I stand out like a "sissy", but I don't care. I don't recommend the Swedish way. --Cart(talk)01:12, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've worn an N-99 mask in enclosed spaces since the last week of February and whenever I leave the apartment since around the 2nd week of March. I think it's likely that it saved me from catching this thing. I have no doubt that without state requirements to wear a mask and socially distance, we'd still have hundreds if not thousands of COVID-19 deaths in New York state every day, rather than around 10. The "Pause", when everyone except essential workers was told to stay home, was also essential at the time. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:21, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
thank you very much for your kind feedback! I agree there are too bright areas in the photo. Because I expected it, I took a HDR series of this motive (the uploaded version is one of it, it's the one with the normal exposure). The problem: I'm not able to combine the images because of many HDR errors due to the moving greens and moving water. But before nominating the image, I think it would be better to ask some of the very competent Commons users what else I can do to avert those errors. Afterwards I call you again.
Notwithstanding the above, I won't nominate and vote at FPC for many different reasons. You can do it if you want. It's always a honor for me; just as your nice feedback at QIC :) a great additional motivation for my photographing hobby and my Wikipedia work!
You appear to have accidentally deleted two votes in this edit, which I restored. I mentioned my restoring of them on Commons talk:Featured picture candidates, because I believe that if one is doing something that can look dodgy, one should be VERY open about it.
Absolutely an error! It's very easy to accidentally delete things. Sorry about that. You should always assume that if I ever do such a thing again, it's an accident. But why wouldn't you assume so? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:20, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
...I think I'm just communicating badly today. Of course it's an accident, I never thought otherwise. I've deleted things by accident myself. I was saying that my own action needed to be explained: I was doing an edit that added votes to my own FPC, which you have to agree could look bad if I wasn't open about it and didn't publicly mention I restored them, and why. Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:49, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Ikan, for your feedback on the image and your suggestion re QIC. It is true that the image lacks sharpness. I stopped down to f/25 to try to get DOF extending from the foreground (100 m) to the mountains (10 km). I'll try QIC with some of my sharper images and then aim for promotion to FP! Tagooty (talk) 03:14, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Ikan Kekek,
Regarding your question from the QIC page on my image and the missing location: Yes, the image was taken at my place, but this is not the reason I did not include the location. I never include a location for files that did not originate in the provided location or if the location does not any useful information. Here the flower was planted (so it did not grow there by itself in the first place) and it's location therefore can not be used for anything useful. Other examples for this would be my images of a Canon Lens Mount Adapter, a bamboo steamer or a BlackBerry Leap's SIM card slot. In general I aim to include location data for all images. --D-Kuru (talk) 20:00, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comment about the sky. Unfortunately I'm not sure how to do this.
User:Indies1, please always sign your posts on talk pages, so that someone reading doesn't have to look at the article history to see who's posting. You can sign your posts by typing 4 tildes (~) in a row at the end of the post. You should also normally remind the reader of what they suggested you do, but in my case, I don't know how to make the edits; I can just advise you on what I see. You might be able to get advice on photo editing techniques by posting a thumbnail of the photo and a question at COM:Photography critiques. Good luck!
Hello Ikan, to be honest, I didn't categorize the image as FP candidate but I see your point. The building is nice and of historic value, the light is nice (and rare, such a beautiful sun in the area...) and the people kind of posing, that's true, I didn't realize it until now :) You've a good smell for FPs, so I categorize it as FP candidate. You're welcome to give it a try :) Poco a poco (talk) 09:06, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't feel that I have the expertise to second-guess XRay's reasoning on this photo, but if you disagree with his evaluation, I suggest that you change the "Decline" to "Discuss" and thereby move the nomination to Consensual Review, where others will look at the photo. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:16, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You've asked for the mouse barn. It's primarily a barn. The full name should be mouse pillar barn, but here at my home it is nearly always shortened to mouse barn. The origin of the name are the pillars protecting the grain inside the barn. --XRaytalk04:38, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your very positive comment on my QIC File:Spiti River Kaza Himachal Jun18 D72 7232.jpg: "This is the best photo I've seen from you so far, and it's certainly close to being an FP. -- Ikan Kekek 02:14, 22 September 2020". Your comment encouraged me to nominate it as FPC. Thanks for supporting it in FPC. --Tagooty (talk) 05:19, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think people will object to the very bright reflections on the windshield. I don't know what I think of the photo and would have to look at it more and think about it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:52, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for the nomination, I would never have imagined that this photo could be featured and I think the fact that this whole city is more or less the same has visually contaminated me. Please don't hesitate to nominate any photos you want in the future. A big hug --Wilfredor (talk) 12:37, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently you can rename pictures. My picture currently named "Battlestein's -- Houston.jpg" needs to be renamed to JW Marriott Hotel -- Downtown Houston.
As for changing the Scope, I have found no Category appropriate to this picture. If I create a category it would be the only picture in the category. --Jim Evans (talk) 12:44, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There was a 2nd photo in the category that I thought was of the same building. But anyway, it's not essential (though it's OK) to create a category with 1 photo; even if you put this in a larger category, you can still link to it in your scope. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:58, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I hate to keep bothering you, but I'm at a loss again.
