Hi Jim,
I will work with these people for awhile and see how it goes. Can I still come ask you questions here? I think it may be best to outline what need to be done in art history and then to hand it to them. They can argue over the big stuff while I just quietly start getting it all in order.
Thank you for all your help. You made me feel like I belonged.
Zoe Morgan
Sure. Mostly three kinds of people belong. One kind know how to write Wiki, one have something useful to write, and the third kind have good pictures to send. Sometimes it's all the same editor but most have no more than two of the qualifications, and I'm glad enough when I supply just one and can work with someone who has another. Minor imperfection, you left this note in my personal page, rather than here in my talk page as per standard. We've got standards galore in our little Wikiworld and it's no big deal when a useful person doesn't know one of them.
Yes, Zoe, it sounds like you've got a plan. Leave a note either in your talk page or here mine, and I'll see it. I'll also be watching some of the category talk pages, and will occasionally look in your upload log to see any pictures you have sent lately, not that I'm likely to know anything about the topic but always delighted to supply my bit of the equation. Jim.henderson (talk) 23:17, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry; no idea. As you may have guessed from reading my user page, the only exercise I get, apart from jumping to conclusions, is pedalling my little black Category:Brompton bicycles around town to snap Wikipix. Were anyone within a few hours easy bike distance to be revealed to be exercising green, I could go and photograph them as they do it. Jim.henderson (talk) 05:59, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
[1], [2]: how was this removing a redundant parental category? Lake Union is parent of Gas Works Park - not vice versa - so if you were removing one it should be the (less specific) lake, but really I think this is a case where that rule doesn't apply at all. The only reason Category:Gas Works Park is in Category:Lake Union is that the park fronts on the lake. In this case, the picture is of the lake and taken from the park, so I think it is appropriate to keep both. - Jmabel ! talk04:04, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks; my error. I hope someone who knows the topic better will make a subcat for many of the pix in that park's category, or decrowd it by other appropriate method. Jim.henderson (talk) 04:46, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good going, especially moving the festival pix that were only incidentally about their setting. I've got to sort several cats in my hometown, probably including inventing subdivisions of my rocky little island but that will only be after working through my 10 weeks backlog of my own summer pix to be processed, which makes it a winter job unless another New Yorker beats me to it. And Friday will be another expedition to New Jersey; more interesting places to snap. The world is just too full of photofun until days become short. Jim.henderson (talk) 05:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for asking; maybe we need a Project:New York in Commons. Or Project:American cat wrangling. Such a category is a good idea, basically, and at first blush I thought, Category:New York & Putnam rail trails but then no, we often make cats that are too narrow; better be broader. The connection to be made to the Poughkeepsie Bridge was never part of the Old Put, and probably won't be picturesque enough to rate its own cat, and the w:Rockaway Beach Branch (darn, I should make some pix before it gets too cold) and others may be converted (I wish the abandoned line north from St Mary's Park into the Central Bronx would be trailed) so it seems to me a broad Category:Rail Trails in New York is best, the first state to get its own rail trail category. Subcats can come later if called for. And shorter sentences (with fewer parentheses). Jim.henderson (talk) 17:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I was wrong. It would've been the first. But there really weren't enough images that could've fit that category at the time. There's a possibility this might be the case now, but that could leave a lot of non-rail-trails out. ----DanTD (talk) 04:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Hmm, that was carried out expeditiously, before I got around to composing a defense. Not a problem; I don't understand why this particular pic was forbidden while others in the category remain, but it's no great loss anyway and no hard feelings. Jim.henderson (talk) 06:49, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
why thank you for your message. The weather has just been amazing and I found that a lot of pictures of buildings on the Wikimedia Commons had a rather dark or grey sky behind them, which is a shame. So I carry my camera around with me whenever possible to get good shots. You'll see more coming. Until then, happy photo-shooting. Gryffindor (talk) 23:54, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What, go out cameraless? Sooner forget my pants. Many of the gray sky pix are mine; must take opportunities when they arise and hope for a sunnier future. Still sending my Saturday pix; will hit the road tomorrow despite clouds. In the coming rainy weekend, will process and send my sunny Sunday Hudson County pictures and any later ones that come out. Springtime foliage will soon interfere with abandoned railroad shots. Always a rush; always much fun.
