User talk:JovanCormac/Archives/2009/September

File:Rollout_of_STS-128_filtered.jpg

File:Rollout_of_STS-128_filtered.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that. The file you added has been deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you believe that the deletion was not in accordance with policy, you may request undeletion. (It is not necessary to request undeletion if using VRT; the file will be automatically restored at the conclusion of the process.) Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

 

  ■ MMXX^talk  02:12, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

There is no justification for this, unless you have information the public doesn't. Please see the discussion at User_talk:TonyBallioni#terms_of_use_violations and my comment on the image's talk page. -- JovanCormac 06:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Apparently an OTRS ticket was submitted that verified that it was a copy vio. I said I didn't oppose deletion since I assumed that there was some substantiating evidence behind the claim. As for your comment about the anonymous user, I agree completely, they should have registered and signed the comment so that his process would have been a bit more transparent. In any case, I too find it a bit confusing that the file was apparently copyrighted, something that contradicts NASA's policy, and feel it would be helpful if we were to be informed of what type of evidence was used to determine this to be a copy vio. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

That is why the OTRS is broken by design. Telling someone that he has committed a copyright violation (as I have been told, here) is a serious accusation, and as such must be backed by openly accessible evidence that the alleged violator can review and contest. Keeping this evidence behind locked doors (OTRS), much worse not even mentioning this evidence when tagging as copyvio, is akin to excluding the defendant from his own trial. -- JovanCormac 19:24, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

FI confirmed result

Hi, JovanCormac!

Minor error issue in this confirmed result:

Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Brachypelma_auratum_2009_G03.jpg

One vote given, when time is over. Finally 6:1, not 6:2.

With best regards, --George Chernilevsky (talk) 16:14, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for reporting this, I corrected the result. Please don't hesitate to report any other inaccuracies you may find. -- JovanCormac 17:16, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Only one spider featured, but it is two separate nominations. It is correct? Photos was made in separate days and separate users support it.

With best regards, --George Chernilevsky (talk) 18:07, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Please read my comment under the second spider's results. We had a thread on that at Commons_talk:Featured_picture_candidates#How_far_does_the_rule_of_.22two_versions.22_go.3F. Consensus is that those two pictures fall under the "no two versions" rule. You are welcome to post your opinion on the aforementioned thread. -- JovanCormac 18:19, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I have added my comment --George Chernilevsky (talk) 18:41, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Chichen Itza 1.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Chichen Itza 1.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 17:46, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: Nomination File:Tree example IR.jpg

Hi, thank you for your question. I'm Italian so I used the button "Candida una nuova immagine" (Italian for "Create new nomination") on Italian interface ("Commons:Segnalazioni per la vetrina") of Commons:Featured picture candidates. Maybe the Italian interface doesn't work well? Jacopo Werther (talk) 10:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll look into it. -- JovanCormac 10:17, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I fixed it now. There were some old templates in use by other languages, which is also why the ImageAnnotator tool didn't work on them (it will now). I have also added the voting period flag to your nomination manually, and when the period is over it will display the appropriate text. -- JovanCormac 10:32, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Cukrowicz nachbaur Kapelle 1.JPG

I've cropped 36 pixels of either side to remove the distortion, and rebalance the image. Might I ask that you re-examine it? Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 12:38, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for notifying me. I changed my vote to  Neutral. See my comment on the candidate page for details. -- JovanCormac 13:06, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

