User talk:Julia W/Archive 1

Votes removed

Voting is open for all Wikimedians who were registered before 1 January 2009 and with at least 200 edits on any Wikimedia project (at time of voting).

I don't know what's wrong ¬¬ . I have more than 200 edits on my English Wikipedia account, that means more than 200 edit on any Wikimedia project! Or you just did removed my votes because the usernames are different??? There's nothing about different usernames on the requeriments to vote. Eacz12 (talk) 23:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...using a single account on both Commons and the English Wikipedia. So, you mean different accounts (because those are differente projects) with the same username, right? Eacz12 (talk) 00:56, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but really, it's the same. Unified login = same username. You are even giving me a link to change my username, so I really think it's the same thing. Anyway,I may change it later! Thanks (= Eacz12 (talk) 16:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FPCs

They mean that nominators have to specifically state they support something - just nominating it isn't enough. It's not very clear, is it? Anyway, not too worried about that one - it doesn't thumbnail very well, so it was always going to be iffy as an FP. I'll do another one later.Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:51, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marguerite of Navarre

Since it was made well after her death, I'd go with static non-photographic media. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Microwaved disks-cover fractal trees-scann Δ0050.jpg

If you close an fp voting be sure that you check when votes were placed. The infotext above the image says "Voting period ends on 26 Apr 2009 at 15:22:59" Lycaon voted at 18:00 on 26 April 2009. Microwaved-DVD.jpg got added on 2009-04-23 at 01:52. Commons:Featured_picture_candidates#General_rules says "The voting period is 9 complete days counted from the nomination." thereby the voting is closed on 2009-05-02 at 01:52(:00). Please correct update the page and reopen the vote for the second nomination. Please check old fp nominations which you closed for simmilar mistakes.
regards --D-Kuru (talk) 00:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, I do normally check. I was doing several at the same time and missed it. I'll re-open it. Maedin\^talk 07:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/File:Street_view_of_Prague.jpg

hi;

i'm not clear what the process is here?

the majority of votes was in favour, why did you not give the image FP status?

Lx 121 (talk) 19:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for the clarification!

2 things most needed on wikimedia, as a whole:

1. more efficient ways of sorting all the info we have stockpiled.

2. a process for simplifying the "help/rules" explanations. the way we are going wikimedia is going to start spawning lawyers! lol

(3. a massive update of mediawiki as software, to make it less clunky.)

(4. a standardized system for inter-user:talkpage conversations... ha)

thanks again for the speedy reply :)

Lx 121 (talk) 20:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Music theory and practise

I must confess I went meddling on your English wiki, where I saw you play the piano and know about music theory. Well, I also know something about music theory but never was able to play any instrment decently. I started with the vioiln when I was a kid, passed to the piano, the transverse flute, the baroque recorder, the Portuguese guitar... Well, a typical case of lack of talent. Still I love music, especially JSBach and WAMozart. What kind of music do you play? Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:27, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, a fellow musician! It sounds like you have more experience with instruments than I do: I've mostly only played the piano, though I've messed around on guitar and my two brothers (both drummers) think I keep an excellent beat, ;-)

I mostly stick to classical music; I play a lot of Bach, Beethoven, Clementi, Schumann, etc. Classical is the music that I love, but playing it suits my abilities, too. I had a piano teacher for several years who tried to get me experienced in more modern composers, such as Shostakovich and Stravinsky, but I couldn't bear the excess of dissonance and the bizarre timings! Too random for me, :-)

I've recently (within the last two years) discovered Ludovico Einaudi though; he's a contemporary composer and I love what he writes. I call him the "three-note wonder" because he does rely heavily on particular notes and melodies in any one piece, so some people would probably just find it boring, ;-) I have a book of his music (extortionate price!) and probably irritate my neighbours no end! If you haven't heard of him and you like piano music, I encourage you to check him out, especially his earlier albums, such as Le Onde or I Giorni.

I've been doing my own snooping and have realised for some time that you are Portuguese/live in Portugal. I had a very good Portuguese friend (who also lives in Lisboa) who introduced me to Madredeus. I don't know any Portuguese, but I do really enjoy listening to Madredeus. I claim to like Fado, but I've never heard Fado other than Madredeus, so I'm not actually that sure, :-)

So do you still play some of these instruments? Even with a lack of talent (if that really is true), you can still enjoy playing! (P.S. I hope I didn't ramble... :-/) Maedin\^talk 20:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, I haven't played for a long time. The last instrument was a alto baroque recorder, with which I tried to play Haendel's sonatas (the slower parts...), with little sucess, and also some Renaissance and medieval music. Yes, I'll look for Ludovico Einaudi Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GIPE25 - Cigognes dans leur nid (by-sa).jpg

Hello.

About it Why do you have writted "not featured" so there are more support votes ? --ComputerHotline (talk) 22:01, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bonjour Thomas, merci pour le message. The nomination was closed as not featured, because there were fewer than 5 support votes. An image must receive at least 5, before it can be featured. This one received only 3. Je suis désolée! I hope I have answered your question. Maedin\^talk 07:47, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FP

Hi Julie! now is your time "to enjoy" with my English... ;). I was not very lucky when I nominated a picture Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Taüll - Sant Climent.jpg and now it seems that will happen the same with the Bugatti Veyron picture. :( Do you like them? May be one day I will noninate this one: File:070616 Ferrari F1 2007 01.JPG Do you think that it has any possibility to be FP?. ¡Adiós guapa! --Xavigivax (talk) 16:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC) P.S. please, answer in my talk page[reply]