I have an error on this proposal [9] Archaeodontosaurus speaks of an 'appointment' and checking a 'date'. I don't know what he means. I don't know what an appointment is in this context and only the system added dates?? --Jim Evans (talk) 18:56, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm good. I'll have a look when I can. Of course you can also post to COM:Photography critiques, where others might be more likely to express an opinion.
Well, this 7 images are the best in my opinion. And really I don't know which is really good. I would like to ask you where the composition are the best, because technically all of them are similar.
Tournasol7, sorry for the long delay. I haven't looked at all the photos closely, but File:Lac des Mines d'Or 02.jpg is really dramatic and I'd vote for it for FP. I don't know if too many people would find fault with the light, though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:16, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
File:Rouleau de Bostan 09.jpg might be different enough from File:Rouleau de Bostan 07.jpg to nominate, but I'm not sure. I consider it different enough and like it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:19, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a request for you to review my picture. Please DO NOT review it.
I have about given up on QI. My previous picture was about to roll off when I put it in Consensual review in an attempt to understand the problem, but it was approved without objection. Putting all my entries in Consensual review is not a sensible approach (and against the rules, I think). When I first began putting pictures on QI they almost always got a thumbs-up but that stopped after a few weeks and now my pictures no longer seem welcome and are often not reviewed or are nitpicked. I've wondered about this for some time. Can you help me understand this? My current picture was posted on 13 December and will roll off tomorrow. It's one of my weaker proposals but seems like it should qualify. I'm writing now hoping you have time and will help me solve this conundrum. -- Jim Evans (talk) 14:10, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think the explanation is either that it just got lost in the shuffle because there are so many nominations in QIC or that people looked at it and couldn't decide whether to promote or decline it and left it up to others. I don't know if I've looked at the photo in question; I tend to look at photos in QIC that particularly strike my eye as thumbnails and don't try for completeness. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:56, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Stay safe and healthy! This is a tough Christmas for me because it'll be the first time in many years that I won't play a Christmas mass. It gives me a lot of joy and satisfaction to play beautiful music and make the holiday more joyous for others, so I'm sad about that but hopeful for next year. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:22, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for promoting the entry of the ghetto in QI. It's very nice. It's a modest entrance, which gives access to a lot of things. I take this opportunity to wish you a happy New Year's Eve for you and your family. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:40, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
★Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted★ Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope: Dr E. L. and Nannie Lewis Walker House, Gladewater, Texas. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
★Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted★ Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope: Himalayan salt, coarse, closeup. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
★Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted★ Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope: Himalayan salt, rock, rough and fine powder. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
You've proposed another word than "building" at File:Dülmen, Wildpark -- 2020 -- 3409.jpg. First of all: you're right. I'd a look to the template and translation is only a confusion. In German the words "Kulturdenkmal" und "Baudenkmal" (or in English "cultural monument" and "heritage building"). The first "Kulturdenkmal/cultural monument" would be a good choice. The game reserve isn't a building, but a cultural monument. At German-language Wikipedia the title of the page may be wrong, it's "Liste der Baudenkmäler" (list of heritage buildings), it could be "Liste der Kulturdenkmäler" (list of cultural monuments). At de:Denkmalschutzgesetz (Nordrhein-Westfalen) I found an explanation: "Baudenkmäler: Baudenkmäler sind Denkmäler, die aus baulichen Anlagen oder Teilen baulicher Anlagen bestehen. Dazu zählen auch Garten-, Friedhofs- und Parkanlagen sowie historische Ausstattungsstücke, wenn sie mit dem Denkmal eine Einheit bilden." So a garden, a cemetery or a park is treated as heritage building. The game reserve is a park an so it's a heritage building. That is not satisfying. Now what about details. The photographs shows a detail of a heritage building. Yes, it could be somewhere. On the other hand a detail of a building, a little piece of a wall, could be somewhere too. But it is or may be a part of a heritage building. (And it becomes more complicated with moveable monuments - for example locomotives. These monuments are listed as heritage building in Wikipedia too. Not easy.) So I still have no solution and it's complicated. With or without the heritage building template is both not satisfying. I find that all of this is very imprecise. On the other hand, it is imprecise in many places because the assumption is often made that a cultural monument is a building. --XRay💬15:58, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The tree itself isn't a cultural heritage monument or a heritage building, but it is a detail of a heritage building. I'll try to improve the template. IMO it would be useful to add something to explain that a detail is shown or adds a kind of reference. (For example: Not "the image shows a heritage building", better "the game reserve is a heritage building".) Otherwise it may be useful to separate between details and other parts of the cultural heritage monument. (My problem is my bot is adding the template, if there is a category of the cultural heritage monument - here the game reserve. It's a bigger effort. I've no idea for a solution. And I need a solution for a lot of details, not only one photograph. This will need some days/weeks.) --XRay💬18:28, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Am not sure if this is the correct ‘award’ to employ here but wanted to let you know that your thoughtful comments and advice on image nomination have been appreciated. --SM1 (talk) 12:11, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's kind of you. Your work is interesting and different from the others', so it makes me think and I'm glad you've been uploading it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:32, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I want to state first that I greatly appreciate the even handed and polite way you have dealt with my submissions in VI. That's why I'm punishing you with my rant.