FP

Thank you for your advice, which is really valuable to me as it's sometimes hard for me to judge which photo is good and which is even better. The one which you really like, for example, I find it quite nice but I'd never think it's that great :) Perhaps there are some others in my gallery whose value I underestimate and there are some prospective FPs, QIs or VIs there. If you could take a look in your spare time, I'd be very grateful. Airwolf (talk) 15:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I looked through all of your pictures and another one (besides the one already mentioned) that I found really interesting is File:Boeing PT-27A-75N1 Stearman Góraszka 2.JPG. For me (and for many other FP regulars), composition is often a key factor in the decision. One of the problems with File:Belgian F-16 Radom 2009.JPG is that it shows only the plane's underbelly which is quite uninteresting compared to the more dynamic view offered by, say, the biplane picture I mentioned. By contrast, File:Red Arrows Radom 2009 b.JPG is a shot that is truly alive. It follows the rule of thirds and has a highly balanced, yet dynamic composition, the kind that makes you look twice. Static pictures, no matter how detailed, amaze no one today. We have all seen thousands such pictures taken by pro photographers, in books, magazines and on the internet. It's the ones that look like a split-second frame of an action film that are truly interesting, and IMO the Red Arrows picture is one of them. -- JovanCormac 18:25, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I must admit that it's very pleasant to read such opinions :) And I think I might upload some more similar formation pictures beacuse what you've said means that I probably underestimate them. And since you're so good to me, let me ask you one more question. In Category:Radom Air Show 2009 you will find some photos of a Belarusian Su-27UBM I've uploaded. Do you believe that any of them has FP/QI/VI potential? Due to the plane's fatal accident during the Air Show I'd like to commemorate the pilots in this way, but it would be pointless and rude to nominate the photos with an attitude like hey, promote those pics 'cause the pilots are dead. That's why I'd like to hear (read) your neutral opinion about them. Thank you. Airwolf (talk) 20:45, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of that crash until now. It would certainly be nice to commemorate the pilots in some way. The problem is that none of the pictures shows the accident directly (like this one, taken at another air show, does). IMO, the best by far of the Su-27 pictures is File:Su-27UBM Radom 2009 c.JPG, which has a nice composition and decent quality. However, it would probably not make FP, and VI (scope: Su-27) would be difficult as well with competition such as File:Su-27 low pass.jpg. You could always nominate it (and a lot of other images from that gallery) for QI status of course, but that would not increase its visibility. My suggestion: Post it as Picture of the Day on some anniversary (say, 1 month) of the accident. This will give it the best visibility possible (on the Commons main page) and you can also add a description explaining the accident and stating the names of the pilots and their honorable role in preventing damage to homes. As a rule, all POTDs are drawn from the pool of Featured Pictures only. Do it anyway (maybe post about it on the POTD talk page first), I'm sure you won't have any opposition as we're all tired of seeing one bug after another grace the main page. -- JovanCormac 21:37, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

 Comment Sorry to butt in (I discovered this conversation by mistake) but I really like File:Red Arrows Radom 2009 g.JPG as well. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 04:06, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

It's a cool picture, yes, but IMO it looks better as a thumbnail than in full size. -- JovanCormac 08:46, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

As for the photos, the one you've mentioned is currently waiting for a QI review (by the way, I don't think there are any photos of the crash as it happened on the other side of the forest and people living there weren't exactly expecting it to happen). As for POTD, this month and the next are booked. I'd have to wait for one year's anniversary :) Airwolf (talk) 09:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

AFAIK, even when a POTD is "booked", it can stil be replaced by another one. I would suggest picking an insect picture to replace, as there will be little controversy about that... -- JovanCormac 09:27, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, I asked the question you wanted me to ask. Airwolf (talk) 11:51, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Featured Pictures on a world map

Hi! I like your idea for Featured Pictures on a world map. But, as I far as can see, you need to create a monobook.css for a proper view. That means that someone have to be registered on Commons to do so. If the point is to attract someone, who come her for the first time, you need a perfect look instantly. Is there a way to achieve that without any further settings? Also, I would recommend a better picture of the world map, cause this current one is not really representative. For example this one, which is featured itself. Regards. --Lošmi (talk) 05:57, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest. The monobook hack is just temporarily. If the community should choose to adopt the map, the server's Common.css file can be changed instead, which would make the map work properly for all visitors to the site, whether registered or not. It is common for new templates and additions to the site to require the user to manually add CSS or JavaScript code during the experimental phase before they are enabled globally (see the ImageAnnotator for another example).