If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
Thank you very much for adding the photograph and for being interested enough to go there and take the image.
Question: Do you remember the address? HSA has four schools (the addresses are in the article). I can add the information into Wikipedia once I know it, and save you the work.
Thanks again.
24.45.8.12515:53, 26 May 2010 (UTC) Corrections: Added a link and, since Wikimedia, into which I am logged, doesn't seem to recognize the four tildes, here's what I think is my sig (at least it's my name): User:Nick_Levinson Nick Levinson (user|talk) Corrected again, since apparently my all-Wikimedia login did not take effect (it did when I tested it on another Wikimedia site) and my user ID does exist: I am Nick Levinson. My user page is at <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Nick_Levinson>. My user talk page is at <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nick_Levinson>. And I guess now I see why "Watch this page" isn't visible to me for this page but I'll add it manually at WP, if I can, for the time being. Thanks for your patience.[reply]
Yeah, the new skin conflicts with some browsers; I used the My Preferences link to go back to Monobook for that reason. That day's target was en:Lenox Yard which was a failure but on my way up Lenox Avenue I snapped the subway stations, churches and anything else interesting that happened into view, then checked for articles that the pix could illustrate. You can click on the picture (here in Commons), find the coordinates and click to get a map showing exactly where I was standing (if it's a Google Map it also shows which way the camera was pointing) from which you can identify the building and deduce the address. Jim.henderson (talk) 16:45, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks; I used the information newly added to the File page (Google Maps seemed to agree). Thanks also for the photo page mentioning a category I hadn't thought of; the category also fits the school article, so I added that, too.
I may investigate my login failure later; I'm not sure it's due to the skin but if it is that sounds like a bug. This time, I logged in separately. Momentarily, I will find out if the 4 tildes work as in WP.
Very good. Bicycling, photography and geography are what I do. Sometimes my fancy camera automatically records the coordinates correctly but more often I must spend a few minutes adjusting them. Then anyone who studies the links in the Commons page can look at maps of the place in various formats. Although there's always a nominal target (which has never been a school) sometimes I miss the target and anyway my real subject is whatever I happen to see on a bike ride. Jim.henderson (talk) 16:41, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi -- can I ask a question about the location data you've added to some of my images? Is it supposed to be the location of the subject of the photo, or where the camera was located? I was about to correct one, when I realized that I wasn't certain. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:52, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes I think we should wear a Wikimedia hat or T-shirt or something for when we stumble upon a fellow Wikishutterbug at an interesting location. Yes, when my stumbling around in the encyclopedia or in Commons brings me to a good picture from a place I can nail down, I like to tag the camera location according toCommons:Geocoding#Geocoding media on commons. Camera location is the standard method; in the best case of a much photographed object it results in in a map with the object of interest being surrounded by arrows pointing at it. These maps can be seen by clicking on the "Google Maps" link in the picture description, though I use Google Earth for its greater quickness and precision, supplemented with Bing in less urbane areas where its slant view is more effective than Google's Street View.
Sometimes I also use Template:Object location when the object, for example the Outerbridge Crossing, has not been surrounded by nearby photography. I think this ought to be used more often, at least for categories if not for individual pictures, though I agree with the Commons convention that the camera location is the default information and the object location is for special cases. Naturally I sometimes make mistakes and supply an imprecise or just plain wrong location, and appreciate when it can be corrected. Jim.henderson (talk) 12:13, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks very much for the clarification. As I go along I'll try to fix any small errors that I see, based on my recollection of where I was when I took the shot; nothing major, as far as I can tell: the one I almost edited was the Western Union Telegraph Building, and your estimate was pretty damn good - I believe I was on the east side of Broadway, next to the park, and not on the traffic island. (On the other hand, my memory's pretty much shot these days, so, who knows, you could be right!) Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:44, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I removed "Flatiron District" from the Baruch category because to my knowledge it's not accurate. Baruch has buildings in two locations. The ones on 23rd and 22nd would generally be considered to be in the Gramercy Park (or Gramercy) neighborhood, since the Flatiron District is considered to end at Park Avenue South. The uptown buildings, at 24th or 25th Streets are either in Rose Hill or Kips Bay, depending on where you put the divider between these neighborhoods. None of them, however, as best I know, are in the Flatiron. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:39, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It also occurs to me that, since we seem to cover a lot of the same places, you probably live somewhere, as do I. I'm on 22nd between Broadway and Park, just down the block from the Flatiron, and my son's been going to school in the Gramercy Park area (although he's off to a different school on the west side next year). I assume you're somewhere in the Flatiron / Gramercy / Kips Bay kind of area? Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:33, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Always pleasant when someone who knows better can correct my errors. It's just that I'm bothered when an object, which I know is in a particular part of Manhattan a few miles from me, is categorized with no more precise location than the whole of NYC. If a smaller and accurate region or neighborhood category can be supplied, it will satisfy this itch. I also hope you can attend the en:Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Wiki-Conference weekend after next. Sometimes we shutterbugs sit together, at least at smaller meetings.