This is a classic example of why I wish I could give up and forget about QI
I proposed the Zimmermann-Telegram picture which is about to roll off with no review. I have had quite a few do that.
I feel sure, the guy who opposed Col.-Hugh-B.-and-Helen-Moore-House was right. I didn't realize that. I use the RAW processor to detect it and I haven't been able to get my RAW processor to work for about a month. So, no foul here.
But, then comes the coup de grâce.
LexKurochkin didn't understand what he was seeing, which was reasonable until I explained. Then to defend his mistake he threw it into what I call the snake pit. And, said these things:
"There are also several other signs of overprocessing." & ". . .if the original JPEG file produced by software embedded in a camera already had wavy edges it was not of high quality"
Both of these statements are flat wrong. 1) I assume by overprocessing he means the wavy lines. I did no processing on the lighted part of the building other than sharpening. 2) Smial agreed with me the cause of the waviness was air turbulence over the water.-- not the camera or processing. So, the reason for putting it in the snake pit was discredited.
I understand the thin black line he found. I explained I had done processing in the shadow/dark area on the left. It resulted in that black line which after struggling with it for 30 minutes I gave up. But, is that one thin line enough to damn the entire picture?
Then Smial opposed saying, "The photo has too much color noise overall, especially in the sky there are disturbing gradations in the color tones"
I don't understand what he's saying. I see no unreasonable noise in the sky. And, I see no noise, color or otherwise, in the lighted areas of the building. I'm just not sure I understand his comments about color noise. If he's disturbed by the changes in the appearance of the sky, perhaps it's the haze or fog behind the building in the lower part of the sky. I saw it when I took the picture but wishing wouldn't make it go away, and in the image perhaps the haze has some faint tint. If they had just said, regardless of cause the waviness makes it ineligible, I would understand that and kinda expected it to be the outcome, but it turns out to be a wrong idea and something I don't understand that disqualify it.
I have been to the snake pit several times. The favorite phrase there is overprocessing, which is meaningless unless explained. This has been given as the reason for opposing routinely when there was no processing done to the image other than lighten or darkening, sometimes selected areas. Almost never is the reason it gets a thumbs down the reason it was moved to Consensual Review in the first place. It's almost always something brought up there for the first time, like this time. And, almost every time their criticism is factually wrong. If it was just this once, but it happens time and again. To me, it appears it's a place pseudo-experts go to demonstrate their lack of knowledge to one another.
Sorry, I sympathize. I haven't expressed an opinion on that photo. But I will say that the point that an in-camera JPEG was already processed in-camera seems logical to me. What I'm much more concerned about on this site right now is that a lot of photos of Indonesia, Italy, etc. may be summarily deleted because they (weakly arguably in the case of Indonesia and clearly in the case of Italy) can't be used commercially without consequences. I feel like tagging some photos as ineligible for commercial use instead of deleting them is the obvious solution, but I don't think that's a likely result. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:08, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If in camera processing caused this then all of my recent images would show the same problem, and none do. My raw processor has not been working for a month, so all of the shots I posted today would have it and other pictures taken before and after that one have it. -- Jim Evans (talk) 02:09, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments on my FP photo. If I remove the yellow flower at the bottom of the photo, it will be at the expense of the stem of the plant. It seems better to try to clone the yellow flower after the voting period. Greetings--Famberhorst (talk) 16:30, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Help me out, here. I feel like I haven't observed this on previous visits to VIC, but this time the scopes are seeming a little bonkers. I'll be specific to one you were involved with: Commons:Valued image candidates/Museummolen De Wachter (Zuidlaren) 22-06-2019. (actm.) 29.jpg. Cute object, good image, but the scope is De Wachter, Zuidlaren Wall decoration at the wooden shoe factory. It's not used on any project. As such, it seems like "[anything which happens to be in] [a notable place]" would be a valid scope? Another example is Schoolgirl doing fast writing training at the ball head typewriter IBM 72 around 1975 (which I know you weren't involved with). I would understand "IBM 72, in use" or somesuch, but this one is getting supports! It makes it all the more surprising when I nominate a bird known for being a "feeder bird" at a feeder, and that simple scope is rejected (this isn't actually a gripe about my own nomination, to be clear -- I started writing this before even seeing the new comments on that one). — Rhododendritestalk | 16:01, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think a cool decoration is a potentially valid scope. I do feel like the typewriter scope is probably too detailed. I'd say make the argument about that bird in particular being known as a feeder bird. But really, the issue is that there are no clearly observed guidelines on scopes, and attempts to refine scopes are routinely killed in favor of continuing to muddle through. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:17, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My pleasure! I was a little shocked to read that you're done nominating photos at VIC for now. I'll miss your nominations. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:45, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have quit proposing pictures until I understand what Archaeodontosaurus is talking about, and he's not helping.
He has used the term incompressible in two different proposals. He has said both scopes are "incompressible??" What is supposed to be compressed?
The examples I've seen give only the scientific name, but most people know only the colloquial name? Is it possible I should not give the common names at all?
