User talk:Slaunger/Archives/2009/8

Thank you

Thanks for the congratulations on my talk page regarding the pelican image :) I don't think I will be getting any more features though as I don't really want to go back to the featured candidates page to nominate anything at the moment. Constructive critique is great, and I welcome it, but pompous elitism is another thing altogether, and today, I have seen way too much of it. It's uncomfortable in there at the moment,

I will still go in to cast votes more than likely, but won't be adding anything myself.

Cheers, have a good one.

Julielangford (talk) 16:11, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Julie, Sorry to hear that you think it is uncomfortable at FPC at the moment. I was just looking though the page there and nothing struck me as being particularly ridiculous for the time being. That may be a sign that I have been here for too long, and I would actually be interested if you gave me one or two examples, as I may have overlooked it.

Yes, there is some elitism in some of the reviews, and I am personally terribly pedantic in my reviews. But I actually think a certain amount of that is OK. After all, only one out of approx. 2,300 files on Commons becomes featured, so the bar has to be set really high for us to maintain a high level in what we promote. That implies IMO that you should expect quite a lot from the nominated files, and that it is OK to decline based on minor problems. Although, I think the overall quality/value of promoted files is pretty good, I still think it there is a long way up to the best images you find on, e.g., flickr. For instance, I recently nominated two photos for FPC, just for the fun of it, I did not really expect them to pass, but they did. Honestly I do not think myself that they were FP worthy. I tried searching for "canoe" on Commons and on flickr the other day, and I was embarrased to see so much better the flickr images were as compared to the Commons images. Therefore I think we constantly have to try and improve and push the bar up for FPs, as we just have to get better to be taken seriously. --Slaunger (talk) 22:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, sorry it took so long to get back to you. I totally agree with you, that the bar should be set high, and that opposition for non worthy images should be forthcoming, however, it is possible to give negative critique without being rude. it can be done constructively [as you do it and many others do it]. I can be quite direct on times when I need to give a good critique, that may help someone to put an image right, but politeness is always the key. What I don't understand about FPC page, is that it invites a few responses - support, oppose, neutral etc, and asks for reasons. If someone supports an image, then that is their decision [especially when they have stated why] - to then have to explain oneself to anyone opposing, should not be necessary. Opposers should just oppose, for their reasons, and leave the supporters alone with their opinion. The thick and thin of it is, that they are opposing the nomination, which is fine, but they are also opposing the supporters of the nomination, which isn't fine. I like to think we all live in a world of free speech, where people can state their views, and allow others to state theirs alongside their own. I have pretty thick skin when it comes to my own work, and I wouldn't flinch at anyone standing up in a crowd saying - hey, that's crap, it really wouldn't bother me much, but it's a bit off putting when I see a lot of people who say they like an image, being interogated as to why - there is no need for it, it is a case of someone trying to force their views onto others, because they insist that they, and they alone, are right. I came here by accident, and my main playground is an online art community, which is far more competitve than anything one will ever find here, but never in the two years of being there, have I seen anyone be so rude to their fellow members. As for the withdrawel of my nominations, that was down to getting good feedback, which helped me to see the faults in my work, so the decision to withdraw them was nothing do do with this elitism I see, but it has put me off adding anything further to either featured, or quality images. I will just continue to participate by uploading files and voting for now, and see how it goes. As for me giving you specific examples, that would be rather rude of me out here in public, which I wouldn't want. Julielangford (talk) 01:39, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

She probably means me :-(. --Dschwen (talk) 04:12, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

FP/QI/VI icons on category pages

[1] Sounds just like the feature you want. ;) Rocket000 (talk) 01:34, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Thats right. If such a proposal was implemented, it would be an important improvement, and it would make me more positive towards having categories as the most specific leaf in the category structure. Thank you for pointing me towards it. --Slaunger (talk) 06:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

ImageAnnotator enabled

See COM:VP#ImageAnnotator enabled. For the FPC feature, reload your browser's cache and then visit COM:FPC#File:Vista panorámica de Peñíscola desde el castillo.jpg. Lupo 08:58, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Would you know how to make {{ImageWithNotes}} emit only an error box if it is not substituted, like {{Nsd}} does? Or do you know who is our template wizard who might be able to do that? Lupo 10:58, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I would ask Rocket000. --Slaunger (talk) 12:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

stitching errors

Hi Slaunger, I still cannot see the errors in the image preview. Maybe you could upload a new version of the image with errors pointed out as you did before? Maybe you could also take a look at this image File:Crissy Field beach and Golden Gate Bridge.jpg. You have a great eye for the stitching errors! Thanks.--Two+two=4 (talk) 14:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi 2+2=4, well thank you for putting so much trust in my pedantism . You will have to wait a few days though as I am facing a very hectic weekend. Two quick comments though:

1. Concerning the sea lion pic, the stitching errors are not visible in preview, but I am pretty sure that you will be able to see them if notice the areas I have annotated and look for it in a full resolution window next to it. They are "sea lions have moved between two photos" kind of stitch errors.
2. As for the second image, I've seen it in preview and thought: Gee, making a stitch over wave crests is just not possible. Also, I really think that the same man appearing in the same image twice is a no go for FP. In retrospect you should probably have scanned the area twice, such that you had more photos to choose from. Yeah, I know that is easy to say, but trust me, I've been there as well and spoiled many a good chance not having done the right thing when I took the images. Just have a look at my two FP panos from Greenland and all their other versions....

PS. Did you know that 2+2=10 in the Ternary numeral system? --Slaunger (talk) 19:34, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

1. Concerning the sea lion pic. I've just figured out how to see the boxes, so no need to upload the new image.
   • Fantastic! Then I'll skip that one.--Slaunger (talk) 21:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
2. I corrected the second image. The man was removed and the way was fixed. That's why I asked you to take a look.
   • More good news. I'll have a look when time permits. --Slaunger (talk) 21:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
3. I will wait for your expert opinion on both images. Please have a nice "hectic" weekend.

PS. No I did not know that. Thanks for letting me know.--Two+two=4 (talk) 20:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi 2+2=10, I have had a look at your beach-GG stitch. You have done a pretty good job considering the challenges with moving wave fronts and lots of activity with walking people and running dogs. I found three problem areas in the waves, of which I would classify one as rather severe and the other two as small-medium. I do not guarantee that I there aren't any more, but those are the ones I noticed on this pass. Since you have now told me that you can see the annotations, I have done these as annotations as well, because that was very efficient and easy for me. I hope this helps you.

Your panorama is so detailed that I think some of the persons there are identifiable. Since that is the case, I would probably add a {{Personality rights}} per Commons:Copyright tags#Other tags to the file page.

You created this one with Hugin as well, I guess? Then please add {{Created with Hugin}} to the file page also. --Slaunger (talk) 19:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Slaunger! I will add teplates later. I responed your concern about sea lions image at the nomination page. If you are satisfied with the work I've done with sea lions image maybe you could take your notes off?--Two+two=4 (talk) 21:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I've removed one of the two annotations. I have kept one indicating a still quite obvious inter-photo movement error. Fell free to remove that annotation though, if you think it spoils the fun of this, now promoted FP. I've mostly added it there for your information, not to critizise your work outside the FPC nomination. I do not know if you have noticed but it is now possible to make annotations locally on FPC subpage previews, which do not affect the file page. --Slaunger (talk) 19:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I do not think there is an error there. Have you seen File:California sea lions at Pier 39 o 4.jpg the original?--Two+two=4 (talk) 20:25, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I had not seen the original, thanks for showing me that. The original does indeed confirm that there is a stitching error at the last annotation - right in the middle of the body of the sea lion at the lower left corner of that wooden section. --Slaunger (talk) 20:29, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry but I still cannot see the error. What row this lion is? What is it number if I am to count from the left? Thanks.--Two+two=4 (talk) 21:04, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Does this help?