No, I live in Hell's Kitchen, not far from another Wikiphotographer, User:Americasroof. However, I bike all over with my camera and sometimes learn something about the places I'm visiting. Today was from Newark to en:Eagle Rock Reservation and back. This was with a biker gang, so travel was efficient but photography was sparse until I left them on the return to visit the en:Cathedral Basilica of the Sacred Heart, Newark, New Jersey whose current Wikipix, including mine, do not satisfy me. Also the current exterior shots of en:Red Bull Arena (New Jersey), none of them mine as yet, could use much improvement. Oof, about forty miles on a warm day and a flat tire after leaving the group. No pedal pushing tomorrow; must rest up for a busy Saturday. Jim.henderson (talk) 01:12, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like an interesting day!
I used to have a demo recording studio in Hell's Kitchen, back in the day, on 51st and 10th. The neigborhood was already in transition back then (this was 20 or so years ago), and it's changed quite a bit since - although I don't get up there much anymore.
I know what you mean about neigborhoods. I've included in several neighborhood articles on en:WP a footnote about the fact that neigborhoods have only semi-official status, and no official boundaries, which makes it easy for new neighborhoods to sprout up (like the Flatiron District) but gives people like you and I headaches when it comes to defining where one starts and another begins. (I'm still looking for a good citation to back that fact up, but haven't found anything solid so far.)
Yesterday's busyness included a morning on the bike, snapping pix on the East Side and Greenwich Village, and an afternoon / early evening walking tour of lower Upper West Side, HK and Times Square hosted by German artistic photographer Bettina Johae. Much fun; much talk in the en:Hallo Berlin beer garden with young European artisitic types who are not only smarter than me; they mostly speak better English than I do. I need this kind of exercise, not so much for my old but tolerably workable body and mind, as for my stiff, awkward social powers and dim understanding of aesthetic issues.
At bigger meetings like this upcoming Wikimedia one, I mostly benefit by sitting and listening to the articulate people who dominate such events, then chitchatting with peers who are not slowed by my stammering and absentmindedness. Busy, busy; this afternoon it's a computer club barbecue in Ft Greene. Oh, and if we can't nail Baruch to a more specific neighborhood name, then I guess the vaguely relevant Category:Midtown Manhattan will have to do. Jim.henderson (talk) 14:19, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely, Midtown works just fine for the institution as a whole.