Concerning the background map: I have tried using the photographic map you provided, and found that there was just too much going on if I used that one. It has many colors, and lots of texture as well, which makes the icons much less prominent than with the outline map the template currently uses. However, should the need arise, the template permits changing to another map in a very simple fashion, even one with a different aspect ratio. -- JovanCormac 07:39, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Commons talk:Picture of the Year

Hi JovanCormac. Please check Commons talk:Picture of the Year. Best regards, — Kanonkas // talk // e-mail // 08:14, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. -- JovanCormac 08:19, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Lasertests.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Lasertests.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 19:59, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Venus globe.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Venus globe.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 13:59, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Battle of Antietam2.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Battle of Antietam2.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 21:45, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Shishkin, Ivan - Morning in a Pine Forest.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Shishkin, Ivan - Morning in a Pine Forest.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 07:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bürstegg Biberkopf.jpg

I have uploaded a new version of this picture! Maybe you would like to change your vote! --Simonizer (talk) 06:39, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for notifying me. I'll have a look at the edited version. -- JovanCormac 06:41, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

F-16 VIC

Done, thank you. And yes, this is really the entire team :) Airwolf (talk) 16:17, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for notifying me, I changed my vote back to "Support". -- JovanCormac 17:45, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

File:Pelplin Krzysztof.JPG

Do you think that your first version was better? If cut off a triangle is also cut off the foot. Fresco is the remnant, and so abruptly ends. Albertus teolog (talk) 08:41, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the fresco could be stretched asymmetrically to both remove the triangle and preserve the foot? -- JovanCormac 09:31, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I do not deal with this :-) I thank you for your feedback. Albertus teolog (talk) 18:23, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Notification of scope change

At Commons:Valued image candidates/F-16 Solo Display Team Radom 2009 b.JPG, the scope changed from Solo Display Team to F-16 Solo Display Team. Please revisit. Lycaon (talk) 09:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I did and supported again. -- JovanCormac 09:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

POTD

I promise to never ever nominate a picture of something else than a plane for FP, I'm bad at it . Or I'll just stick to taking photos and let others nominate mine. But that's not why I'm here. You know, Sept 30 is getting closer, so if we want to make the POTD change, we'd have to do it today or tomorrow; less than a week in advance would not be aproriate in my opinion. We should also notify the authors of the pics we move. And if you could please have a look at the POTD talk page. Best regards from Poland, Airwolf (talk) 08:50, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't give up on nominating, please! Sometimes we nominate stuff without knowing that better stuff is Featured already. You can rightfully blame it on our terrible category system, which makes it almost impossible to find all media related to a subject. -- JovanCormac 09:29, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Now we've got a real mess, don't you think? Airwolf (talk) 10:17, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Please see my comment on the POTD talk page. -- JovanCormac 10:51, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I just realized what you mean... WHY OH WHY did "Ö" do this??? We had been discussing replacing Sep 30th for two weeks... -- JovanCormac 10:57, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm Polish, I'm used to such things happening. But Polnische Wirtschaft (or however you spell it) made by a Swede is somewhat surprising Airwolf (talk) 11:02, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

So, what happens now? -- JovanCormac 11:19, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Now? Now we keep changing the captions for Sept 30 and Oct 1; it would be great if you could help me with that. Due to the little time we've got it would be a good idea to ask selected people instead of waiting for it to happen by itself. Airwolf (talk) 11:28, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I'm on it. I have changed Sep 30th back to the plane, and hope it stays that way this time... -- JovanCormac 11:32, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the procedure is done now, the language descriptions need to be filled in by native speakers. I've also pushed File:ComputerHotline - Pieris brassicae (by).jpg, the original Oct 1st POTD, to Dec 12th, and left a note explaining the change in the file's history, which will be read by the author after he is notified through his watchlist. That should do it, I think. -- JovanCormac 11:44, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

We could also tell the uploader of the church. I've already notified a few people with appropriate language skills about the change with a request to translate the descriptions. Thank you for your help. Airwolf (talk) 11:52, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

