User talk:Herbythyme/Arc15

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Dart at Newbridge 5.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 Good and nice image. --Cayambe 20:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Chapel at Abbotsbury-6.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}}}

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Porlock Weir harbour.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 Looks good to me. Jonathunder 20:53, 22 January 2010 (UTC)  Support I agree --NormanB 23:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Kingsbridge creek.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 High quality photo --George Chernilevsky 16:36, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Frogmore creek.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  Comment Minor correction need, dust spot on the sky --George Chernilevsky 16:45, 23 January 2010 (UTC) Thanks George, dust spot gone I hope (and gone to find it on the lens!) --Herbythyme 17:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)  Support good --George Chernilevsky 20:59, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Dartington tower stitch.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 Very good stitch result. Nice image --George Chernilevsky 17:42, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:From O Pupers last light-3.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:From O Pupers last light-3.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 00:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Llangrannog 2.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Well done photo and very nice landscape --George Chernilevsky 14:32, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! New Quay 6.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 QI to me --George Chernilevsky 21:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! New Quay 2.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Sharp and othewise also good. --Cayambe 07:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! New Quay 4.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 Good image. --Cayambe 17:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Tintagel church 1.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments excellent quality --George Chernilevsky 06:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Towards Wembury & Plymouth 2.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Nice light and good composition. With some acceptable noise in the sea at the bottom of the image. --Cayambe 18:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Below the Vercours ridge 2.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good. --MattiPaavola 13:19, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

New crop

The 'new' crop for Forrabury church Bocastle: :-). In general, I like your images and your constant efforts to improve your skills. I struggle to do the same. I learnt so much from your and other's image comments on the QI candidates page. Cheers, --Cayambe (talk) 17:15, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Geograph stuff

Huge quantity of images to work through! Just 1 day of Devon-related images is a fair bit... I've already gone through and put about 50 tor images in the tors cat. I'm thinking easiest thing to do is to ensure they are in at least the appropriate district cat and Dartmoor (or Exmoor) when relevant, and fine tune the location categories later. Strikes me as a nice easy task when I have only a little free time so Category:Dartmoor might get a sizeable boost :)--Nilfanion (talk) 19:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah there is a ton of junk in there, which inevitably means we have to do work to clean it up. One advantage is with the sheer additional volume, is we can make the category tree much more mature and know every village has its own category. The biggest problem is it means we have to get the galleries up to standard now or else no-one will be able to locate good images amongst the junk. For instance we should actually make Tors of Dartmoor now.

Couple ones I want to bounce off you:

1. Regarding the tors, should we sub-categorise that further by type of tor (summit/spur/valley) or leave that to the gallery and wp article.
2. Category:Coast of Devon, I think we ought to split it into N and S coast?

And glad to see the lack of thought on the mailing list (Dschwen is only one to see the issue). I don't mind doing some work to improve the cat tree, but this requires us to do a lot of work on it and do galleries too :(--Nilfanion (talk) 11:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah.. galleries are less important for sure (and bloody high maintenance). Sub-categories are the way to avoid gallery work and getting swamped by the Geograph junk. We need to put some effort into the galleries, we want people looking to illustrate a WP article on tors to find a QI/FP of a Dartmoor tor not just any old junk (suppose keeping the en.wp article well illustrated does the same) :) On tors, I see 3 routes. Use the political subdivisions, but have the trouble that many are on the boundary (we could split off Dartmoor Forest for one). Use the SSSIs, problem there is a lot are excluded around the margins of the moors. If we just do a north/south split - options that strike me as sensible are either to use the Tavistock-Ashburton road or alternatively River Walkham up to Merrivale, then the road to Two Bridges and then the Dart to Buckfastleigh. Second is more complex, but keeps Sharp Tor (Dart) and Yar Tor in the same half. As for the coast, I'll do that split this evening if you haven't beaten me to it.--Nilfanion (talk) 12:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that shows why quick and dirty may not be the ideal solution. The line from Tavi-Two Bridges is clear but I doubt there is make a line we agree on for the east. Easdon is "north" to me but is south of the Moreton road, whilst calling Buckland "north" (which is consequence of my suggestions) is just silly. If we really wanted to be lazy we could use the obvious gridline (SX**75). And with File:Fields from Buckland Beacon.jpg, Totnes in BG?--Nilfanion (talk) 22:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually more serious question. I've been dumping the pics in the district categorys to clear out Cat:Devon (this means Plymouth and Exeter in particular are suffering more at the moment). However, given the quantity I was wondering about if the location cats should be taken to next level down again, which is the civil parishes (outside the major towns). The complication is the parish is different from the settlement of the same name. This becomes more extreme with the moorland parishes of course - Roos Tor is in Peter Tavy CP but is miles away from the village. Wikipedia hasn't addressed this issue, simply because it has no need for an article on both the parish and the village, whereas it is a problem for us given the results of the Geograph upload. I see a few choices:

1. The main category is for the village. If something is in the parish but outside the village don't categorise it more precisely by location.
2. The main category is for the parish. If the village requires a subcategory create it.
3. Use the main category for the village, and create a parish category with (parish) disambiguation.

The last of these is the "best" as it correctly handles the case where a CP has multiple settlements (eg Bigbury and Bigbury-on-Sea). Only reason I wouldn't just do that is that the bot is uploading stuff to the category as if it was using the parish definition Obviously its work, but what isn't regarding this? Given that I'm inclined to say aim for #3... Thoughts?--Nilfanion (talk) 22:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Way I'm going to tackle the parish/village cats is to treat them as for the parish, as that will allow finer initial categorisation of the junk. I can't follow a different approach when I know there is a truly massive upload coming, which will overwhelm my work if I try to do something different. Can then eventually split them, along the lines of #3 above - if/when I get that far!

Oh.. and don't worry about me, I've set myself a minimum quota of 5 uploads every other day (one day to ID and process, other to geocode and upload) - so I will get useful work done no matter how deeply I immerse myself in this tedium :)--Nilfanion (talk) 12:59, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Cross at Forrabury.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 Sharp and good. --Cayambe 09:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Rocks formation N Cornwall.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 Water bit noised, but overall good. Interesting place --George Chernilevsky 20:18, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! N Cornwall coast and GCHQ Bude.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 good quality --George Chernilevsky 20:16, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Forrabury church Boscastle 7.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 Good and useful. A better bottom crop imo would have been just below the third stone from the left. --Cayambe 09:07, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Award :)

		* The Photographer's Barnstar *
		I hereby award this Photographer's Barnstar to Herbythyme a.k.a. Herby for lot of nice photos and other tireless contributions. Well done! --George Chernilevsky talk 17:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC).

Very many thanks for this George - I do appreciate it. I hope I will be able to get many more images to upload to Commons - so many people here are such good photographers I can learn much :) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

You could have done that yourself, ya know

:) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Err - how? --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:37, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Special:UserRights/Herbythyme... –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I actually have no rights - well rollback - but that is all since August last year :). Mind you if folk like that bore me enough... --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:41, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Additionally [1]. Cheers, — Dferg (talk) 16:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Much appreciated - regards (and good luck :)) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:22, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I'm very confused, why you are not admin?! AFAIK you should be admin and bureaucrat, what happened in "August last year", and why I can not see it in your user rights log.   ■ MMXX  ^talk  18:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I was only a 'crat for a very short period really. I did have admin and cu for quite sometime but I dropped all rights on all wikis last year (August roughly - can't remember a date). Regards --Herby ^{talk thyme} 18:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, with these rights or without them, you are one of most trusted users, regards.   ■ MMXX  ^talk  21:59, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Your kind words are appreciated. Many thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:57, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Snakelocks anemone in pool.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 Interesting animals in its natural environment. Good quality --George Chernilevsky 11:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Snakelocks anemone out of water.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 Interesting animals in its natural environment. Good quality --George Chernilevsky 11:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: Spelling

And done. Don't worry about poking me with requests I'll happily do so anytime. That is unless you drip feed me one at a time for dozens of files (might get fed up in the end!) :)--Nilfanion (talk) 13:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

<1000 files in Cat Devon :) (After over 750 edits by me...)--Nilfanion (talk) 11:36, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Westcombe beach 3.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 good --George Chernilevsky 11:24, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! From Higher Dartmouth st-3 stitch.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 Crisp and otherwise also good. --Cayambe 14:29, 3 February 2010  Comment It would look even better if the converging verticals (downward) would be fixed. --Iotatau 14:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Vire island st-2 stitch.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 Good. --Iotatau 14:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Budleigh east 1.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good. --null 09:42, 5 February 2010 (UTC) First vote is by User:Cayambe, but unsigned. I  Support too --George Chernilevsky 11:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC).  Comment Thanks George. I had overlooked the null signature, sorry. --Cayambe 11:19, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Lower ferries Dartmouth.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 Interesting and good. --Cayambe 15:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Sidmouth seafront.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 Good image. --Cayambe 18:21, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your vote on my RfCU

I would like to thank you for taking the time to review my request for checkuser rights. I hope one more CU will make a difference, at least for the other CUs' workload! Regards, --Eusebius (talk) 16:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Requesting your kind attention ...