By adding that two of them are blossoms seems to disturb him. Is it possible I should always say flower or flowers? In my opinion flower refers to the entire plant, the pretty part seeking reproduction is a blossom, but people commonly use flower for the pretty part. He's correct, a collection of the blossoms from a single stem is often called an inflorescence. I would just call the collection blossoms. But me calling the buttonbush an inflorescence seemed to upset him too.
He says of the buttonbush, "There is little competitive image for this scope." yet the category has many. I didn't choose the category name.
I may just give up on flowers. They often have too many examples to review anyway. On the other hand, isn't picking the best from many the real purpose of Valued Images? -- Jim Evans (talk) 03:02, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't always understand his English, but the format he uses is "Roman name (English vernacular name if any), further info if any". "Flower" is used for a blossom, inflorescence for more than one flower, but in an image in which you have both flowers and buttons, you should probably mention both in the scope. I'm not sure. You could ask him, but I'll just tag him and we can see what he says. Archaeodontosaurus, your thoughts? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:04, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Ikan Kekek. Today User: XRay has already offered the photo on the FP page without my knowing. I am sorry for you. But could not have foreseen it. Hopefully you are not taking it wrong. Thanks again for your offer to post the photo. Greetings--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:32, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've bitten off more than I can chew proposing flowers. Is Archaeodontosaurus a botanist or just an avid flower/plant person? I'm spending too much time on this. It can take me an hour or two to figure out if a flower is the native plant or locate the correct Cultivar. Many of them look the same to me.
Hah! I'm a native Manhattanite! Why did you think I was British? Look at User:Archaeodontosaurus/profile: "Naturalist, MD, chairs the Institute of Natural Sciences "Picot de Lapeyrouse" in Toulouse since 1992." So yes, he's very much a professional. P.S. I had one trip to London and Northern Ireland but have yet to visit Scotland. I've spent more time in Malaysia than any other foreign country. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:48, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Essentially everyone else in this group except Percival is European. That, plus the hours you keep and your fluid English made me you were British. -- Jim Evans (talk) 11:42, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Bonjour à tous les deux c'est le matin chez vous, un petit mot à Jim :
Botany is a world apart. Very complex, too much for VI except to be assisted by a professional. Either I vote no or I try to make you understand the difficulty but it takes a long time ... You also cost me a lot of time.
Only upload images if you know what you are photographing and especially why you took the photo. You may place less, but you will put in place a methodology that over time will allow you to place more. If you want to continue in botany go take pictures in the official botanical gardens where the plants are documented. --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 12:13, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your support statement ("It might be oversaturated, . .") suggests you also think the image is oversaturated. Why do you think this? Thanks. -- Jim Evans (talk) 11:21, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And in this sentence, there are two conditional words: "It might be oversaturated, but it could still be useful." Sorry it wasn't clear that I was making a general statement. I don't know whether that picture is oversaturated or not. But if I did think so, it would be due to my eyes and how it looks on my browser. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:30, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply. I knew the phrase could have two possible meanings. 'even if it were saturated' or 'even though it is saturated' I chose to assume you meant the latter because I'm trying to figure out why that chap thinks it is. -- Jim Evans (talk) 01:38, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I respect Charles a lot. You might discuss with him what he considers not credible about the colors and your setup for photography and display vs. his, but that's up to you. I'm not sure whether he's requiring too high a photo quality for "best in scope", though. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:49, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't sign that. Dunno, I think he may have felt challenged, rather than that you were asking him for advice. I can't speak for him, but he does great animal photography. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:41, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ikan
The ISO website has the introductory text Looking for an unambiguous calendar-and-clock format that is internationally understood? It’s time for ISO 8601. In addition to the Chinese, the South Africans and the Swedes (amongst others) have adopted this format as the officially approved format. I checked my old passports and from about 1977 onwards South Africans used this so as to be able to use an all-numeric, language neutral format. You might be aware that until 1995, South Africa had two official languages, English and Afrikaans, that were equal in status and by using ISO 8601 they removed the need to choose between "May" or "Mei", Oct" or "Okt" or between "Dec" or "Des".
ISO 8601 is also widely used in the IT industry, especially in applications where comparisons of dates is important. In 1996 I wrote a report for the [London] Metropolitan Police concerning Y2K issues in their Crime Reporting System (CRIS). The benefits of ISO 8601 featured heavily in that report. Martinvl (talk) 16:04, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know that the South Africans and Swedes used that dating system. My feeling is that year/month/day and day/month/year are equally logical systems, but the U.S. system, month/day/year, is - like many other measures in the U.S. - illogical. When I was in Malaysia, we used the common day/month/year system. My birthday is 2/2/1965 in either system, so that didn't help me remember which system to use in the U.S. vs. Malaysia. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:53, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
while there is logic for both D-M-Y and Y-M-D, the Y-M-D system is a subset of the systems allowed under ISO 8601. AS my diagram shows, YYYY is an allowable variant if you only want the year, YYYY-MM if you only want year and month, YYYY-MM-DD HH:mm:ss if you want date and time. In computer applications you can drop the non-numeric characters where humans are not too closely involved with the system - for example when I have been secretary of a group that has a series of meetings, I give the files holding the minutes the names "minutes_YYYYMMDD.doc". As a result all the files are in chronological order when I list them, even if I have had to edit them at a later date. If you want more information about the standard, please visit this url. Martinvl (talk) 20:27, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think that your original comment was a little out of order and I would appreciate an apology. I am happy to accept something like "Thank you for explaining that this format has widespread use in the IT industry and is also the standard way of expressing dates by communities other than the Chinese". Martinvl (talk) 10:33, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No offense intended. I'm surprised you think I owe you an apology, but I'm definitely sorry I hurt you, and thanks for taking the time to answer. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:15, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(Castelmaurou) Façade de l'église Sainte-Foy[edit]
"Your people" is not the affair of the community either.