It is the sea lion which is marked by the last remaining annotation on File:California Sea Lions at Pier 39 August 7 2009.jpg. I had the impression that annotations were working for you now? Do you not see a small annotation rectangle light up, when you hover the mouse over the image in the file page? That rectangle is sea lion specific. Maybe later today I can upload a derivative work where the stitch error is specifically pointed out. --Slaunger (talk) 05:52, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I see the note in the preview, but I am not sure what sea lion is annotated in the full view. You've probably got tired of me already. Maybe Ill let it be. Thanks for helping me out.--Two+two=4 (talk) 11:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Two+two=4, if words were turning a little harsh it is just as much out of frustration at my own apparent failure of communication. I have now uploaded a detail edit of the sea lion pic. I hope you can see there a diagonal intersection, wehere it looks as if two different images from two different moments are intersecting. You can see it on the sea lion which is displaced, and the wooden structure which is displaced and on the ripples on the sea surface which have a mismatch. I really, really hope you can see it now. otherwise I give up . If you can see it now, I would be very much interested in reviewing our communication here. What do you think have caused us to have such a hard time communicating about this? I'd like the feedback, as I would like to be more efficient at communicating about such issues. --Slaunger (talk) 21:01, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Your words aren't harsh at all. I see the error now! OK let's talk feedback. When I looked at your annotations I could not really see what sea lion you're talking about, too small for me. I believe this particular sea lion was easy to point out with both words and annotation together. By looking at annotation I knew where the general area of the error is. If you have told me that the error was in the first sea lion on the left hand side and that the error was spreading to the water also, I would have probably found it. Thanks for uploading the image! You have an absolutely amazing ability to see the stitching errors! I assume you've always been the first one in the games that require paying attention.--Two+two=4 (talk) 21:44, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

(indents reset) It is immensely relieving for me, that you now see it as well! I was starting to speculate if I were hallucinating?! And thanks for the feedback. I had anticipated that you could refind the sea lion if you had a full size window open next to the annotation window, but evidently that was not as easy for you as I had anticipated. About the written description I think that I (and probably many others in this multilingual project) just have a barrier in writing precisely in English were something can be found, because I and many other reviewers are not native speakers. For instance I do not know out-of-my-head what the English word for those wooden structures the sea lions are resting on are called, and it is a barrier to look it up, just to explain that (as my time is limited). That is one of the reasons why I am so keen on using annotations as an aid, as it is an interactive tool, where many language barriers are irrelevant. And that is also one of the reasons I get a little frustrated when it turns out not be as fantastic and helpful a tool for others as I perceive it to be for me. --Slaunger (talk) 21:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Slangur, I assure you the annotations are fantastic and helpful tool! It is just that in our last situation I needed both the words and the annotations together to find the error. I needed the annotation to see the general area and the words for more specific description. Thanks again and let's forget about moving sea lions for now --Two+two=4 (talk) 22:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Yep. Let's move on. --Slaunger (talk) 06:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Beach panorama

Hi Slaunger. I corrected the wave and the line. A left part of the line was really an error but it was not made by Hugin. I did it myself by a pure accident while correcting something else. If you have a time please review the image one more time. If you do not have a time let your oppose vote to stay. I kind of feel guilty that I am asking you review my images over and over again. So your oppose is fine with me. Thanks.--Two+two=4 (talk) 17:40, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Two+two=4, I have had a look at it again, and although I have noticed some improvements, the core problems are not solved (I'm sorry), see my updated annotations on the FPC nom page. Unfortunately, I think they are hard to fix. Stitching over moving wave crests is very challeging. It is strange (disturbing) how we see these things so differently. For me these details are FPC eyesores(?) and others do not see (pun intended) them as a problem at all. --Slaunger (talk) 21:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Slaunger. We've finished with the moving sea lions, but the moving waves ate still being corrected. Once again if you feel you've got enough of my errors do not loose your time anymore, but I did corrected the waves.Thanks.--Two+two=4 (talk) 11:10, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations on the Boston Globe mentions

I noticed one of the recent Boston Globe galleries made use of some of your images (proper crediting). Congratulations! --Dori - Talk 22:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Way too cool to see three of my photos there with proper attribution! That's what makes it worthwhile to publish under CC-BY-SA. Thanks for telling me. --Slaunger (talk) 22:53, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Huge congratulations :) Julielangford (talk) 10:13, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Julie. --Slaunger (talk) 10:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Metadata [EXIF]

Hiya,

Here is another question for you, I hope you don't mind me asking you :) How is it that some files I see have EXIF metadata, and some don't?