FP things

Hi, I like your high energy and enthusiasm and all the work you've been doing around Commons. And I really appreciate all your nominations of other peoples work for FP. And I agree that the power opposer's have (basically their vote is worth twice a supporters) means they should give valid oppose reasons. But I can not see that trying to impose some 'rule' is going to make a material difference. It might initially discount a few votes, but people will quickly learn just to say "as per xyz" as many already do, which really is just as meaningless as nothing. It doesn't show that they have really considered the image. Anyway FPC is not some rigorous process, it is a popularity poll of what the community likes at this point in time. When people get sick of sunset pictures, or bug pictures, or pencil pictures, or whatever, they oppose them - it is as simple as that. Yes, people consider the guidelines, but each has their own biases and priorities. There really is no way to insist that people all vote on the same criteria, we have a set of guidelines for nominators and voters, but it is only instruction creep that sees these as requirements. People really do just vote for what they like and oppose what they don't, hopefully the result is a reflection of the whole community and so FPs are a set of pictures that the community likes (or did like). We make some claim that these are the best on Commons, but that is partly wishful thinking, they are a collection of images voted for over a long period of time by different sets of people who could be bothered participating in FPC. I suppose that I am saying: don't be under any illusions as to what FPs are, or can ever be :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 10:55, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't have illusions - I have visions

Obviously, you are correct about FPC being just a sophisticated popularity contest, but I can see a future where it's something more, and I believe we can get there with small steps. The new "Oppose reason" rule - while clearly not barring people from opposing without really looking - does have the benefit of forcing people to think a little longer about the nomination than they would have otherwise, since simply writing *{{oppose}} -- ~~~~ won't do.

Commons is a great project, but it uses a deeply flawed system for many tasks. Some of those flaws stem from the software itself (see User:JovanCormac/CommonsProblems), others from community processes. I strongly believe, though, that by formalizing more and more of the "implied" rules and processes we use, those flaws will come to the surface, and the structure will become more stable. Commons has a gargantuan amount of unwritten rules that users are somehow just "expected to know" about, and the learning curve is probably the highest of all Wikimedia projects. This is unacceptable, and must (and will) be changed. I have many more ideas for steps in that direction, and will also continue to pursue my goal of improving the FP library with all my energy. Cheers, JovanCormac 11:09, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Well don't burn yourself out fighting too many battles at once. Perhaps you should discuss your grand vision, maybe you will get some help ;-). Did you submitt something to that request recently for "where do we see the project in 5 years" ?

Yep, I submitted several ideas, actually. One of them concerns the future of Commons, and is titled "Make Commons more accessible to the average visitor".

Getting back to FP, unless we institute some sort of qualifications exam for voters, I don't think FPC will ever produce consistent results. But my point is why would we want to? At the moment it is some sort of popular vote which would tend to suggest (assuming it is a fair cross section of the community that uses Commons), that the images that are selected are also the images that the community as a whole likes, and thinks are some of the best here. If you want FP to be something else (like the top x% of images on Commons as determined by some expert panel), well, that is a different matter :-). What do you think FP is, and what do you think it is for?

I'm not at all saying that personal taste shouldn't matter on FPC (otherwise we wouldn't need a vote, would we?). But I do believe that

1. Quality standards could be formalized more clearly (I've also come to think that there really should be no "mitigating reasons" for photos with less than 2 Mpx when a $50 camera from Wal-Mart gives you 10)
2. Additional rules like "No promotion if a superior image of the subject exists already" can increase the value of FP
3. Quotas for the percentage of pictures in the various FP categories can make the FP library more balanced (you probably know my stance on the "Arthropod Issue")