Hi there! Yesterday, I nominated an image for Quality Image, not by the normal nomination, but right into "Consensual review", for reasons explained there. In short: It's not quite 2 MP, but then again it was taken six years ago. I'd kindly like to ask your (and a few others') opinion, so it won't go unnoticed. I'm very sorry if I am annoying you by not following standard procedure in this special case. Thank you for your time! --MichaelBueker (talk) 18:59, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Apologies, I've been away. It would seem a little late to be of any use now but I will look. Regards --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:42, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you!

It is a little late but, thank you very much for your support on my RfA and I'm very honoured by your confidence in me, I should said that many times ago, but I thought it is kind of spamming, writing to everybody who voted for me, so I decided to just write a thank you note on my own talk page, but when I saw what Eusebius did, I realized that it is ok, anyway, I apologize for being late, thanks and best regards   ■ MMXX  ^talk  23:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Commons is not like en wp about such things. I'm happy when trusted people feel able to help :). Regards --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:43, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Preston st.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 Great! Beautiful and good quality. However, I would like to see you crop the left side a small bit (I dont like the half-car). --Ankara 11:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC) Agreed :) I think the white house there will have to go too but as it isn't actually "Preston" there it should be fine. Will upload shortly, thanks --Herbythyme 11:34, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Paignton Harbour st.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 Very good --George Chernilevsky 18:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Help me Herby!

Herby, along with the last "new Wikipedian" ("Wikimedian"?) that you already met and I hope you will help to mentor, yet another of the photographers I've reached to for photos for the en.Wikipedia --User:Danshinneman is his name, and he's a really good photographer. There may be yet another coming too. If you can introduce yourself to these people, it would be a relief to me. I tell them I know next to NOthing here in Commons; that I just upload to Commons and work primarily editing the Wikipedia, but they, being interested in photography, justifiably feel comfortable here, and will help and would like to benefit from the experience of people like you. OK? Please? ALSO, in the Category:Session musicians, nearly every one of the photos there have those yellow tags saying that some work needs to be done with each photo, categorizing them or something. I just wanted to bring it to somebodys attention, since I have no clue what's involved, and honestly, don't have the time. One though, was my upload of Maartin Allcock, from Fairport Convention. Puzzling. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 03:41, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll certainly welcome them and do what I can to help. However I barely have time to stay on top of the work I need to do with my images here I'm afraid so sorting out other people's problems is not something I am likely to be able to do for quite some time sadly.

The best thing is if people deal with images properly when they upload them, then there is nothing to sort out :) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:11, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I thought I had uploaded my images properly. The one for Maartin Allcock should go to Fairport Convention's Category, but I don't know how to put it there and remove the yellow tag on it. How do I do that? If someone tells me how, I will do it with all of them that I can! --Leahtwosaints (talk) 03:39, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

You can always talk to me either, I might not be the fastest to answer, but I have no images of my own to sort :) You can add [[Category:Fairport Convention]] in the description of your image (at the bottom) and that should work. If you have any more specific questions, let me know. (PS I see no yellow tag) -- Deadstar (msg) 07:18, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the help Deadstar - time will be short for a while with me & I have some uploads I must get out of the way! --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:17, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks, at least Category:Devon is tolerable again :)--Nilfanion (talk) 13:37, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

It's empty now :) Jolly Janner (talk) 17:40, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for all the work both. I guess prejudices permitting (racial, cultural, tribal) Cornwall will need attention next...:) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:24, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Wishing Fish Clock Cheltenham 1.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images. Comments Good and interesting. --Cayambe 17:20, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Wishing Fish Clock Cheltenham 11.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 Also good. --Cayambe 17:20, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Wistmans Crow and Rough.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 I like the composition here with the valley leading into the background. --Iotatau 18:23, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Upper west Dart valley.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 good --George Chernilevsky 19:19, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Beardown st2 hug.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 Good. --Cayambe 19:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Beardown st1 hug.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 Also good. --Cayambe 19:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Lower White tor.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 Very sharp and otherwise also good. --Cayambe 15:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Higher White tor.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 Also very good. --Cayambe 21:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Rough Tor.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 Gives a good impression of the landscape. --Cayambe 14:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Longaford and Littaford.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 QI for me --George Chernilevsky 06:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Littaford Tor.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 Good. --Cayambe 14:44, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