Just this last Saturday I visited BCN to take some car pictures at the Salón internacional del automóvil de Barcelona (Barcelona motor show). I think that you are from the south of England, isn't it? you can arrive one Friday at BCN in few hours, stay here at the weekend and come back the Sunday. We live very near and you are very young, you can visit BCN when you want. I've two little children and I'm waiting for they grown up to do this kind of weekends and visit UK, Ireland and Germany. I visited the south of France (2,5 hours by car from here), Italy and Greece but I want to visit the non-Mediterranean Europeans countries. The only problem with UK is the currency, you don't use the euro. When we visited this places time ago with a friends from US and Canada, they explain that the landscapes was very different for they, and they said that they were wonderfoul. For me was only just like an another landscape... I hope that you will not a Manchester United supporter, because we will bit you!! jajajajaja. Well, I'll study the QI, this will more interesting for my poor pictures. Julie, nos vemos. ¡Buenas noches! --Xavigivax (talk) 19:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I insert three pictures and 2 svgs in COM:QIC#May 21, 2009. I want to view what will happen whith the coats of arms. --Xavigivax (talk) 12:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Julie! one of the pictures has a green border. I think that this is good, isn't it?. What's the next? is this picture alrealdy a QI?. I didn't still visit your island. Years ago, with some friends we want to do turism one weekend, I want to visit London, but finally we go to Carcassonne at south of France. Another weekend that we want to go, finally didn't go for personal problems... it's a pending travel. Another travel that I want to do is the en:Way of St. James, but for this travel I need a lot of time. ¡Hasta otra, preciosa! --Xavigivax (talk) 22:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "camino de Santiago" is not a travel to do with the family, it's a travel to do alone, may be with other pilgrim, but not more. Before to do this pilgrimage, you should prepare your body to support a long walkings days. This is a future project. My little monsters are very, very young, one is 3 years old and the little one, only 10 months, almost 11 months. We can do long travels, the last holidays we went to en:L'Estartit, less than 2 hours by car. We enjoy the beach and visit the Medas islands. At the hotel we meet a south-england couple of pensionist that loved our children. They were very pleasant, and explained us that was the sixth time that comes to this place for holidays. This summer the family will go to live at Mura (es:Mura) while I'll work, for me it will be a little hard, I will do a lot of Km by ways with a lot of curves every day but the children will enjoy the summer in the nature, they could do some excursion and take a bath at the little river. See you. --Xavigivax (talk) 07:28, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FP promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★

The image File:Island Archway, Great Ocean Rd, Victoria, Australia - Nov 08.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Elephant Rock, Great Ocean Rd, Victoria, Australia - Nov 08.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

File:Dendroica petechia CT.jpg

Hi Cephas, I made a mistake trying to upload a de-noised version of one of your pictures, here. I was uploading the edit to help your image at QIC, which is currently commented as being too noisy. Sorry for making the mistake, I hope you don't mind, :-) (P.S. I like your bird pictures.) Maedin\talk 21:14, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello Meadin, As a novice, both in photography and on commons, I appreciate when more experimented improve my pictures, sometimes on apects I don't even see! Thank you! --Cephas (talk) 21:53, 22 May 2009 (UTC) (p.s. Do you have an idea where this noise problem, regular on my pictures, comes from?)[reply]

Don't worry about this. I didn't believe that picture was good enough to make it anyway (although I like it very much). I submit pictures also to have comments to improve my technique. --Cephas (talk) 20:47, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FP promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★

The image File:Leadenhall Market In London - Feb 2006 rotated.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Leadenhall Market In London - Feb 2006 rotated.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

FP promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★

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

Ophrys lutea

Hi. Where do you see the two straight lines on my QIC candidate? I only found one (left of the flower). The dust spot and the line(s) will be gone soon. Thanks for telling. Lycaon (talk) 13:31, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is one line, somewhat horizontal, to the left of the flower, and there is another (smaller) line, somewhat vertical, slightly above the first line. Not sure which one you're seeing, but I'm sure there are two, :-) Maedin\^talk 13:38, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, indeed. All fixed now ;-). Lycaon (talk) 13:58, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Featured pictures by xx

IMO being on commons here we should only categorize FP's for commons in these cats (unlike e.g. here). Lycaon (talk) 19:54, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not unreasonable, but not sure how else to organise. It's only for personal use, not an official category that mis-represents FP status. Maybe it would be ok if I added a note to the category page, explaining that they are FPs for any project? Maedin\^talk 19:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Maybe subcatting. Let me think a bit... Lycaon (talk) 20:21, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess as Commons is really a repository for all the Wikimedia projects, it doesn't seem inappropriate to me. Maedin\^talk 20:26, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious...

Are you related to Dliff or just a very good fan --Muhammad (talk) 06:55, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

lol no, we're not related, just friends, :-) I got a little frustrated with how hard it was to find his work! By endlessly searching through the Commons gallery, which half the time wouldn't load the thumbnails, and that still missed some of them due to edits uploaded by other users, and I knew what he needed was some good old-fashioned feminine organisation! So I got his permission and went to work, :-) Oh, I'm a fan, too, of course, how could I not be! Maedin\^talk 07:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gymnadenia rhellicani (inflorescense).jpg

Hey Julie. Thanks for assessing my pics. I reprocessed from raw. What do you think? Lycaon (talk) 20:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FP promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★

The image File:Wind Turbines and Power Lines, East Sussex, England - April 2009.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Wind Turbines and Power Lines, East Sussex, England - April 2009.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

Re

Hi ! of course I don't mind the nomination. I actually feel honored. Thanks for that, and for letting me know. Benh (talk) 20:59, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow!

You are fast ;-)). Lycaon (talk) 17:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm, I'm not sure I understand what you mean! I'm known for not getting jokes though . . . what am I missing? :-) Maedin\^talk 17:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ohhhhhh, is it because this is its second round on QI? Last time it remained unassessed . . . should I have waited longer? I didn't know there was a "respectable" amount of time to wait. Of course if it had been declined, I wouldn't have tried again! Maedin\^talk 17:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OOps, no no, I thought you read this, posted one minute before your renomination. ;-)) Lycaon (talk) 17:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, no, I hadn't! But what a coincidence, eh? Great minds think alike, or some other such cliché might be appropriate ;-) Maedin\^talk 17:38, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FP promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★

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

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Blue Cochin hen.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. Lycaon 06:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Cosmos bipinnatus "Sonata White".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. Details in bright areas well preserved. --Iotatau 08:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Lilium martagon (Martagon Lily).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. Lycaon 07:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Geranium pratense (Meadow Cranesbill).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. Lycaon 07:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FP promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★

The image File:Admiralty Extension from Horse Guards Parade - Sept 2006.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Admiralty Extension from Horse Guards Parade - Sept 2006.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

FP promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★

The image File:Anemone hupehensis var. japonica 1.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Anemone hupehensis var. japonica 1.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