Thanks in advance

Julielangford (talk) 20:04, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Julie, don't mind at all. I'm not an EXIF expert but as far as I know there can be (at least) the following reasons for missing EXIF:

• Software which combine several images into one, like panoramas, HDRs, compositions, and focus stacked photos usually has no EXIFs or only reduced EXIF data. That is quite natural as fields like the timestamp, focal distance, aperture, exposure, etc. varies from image to image. Thus, many or all of the EXIF fields give no meaning for these types of images
• Certain applications for editing photos can strip of the EXIF data. It could be, for instance when a user generates a downsampled version suitable for "web publishing" (in contradiction to what we prefer here - we like to get full resolution) of a photo. It can also be stand-alone applications for noise reduction, etc. In certain applications retaining EXIF is also an option, which can be disabled/enabled at the will of the user. Quite often it is my impression that some contributors are not aware that they may have disabled EXIF retainment in their preferred tools.
• There are standalone EXIF editors available for manipulating EXIF data - often command line/scriptable tools for bulk edits. Some of them can be used to add information, like geodata directly in the EXIF, but some also use them for stripping off information. For instance, a copyright violator could strip off the EXIF, if it had fields describing licensing and the real author/creator.
• EXIF data are inherent in the jpg format and that is where you see it the most. I do not think you can have EXIF data in a png, I think maybe you can in a TIF. In an SVG I think you can have quite equivalent metadata stored but in another format.

--Slaunger (talk) 07:10, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks again for the response. I know there are programs out there that can strip EXIF data, but was wondering if there could be another reason why some files here have it missing completely. I see from your answer that there are a few other reasons why it may be partly or all missing. It's a shame that some photographers would strip the data from their files though, because it is very valuable information to people who are learning photography. I sometimes have trouble understanding some of it, but the more I see of it, the easier it gets to understand what the different things are, and how they can make a difference to the image.

Thanks also for the tip about the email address. I had wondered if there was a way where a member could email another on here, and the normal concerns about displaying my email address came into play. I will remove it now, although it's not my primary address, its one that I use specifically for things like this. When I get to know and trust a person well enough, only then do they get the real thing :)

Thanks for all your help again - it's highly appreciated

Julielangford (talk) 10:02, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Julie, Your're welcome and I fully agree with you concerning the EXIF. It is a pity when contriutors strip them off or truncate them and I do not quite understand the objective for doing so. --Slaunger (talk) 10:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		I can't think of anyone who I have ever exclusively interacted with on the internet more deserving of my thanks and recognition than you. Thanks for being an all-around great person Fcb981 (talk) 03:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

What an unexpected pleasant surprise! Thank you Erik, it has been a pleasure to work with you on the "license template embedded in transcluded user template" problem. --Slaunger (talk) 07:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

An icon we can both agree on?

Hey Slaunger, I was running through my to-do list, when I came across our recent discussion regarding the icon in Zoofari's FPC style change. You said you were after something that would 'give the right visual impression of what Commons is about'. So, I gave it a bit of thought, and came up with this. Any comments? Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 01:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi SSL, Sometimes I feel very non-openminded (there is probably an English word for that, but I do no know what it is), when I am so reluctant to accept bold changes of a character which seems to be minor for most other users. I therefore appreciate very much that you come back to me with this proposal after I reverted your initial proposal!

I think your new proposal is very good and I think it conveys very well what Commons FPC is a about. Commons FPC is vote based as opposed to consensus-based on WP:FPC, where the reviewers (somewhat to my amusement at times) very stubbornly insist that they are not counting votes. So I think that mixing the FP icon with vote icons in the manner you have done is a very clear way to signal what COM:FPC is about.

Two comments and a question:

1.  Comment I think the neutral vote icon should be moved down a little as it is quite hard to see it is a neutral vote icon.
2.  Comment Since your new image is also derived from the vote icons, you should probably link back to those images in the source field of the information template. I do not think you have to mention explicitly the numerous creators and editors of those icons explicitly, they can inferred from the link back to the original images used.
3.  Question Is it in order to reduce file size, that you have chosen a png format? For me an svg version would be more natural, as it also makes it easier to adjust it or make new derivative work from it.

So, in conclusion a  Support from here and a big thanks for addressing my concern about project identity. --Slaunger (talk) 07:03, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad it meets your approval; I've reduced the size of the neutral icon and moved it down a bit, and I'll add the links to the other icons in tomorrow. As for why it's a .png file; I use GIMP, and for some reason cannot save to .svg, so I used the only other format I had which would keep the transparency. I'll see if I can work out how save it as an svg if you like. I've added it to the FPC page, and it looks good, even if I do say so myself. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 12:31, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I use GIMP as well for most of my work, but for vector graphics and svgs I use InkScape, an open source product, very easy to use. Try it out! I agree your new icon looks good there, I've increased its size a tad, as I thought that looked even greater. --Slaunger (talk) 13:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Use of images and correct license terms

Hi again,

I saw the answer that you posted to my question about images that have been used incorrectly - thank you for adding to the conversation.