Your life seems busier and (frankly) more interesting than mine, which, since I'm waiting to pick up another show (I'm a stage manager in the theatre) consists mostly of taking my son around to various city-sponsored free lessons: swimming, tennis, etc., plus the occasional softball game (for me) -- hence, much too much spare time to edit Wikipedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:52, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, then you're one of the articulate people who would do well at the weekend 8th Street meeting. Daddy work can keep you occupied; being a mere uncle to two little girls with busy parents took much of my time and gave much pleasure in the 1990s. Yes, Manhattan offers rich entertainment for useless old retired people. Tonight is a walking tour of en:West Side Line (NYCRR). Thursday is an all day group bike ride to en:Bayside, Queens. Other than that, nothing is on my plate until the weekend, except inserting and categorizing pictures and other deskbound Wikiness. Jim.henderson (talk) 18:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know you take many photos of Upper Manhattan. I notice that the picture for the Saint Cabrini [3] Shrine is actually the school. The shrine and chapel is to the right of the frame. It is quite an elegant building in mid-century style. --Knulclunk (talk) 05:37, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking an interest. Yes, it's also a poor picture in bad Sun angle and partly cloudy day when I was showing a friend the way to The Cloisters. Actually I seldom visit this particular little neighborhood but mostly travel below it to the east on Broadway, or cross GWB between Ft Lee and 181st Street and points south. Indeed I expect to be on Broadway this coming Thursday morning on my way to The Bronx. Perhaps instead of meeting them in Central Park I can get an early start alone, do a proper job of shooting some Ft Washington Ave sites, and join my friends as they cross the Harlem River. Or get there some other time before chilly, cloudy Autumn returns. Or maybe a better Wikiphotographer (several regular contributors understand the art better than I do, though without bicycles they are less mobile) will get to it and retire my old picture to the Commons Hall of shame. Jim.henderson (talk) 04:51, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just added county-specific categories to sites on the National Register of Historic Places in New York City for the remaining two boroughs; Queens and Staten Island. I should probably remove the "Staten Island, New York City" category from those, though. Check them out, and spread the word. ----DanTD (talk) 20:28, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good going; thank goodness someone has the time and patience to sort out these things. Natually when my watchlisted pix popped up I felt obliged to geotag them as well. The obsessive-compulsive know no rest. Gotta unfold the bike and rush down to Brooklyn; TTFN. Jim.henderson (talk) 14:12, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll tell you a little story: I found out when I was in college and earned a few dollars as a guinea pig for psych investigators that I'm part of the approx. 1/3 of the population that is slightly "dyslexic" in regard to directions. For instance, in order to remember which is my right hand, I have to put my hand over my heart as if I'm saying the Pledge of Allegiance -- even if I never move my hand, and only do it mentally. Now, professionally I'm a stage manager in the theatre, which means that during rehearsals I take blocking: extensive notes in the script about who moves where and when they do it. And the directions we use are upstage (towards the back wall), downstage (towards the audience), stage right and stage left -- that is, the directions as seen by the actors as they face the audience. I, however, am sitting as if in the audience, facing the actors, so everytime I have to write down a move, I have to determine which direction they're going, and then reverse it to make it into stage directions. Eventually, I learned to put Post-It notes on the two corners of my script binder saying "SR" and "SL", so I didn't have to think about it, I just look at the notes and write it down. Before I figured out that trick, though, early in my career, I wrote the blocking for an entire act backwards. Fortunately, when I caught the mistake, I had made the error completely consistently, so I could mechanically swap right for left and vice versa and correct it.
So, please don't hesitate to correct me when you're sure I'm wrong about directions, I'll never be annoyed about it. You've got my thanks in advance, and I'll let you know if I disagree with your correction for any reason. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:49, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I get into more trouble on north slopes of hills, for example in en:Manhasset, New York and en:Fort Green, Brooklyn. Being a bicycler I am acutely aware of slope, and confuse that with direction, hence south towards en:Eastern Parkway, Brooklyn feels like north because it's uphill. And sometimes there's no such excuse, as when I took a picture of Church Street Post Office across Barclay Street, and said it was across Park Place two blocks away, as discovered yesterday upon checking the pic again because someone adjusted its categories. I do more checking than anything else. Have to.
When learning to refine my headings a year ago, I got confused by what "West by North" means. I made a small adjustment and then Google Earth had me pointing completely the wrong way. The compass templates are handled by German fellows who are very precise even though they're working in a language foreign to them. I think the interfaces tell Google the direction not as a direction but by telling Google what pinpoint symbol to use, hence 16 points of the compass are as many as they can reasonably handle. That, I think, is why using headings of 10 and 15 degrees yield identcal NbE arrows and are to no avail. Too bad; but I am far from any real understanding of the issues. Jim.henderson (talk) 01:29, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I actually wasn't trying to additional accuracy, I just got the terminology wrong, thinking that 11.25 degrees away from north towards the east was called "north by north-northeast" instead of "north by east". (Having absolutely no nautical background, it's all new to me.) The lightbulb didn't go on until this afternoon, when you fixed one of my east/west confusions, and also changed the notation. I was going in to "correct" it thinking to myself "What is he doing", when it suddenly occured to me what was wrong. Live and learn. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:05, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's the thing about editing; always there's a new method or notation or important fact to learn, and often a new use for what we have long known. My slight acquaintance with aviation and somewhat thicker understanding of astronomy make me prefer degree notation, for example for File:South Cove Commons n BB fr MOTBY jeh crop.jpg whose glimpse of en:Newark Bay Bridge would let me nail it down to less than a degree. Actually the template can accept that, but only the standard list of compass points can show on the maps, so I don't bother. Well, gotta trot along to a free NYPC lecture on photo retouching; maybe I can ask a question about geotagging. Jim.henderson (talk) 21:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
and just now I found ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------->this; uploaded by you in July:
yours (earlier)
I've got to learn to look to see what you've done before I go out and duplicate it. (Actually, I hadn't planned on this one, I was taking the rowhouses on 23rd when I turned and saw this as a possible shot.)