Your message

Your message was moved up at my talk page because I would like my thread Interesting Images be the last post at my talk page. I hope you do not mind. Otherwise I am afraid you message was not helpful at all. Please have a nice day.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am very sorry that my comments were not helpful. I genuinely hoped that they would be. All the best, Mila. Maedin\^talk 18:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

you know what

Hi Maedin. You said you wanted to help. Honestly it does not look that way at all. The comments you left on my talk page were highly unfair and highly harassing. How dare you to say that I am not actively seeking conflict resolution? Yet let's for a moment AGF in your message, which is very hard, and give your so called willingness to help another try. You said: "This is why I say to you: you either need to drop this (and I mean seriously drop it, not just pretend that you have), or take it to a conflict resolution". I'm saying this to you: I am more than ready for conflict resolution at any time that is good for lycaoon, at any place that is good for lycaon and with any moderators of lycaon choice, even as unfair as you are, Maedin. Could you please arrange this conflict resolution for me and lycaon? If you could, it will be more than helpful. Am I actively enough seeking conflict resolution now IYO, Maedin? What else you want me to do? In a meantime it might be a good idea to strike out your entire message from my talk page archive as a false and unfair accusations and harassment. Please learn the subject before getting yourself involved and try to think before making unfair comments. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 01:21, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While you arranging conflict resolution between me and lycaon, let's try to do conflict resolution between me and you.I will respond to all your accusations one by one starting with the easiest one, and you will tell me if agree with me or you do not. It's going to be a good exercise. Let's start?
here's your number 7 (mine number 1):
"[1] When you have a problem with someone, there is only one thing to do: take it to the people who can do something about it, and/or ignore them. Undoing one of Lycaon's messages in a completely unrelated incident on someone else's user page is . . . well, it can easily be considered stalking."
My response: The image was missing source information. If it were your image, for example, I am sure Lycaon would have left a nice message "please add source information",but this particular image was taken by a user from Lycaon "shit list" as Sarcastic ShockwaveLover calls it here. So instead of a simple message Lycaon hits the image and the user with a red template, but it was not enough because in the next moment he posts absolutely identical template for the same image at the user talk page. I removed that second absolutely identical template from the user page and left the first one there, which was a good faith edit. Besides I was involved with the user before.So, would you agree that it was a good faith edit and it was wrong of you to call it stalking? Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 05:31, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will not strike my messages and will not apologise and will not seek dispute resolution for you.

I made two edits to your user talk ([2] [3]), both of them invited ([4] [5] [6]), and both of them made in good faith and attempting to help (whether you agree with what I said or not is irrelevant). You immediately accused me of harassing you, repeating this on four separate occasions ([7] [8] [9] [10]). Get a dictionary. For someone who was so mortified to have received this accusation from someone ([11] [12] [13] [14] [15]), you are extremely quick to throw the accusation at other people.

In addition, you edited your response to me, a total of three times ([16] [17] [18]), after I had already responded ([19]). If you had further comments to make, you should have made them below my post. It's called chronological order.

And finally, I have absolutely no desire to continue communication with you; I have lost all interest in the problems you are creating for yourself and am only sorry that I got involved. I kindly request that you do not attempt to engage me further in this matter. If you do, I will not respond. End of discussion, and good day. Maedin\^talk 06:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good. I wish you never "communicated" with me at all. It would have saved me lots of nervs. I know about you everthing there is to know. Please have a nice day--Mbz1 (talk) 11:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Centaurea dealbata-2558.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, QI --George Chernilevsky 20:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Forde Abbey over the pond 2.jpg

dansk ∙ italiano ∙ sicilianu ∙ Deutsch ∙ català ∙ magyar ∙ čeština ∙ português do Brasil ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ português ∙ English ∙ hrvatski ∙ français ∙ Nederlands ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ polski ∙ galego ∙ íslenska ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ български ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. It has been found that you've added in the image's description only a Template that's not a license and although it provides useful information about the image, it's not a valid license. Could you please resolve this problem, adding the license in the image linked above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which license to choose. Thank you.

This message was added automatically by Nikbot, if you need some help about it, ask its master (Filnik) or go to the Commons:Help desk. --Filnik 09:40, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Meconopsis 'Lingholm' --2577.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 fine structures, nice Bukeh --Mbdortmund 00:16, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Forde Abbey over the pond 2.jpg

Hi, Maedin!

Excellent work, however impression that there castle tilted to the right. Little distortion result? Please, correct, if it is possible.

With best regards, --George Chernilevsky (talk) 19:01, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi George! Thank you for the nice words, :-) I can see that, on the right-hand side of the image, the building looks tilted to the right, but I think this is only because it is a very old building and it is not all level! The original, single image (not-stitched) shows it the same. I would correct it, but I think it would be wrong to tilt the whole of the image for a single wall that isn't straight in reality. I have, however, employed Diliff to help me with some sharpening and brightening, so the image should be improved overall.

Hope that is all ok! Maedin\^talk 19:51, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very good! I promote QI result. A bit more darkly, than the second edition would be better for me. --George Chernilevsky (talk) 05:28, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, George! Maedin\^talk 06:56, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Centaurea macrocephala cropped-2832.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. --kallerna 16:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Echinops bannaticus 2-2817.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. --kallerna 16:52, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Forde Abbey over the pond 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 result --George Chernilevsky 05:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: FPC closures

About my mistakes in the closure procedures, well, I´m sorry, I´ll be more careful the next time (perhaps I was too bold, hehehe). Anyway, you mentioned something about nominations that have a fixed voting period, this is the text that appear above the image right? If this is what you meant, then I´m not sure what is wrong, I placed my votes within the time limit, and I´m sure I didn´t place any vote after the accepted period. Or did I do something wrong? - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 13:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

About another one of the changes that I made back then, I slightly change the closing procedure instructions (in my boldly rampage) to make this look like this (see the bottom) for a better presentation. Do you really think it need consensus, being a so small change that only makes a prettier look? - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 02:32, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FP promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★

The image File:Forde Abbey over the pond 2.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Forde Abbey over the pond 2.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

FP promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★

The image File:Church of St. Andrew, Alfriston, England Crop - May 2009.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Church of St. Andrew, Alfriston, England Crop - May 2009.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

Thanks

For making this improvement, and sorry to hear you hurt your achilles. I was wondering how you managed to do that hike so fast.... --Slaunger (talk) 14:10, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kim, it wasn't even much of an improvement to be honest, your change was very good as it was, :-) Thank you for the sympathy, I am very disappointed that I've had to stop, I was having a fantastic time! I have been ordered to keep it rested for two weeks, and the weather is so nice at the same time, :-( At least I managed to do a full week of hiking before I injured it. Maedin\^talk 14:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry to hear that. Surely, you will get another chance some other time. Just read a bit about the trail. Surely looks interesting - and challenging. Have a nice recovery. --Slaunger (talk) 17:02, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Hi Julie :) and thanks for your support and reassurance on my talk page. I withdrew my own nominations after some great feedback, which I wasn't offended by - it helped me see the faults with the images, which is great for my next shoot. I actually learn a lot from it. It's the comments on the work of other people that are off putting, and borderline rude on some of them. Being a good photographer doesn't have to mean being rude to others IMO. If a person has as much knowledge and expertise as they clearly think they do - they should be helping others, not putting them down [and not even in a polite way]. Im not that sensitive a person really, and I have very thick skin, but I have no time for rude people ;)