New cats

Starting second pass on Devon - predictably finding missing cats. Added Category:Moorlands in Dartmoor (which I'm a little unsure of), Category:Bogs in Dartmoor, Category:Roads in Dartmoor and Category:Public footpaths in Devon for a start... Obviously there will be more as I find them. I've got 4,600 Geograph images to check, sorting those will fix the tree :)

Oh and I'm sure you'll notice I made a cat for Devonport leat soon enough anyway, but question on that - do you think it should be in Category:Devonport? I'm in two minds on that, if you think it should be just add it.--Nilfanion (talk) 00:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh and let's not forget Category:Snow in Dartmoor :)--Nilfanion (talk) 00:29, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I'm not convinced about "moorland" either (not least because cat:Dartmoor is a sub-cat of moorlands in England). Reason I made it is moorland is a distinct type of habitat and what else can you call a generic bit of Dartmoor (when bog doesn't make sense at any rate). Pretty much everything else, if I see a "in England" cat as I work through I'm changing it to a Devon or Dartmoor one. Cairns will get their own category next...--Nilfanion (talk) 11:10, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Similarly uneasy about it but oh well. That said easier to remove a stupid category than to add it at a later date. As for the Raybarrow one, yeah sometimes stitching fails for bizarre reasons and agree larger view increases EV in context. If you want, email the base images (as jpgs probably) I'd probably be able to do more/offer better advice if I can see the images in question. May have to add manual as opposed to auto control points to get right result. I've got a few to upload myself (aside the usual chore).--Nilfanion (talk) 21:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

The ancient tracks, yeah "public footpaths" isn't really the right thing. Public footpaths is about modern rights-of-way whereas ancient tracks are something else. The ancient tracks might need to be an intersection of Category:Trails in England and Dartmoor archaeology? With respect to the Raybarrow one, that part of the ancient track is a modern bridleway too so public footpath is "correct" for images of it but... (Fixed the jetski)--Nilfanion (talk) 22:45, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Btw, found a good one in the Geograph stuff - hopefully find a better one soon :)--Nilfanion (talk) 00:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

On topic of ancient tracks - thoughts on Category:Mariner's Way? I've put it in public footpaths for now but that's not quite right is it?--Nilfanion (talk) 00:03, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Category:Military training on Dartmoor.. I know that one will be useful :) I find it a bit shocking how bad the category structure for that stuff is given that military stuff is one of more popular on WP (I had to make a military training in UK too and is no other by country at all - not even for the US!).--Nilfanion (talk) 23:59, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd add anything related to the military to it. Well within reason that is, no reason for adding a pic of a tor to it just because it has a bare flagpole on it. I imagine we will be able to get pics of aircraft eventually as well as some ground stuff.--Nilfanion (talk) 10:42, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey...

I've tried asking both Spellcast and Kanonkas to unblock me on Wikipedia. However, all they did was ignore me. It's proven that I have nothing to do with 98E, because if there was evidence that I was 98E, I wouldn't have been unblocked here on Commons. Therefore, there's no reason for me to stay blocked on Wikipedia. So, could you please unblock me on Wikipedia? If you do, I will be very grateful. XxJoshuaxX (talk) 04:47, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I have no admin rights anywhere so cannot help. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Really? Because I've seen you do stuff that only admins can do, such as deleting pages. XxJoshuaxX (talk) 19:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Yep - but I haven't had the rights for 6 months now --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:07, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, are there any admins who you think would be good for me to talk to about having my block lifted? XxJoshuaxX (talk) 04:06, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Frankly if I were still involved with/interested in such aspects of foundation projects I would probably still have the rights. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:22, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, is there anyone who you would recommend for me to talk to about having my block lifted? XxJoshuaxX (talk) 23:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

re: Err

The dangers of mindless copy and paste! Thanks for the heads up on the typo, Steven Walling 10:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

You don't need to apologize! I appreciate the careful consideration of your vote, but adminship is not a big deal to me. Thanks, Steven Walling 17:45, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Raybarrow pool.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 nice colors --George Chernilevsky 06:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! South Zeal track at Raybarrow-3.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 good --George Chernilevsky 06:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! South Zeal track at Raybarrow-4.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 QI --George Chernilevsky 06:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Jetski spray 44.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 Good sport photo in action --George Chernilevsky 20:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Your image has been reviewed and promoted Congratulations! Raybarrow st hug.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 good --George Chernilevsky 20:30, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

