User talk:RevolverOcelot

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! MaximaClam.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Somewhat noisy, but then, it is underwater photography, so... Adam Cuerden 23:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:P5170352.JPG

You are uploading interesting underwater photographs, that is kind of cool. What I know about coral is, by my own measurements for knowledge, absolutely nothing. Armed with that knowledge, I made a category for the image (and removed a template that says that the image needs a category) and then I put a new template on the image -- {{Badname}} and suggested a different name for that image.

I have downloaded and uploaded images for name changes before, sometimes it was about images whose subjects I had a little knowledge of, occasionally it was for images that had seemingly been abandoned. This one you liked enough to nominate but not enough to vote for -- it probably will not do so well because the crop.

Perhaps you could look at the category and the suggested name change? -- carol 04:03, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

A boneheaded mistake on my part: I forgot to change the name of the jpeg when uploading it (usually I do edits in CS2, but not for this one). Of course that's an appropriate name, and thanks for the vigilance. Yup: crop's a bitch, alright, but the tight shot was the best image I could swing. If it's wowsy to people fine, and if not, meh.

And as for not voting for it... that was another teensy oversight on my part...

Anyway, thanks for the kind words, again RevolverOcelot 04:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

QICpromoted

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

Lycaon 05:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Valued Image Promotion

★ 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:
Tridacna maxima.
If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Valued images candidates.

review

•  Comment A maxima clam. -- RevolverOcelot 05:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Support Not geocoded, but doesn't to be. Satisfies the other criteria. Pruneau 00:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Neutral OK, except for crit. 4, which I think is on the edge. The date the image was taken ought to be added and it would be nice if the description was a little more thorough stating perhaps what the estimated size of the clam is. There are no size objects in the image to compare with. -- Slaunger 07:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  •  Support after requested data has been added. -- Slaunger 20:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Oppose for now. According to criterion 4 all the fields in the Information template must be filled in. The date is missing here. A trivial point perhaps, but VI requires that all the criteria be met. All citeria are mandatory, and there is no rule that says some are more mandatory than others. This is where VI differs from QI and FP. I will happily support once a date has been added. --MichaelMaggs 07:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Comment Date added, as well as size (really should've caught those criteria...) RevolverOcelot 17:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
•  Support. Don't worry, it's horribly easy to overlook something as I have found myself! --MichaelMaggs 19:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Result: 3 support =>

Promoted. -- Slaunger (talk) 15:20, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Photo locations

Be nice if you could add locations to your photos (e.g. File:CoffeeCanNest1.jpg, 2, 3, 4), please! It would help a lot with identification. - MPF (talk) 14:50, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Use of images

Hello, First I want to say that your images are beautiful. Wonderful works of art they are, and I'm grateful for the privilege you have granted Wikipedia for someone like me to be awed by them. Secondly, I'm not sure of the copyright laws and how or if I can use some of your photos for my own personal use in my home office only. Can you give me instructions and or permission to do this? I have no plans to ever use them other than in my own home office for my own pleasure - to decorate, per se, for my own enjoyment. (not many people even come into my home office, if that makes a difference). I want to make sure if this is okay. I would want to make larger copies than the standard 8x10/12 that my printer is capable, so would like to use a place like Kinkos or Staples to print larger copies. Is this something I can do? Do I have to have your name visible ON the image, a link printed to be seen on the image, etc? Do you charge for larger copies yourself? Please forgive me all these questions, but I do not understand the laws - even though I've read them - but I did read and understand that "if in doubt contact the uploader" so here I am. Thank you for any advice and insight you can give. Thank you again for sharing such beauty. Again, I do not plan to use them in books, cards, in collections, in public or on any website, and would not profit from them whatsoever, other than being able to look at them in my home.

Sincerely, Jana WalkerJanaPalker (talk) 22:02, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Using two images in a magazine

Hi Ocelot.

First and foremost, thank you for being a great contributor to Wikipedia. My name is Martin and I am a journalist working for a small swedish independent flight magazine called Flygrevyn. I'm trying to use Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons more and more in my work - mainly to get the old farts in the industry to start realizing its potential.

I found two very nice pictures taken by you that I am very interested to use in an article. We're doing a focus on the airplane boneyard in Arizona and the pictures in question are the following two:

• [1]
• [2]

I am somewhat confused to what persmission the files adhere too, however. Just under the pictures I find the following:

Permission ------ Permission is hereby granted to use and/or modify this image for any purpose.

Further down I find that the picture is protected by the GNU Free Documents License as well as the CC 3.0. We can adhere to the CC 3.0 in the paper, but we are unable to fullfil the needs of the GNU FDL due to limited space in the paper. Can you please check back with me and verify the nature of the license these two pictures adhere to? I would very much like to use them (with you full real name if that is so) and I shall of course make sure you'll get a digital copy if we do indeed use the pictures.

My email is trankelljournalist@gmail.com - please drop me a line as soon as possible as we're just a week short of print. M9matr0902 (talk) 23:08, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Image use

Dear RevolverOcelot

My company is planning to use your image of a Sea Cucumber for our forthcoming project, and in line with the copyright wanted to notify you and check that we had the correct name to credit the image to.

The image will be used on a science and nature fun facts computer program for children with growth problems. The DVD will have very limited release only to the relevant patients.

If you could confirm receipt of this notification and the correct name to credit as soon as possible I would be very grateful, my preferred email address is fiona.saunders@tvf.co.uk