Cheers

Julielangford (talk) 16:55, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Heddon's mouth valley and Peter Rock.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 --Mbdortmund 15:11, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Forde Abbey entrance.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 Great level of detail, but IMHO the applied perspective correction is a tad too slight, at least in the upper half. -- H005 22:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did do it more, but then it made the large, very tall tower look so dwarf. I thought it was more realistic to leave some sense of scale, but I could be wrong! :-) Maedin 12:32, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, you're probably right. Good work! -- H005 22:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For Meritous Service

In recognition of your tireless (and often thankless) efforts in ensuring Featured Picture candidates are closed promply and correctly, I award you this Janitorial Services Medal. Wear it with pride, for a job well done. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 14:01, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much, I really appreciate that, :-) Maedin\^talk 19:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FPCBot

Great that you are reviewing. Just fyi; there was a bug in the bot that tried to close the reviewed candidates again, I reverted those changes and that issue is now fixed for future runs. /Daniel78 (talk) 23:01, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Worthy toll gate, Somerset.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 Strange effects between sky and trees but IMHO QI --Berthold Werner 15:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Advice?

Hey Maedin, I was wondering if I could ask your advice. I'm planning on nominating one of these (1) (2) pictures at FPC, but I can't choose between them. Which one would you recommend? Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 15:12, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that is a tough one, they are both very good! Mila has produced some great work. I think the second one may be a slight improvement over the first, although I do think the second one needs a slight brightness adjustment, as it seems slightly underexposed. The problem with the first one, I think, is that the saturation appears to have been boosted; it's hard to tell, of course, but it just looks slightly unnatural. On the other hand, they were taken in an "other-worldly" location, ;-) Sorry if that wasn't as helpful as you'd hoped, but I'm having trouble splitting the difference between them, too! Maedin\^talk 19:18, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's just the sort of advice I was after. I'll do a little experimenting, and see what happens. Thanks! Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 13:14, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Wheatham Combe 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 colours and atmosphere --Mbdortmund 22:16, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Red Arrows' kiss

Hello, and thank you very much for your offer. I guess that if I couldn't do it properly the first time i tried, I'd also fail now, and again, and again. I've uploaded the photo in a state in which it appears on the camera's memory card, you will find it here. Any other comments about any of our other photos will also be welcome, we're doing our best to improve with each air show :) Thank you again. Airwolf (talk) 10:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! Thanks for showing me the unedited version. I will go through and remove all of the dust spots, and then you can crop it as you wish, :-) Cloning dust spots is not too difficult, I can try to show you some time, if you wish. Maedin\^talk 10:44, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I uploaded a clone-stamped version on top of the original, File:Red Arrows mid-air kiss, Radom 2009.JPG. Hope it's ok! Maedin\^talk 11:24, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. And what do you think about the colours? I changed them a bit in the picture you saw as QIC so as to make the smoke more lively - do you think it's better that way? Airwolf (talk) 14:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! As for the colours . . . hmmmmm. Maybe it's just my taste, but I think this one is brightened too much. The sky seems washed out, but the planes were turned very dark. It was hard to tell that the planes are actually red and blue! Here is another edit I've done. I prefer this crop because it gives some context and interest. The clouds and the tree line at the bottom are nice, in my opinion. I upped the contrast and the vibrance to help bring out the contrails (such great colours!). As you can see, when you zoom in, it is still easy to see that the planes are red and blue. I also did a light de-noise. Overall, I hope it's an improvement, feel free to work from that and improve or crop or whatever. I made a mistake in the file name (it has File:File-), sorry about that! Maedin\^talk 15:51, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I won't argue with a lady :) And what is more, I won't argue with the facts. Whether you get rid of the trees or not is just a question of what you want to show, but as far as the colours are concerned, there's no doubt that yours is the better version. I dont think I'm going to improve anything now; such "improvements" would only spoil the photo. Thank you again, and here, have a bouquet of roses for all your kind help :) Airwolf (talk) 19:35, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Awww, thank you very much! That's very sweet, :-) I'm glad I could help. I like many of your other photos, particularly ones of formations; flying planes look so graceful! I think some of them could be FP, this one I really like, and the kissing one. My best advice at the moment is: you need to clean your sensor! Lots of dust spots, ;-) Maedin\^talk 20:10, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, we've noticed :) Unfortunately, after the Red Arrows' show, not before... Airwolf (talk) 20:38, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tip: Categorizing images

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ বাংলা ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ magyar ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ ქართული ∙ 한국어 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk ∙ polski ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ +/−

Hello, Julia W!

Thanks a lot for contributing to the Wikimedia Commons! Here's a tip to make your uploads more useful: Why not add some categories to describe them? This will help more people to find and use them.

Here's how:

1) If you're using the UploadWizard, you can add categories to each file when you describe it. Just click "more options" for the file and add the categories which make sense:

2) You can also pick the file from your list of uploads, edit the file description page, and manually add the category code at the end of the page.

[[Category:Category name]]

For example, if you are uploading a diagram showing the orbits of comets, you add the following code:

[[Category:Astronomical diagrams]]

[[Category:Comets]]

This will make the diagram show up in the categories "Astronomical diagrams" and "Comets".

When picking categories, try to choose a specific category ("Astronomical diagrams") over a generic one ("Illustrations").

Thanks again for your uploads! More information about categorization can be found in Commons:Categories, and don't hesitate to leave a note on the help desk.