As for un-written rules, I don't know that there are many. There may be lots of un-written conventions, or ways of doing things, but that is not the same as rules. There are very few rules. Most of the FP guidelines are just that, hints, measures, things to look for - they are not 'rules'. Even the guideline about minimum size is just meant to be a statement of what people currently generally consider a reasonable size - there is no 'rule' to say it can't be smaller. It may sound like anarchy, but many people believe that nailing everything down with precise rules is not the way to go. Rules, prescriptive ways of doing things, means it is very difficult to change, difficult to innovate, difficult to allow for new ways of doing things, difficult to improve things. With rules things stagnate :-). I think the last thing we need is to turn lots of things into new rules - if anything our problem is too many pages of information about everything, very few of which are read by everyone, let alone new comers. When I started here a few years ago, I read all the old discussions I could find about FP and QI, to see where they came from, how they developed and what those information pages actually meant. I doubt very many people bother to do that, but it is all there if people want to look :-). I took a wikibreak for a bit less than a year, and I noticed a few things have changed, new people have made their own interpretation of the info pages that they find. It is a very interesting look at an institution and the way knowledge is passed from one generation to the next (I think these generations are quite short as many people are students and come and go as they pass through the education system, or maybe people just get burnt out). So you probably don't agree with me, but maybe I've given you a few things to think about :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 12:11, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

PS rules: #1) Assume good faith. #2) Be civil. What more do we need? :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 12:11, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, for instance I think that we need more rules regulating how POTDs are chosen. The overabundance of arthropods in the POTD has been lamented many times, but people keep placing them back-to-back, so it looks like we do need rules to change that. Until yesterday, plans for October were to show four butterfly macros in the first 11 days, two of them of the same species. This is, to put it frankly, bullshit, and has the potential to significantly hurt the perception of Commons in the mind of the random visitor stumbling upon the front page ("gee, I though this was a picture archive, turns out all they have is bugs").

Btw. I greatly appreciate your comments! It's often hard to determine what other Commoners really think... -- JovanCormac 13:07, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

POTD doesn't need more rules, it simply needs participation. If there is a succession of the same type of photos, anyone can move them to better spacing. If there are too many insect images at FP, then the solution is find more other images (keep up the good work :-). One reason for lots on insect pictures is quite simply that the main form of animal life on this planet is insects, there are more species and more individuals than anything else. I'm not very worried about 'random' visitors having a bad perception, random visitors by definition aren't here long enough to see a pattern - they would need to come back regularly to convince themselves that there is a bias. But yes, POTD should reflect the quality and range of images available, our shop window really. Guidelines pointing out that POTD nominators should strive to ensure a variety of themes should be enough. In general more rules, more info pages don't help. What we need is to simplify guidelines, go for general principles. What springs to mind is the movement to "naked streets"[1] started by Hans Monderman - the idea that you remove all the signs, roadmarkings etc to make roads safer! Instead of trying to make roads safer by the traditional use of adding more signs, speed bumps, etc etc, remove them all which results in drivers waking up and paying far more attention to their surroundings and results in safer roads! - Food for thought :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 23:21, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

That "naked signs" thing is very interesting indeed... not sure how well this would translate on Commons, though, especially with the rules about licensing, which are counter-intuitive to say the least. Still, I agree it's worth thinking about. -- JovanCormac 05:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

MOTD

As a far more experienced Commons user, could you please tell me something more about Media of the Day. What attracted my attention was this video. You probably won't be surprised to read that I happen to have some videos like this one, maybe even a bit better. My questions are: 1. How are MOTDs selcted? I couldn't find any information on that topic. 2. Is there anything like featured media from which MOTDs are selected? I think not, but again, maybe I just couldn't find it. 3. Do you recommend any particular software for converting .mov to .ogg files? Airwolf (talk) 19:36, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I must admit I don't have any experience with non-picture media, which are sadly underappreciated on Commons (the MOTD talk page has seen ~10 posts in 3 years). My guess would be that like POTD, anyone can schedule a MOTD for use on a day where no media has been chosen yet. I don't think there is such a thing as "Featured Media", but EN does feature videos using their Featured Picture process. As for OGG conversion, you will likely find what you are looking for here. It would be truly great if you could upload freely licensed videos from airshows! Cheers, JovanCormac 20:21, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

File:Radom Air Show 2009 Red Arrows 1.ogg - you like? Airwolf (talk) 20:57, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