Heh. Wouldn't mind if you were chasing me. I sometimes bring up Google Earth on a location before editing and uploading my pic, to see if I'm wasting my time. I never check before snapping the shutter, however.
Climbing 23d Street from the Hudson for an astronomy club meeting this summer, I saw an interesting building and took a few shots from both sides. I liked mine that looks across 10th Avenue from the most easterly vantage, because it de-emphasized the red foreground building, but didn't go to the trouble of recording the architect, etc as you did.
Incidentally, User:Mitchazenia and I are planning to meet late Saturday morning and tour Washington Heights / Inwood together before the Wikipedia meeting in Greenwich Village at 2:30. Obviously, togetherness means two (or three) photographers seeing the same places in the same light, but it ought to be fun anyway. Jim.henderson (talk) 01:18, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And then I went to upload My Old Stuyvesant the school pic that I snapped in July, and discovered that you had meanwhile snapped and uploaded yours. Your Old Stuyvesant I decided mine was better because it has deeper shadows and proceeded to upload, and then changed my mind and decided yours is better anyway because your arches are pretty. Ah, well, at least you didn't spend much time tramping around Jersey City this summer, so my slowness probably won't make me lose races for en:Old Bergen Church and en:Pulaski Skyway. Jim.henderson (talk) 00:54, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, but thanks for mentioning it -- I'll stay off the PATH train!
Actually, my shooting is totally opportunistic - I did Gramercy/Flatiron/Kips Bay while my son was doing his tennis lesson, the East Village when he does music lessons, Chelsea when I have a doctor's appointment or when I'm picking him up from school, etc. I rarely (but very occasionally) go somewhere specifically to take a shot - most of what I've done is about neighborhoods I've lived or worked in. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:20, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I generally go out with a target in mind, but sometimes miss the target, yet get so many other things that the expedition counts as victorious anyway. This week I've been processing the bag from a day trip in search of the Category:Newark Bay Bridge which was successful in that regard but the incidental hits were more valuable. That's the usual. But I won't hold much hope for the places you mention, because even if you didn't get to them first, some other better photographer than me did. My Outer Boro expeditions are the ones that catch exclusive pictures. Jim.henderson (talk) 23:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And there's one of my exclusives. Good Wikiphotographers seldom bike over the Harlem River, thus leaving such opportunties to me alone. And now it's better than ever, a more attentive editor having repaired it. I must remember to edit lightly, crop loosely, preserve unblown highlights etc so as to not spoil the chance of improvement by re-editing. Drat; my group bike ride Thursday to Putnam County is postponed due to forecast rain. So, it leaves time to geotag, process and send some Bayonne and Staten Island pix. Jim.henderson (talk) 23:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, me again - I wonder if you can help. I uploaded a photo of Colonnades Row and, as usual, noticed that you had preceded me, uploading three images. However, I've been unable to find current photos of the Public Theater, just across the street from the Colonnades. I uploaded my own, but I've got a feeling that there are others hiding somewhere. It seems unlikley that you took a picture of the Colonnades without crossing the street and taking the Public... so -- where should I look that I'm not looking? (Currently, mine is at Category:Astor Library. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:42, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They aren't here yet, but soon. In August I noticed the lack and biked down there twice at the correct time of day for good sun on the front of this building (1400-1600 EDT) and snapped several that should good ones. However, they are still in my processing backlog. Today I hope to finish my August 8 JC/Bayonne/Staten Island expedition and will probably get to the pix of the east side of Lafatyette Street in the coming week. Jim.henderson (talk) 10:06, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you're in the neighborhood at any time, the en.wiki article on the Century Association needs a photo of their clubhouse at 7 West 43rd St. I did one of their earlier building on E 15th off Union Square. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:05, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And a precise and pleasant old picture it is. I can easily adjust my ways to pass that building every week or two instead of every month or three to see whether it is still partially hidden by scaffolding as last I remember. Jim.henderson (talk) 11:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alas, I keep seeing excellent pictures made a century ago by photographers who knew their business. Doing as well, even with convenient modern hardware, requires thinking as carefully as they did. The old pic was made at high noon midsummer, and if similarly useful light this time of year can be found it will be in the morning. I was mistaken about the scaffolding; this particular building hasn't been blocked that way for years. However, the cloudy day that illuminated this version will not do the job. I'll keep trying; it's not a long detour from my usual routes. Meanwhile I haven't forgotten the Astor Library. I'm sure to find a sunny shot in my backlog.... soon. Jim.henderson (talk) 11:53, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jim - thanks for releasing this photo into the public domain. You may like to know we're putting it into print in the January edition of RadCom (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RadCom), the journal of the Radio Society of Great Britain (rsgb.org). Please, Jim, drop me a line via my talk page if you'd like a copy of the magazine with our compliments, or maybe just a pdf of the article it appears in.
- Giles (talk)
Re your details - many thanks; I'll put the magazine in the mail in about a week when they are printed.
- Giles
Just FYI, I've done some cleanup & expansion of street and avenue categories in Manhattan. As of now (where I'll probably leave things for the time being), there are categories for all the numbered avenues in the form "Nth Avenue (Manhattan)"; the named avenues have the same form, except for Madison and Park, which are just plain "Madison Avenue" and "Park Avenue". (I may eventually put these in the same format as well - they just have a lot of sub-categories which are time consuming to change.) All the numbered streets from 1st to 33rd have categories in the form "Nth Street (Manhattan). Above 33rd it's hit or miss as to whether there's a category and what form it takes. (See this).
I've also done some extensive searches of the database, putting images into their proper categories for 14th - 30th streets, and 1st - 13th streets on the east side. Generally, if a building is on a corner, I've put it in both the street and avenue categories, but if it's mid-block, I've only categorized it for the street or avenue it's on. Images of streets or avenues themselves are only in the category for that street or avenue, and not in the category for the placement of the camera -- so that, for instance, "Second Avenue from 10th Street" I would put only into the "Second Avenue (Manhattan)" cat and not into the "10th Street (Manhattan)" cat, unless it showed a significant part of 10th Street.
I'm just letting you know this as our most prolific Manhattan photographer. When you upload images, it would be great if you would make use of these new cats.
Also, if you upload an image for a numbered or named street that doesn't have a cat, and want to create a new one, the parent categories are:
Numbered streets: "Category:1st - 193rd Street in Manhattan"
Named streets: "Category:Streets in Manhattan"
Named avenues: "Category:Avenues in Manhattan"
Named boulevards: "Category:Boulevards in Manhattan"
Squares, circles, etc.: "Category:Squares in Manhattan"
Good work; following your progress by watchlist has insired me to repair a few of my old errors. I've been thinking of doing something similar in Brooklyn but only a few streets there like Flatbush, Flushing and Rulton have as heavy a concentration of pictures. And I'm too busy uploading new pictures. And I haven't the mental stamina to carry to its rigorously consistent comclusion such a large project. Each picture is a small task; my mind more easily handles a multitude of small ones. That's why I seldom make a new category for a subject that has mostly someone else's old pictures, while I do make one when uploading several of my new pix such as Category:Pratt Institute. We each do what our powers allow. Sunny days coming; probably that means more bicycling and more pix of Jamaica or Mariners Harbor or some such exotic locale. Jim.henderson (talk) 13:04, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
![[1]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Ride_the_Ducks_01.jpg&curid=1935838&diff=27268070&oldid=26995039){kind=link}
![[2]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Ride_the_Ducks_01A.jpg&curid=1935839&diff=27268171&oldid=26995044){kind=link}