BotMultichillT 19:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image:"Bee-dazzled" in yellow - cropped.jpg was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
Image:After rain sunshine from Silcombe Farm.jpg was uncategorized on 6 September 2009.
Image:Mineral content of igneous rocks.svg was uncategorized on 1 June 2010 CategorizationBot (talk) 10:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Su-27

It's me again. I've overwritten the "bad" image with the original that you can work on in your free time. By the way, as for this image, you might want to take a look at this. Airwolf (talk) 18:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All done! Meticulously cleaned by yours truly, :-) I would go back to the QI nom and promote it now, but technically I shouldn't as I made the edit. You should probably just nominate it again, sorry about that! I made a comment at the POTD page. If one of the ones with funky cloning or dust spots gets chosen for POTD, you can let me know, if you like, and I'll do what I can, :-) Maedin\^talk 19:09, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So I have done, and I've uploaded a cropped version so that the photo doesn't seem so empty now. I'm sure George or another of the frequent QIC visitors will put a green frame there. Thank you for your support, too. In fact, I was thinking that this photo would be good for POTD. It's rather dynamic, I believe, and for this context a photo in flight would be more suitable. Unless, o course you think that one of the pictures on the ground is significantly better. (Dust spots? The original pics are waiting for your kind attention, if any of it is needed :) ). Airwolf (talk) 19:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a really tough call. I really like the in-flight one I've just worked on, and yet, in the on-ground pics, you can see the pilots in the cockpit. Which, apart from being quite sad and making me feel bad for these unfortunate men, would be a "nice touch" (forgive the positive phraseology). On the other hand, the in-flight pic is more dynamic, as you say, and the on-ground pic has some distracting elements, especially near the nose of the aircraft. Sure we can't have both on the main page!? Sorry, I can't decide between the two. You should know better than to ask a girl to make up her mind, :D Maedin\^talk 19:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I always thought that girls have better aesthetic taste than men (this is aesthetic for a man...). As for the photos on the ground, we could always take the risk of removing the advertisments. But still, in the in-flight photo you can still see the heads of the pilots. Airwolf (talk) 20:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Me again...

Apparently I've underestimated the formation photos of the Red Arrows so I've uploaded a few more into Category:Radom Air Show 2009. Guess, what they have in common. Right, dustspots. Thus I would be extremely grateful I you could take a look at them, see if any would qualify for QI (I'm sure some of them would) or FP (maybe...) and if yes, could you please try to fix my mistake of not cleaning the lens and sensor before the show? :) If a picture is bad in itself, don't bother doing anything about it when there are better ones. Airwolf (talk) 11:58, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello you again, :-) I love this, this, and this. I'd support all three at FP! I shall have a polish of several from the category when I get home, can't help much while I'm at work, :-) Maedin\^talk 12:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And this one, pretty please. You will easily see what's wrong - and this is something I ought to be able to deal with myself. But I'd rather not... Airwolf (talk) 12:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, of course. Don't you enjoy cloning out dust spots? lol I don't blame you, :-) Maedin\^talk 13:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I would enjoy it if I were better at it. Not that I'm very eager to learn... :) Airwolf (talk) 13:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do whatever you feel needs doing. I have full trust in your skills and tastes. Airwolf (talk) 19:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, :-) Maedin\^talk 20:11, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And this picture, don't you think there is too little contrast here? Airwolf (talk) 20:28, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Hopefully better now. Maedin\^talk 20:49, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you could please have a look here. The uppermost spot could be a dustspot, but the lower one? To me it looks like a bird. Airwolf (talk) 12:47, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, a bird (even a white one) wouldn't actually show up as white at that distance? I thought it would be more of a black dot, :-/ Could be a reflection of something. I would remove it though, if I were you. Shall I take care of it tonight? Maedin\^talk 13:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thou shalt take care

Airwolf (talk) 13:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thine edit hath been taken careth of, :) Maedin\^talk 07:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thou art phenomenal :) Airwolf (talk) 08:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Awwww, thank you, :) <blushes> Maedin\^talk 09:58, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Jacobaea vulgaris-3235.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 wish it was just a little bit sharper, but the composition is great.--Mbz1 18:18, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Sorbus aria-3420.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 07:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Paeonia lactiflora 'Bowl of Beauty'-2459.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. Cayambe 07:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★

The image File:Derwent Water, Lake District, Cumbria - June 2009.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Derwent Water, Lake District, Cumbria - June 2009.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 15:06, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Me again..." yet again

A few more weeks and you won't want to talk to me anymore... Nevertheless, "for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Commons", could you please take a look at the following photos? Some of them are in need of a competent photoeditor's help, others might need it but not necesarily.

File:Polski C-130 Hercules.JPG
File:Midnight Hawks Radom 2009 b.JPG
File:Red Arrows Radom 2009 d.JPG
File:Boeing 737-400 Centralwings 2.JPG - I really like this one, no cropping, no nothing, that's the way it left the memory card
File:Cessna C560 Excel CS-DXG Gdańsk landing.JPG - is this one any good? I have a feeling the white balance is wrong
File:Jak-52 LY-SRS Góraszka 2008.JPG
File:Let L410UVP-E16 Góraszka 2008.JPG
File:Jurgis Kairys Su-26 Góraszka 2008 1.JPG - this one is pretty much like that Red Arrows FP, just divided by 9, don't you think?
File:PZL-101 Gawron Góraszka 2008 3.JPG - and here the sky is almost unnatural, like... I don't know, some blue screen.
File:Belgian Westland Sea King, Radom 2007.JPG

I know it's really a lot so I'm ready to wait a very long time. Do whatever you want to them (crop them, if you want and feel it's a good idea), you're a lot better than the two of us. Airwolf (talk) 16:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First, I'm sorry I didn't get to more of the Radon airshow photos, I got distracted and then forgot to go back to clean more dust spots! Second, I don't think I'll get tired of talking to you, ;-) I'm glad you have a good excuse to come to my talk page!

I'll have a look through the ones you've listed and see what I can do . . . but I'm not a very good photo editor, so no miracles! Maedin\^talk 16:27, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's be honest, you're a lot better than me. I can't say how grateful I am (we - the two of us who took the photos, my firend and me - both are) for your help. Airwolf (talk) 16:38, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS You spell it Radom. And in two years the Air Show will probably be held in Poznań.