That's absolutely fantastic! Easily one of the best videos I have seen on Commons. More please! And btw, I just discovered that OGG videos can be Featured on Commons through the normal FPC process (at least, this one was). Just try it out, you have my support. -- JovanCormac 05:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'll do it but I need to find some better way of converting .mov to .ogg, the ones listed at en.wikipedia don;t seem to work properly, even the video I've uploaded is spoiled a little bit (it "jumps"), but others get really spoiled (e.g. only half gets converted). I think it might be a problem with my camera, and if so, I'll need to get some software to fix .movs, and only then convert them to .ogg. Thus it will take some time, but I will do it sooner or later. And by the way, you think this F-16 could be FP? Airwolf (talk) 11:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I suggested that one before, so yes, I think the F-16 picture might make FP. I'd give it a (weak) support, myself. -- JovanCormac 11:41, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Sunflower sky backdrop.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sunflower sky backdrop.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 23:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Spiders and VI

Hi, JovanCormac!

Hi now, JovanCormac!

I cannot made more photos than these spiders. I have lease (rent) spiders only a few days in August. It was very far from my house during travel. In my city is not present such spiders and new photos are impossible.

Ahh, that's a pity. But if you ever get the chance again... -- JovanCormac 05:25, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Tiny chance i can have at my next holydays, in next Summer.... --George Chernilevsky (talk) 07:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Spiders fed with cockroaches, however they are capable to eat birds, reptiles and small mammals.

Concerning my Valued nominations.

(1) Tinder fungus Photo in the big resulutions and with natural colour. Offered by You variants are worse on quality and the resolution. Please, compare it at 100 % scale. Also location (geocode) in all other variants are is not specified (fails criteria 5).

Please, read rules:

"If you find one or more other images/sets which in your opinion are equally or more valued images within essentially the same scope, you should nominate these images as well and move all the candidates to an MVR."

You're right about that. I didn't see that rule, sorry. But you convinced me anyway (other images have low resolution) and I changed my vote to "Support". -- JovanCormac 05:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thank You --George Chernilevsky (talk) 07:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

(2) Iodine bolete. You can offer the other correct scope? I have chosen such scope as I plan to make still a photo of these mushrooms as dried food. It is really rare fungi and 4 of 5 photos in this category is my own work.

The problem is not whether the scope is correct or not. Your chosen scope is "Boletus impolitus Iodine bolete in natural environment". The trailing "in natural environment" is simply a description of the image, not a scope (see this rule for explanation). A scope should be more like a category, so in this case, simply "Boletus impolitus" or "Boletus impolitus (Iodine bolete)" would be a good scope. If you change that, I will change my vote to "Support". -- JovanCormac 05:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, scope changed to more commonly --George Chernilevsky (talk) 07:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I changed my vote to "Support" as promised. -- JovanCormac 08:44, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

(3) Crab. The male and a female have the big differences (bottom view). It is usually normal, to do made VI nominations separately male and a female of a biological specification. However the female with spawn has strongly differs view outwardly from a female as that. Therefore I consider that the scope is specified correctly. But, if You have better constructive variant, i will made changes in scope. All photos in category is my own work.

With the crab, it's the very same problem. "Xantho poressa, female at spawning time" is way too narrow. "Xantho poressa, female" will do the trick. A narrow scope is often a problem and people often oppose because of it. In general, a description of what precisely is going on in a picture is already too narrow. -- JovanCormac 05:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

About crab i really not sure. Please, look this:

• 
  crab, female
• 
  crab, female at spawning time
• 
  crab Xantho poressa, female at spawning time

Very different view for me. It is separate biological species, but in general showing distinctions. I can see too much quantity of roe (eggs) only with Xantho poressa female. Xantho poressa female NOT in spawning time has view like first photo --George Chernilevsky (talk) 07:55, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I see your point, but looking at past VI nominations, I still believe the scope is way too narrow. I have called for more opinions on the candidate page. -- JovanCormac 08:44, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, finally i agree with Your opinion. Scope changed. Thank You for friendly co-operation --George Chernilevsky (talk) 08:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Changed my vote to "Support" as promised. -- JovanCormac 10:05, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Look please, once again at my VI nominations. You also can offer more successful scopes for these nominations. Possible i get wrong rules or my Englis is not well.