You wrote "I take this personally." But this is not a good idea.
Now, enough, please calm down. And if you're unable to exchange serenely without putting aside the passionate feelings, I repeat once again: take a step back.
This is certainly embarrassing for many people there (not only me).
I'll add, if you fear that it'll affect my voting, rest easy. I will do my best to disregard it entirely (and feel confident I will succeed in disregarding it) in deciding whether to vote for any of your nominations and certainly won't vote against any of them because of it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:13, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just answering to you (I was absent the 2 last days). Because you're talking about further votes on my nominations, that sound very weird, to my ears. Then I'd like to clarify this point -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:35, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't need the last word. The meaning of this sentence was unclear from my point of view. As long as no retaliations interfere with the votes, everything will be fine -- Basile Morin (talk) 13:33, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Saying I won't forget an offense doesn't mean I will "retaliate". I will not, and I consider the matter closed until or unless it comes up again when you object to another World War II image of Allied defense. War is Hell and I completely support Dr. King's vision of a peace that is a presence of justice and condemn aggression and injustices that create conflict, but casting aspersions on defense against genocidal invaders is not something you'll ever get me to respect or countenance in any way, nor do I respect the idea that you should be able to cast such aspersions, but I should shut up. So if you really want to clear the air, you should apologize. Otherwise, just let the discussion drop, and thank you in advance for doing so. Ikan Kekek (talk) 16:32, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Stop talking about an "offense", while there is not.
If you won't even acknowledge that you offended me or express any understanding for why and how I was offended, kindly stop posting in this thread, as you continue to offend me further the more you continue. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:44, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, that is done, I uploaded the last one of that photo set, the rest of the photos are too similar to be uploaded. All the uploaded photos can be seen in that category. But I'm not sure they are really worthy to be FP, I don't know, nominate one if you wish. Christian Ferrer(talk)15:57, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In July 2020 when I submitted my first nomination, an unsuitable image for FP, you very gently pointed me to QI to get started. After I got several QI promoted, you encouraged me to nominate one for FP -- and it was promoted. Over the past months, you have continued to encourage me and many others. A few days ago, my 100th QI was promoted. Besides improving my own photography, I've been able to motivate several others in IIT Mandi to contribute to Commons. Thanks, Ikan Kekek, for your exemplary help and guidance! Tagooty (talk) 05:03, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I replied about 10 hours after your query, but Archaeodontosaurus deleted my reply. This was over night for me. To throw away an image that's awaiting an answer in less than a day is unreasonable. I don't know why he didn't come back and approve the image himself anyway since I had done what he wanted. But, here was my reply:
*"Comment@Ikan Kekek: I just got notice of your comment and did not see it until just now. As always, flower judgements are subjective. I would say the image you pointed to is underexposed, this is a white flower. Also, I feel my partial side view gives a more complete understanding of how the flower looks. -- Jim Evans (talk) 19:57, 25 April 2021 (UTC)"[reply]
How do the moderators of these forums get appointed? As you can tell from my comments Archaeodontosaurus is not following the purpose/intent of Valued Images as I understood it from reading the rules before I began. In many cases he criticizes issues when he can only see by looking at the image at 100% and the rules specifically say not to do that. As I understand the intent of Valued Images it's to choose the available image that best illustrates/describes the object/subject when viewed at the defined viewing size. It does say the images have to be of reasonable quality, but what does that mean? I took it to mean images that are out of focus or distort the appearance in some way or in some way fail to illustrate/describe the subject are not acceptable. Yet he condemned this image because of quality when I linked to two web images that show my image describes Battelstein’s well and it's the only image of Battelstein’s on Commons. Then there was something new yesterday where you joined in. He disapproved my image based on an image that is not in the scope I gave. Isn't that sort of like saying I like this shot of the front of the building better when the scope was the rear. (Not a good analogy I know but all I could think of while writing :) ) If the image he linked to is in the scope I gave shouldn't he have added that category to it? -- Jim Evans (talk) 19:57, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, first, please be aware that I'm an ordinary user on this site just like you. I don't know how admins are selected here and have never participated in admin nominations on this site. Second, I'm sorry if that other image should have been in a different scope. It's a better photo if it was indeed in the same scope. I don't mean to be unsympathetic, but I think you might do better bringing up these topics on the VIC talk page, and probably some of them at Archeo's user talk page. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:05, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) I don't think being an admin is really the issue here. VIC does not get a lot of participation, and Archaeodontosaurus does an incredible amount of work keeping it running. That will inevitably mean that where there may be gray area in the rules, his interpretation is going to carry some weight among other regulars. That's not to say you can't disagree or that his vote counts for any more than anyone else's, but I -- and I'm sure others -- do tend to defer to him when it comes to process, at least. According to the promotion rules "Nominations can be closed after a period of 4 or 7 days (depending on its status), but only if more than 48 hours have passed since the last vote". As 7 days elapsed without a vote, it could be closed according to that. I get that discussion was ongoing, though, and it's easy to see these comments as serving the same purpose as votes. You may want to propose a change to these rules if you think it's a bad idea. Since it was undecided, you are permitted to renominate if you want (but ideally working through any existing issues first), but it sounds like that would just result in Archaeodontosaurus and Charles voting to oppose? At the end of the day, without a lot of participation at VIC the most active users' preferences will have more sway than others. That can only change by encouraging more participation. — Rhododendritestalk | 21:40, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It probably sounds that way, but I didn't intend to denounce him. (Probably shouldn't have written this right after he had annoyed me, again.) I agree he devotes a great amount of effort to the the VI forum. And, he does a good job of running it. It would probably be impossible to find anyone else who would give as much of himself as he does. But, he is the final authority. And, his voice does count more that other participants. If he opposes an image for reasons outside the rules, people don't want to challenge him. When there's a disagreement, he decides and there is no appeal route. When a participant believes the rules are not being followed by the administrator it seems like there should be a committee or someone to appeal to who is not affected by his decisions. It is not *his* group, it has broader significance. No one wants to challenge a sole authority, either out of respect or fear of reprisal. -- Jim Evans (talk) 01:39, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's natural that anyone who wields more influence than others in any particular forum is going to cultivate a certain amount of accompanying resentment, too. I tend to defer to Arch in many situations not because I wouldn't dare to challenge him but because I think he's usually right -- especially as regards the process and conventions of VIC. At the end of the day, all that work he does at VIC doesn't earn respect/deference because of the fact of volunteering (although there's a little bit of that, as is common on wiki projects), but because it means he knows more than anyone how we typically do things, what kinds of things we've promoted in the past, how scopes have typically been formatted, what we've done in various situations, etc. Consistency can be valuable, but it's also important to remember that the process can change if there's sufficient consensus to do so. As I mentioned above, if you're looking for something to change, the first step is probably to get more people involved in the process so no one or two people dominate discussion ("dominate" only because of activity -- not because they're doing anything domineering). My two cents anyway. — Rhododendritestalk | 02:49, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you. I disagree with him at times, but I know I'm no authority on botany and so forth. I defer to him and Charles on flora and fauna when there's a question of how a species or subspecies is recognized or what a typical individual from that species looks like. I feel much more confident in judging which photo of an object, building or sculpture seems best, and I'm usually fine with paintings unless there are photos that have different colors, in which case if I haven't seen the painting in person, I need to ask questions about it, but I often ask for comments before voting and it's pretty common that the nominator can convince me their pick for best in scope is justified. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:43, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ikan, thank you for nominating my image of the baptismal font. Unfortunately, I only noticed the objections now and uploaded a new version. Technically, however, it is not perfect either. The discussion about authenticity is nonsense and a waste of time. Best regards Reinhold
I'll drive by there again on occasion because I don't have the altar yet and will try to produce a clean result. Thanks for your support. --Ermell (talk) 06:20, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! You mentioned in the Cueva de las Manos Featured picture nomination that it could be worthy of a VI nomination. I think it is, but I'm not sure if the UNESCO site itself is broad enough to serve as a scope. What are your thoughts? Tyrone Madera (talk) 02:05, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. I think the scope would have to be "Hand stencils, Cueva de las manos". But then the question would be whether this photo is best in scope or not. Please look at all the other photos of hand stencils from this cave in the category I linked and see if you think it is the best and/or most useful before you nominate it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:07, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it seems to be the best, at the very least aesthetically. It also seems to be the most useful and is the image most widely used by the press. Let me know if you disagree. Best, Tyrone Madera (talk) 18:31, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, The museums reopened and I had the pleasure of visiting the Toulouse-Lautrec Museum in Albi. Many tables have titles which are difficult to translate, I might need some correction! .--Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 06:35, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It was my first time trying it. Sometimes I hear people talking about New Haven pizza and sort of scoff like any good New Yorker, but I guess it's a thing. So I was driving through New Haven and figured I'd give it a shot (at Sally's). It was good! I liked that it was crisp, neat, and the ingredients stayed neatly on top. The pie in the photo was completely gone not long after the photo. — Rhododendritestalk | 12:50, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank You for your support, effort and thoughtfulness! This proves once again what a treasure you are on this project. :-) Cart(talk)08:58, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You are one of the rather few people here I would gladly accept a hug from. :-) Your comment was brilliant! Glad to have someone who is so well versed in the Wiki policies here and so eloquent in talking about them. I don't know all the rules and regulations enough to comment myself, and since I'm still pissed off about this I might say something that should have been better expressed in some other way.
I guess I have lasted as long as I did here because of the "training" you get when owning a jewelry store. I have dealt with drunks, drug addicts, motorcycle gangs, shoplifters (there might have been a few fingers broken), robbers, vandals, etc. But that was all 'on the job', something that had to be done. For my hobby, I prefer a less conflict-filled environment.