Oh, Radom. Eeeeep. Sorry! Maedin\^talk 17:08, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It might be of some interest to you that we've finally managed to solve the POTD problem. Airwolf (talk) 13:16, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pleased to hear that! I've always found POTD to be a bit of a black art, :-/ The glitch that came with the recent software changes means that I can't upload new versions of files. I'm assuming that, for the small changes I will be making, you don't want new files, so your list above will need to wait until the developers sort out the bug. I hope that's ok :-) Maedin\^talk 14:01, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and by the way. A new bouquet of roses would be a bit dull, so I did this instead. I hope you don't mind :) Airwolf (talk) 14:11, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Awww, thank you very much, Łukasz! A very thoughtful gesture,

Maedin\^talk 17:02, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's working. Yann uploaded a new version of File:An-2 Góraszka.JPG. Airwolf (talk) 11:22, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's only non-administrators having the problem, so it wouldn't affect Yann. I will have another try tonight, though, it has been a few days. Maedin\^talk 12:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think they've fixed it now. Airwolf (talk) 12:50, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So it would seem, :) Thanks! Maedin\^talk 15:24, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And by the way, if you think anny of the pics need a crop, feel free to do it. Airwolf (talk) 16:37, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All finished. I didn't do much cropping . . . I tend to shy away from tight-ish crops, and I have a bit of a thing for sky and clouds. You said the sky seemed unnatural on this one, like a blue screen. It was just the white balance, too cool and too much blue. I made it warmer and the sky and the yellow were fixed, voilà. Thinking about it, I could possibly alter it further, if you think it is still too blue. Do you shoot in RAW? RAW can be manipulated more than jpgs and without such loss of quality. If you don't, consider it, because it can rescue many shots that you think are write-offs and makes the white balance easier to change. Hope you're ok with my edits, :) Maedin\^talk 19:18, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What can I say? You did a great job. As always. Airwolf (talk) 20:12, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★

The image File:State Library of Victoria La Trobe Reading room 5th floor view.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:State Library of Victoria La Trobe Reading room 5th floor view.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 16:57, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★

The image File:Albert Memorial, London - May 2008.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Albert Memorial, London - May 2008.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 00:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Patroller

I have W/Archive 1 granted patroller rights to your account; the reason for this is that after a review of some of your contributions, I believe I can trust you to use patrol correctly by using it for its intended usage. For information on patrol, see this page. If you do not want to be a patroller anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck and thanks. Huib talk 19:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Maedin\^talk 08:01, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Updates

I love you. Well, in a sense... Wolf (talk) 18:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm so pleased you like them, :p Maedin\^talk 07:34, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And you think you could do something about Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Su-27UBM Radom 2009 b.JPG? Like extending the sky in front (above) the plane? Rotating it a little bit? This said, there is one more picture which is being criticized for too tight a composition: pl:Wikipedia:Grafika na medal - propozycje/Airbus 320-200. Extending the sky with Photoshop shouldn't be too difficult, should it? The guy also said the sky is too dark, but I sort of like it this way, it's very contrastive. Wolf (talk) 11:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Referring to the above: File:Piper Cub Góraszka.JPG - dustspots, those should not be a problem. But there's a bigger one. Do take a look: pl:Wikipedia:Grafika na medal - propozycje/Ursus C-451. It's already been opposed due to lack of space under the vehicle. You think we could do something about it? Or maybe you think it's bullshit and you've got logical arguments to support it. Wolf (talk) 16:35, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I took the liberty of de-noising and also giving File:Piper Cub Góraszka.JPG a brighten. Dust spots are gone, :) As for pl:Wikipedia:Grafika na medal - propozycje/Ursus C-451, piffle! I think the crop is absolutely fine, and there is plenty of space at the bottom. From what I could gather at the nomination, it isn't so much about there being too little space at the bottom, but about the bottom crop not balancing the top. My only comments there is that it's natural to have more headroom than foot-room, and that if all crops were perfectly square, everything would be so eternally boring, ;-) I took the liberty of checking my opinion on the picture with Diliff, and he agreed that the crop is fine. I can't offer anything more definitive, but if Diliff thinks it's okay, then it probably is! ;-)

As for these two, File:Su-27UBM Radom 2009 b.JPG and File:Airbus 320-200 Wizz Air 2.JPG . . .hmmm. I've told you before, I'm not a very good photo editor, and my Photoshop skills are very basic! But I can try; I know it's possible, I'm just not sure how well I can do it for you. Maedin\^talk 16:10, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As for adding more sky, this is doable for sure. It can even be done in Microsoft Paint :) But then the quality will suffer if I use such a lousy program. As for the Ursus, OK, if the two of you say so, I'll leave it be. Wolf (talk) 17:38, 8 November 2009 (UTC) P.S. You can forget about the Sukhoi if you want to, the Airbus is more important. :)[reply]

Take a look at the Airbus now. Wolf (talk) 23:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since I know you're very busy, I've found a different photoeditor to abuse while you're away :) But don't worry, I haven't forgotten about you :) Wolf (talk) 12:29, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for cleaning up the Bell. I bet you're fed up with me... Wolf (talk) 20:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Łukasz, not at all! It was my pleasure, and I was happy to see your nomination there, :-) I tried to brighten the picture, as well, and would have uploaded it as an alternative for the nomination, but it didn't turn out very good, so I decided to leave it. Sorry for not answering your previous message! Maedin\^talk 20:48, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Belgian_F-16_Radom.JPG - tell me please, what do you think of the corrections made here? Wolf (talk) 10:30, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Too much de-noising, I think. It's given it a bit of a sheen. The change in the sky colour is okay, though I think a brightening overall would have been better, to keep the shade and just make it lighter. I'd have tried to bring out some detail/lift the shadows on the aircraft. Overall, though, I think it's fine, apart from the de-noising. Is that at all helpful? My disclaimer is that I'm viewing the pics at work, though, and my monitor is rubbish here. I did peek at the nomination yesterday, btw, but it had already closed by then, sorry, :( Maedin\^talk 13:00, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know, but I've talked with JC and he appears to agree with me that in these circumstances (the voting was stalled as the image was being modified) a re-nomination would not be that much of a crime. Nevertheless, since I'm going to do it, I just wanted to find out whether you had any better ideas about what could be done. Wolf (talk) 13:05, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whew, that was fast, ;-) I think a re-nomination is worthwhile, and it deserves it. As for better ideas, perhaps mine are just different but not necessarily better. I would have done it differently and more modestly, that's all. When I get home I'll make the changes I'd have made and email it to you, is that okay? By the way, I hope I'm not being rude, but are you sure that your new editor is saving at a high quality level? Just looking at the history of the F-16 pic, it's lost nearly 1MB in file size. Maedin\^talk 13:20, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

F-16

Is there something with my eyes or is there a dustspot on the "cleaned, denoised & brightened" F-16? Uper right corner. After al those dustspots I'm starting to think I'm seeeing things... Wolf (talk) 23:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I did some cloning and hopefully removed it! I could just about make out what could have been a spot, :-) Maedin\^talk 17:07, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thou still art phenomenal When you have some time, File:Red Bull Cobra Góraszka 7.JPG has just one, but ugly spot at the bottom, and since it's on a cloud, there's no way I could do it myself. And since I want to make it an FPC at pl.wiki... You know :) Wolf (talk) 20:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC) PS Any luck at finding more Polish food? :)[reply]

It has more than one dust spot . . . and there is one next to a rotor which will be trickier than usual. I'll see what I can do!