The image in question, has three versions here on the commons, with the orignal being a featured image. The source field, has the name of the photographer typed in as text [a real name], so I am not sure who I would need to contact regarding use of the image. I have to admit, I really like JovanCormac's response. I would probably feel much the same about my work, and also wish we could live in a world without creative retraints, but alas, we don't, and I think if this photographer has placed a license on his work [or hers], it should be adhered to. It is one of my favorite images on here [of the little I have seen already], and has been used on a worthwhile project - it's just a shame that the author hasn't been given the recognition they deserve. Julielangford (talk) 10:27, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Customised user license

I have updated the templates as per our discussion, what I was wondering is can your bot do a run though my images and adjust the permission field in the {{Information}} to say cc-by-3.0 as I ahve also done the migration to solely 3.0 from GFDL/2.5 and GFDL/3.0 on two of the templates Gnangarra 02:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Two+two=4

Hi,

I just saw your message on that talkpage and would like to inform you about some things.

You're wondering if this user is the same user as mbz1 and telling him if he is he needs to place a message on his userpage, I would like to say that the Wikimedia Foundation has a policy with the name right to disappear so every user has the right to leave Wikimedia and come back on a new name (I used it to a year ago)

The blocklog on Mbz1 isn't important for a new account because the most blocks are done on his own request, and I believe when a block has ended its okay again, i don't think a complete log is needed but that is my personal opinion.

I would like to ask you to stop poking about mbz1, if it is really that user (and I hope so, I miss that user and friend) it will not be important to give his identity. It only gets a big deal when this users start vandalizing or doing bad things in a other way, otherwhise I don't see a real problem here.

Best regards, Huib talk 07:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

While I appreciate where you are coming from, Abigor, the right to disappear is not the right to come back again under a new account. Please see the policy; the right to abandon an account is solely in the case of actual retirement. And, indeed, Mbz1's account is still blocked, as of the last time I looked (which was earlier today). The issue with this situation is that Two+two=4 may be operating under false pretence, and, in my view, deceiving all those at FPC who treated her as a new user. My concern goes further than that, but I won't state the concerns specifically in an attempt to assume good faith. Maedin\^talk 19:09, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, please see the policy on Sock puppetry; based upon the guidelines, if Mbz1 and Two+two=4 are indeed the same person, then there is a clear violation of our sock puppet principles, regardless of whether or not the accounts are used constructively. Maedin\^talk 19:30, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Abigor and Maedin,

I appreciate the comments from both of you. Actually I did look for policies on Commons regarding the matter before I first posted these rather direct questions at Two+two=4, but I did not find clear guidelines there. I am familiar though with meta:Right to Vanish. I consider meta policies as reasonable default policies, when there are no local ones (the policies Maedin refer to are en.wikipedia policies and not per se valid here). However, I do think that all the policies make good sense here as well and match well the practise we have here.

I asked the question in the hope that we could proactively avoid speculations about sock puppetry. I had really hoped for a fast and clear answer such that we could avoid the drama that this evolving into now. The last mila block (which expires July 2010) was something she asked for herself as far as I know. Thus, I could not see any problem with her starting all over with a new account name, provided that she stated it explicitly that she was previously known under another user name. Assuming the two users are identical, I sure do not find that funny as I have spend extra resources intercating wth the user in the belief that it is a new user. Lots of things I have explained about would not have had to be said. All this could be forgiven and forgotten though (well, I would at least) with a clear answer, as I would like to see more of milas wonderful work here as well (but I could do without the Sherlock Holmes quiz-thing.). And I would trust that answer as well. If the two users are not identical, I cannot see how it can be intruding for Two+two=4 to simply answer no. However, Two+two=4 is avoiding to answer the question (has edited since I asked for a clear yes/no) and since Diliff have pointed out further aspects of user behavior which is identical for the two users (editing software and saves in progressive jpeg), I really think it would be a very good idea if Two+two=4 answered the simple yes/no question. --Slaunger (talk) 20:32, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

PS. Unrelated to this, I would like to say that I find it confusing for a Commons administrator to use a signature (Huib) which is entirely different than the username (Abigor). --Slaunger (talk) 20:32, 31 August 2009 (UTC)