My mother, who was a teacher, taught me that there are always alternative ways to deal with troublemakers. One of her favorite tactics was to stare down some miscreant and say: "It is stated in the school laws that I can't hit you, but it sure as hell doesn't say I can't drop you." I guess she passed on some feistiness to me, but I try not to be quite as hands-on as she was. --Cart(talk)20:07, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. I have not had to defend myself physically in decades, but I'm passionate and don't like injustice. Take care of yourself, and I'll look for your photos off FPC. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:33, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
★Your nomination has been reviewed and promoted★ Congratulations! The image you nominated was reviewed and has now been promoted as a valued image. It is considered to be the most valued image on Commons within the scope: Bowl of Post Fruity Pebbles cereal with milk. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.
Continuing the FPC discussion. You are right that my analogy was imprecise. The better analogy is "ingredients for Coke laid out on a table". The recipe is analogous to the circuit diagram + layout + list of processing steps for manufacturing the IC. The point I was making was that there is the external form of a product that is freely photographable, and the internals that is not. Jim Woodward has clarified where the dividing line lies in the case of an IC. Thanks for the debate that clarifies my thinking! --Tagooty (talk) 04:36, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just saw your last comment here. You said "So please stop". You could for example say "unfortunately we cannot accept your reason" or "we regret that cannot accept your reason". Nobady is valet here but it's not so nice to say "So please stop". I'm not a troll. Rohalamin (talk) 16:01, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're engaging in a pattern of baselessly nominating photos for deletion, yet you're criticizing me for asking you to please stop? I didn't tell you to "fucking quit it". "Please stop" is a polite request, even if sharp. Meanwhile, you think it's polite to nominate loads and loads of photos for deletion without a good reason? You are wasting my time. Please stop. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:49, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
FYI: It is you who is not having the nice behaviour, not Ikan Kekek here. It thy you who should stop nominating files for deletion based on size. Also just letting you know, even the term "fucking quit it" isn't offensive, but that may just be me. SHB2000 (talk) 10:23, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I will do it next time. We need to follow the rules as you're saying, don't we? how about this "It is important to keep a cool head, especially when responding to comments against you or your edits. Personal attacks and disruptive comments only escalate a situation; Please try to remain civil with your comments."? Rohalamin (talk) 14:50, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's important to follow exactly the advice you quoted, and also to understand that requests ending with "please" are polite in English and not something you should react to furiously and try to call the cops on the person who posted them. I will consider this matter closed, ask you to please not post to my user talk page on this topic anymore, and wish you a good day. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:55, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me as people there are not so used to SVG images and how to check if they meet the standards of QI. Is this something you have noticed there?
One comment is about missing meta data (I have asked the user what) but to me there is all the needed data, could you please check? What to do if some one say something like that and you don't agree, take it to consensual review?
One comment is "but not a QI requirement, especially for an SVG file, which wouldn't have it anyway" and the last part I take as a personal opinion which should not be considered. What can I do? --please ping me-- Goran tek-en (talk) 18:23, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for this promotion for quality image, the first for this city. I discovered it this summer; but as I live not far away I thought I knew her. You can make an interesting trip an hour by car ... --Archaeodontosaurus (talk) 08:46, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to nominate any photo I see on VIC that looks like a good candidate.
A discussion is being held here, over the reviewing process at QIC and the possibility of improving our Image Guidelines. As a regular contributor to the project, your opinion would be most welcome and valued. Alvesgaspar (talk) 11:47, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Right now, I prefer to read what others have to say. But what I'm thinking of saying is that it's OK to have disagreements and thrash them out in CR. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:43, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to wish you happy holidays, relaxing vacations, many wonderful winter moments and a Happy New Year!
Thank you very much for your invaluable work at Wikimedia Commons! Your convincing critiques and objective comments contribute much to making the Featured pictures valuable and the Featured pictures candidates page a very instructive, always highly interesting place.
I'm writing here because I don't think FP is interested in soap operas. I don't know what you're talking about, but if being contrary is enough to be accused of being a banned user here, it's not a serious place. Your friend insulted me but you do nothing but support him, congratulations. I don't care if a photo is rejected, but I don't want to be insulted without proof. Greetings.--Commonists10:05, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm Jewish if you want to know, but don't worry, I won't mention any more photos so you can live in your own closed world. Thank you.--Commonists10:13, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
First steps tutorial
Getting help
Goodies, tips, and tricks
Made a mistake?