And, finally. I am not afflicted by Your voting. However I wait for a constructive approach.

Thank you for understanding. I'm dedicated to the quality of FP, QI and VI. I never oppose or support for personal reasons. If you change the scopes to something more general, I will change my votes. Have a great day! -- JovanCormac 05:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

With best regards, --George Chernilevsky (talk) 18:15, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Any crab sex visible sign (from bottom):

• 
  a crab male from bottom
• 
  a crab female from bottom

So it's about the shape of the central structure on the bottom. Thank you for that interesting piece of knowledge. -- JovanCormac 10:30, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes it is called a paunch or a tail (in different languages). Wide at a female allows to carry roe. Narrow at a male is used for fertilisation.

I hope, I have not tired You with biological details.

At this summer i have been attacked by a big crab. I did too close a macro and have got two small bloody wounds by claws in my hands with my photocamera. It was very unexpected. The crab remained alive, i very much like these animals. The camera has fallen to sand, however the optics has not suffered. My hands have begun to live. And i have good photo. Happy end --George Chernilevsky (talk) 11:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

And it is Xantho poressa male. I wish to upload a better photo of a Xantho poressa male in the future. Some of my summer photos are not sorted.

And about my VI nominations tarantula (vs two variants of my photos). What is more illustrative in Your opinion? --George Chernilevsky (talk) 10:25, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I really cannot decide that. I was on the verge of voting for one or the other several times, but IMO they're just too close to call, with File:Brachypelma auratum 2009 G09.jpg being a little more impressive because of the footprints and File:Brachypelma auratum 2009 G03.jpg being a little more illustrative for the legs. -- JovanCormac 10:30, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I too like both --George Chernilevsky (talk) 11:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

GraphLabs

Hi. Would you tell me, please, where is the GraphLabs page on Commons? --Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 23:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure. It's right here. -- JovanCormac 05:12, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

Many thanks!
It is really significant for me --George Chernilevsky (talk) 10:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. Keep going! -- JovanCormac 10:59, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Münchhausen pictures

Hello. I can confirm that those 6 pictures are full pack of images from that edition. Except this cover, probably made on basis of one another picture by the same artist. --Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 19:20, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

That's great news. I would like to nominate the set for VI set status, but could you please add some more information on the image description pages first, at least an English translation of the book's name ("Source" field) and the number of the page an illustration is found on. Otherwise it would be getting opposed for missing information. -- JovanCormac 21:46, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

 Done But pages with pictures have no numbers. --Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 07:11, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

What matters is the oder in which the illustrations appear in the book (just like with Commons:Valued_image_candidates/The_Hunting_of_the_Snark). Revievers are certainly going to want to know that. -- JovanCormac 07:32, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Done. Field Description, marks "Pic. 1-6". Feel free to make some corrections if you need.--Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 07:44, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Hm. Both File:Gottfried Franz - Munchhausen Underwater.jpg and File:Gottfried Franz - Munchhausen shooting the horse.jpg are labeled as "Pic. 1". -- JovanCormac 07:53, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Ups... Done --Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 08:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I have nominated the set for Valued Image Set status at Commons:Valued_image_candidates/"Münchhausen"_illustrations_by_Gottfried_Franz. -- JovanCormac 08:44, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. --Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 08:53, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I've added the cover (and its retouched version) in the same categories. It seems than the artist is the same, but this picture is cropped probably, because no initials G.F. on it. --Dmitry Rozhkov (talk) 01:26, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Migration map

Please help me to correction the problem, i'm beginer in SVG, please.Asybaris01 (talk) 08:04, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, text should be in text objects, not converted to paths, for easier localization. - how can do that?Asybaris01 (talk) 08:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