A little help needed

Hello Herby, May I bother you with a question, as you are a native English speaker? In order to conclude this Valued Image candidate review, we need a hint about the wording of the scope. Could you glance at it, please? Thanks a lot in advance, --Myrabella (talk) 08:21, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Commented - hopefully it helps. Please let me know if I can be of assistance, regards --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Herby, it was very kind and helpful. Regards, --Myrabella (talk) 13:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC) P.S. Won't you consider nominating some of yours images for VI status? For instance within the scope "Kingswear", or the more challenging scope "Tors of Dartmoor"? :-)

Merci Myrabella - I do realise that a few of my images would probably be options for VIs. However I am less keen on VI for a number of reasons. I don't find it very straightforward really but more importantly the whole idea of "scope" in the areas I tend to work are quite difficult. While Kingswear is quite easy there is so little material that I don't see it would be valid. While Dartmoor Tors seems a good idea the category is still very empty as can be seen. Regards --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:27, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Not "a few" of your images but "a lot" IMO... However the very first step is that you feel like nominating them :-) So forgive and forget this come-on. If you change your mind someday, be sure I'll be interested in reviewing some of your pictures. Regards, --Myrabella (talk) 14:02, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

No forgiveness required, simply thanks for your interest. I'm sure I will get to it someday :)

I have to say that I do like your recent qi one. It is simple and effective :) (and I rather like images of doors!). Regards --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:24, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Herby :-) By the way, I found a place for your nice starfish image. Regards, --Myrabella (talk) 12:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Merci beaucoup Myrabella - c'est bon . I should practice more - I will be there again this year :). Regards --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:48, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Panorama stitching programs

Hi Herby, I have a quick question. Do you know of any good free panorama stitching programs other than Hugin? That used to work fine for me, but now it usually just warps the panoramas beyond recognition... Thanks. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:22, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah - I've had issues myself at times BUT

1. Have you got the latest version?
2. It is sensitive to exposure I've found - try and keep it consistent. Also allow a good overlap.
3. There are times you have to work manually with it. Check out the tutorials etc
4. Google Microsoft Image Composite Editor (MSCE). Freeby - integrates with explorer/my computer (assuming you are using MS$). I have found it more tolerant of my errors than Hugin at times.
5. If it is a really good image ask around. There are a few folk who are adept at manual stuff with Hugin.

Hope that helps - cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:29, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Alright, makes sense. Thanks for the advice. :) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:14, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Cat query

Yeah know what you mean about the starfish (and similar shots). I'd say it does belong in more than just the species category. Reason is if it was in a zoo/aquarium we would categorise it as such, why would a wild animal be different? In case of starfish, the "ideal" geographic category would be the beach it was on (or adjacent too). I'd also probably add Category:Animals in Devon (if it existed). The problem is only because having a shot of an animal seems odd in a high level geographic category (such as Paignton).--Nilfanion (talk) 22:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I prefer "fauna in X" to "animals in X" reason I said animals is consistency with Category:Animals of England. Fauna is better though, especially given Category:Flora of Devon already exists. As for locational, the S coast cat is probably fine - we don't need everything with a precise geographic cat. As for the en list I consider that deletable junk as it stands... That said perhaps we should try for User:Nilfanion/Dartmoor/Wildlife?--Nilfanion (talk) 21:45, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Started up the subpage - left it pretty blank for now... Wildlife photography isn't the easiest so I imagine it may take a while!--Nilfanion (talk) 19:34, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: Images on commons

thanks for nominating them. Nice to see a fellow Sony-A user! When spring finally arrives there shall be more where that came from! --Childzy (talk) 18:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

We are several Sony-α users ! --Slaunger (talk) 18:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• Another quick question, whats the difference between quality and featured on commons? Im sure the Burnley pano is the later ;D --Childzy (talk) 10:23, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

• • I dont even see what people are getting on the featured picture discussion, hopefully it will pass and i'll see about nominating it here. What would you use a remote release cable for?? --Childzy (talk) 16:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Help?

Hi Herbythyme, I uploaded a photo of Bill Wyman and Mick Taylor from the Rolling Stones, but it's in serious need of lightening. Would you take a look at it? It's Here: '''File:Wyman-and-Taylor.jpg''' If you can lighten it, it would be a great relief! --Leahtwosaints (talk) 19:49, 6 March 2010 (UTC)