No breads, I am sorry to report, though I've found a particular ham that goes very well with the cheese! Maedin\^talk 00:38, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody else wants to talk with you here? :) You might be interested in Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Belgian F-16 Radom cleaned denoised brightened.jpg. Wolf (talk) 13:40, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Long time!

Hi Maedin! I haven't heard from you for a very long time. Are you still okay? I've started to contribute here on Commons as well. Do you remember those images I've sent you? I've uploaded them as a start. Kind regards, LouriePieterse 08:18, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Lourie, I'm so pleased that you're uploading your pictures! You should see how they do at the Quality images part of the project, I am sure they would be successful. Oh, and how did your farewell pictures turn out? I know I haven't been on IRC in ages, I haven't had very much time recently. I'm moving house in two days and studying physics has fried my brain . . . I know, I know, it's what you're good at, but I'm rubbish with physics, ;-) I'll pop into IRC soon and catch up! Maedin\^talk 16:17, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm... I am busy checking the quality section out. I am still new to Commons, so I don't really know how the stuff is working. I would like to contribute a little more to commons, because I like pictures, and one gets fed up for Wikipedia. The farewell pictures was about two months late, but it was worth the while. We have got a professional photographer, so it looks pretty good. Yes, I've seen that you are not a lot on IRC. I just see every now and then that you have suspended someone's access! I just read the studying physics part, so I immediately though: WOW! Then I have seen that you are having trouble with it. It would be nice to chat sometime again. Kind regards, LouriePieterse 17:03, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe, it isn't even difficult physics! And I wouldn't say I've struggled, I just haven't enjoyed it very much; my "fried brain" comment was tongue-in-cheek, :-) Fortunately, it was only a short foundation physics course, and I've moved onto chemistry, which I far prefer. I have yet to get my physics assignment returned to me, so fingers crossed for good marks. Hope you had a lovely Christmas, Lourie. Maedin\^talk 20:47, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understood it that way. Maybe it just didn't seem that I did! :) But I believe that you would do well. A lot of times women rather prefer chemistry than physics. My Christmas was pretty nice, but I must be going. I've just came here to check the images, I need to get into bed! Maybe we could chat tomorrow? Good night! LouriePieterse 21:09, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination?

Hey Maedin, whilst trawling through the Quality Images section, seeking new pictures to add to my 'to nominate list', I happened across this picture, which I saw from the links at the bottom is a part of your diliff gallery. I was going to nominate if for FP on commons; would you be interested I doing a co-nomination? Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 15:26, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya! Yes, I'd love to co-nominate that one with you; it's been on my "list" for ages. The problem is that there are several stitching errors on the columns. I asked Diliff several months ago to revisit his RAW files for that one and try to fix it, but at the same time I asked him to do loads of other ones so I'm not surprised that he didn't get around to it! I'll pester him again when he gets back and if he can fix it, I'll give you a nudge, okay? Thanks for thinking of me for the nom, btw, :-) Maedin\^talk 16:07, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problems. I think you should start nominating more of Mr Illif's work. He has some amazing stuff there; in particular File:Tower bridge London Twilight - November 2006.jpg and File:Bluewater Shopping Centre, Kent, England - April 2009.jpg, spring to mind. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 21:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quality images

I've added three images. Let now just hope for the best... :| LouriePieterse 17:13, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Hopefully they'll do well, :-) Maedin\^talk 20:43, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought to quickly come see how the pictures did, just before I went to bed. Seems like the dog made it! LouriePieterse 21:00, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your photos

Hello. I just saw your photos you uploaded in Commons in Flickr and, I must admit that, most of them are very very good! So, why do you think that your photos are "rubbish"? --Patriot8790 (talk) 20:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thank you, that's very kind of you, :)

I have two very poor quality lenses, and it's hard to get good results with them. Most of my photographs turn out unsharp and with quite a lot of chromatic aberration, and if they aren't suffering from that, then it's a good bet they'll be noisy instead. Apart from that, I also just don't have much photographer's skill, though I am working on it. The ones you see are the ones I got somewhat lucky with; I have thousands of failed attempts that don't make it on Commons! Even then I sometimes upload poorer ones for the "benefit" of the encyclopaedia. I appreciate your comment, thank you for taking the time to say hi, :-) Maedin\^talk 21:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Try taking photos of airplanes, it's a good way to practise. Really, it is. Especially when you're on the ground, not like those US Air Force cheats who take pics from other planes flying at the same speed. Wolf (talk) 21:34, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have enough trouble with stationary objects, ;-) It will be awhile before I graduate to aircraft! Maedin\^talk 08:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is exactly what you should not do. Start with what's really difficult. Wolf (talk) 09:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I died

I laughed myself to death. Try to find the reason. Wolf (talk) 19:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does it have something to do with the nom? Maedin\^talk 19:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, with the Zlins and the Stearman. Wolf (talk) 19:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, and here I thought you were making fun of my nom, the timing was right, I'd only just done it. That is indeed funnier! Maedin\^talk 19:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, that one's fine, though the angle is awkward. But really, this guy freaked me out. For a moment I thought I was in some parallel universe or something. Wolf (talk) 19:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your picture Burrow Mump.JPG is now a featured picture.

Congratulations! Your picture Burrow Mump.JPG is now a featured picture. --Patriot8790 (talk) 05:30, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★

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

/FPCBot (talk) 16:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Patrolling edits (COM:CVU)

Hi Maedin,

In case you've missed it, since yesterday the patrolling functinality has been enabled for all edits, no longer just for page creations. This enables us to track, for example, anonymous edits on Commons. I'd like to invite you to check out the Anonymous edits list and maybe patrol part of a day. See also the updated Commons:Patrol.
If you have any questions please leave message on the CVU talkpage, my talkpage or on IRC. -- Krinkle^talk 23:39, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Burrow Mump.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 08:02, 23 March 2010 (UTC) Support Good image--Kuvaly 14:53, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★

The image File:Kew Gardens Waterlily House - Sept 2008.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Kew Gardens Waterlily House - Sept 2008.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 23:01, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FP promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★

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

-- George Chernilevsky ^talk 10:44, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya

File:Kecskemet_2010_Breitling_photo_47.jpg You like? :) Wolf (talk) 20:31, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Stonehenge from north, August 2010.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 18:54, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! South west tower of St Paul's Cathedral.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 Minor stiching errors, but overall ok. --kallerna 10:45, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Eiffel Tower from northwest, August 2010.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.--Mbz1 16:14, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Mila! Maedin 16:32, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Paris 75001 Mairie Ier arrondissement 20100822 beffroi.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 !! -- MJJR 21:16, 20 September 2010 (UTC) CommentIsn't it tilted a litte bit CW? --V-wolf 22:24, 20 September 2010 (UTC) It looks so, but through a grid, it is not. Visual impression maybe due to the light ?--Jebulon 23:02, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Palais Saint-Georges, Rennes, Aug 2010.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 Perfect! Good quality. Alofok 14:10, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TUSC token aa6f4ab889a464aa7fdcc005a8a9c64b

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

File:Hôtel de Blossac - Fronton du corps côté jardin.jpg

Hi !

Thank you for the upgrading of the licence, the descriptions and everything on this file. I'm not very comfortable with all these things.

The original picture is used on French Wikipedia, for the (future ?) featured article on the hôtel de Blossac. If you have any others great pictures of this building, I'm very interested !

Thank you again ! Trizek ^Blah 22:49, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Trizek, I answered at your French talk page: fr:User talk:Trizek#RE: File:Hôtel de Blossac - Fronton du corps côté jardin.jpg ([20]). Maedin\^talk 12:18, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen it ! I'll try to take some others pictures as pleasant as yours. And please don't apologize for your French : you've read my bad English ! =D Trizek ^{here or on fr:wp} 12:21, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Southwark Bridge, from Millennium Bridge, Aug 2010.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. --Cayambe 10:52, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★

The image File:Eiffel Tower from north Avenue de New York, Aug 2010.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Eiffel Tower from north Avenue de New York, Aug 2010.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 14:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ecorché

Hi Maedin.

As I (almost) never visit english WP, I didn't know that my "écorché" was nominated by you in the EnWP FPC page. Jujutacular informs me that it is now featured, I'm very proud of this, and I would like to thank you for this nomination.

It is really far from perfection, because of my lack of experience, and because of the circumstances you know (very small and old museum, no distance, glasses reflections etc...), but I finded the subject amazing, and I tried something, to share this strange old "thing" with others.

Then, again, thanks for nomination, and through you, thanks for all the support votes.

Kind regards from Paris, --Jebulon (talk) 10:22, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Jebulon, :) Finally responded here! Maedin\^talk 23:19, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Meet our diceros bicornis

Hello Maedin.

Me back!

Thank you very much for the information about the promotion of my black rhino's skull as FP in english wikipedia! It is an honor, for the second time, even if I'm not a great fan of picture contests in national wikipedias as you know maybe. I think it is a bit confusing with the FP in Commons, which is more international. However, I'm very proud of this new award, and I'm very grateful to you and all the reviewers.

Per above, I didn't know that this old rhino was on review in ENWP, and this promotion is a very good surprise.

I know the Meet our photographers category, but I think that i'm not a good enough photographer to deserve to be a member of this prestigious Company. Did you really compare their galleries and my own gallery ? I am very lower in quality, IMO. If somebody wants to find my pictures in Commons, I guess it is easy enough, no really need of the advertisement of the Meet Team.

but one day, maybe, in the future ? Who knows ?

Never say 'never'.

Many thanks again, see you soon through new pictures !

From Paris, very friendly. --Jebulon (talk) 23:36, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Maedin.

Thanks for message, I'm always happy to read news from you.

Maybe you are right regarding the Meet our photography Company, I'll think about. You have a very kind opinion of my work, thank you.

I totally agree with you: Commons FPC gives too much place to "wow" and "I like it", and not enough to encyclopedical value. I'm fighting against that, and for this, from inside. As I'm not an english native speaker, I think that enwp is too... "english speaking" for me, I (almost) never go there. And there are not photo evaluations in frwp. My opinion is that in the wikimedia project, WP in general is for text, encyclopedic litteral contains, and "Commons" for (all kinds of) illustrations, a "repository" for the benefit of all the wikipedias, and an autonomous and independent media-databank too.

But please, if you like my picture, continue to submit, even in enwp !! I try to keep my mind open.

You can see that my english is very poor, I'm sorry for that. Aber ich kann auch die deutsche Sprache verstehen und ein bisschen schreiben, ohne Fehler, (umgefähr !). Kein Problem für mich wenn Du Deutsch schreiben möchtest...

But you know what ? French is far much elegant

Bis bald ! A bientôt !--Jebulon (talk) 17:42, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Bulbinella elegans, Hantam NBG, August 2011.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 nice --Ralf Roletschek 19:16, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Pelargonium capitatum, inflorescence.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. --Yann 15:06, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Playful girl on a False Bay beach.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.--Jebulon 18:34, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support yes!! --Carschten 18:30, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Knersvlakte from Vanrhyns Pass, Nieuwoudtville.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 nice. --Mattbuck 17:15, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Goegap Nature Reserve landscape.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 nice and excellent quality. --NorbertNagel 22:11, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Sarcocaulon crassicaule.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. --NorbertNagel 21:46, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Monwabisi Beach Resort, False Bay.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. --NorbertNagel 09:21, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

changes to assessments template: enwiki-nom

If you're going to change the assessments template on so many files, and specifically the enwiki part, why not use the simpler parameter "ennom=" instead of "enwiki-nom="? I often add the assessments template to files for English Wikipedia featured pictures, and always use the ennom shortened syntax. Julia\^talk 22:37, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I merely removed the resplendent references to "Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/" which is handled in the template end. Not all templates had this. In fact vast majority did not directly link to the enwiki FPC page.

"ennom" parameter was the secondary parameter for the value with primary parameter being "subpage" both were superseded by "enwiki-nom=". ennom is confusing because it doesn't explicitly specify the source. subpage links were like-wise confusing. This change happened last week or prior. Changes were part of the massive {{Assessments}} overhaul that repaired many of the broken aspects of it.

-- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 23:21, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. I hadn't realised that enwiki-nom superseded ennom. Thought all this time that ennom was preferred. Oops. Julia\^talk 09:29, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are not at fault. The template was quite messy and documentation was far from being accurate. It should all be better now. :) -- とある白い猫 ^ちぃ？ 09:30, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Rhuddlan Castle, May 2012.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 photo. --Florstein 18:08, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]