(I presume you use Inkscape.) Create your text using Inkscape's text tool. Do not convert the text to a path. Then simply saving as "Plain SVG" (not "Inkscape SVG") should do the trick. The benefit is that when localizing, one can simply overwrite the text rather than having to delete and create new text objects. -- JovanCormac 08:38, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

read this and this. Asybaris01 (talk) 06:44, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Hiding text objects in a bottom layer as suggested by Sting is indeed a good idea. But sadly, there is no such layer (yet) in your candidate map. -- JovanCormac 07:19, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

POTD... again

Take a look here - bugs, bugs, bugs, on the 1st, 11th (my birthday, yuck), 12th, 13th (three consecutive days!), 19th, 21st. You think it's okay if I do a little reshuffling and leave, say, three out of the five? Airwolf (talk) 09:55, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Definitely! -- JovanCormac 11:51, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

There is just one problem: no templates for Jan 2010. Do you happen to know how to create them? Airwolf (talk) 13:13, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

No, sorry, at least not the POTD templates specifically. As for templates in general, you simply create them like any other page. -- JovanCormac 16:02, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I think I'm getting the hang of it. I mean critical assessment of photos. Two months ago I would barely be able to tell the difference between bad depth of focus and compression artifacts. The last thing I need to understand is valid reasons for oppose. I'm asking you about this specifically, because you were the person who proposed changes in the guidelines not so long ago. So tell me, please, is this a valid reason? Irrelevant of the image itself (which I consider to be just a bit above the border of what is expected of FPs; that's why I've decided to give it a go), does I fail to see what is so special about the object - not about the image, but about the object - fall within what is allowed? I would guess it somehow corresponds with no wow factor, but again, wow is about the image itself, just as you can give more wow to a 737 in flight, or absolutely no wow to almost anything. Airwolf (talk) 22:00, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, no, this shouldn't be a valid reason. But Tony Wills recently reverted the rule change initiated by me (we're discussing it again here), so people can once again write whatever they want when they oppose, including nothing at all... -- JovanCormac 05:50, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

File:Bahram Gur hunting.jpg

Hello, Could you try what Daniel78 suggested: simple resave in some image software. I think that is important independently the FP issue. Since I don't see the problem, I can't correct it. Thanks for your help, Yann (talk) 21:54, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I loaded the image with Gimp and it told me about the embedded color profile, asking whether to keep it or to convert it to RGB. I chose "keep", and resaved the image under a different file name, with different JPEG parameters. However, it looks exactly the same as the original one in Firefox 3.5.3. Converting the color profile to RGB would undoubtedly solve the issue, but then the color gamut of the image would suffer, making the reproduction a little less authentic in theory. -- JovanCormac 06:02, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any idea what is the problem exactly? (what puzzles me is that you are the only one to see this problem) and how to correct it? Yann (talk) 10:10, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I am not the only one who sees this problem. As shown by Daniel78, standard setups with several Firefox versions (including the latest one) also show the image in cyan. I am pretty sure that the issue is caused by the non-standard color profile embedded in the image, which is neither screen standard (RGB) nor printing standard (CMYK). Converting to RGB should fix it, I think. What is very interesting is that one of the new features of recent Firefox versions is color management, while previous versions didn't implement full support for JPEG color profiles - and it's precisely those "improved" new versions that display the issue. -- JovanCormac 10:18, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

How did you get this icc-plugin? I couldn't find anything like this. Thanks, Yann (talk) 15:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

The only Gimp plugin I have installed is G'MIC. I run Gimp 2.6, and color profile display and conversion is one of its standard features as far as I'm aware. -- JovanCormac 15:10, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Impact Sprinkler Mechanism 2.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Impact Sprinkler Mechanism 2.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 12:08, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Mandel zoom 11 satellite double spiral.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Mandel zoom 11 satellite double spiral.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 12:10, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Melbourne Skyline from Rialto Crop - Nov 2008.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Melbourne Skyline from Rialto Crop - Nov 2008.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 12:12, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Opal from Yowah, Queensland, Australia 2.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Opal from Yowah, Queensland, Australia 2.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 07:08, 29 September 2009 (UTC)