.jpg)
_male_Rio_Negro_2.JPG)
_naar_Colle_Tsa_S%C3%A8tse_in_Cogne_Valley_(Itali%C3%AB)._Waterval_boven_Gimillan_gedeeltelijk_in_de_mist_03.jpg)
. -- Slaunger (talk) 22:25, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
.jpg)
lNeverCry 10:28, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
I was part-time raised on a boat so I got my first skipper's licence when I was 15. (and I've lived in San Diego, a lifetime ago...) It's a small world. cart-Talk 10:53, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Fixed -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 02:30, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
.png){kind=small}
_IMGP6830_smial_wp.jpg)
_en_omgeving_04.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
--cart-Talk 20:04, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
,_Nyhavn_--_2017_--_1711.jpg)
,_Runder_Turm_--_2017_--_1633.jpg)
.jpg)
I truly wish you, your family, and your friends Merry Christmas, Happy New Year, and wishing for eternal Peace in world. Have a great holiday season. PumpkinSky talk 15:28, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
,_Melbourne_2017-10-30.jpg)
_in_the_Mekong.jpg)
Comment There probably are a few accounts that I have not mentioned. GerifalteDelSabana (talk) 00:27, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Done, I looked at the accounts' contribs and have blocked all indefinitely. --A.Savin 11:19, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
It looks like a duck to me GerifalteDelSabana (talk) 14:32, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
.jpg)
_(2).jpg)
.jpg)
_(d.j.b.)_01.jpg)
_on_white_background,_focus_stacking.jpg)
Info Ok, there is a technical problem with this nom. When Llez created this page they accidentally removed the top lines in the nom with the link to the nomination page (now restored manually) and also the 'FPVotingPeriodFlag' (can't restore that, maybe some admin can, don't know). You can see there is no "Voting period ends on..." at the top of the page. Without it, the FPCBot will not able to handle this nom. It would be best if you just withdrew this page and made a new nomination so that the nom and photos have a chance to enter the system. You will prpbably have to use another set name though, like "Étang de Salses-Leucate-2" or something. --Cart (talk) 10:19, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
.jpg)
._Detail._31-03-2020_(d.j.b.).jpg_07.jpg)
,_rev%C3%AAtu_du_grand_costume_royal_en_1779_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg)
_female_fulvipes_2.jpg)
_45.jpg)
Thank you very much for the nomination, I would never have imagined that this photo could be featured and I think the fact that this whole city is more or less the same has visually contaminated me. Please don't hesitate to nominate any photos you want in the future. A big hug --Wilfredor (talk) 12:37, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
_01.jpg)
.jpg){kind=small}
_35a.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg){kind=link}
_2016-08-15--15-01-02-001.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![445 File:GAZ "Tigr" (black colored) during the "Armiya 2020" exhibition.jpg](#File:GAZ_"Tigr"_(black_colored)_during_the_"Armiya_2020"_exhibition.jpg){kind=link}
![448 File:Lada Vesta as military police car during the "Armiya 2020" exhibition.jpg](#File:Lada_Vesta_as_military_police_car_during_the_"Armiya_2020"_exhibition.jpg){kind=link}
_27-02-2021_(actm.)_03.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_male_Rio_Negro_2.JPG){kind=link}
_naar_Colle_Tsa_S%C3%A8tse_in_Cogne_Valley_(Itali%C3%AB)._Waterval_boven_Gimillan_gedeeltelijk_in_de_mist_03.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_2016-08-15--15-01-02-001.jpg){kind=link}
_2016-08-15--15-01-02-002.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&diff=205648759&oldid=205648309){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.Turm.Uhr.1.24409.ajb.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
_IMGP6830_smial_wp.jpg){kind=link}
_en_omgeving_04.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_blossom.jpg){kind=link}
_pollinated_by_Apis_mellifera_1crop.jpg){kind=link}
_inflorescence2.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&diff=240649406&oldid=240632676){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
,_Nyhavn_--_2017_--_1711.jpg){kind=link}
,_Runder_Turm_--_2017_--_1633.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
,_Melbourne_2017-10-30.jpg){kind=link}
_in_the_Mekong.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_(14754632384).jpg){kind=link}
_(d.j.b.)_01.jpg){kind=link}
_(d.j.b.)_01.jpg){kind=link}
_on_white_background,_focus_stacking.jpg){kind=link}
_on_white_background,_focus_stacking.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
._Detail._31-03-2020_(d.j.b.).jpg_07.jpg){kind=link}
_during_the_sunrise.jpg){kind=link}
,_rev%C3%AAtu_du_grand_costume_royal_en_1779_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg){kind=link}
_female_fulvipes_2.jpg){kind=link}
_during_the_%22Armiya_2020%22_exhibition_(front_view).jpg){kind=link}
_during_the_%22Armiya_2020%22_exhibition.jpg){kind=link}
![19:38, 22 September 2020 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ikan_Kekek/archive#c-Kirill_Borisenko-2020-09-22T19:38:00.000Z-File:GAZ_"Tigr"_(black_colored)_during_the_"Armiya_2020"_exhibition.jpg){kind=link}
![22:48, 9 October 2020 (UTC)](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ikan_Kekek/archive#c-Kirill_Borisenko-2020-10-09T22:48:00.000Z-File:Lada_Vesta_as_military_police_car_during_the_"Armiya_2020"_exhibition.jpg){kind=link}
_45.jpg){kind=link}
![[9]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Valued_image_candidates/First-Evagelical-Lutheran-Church_Vertical-Panaramio-.jpg){kind=link}
_01.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_22-06-2019._(actm.)_29.jpg){kind=link}
_27-02-2021_(actm.)_03.jpg){kind=link}
_Fa%C3%A7ade_de_l%27%C3%A9glise_Sainte-Foy.jpg){kind=link}
_35a.jpg){kind=link}
_33.jpg){kind=link}
_35a.jpg){kind=link}
