Saw your blank user page, and felt like putting something on it. I proposed at COM:AN/UP that you could mediate the conflict between mila and Hans. You may not be interested to go into that bag of worms, but just to let you know... --Slaunger (talk) 23:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it was a bit spartan, I was thinking I would have to submitt a few more images to QI/FP/VI so that I could get back some colourful decorations to this page :-). Thanks for the invitation/nomination, I don't know that I am be best qualified to mediate but will help however I can --Tony Wills (talk) 03:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello there Tony. Thanks for commenting on my image for "Abdominoplasty" that I nominated as a Valued Image. I did update the image description/information to include a link to the updated Terms of Use on the source website. Since I'm very new here, I'm not sure if that will suffice for releasing the images under the proper license. Could you let me know if I have properly released the images for public use? Thanks so much for your time/help, it is greatly appreciated. Paravis (talk) 19:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that, I didn't see that page[1], the only question I have is what "All electronic video, imagery, and text contributed to Wikimedia Commons and/or Wikipedia" means, specifically 'contributed' by who? Who is authorised to contribute - ie can anyone take images from the site and 'contribute' them? How do we know who is authorised or which images are officially 'contributed' ? --Tony Wills (talk) 21:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We got our OTRS ticket number, so we're good to go :). I'm the authorized contributor. Michael Schwartz, MD has officially cleared it up. Paravis (talk) 23:48, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On a totally unrelated note, I just saw how you archive your talk page. I like! Hope you don't mind, but I'm going to follow your example :). Paravis (talk) 16:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty standard stuff, just move (rather than copy) your page to an archive page, add archived-page notice, cut and paste anything back to the talk page that is still current, add/update the archive link box. Mine is a little non standard with a hidden unrelated shortcut link :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 23:14, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tony. Because you know everything :), I'd like to ask you one more question please. Here the image I took in Yellowstone NP. It is one of the hot springs. The whole spring was in those blue whatever they were organisms. Do you know what they are? Thank you for your time.--Mbz1 (talk) 22:44, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Huh! You think flattery will help you? ;-). I am reasonably ignorant, but I can guess :-) That photo isn't wonderful, my first guess is some sort of algae, perhaps clumped together. Are they animated (eg swim) or do they just float about? How big? How hot is the water? Are they actually blue (I what colour out of water). --Tony Wills (talk) 23:08, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean " That photo isn't wonderful"? Aren't all of my images wonderful? I did not observe them moving. Of course I have been watching only for 1-2 minutes. I believe they really were blue. I have no idea what was the tempeture of the water. They were around 3-5 cm. long. I've never seen algae like that before. I thought they could be some kind of lavra. Thank you--Mbz1 (talk) 23:20, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another alias? You are spread around a lot :-) I didn't say it wasn't interesting ;-). If the water is very hot I wouldn't expect insect larva to survive (but of course they may have dropped in and be dead :-). I have sent you an 'enhanced' image by email, didn't upload as "all rights reserved" so a copyright infringing derivative :-(. What I see is little caterpillas on the bottom. I think the blue ones may be dead caterpillas envelloped in some sort of growth promoted by the warm water. Looks like dead bugs that I find floating in buckets of water after a long time. Are there tree branches hanging over the water somewhere? --Tony Wills (talk) 23:52, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There were no any trees nearby, but many other hot springs. The blue things were only in that one. I would have uploaded the image with a free license and a higher resolution, as I always do. The problem is that I do not know what those blue things are, which means that later, when I find out what those are, I might request the image to be renamed or replaced. I know I am already giving our admins lot's of work with deleting and restoring my user pages , with blocking and sometimes even unblocking me . That's why I try as much as possible to avoid giving them even more extra work with renaming of my images, but please tell me, if you'd like me to upload a higher resolution and I will. Thanks for email.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I usually upload things with a descriptive title, that doesn't include things like "unknown" and doesn't include taxa names. That way it doesn't have to be renamed when I have worked out what it really is :-). Eg "Blue organisms in hotspring.jpg" :-) :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 00:48, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh, much better :-). I have highlighted the 'caterpillas' , they certainly look like common or garden caterpillas with black heads. Most of them seem to be associated with one of the blue/white translucent blobs, often they seem to be lying underneath or coming out the end of the translucent stuff. Maybe it is a protein or slime (or other bodily fluid ;-) given off by these beasts, maybe to protect themselves? Are these all lying on the bottom, or floating? --Tony Wills (talk) 02:31, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Glad you liked it :) Tony, when I took the image I saw only blue things. They were not moving, at least I do not recall them moving, so let's say they were lying on the bottom. The other things that you found (caterpillas) I did not see at all neither, when I took the images, nor, when I was looking at the images. Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 06:31, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If they are caterpilla or similar larva, those might be cocoon cases of some sort, but I don't know why they are underwater. There is another beast that I circled and marked with a "?", looks like some small round insect or maybe spider (seems to have legs). I often find photos show me much more than I noticed in the field :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 08:29, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It will be interesting to find out, if the beasts got there by accident or in purpose. There were no trees nearby, not even bushes. The beasts were present only in that one pool. Why? Because the temperature of the water was right? Because the deepness was good? Anyway, thank you for your help, Tony. --Mbz1 (talk) 14:32, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I sent the image to Yellowstone NP. They responded: "I have sent your email to several people in the research department, they have been unable to answer the question. Sorry that we could not be of more help." It is getting really strange :)--Mbz1 (talk) 16:02, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Tony, thanks for taking the time to react on my butterfly to get a better description!
Because of work I wasn´t able to react quickly so tonight I started my quest on the internet(wikipedia! :-)) I found the butterfly definitely to be a:
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Arthropoda
Class: Insecta
Order: Lepidoptera
Family: Nymphalidae
Subfamily: Danainae
Genus: Euploea
Species: E. core
So you were right with your guess! But judging by the title above "because you know everything" that´s no surprise for you!! ;-)--Hrald (talk) 00:47, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I´m just a photographer not a scientist, I mostly shoot landscapes or buildings and occasionaly some bigger domestic animals so decribing/naming those is never an issue!! ;-)
I took this picture in a dutch Zoo called "noorder dierenpark", without a macro lens and flash(less brown, more black on the butterfly?)
It depends on what exactly is meant by "republish" in the GFDL 1.3. However it is most probable that theWMF acceptance of the migration automatically over rides anything on individual image pages. The so called opt out depends on how and when exactly it was done.15:02, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your work on this book, including making the gallery. If/when you upload all the images, please remove the incomplete tag on the category. Richard001 (talk) 00:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've just noticed you wrote to me about the image of fire extinguisher. I was just moving this image from en: wiki, the autor of this is Dante Alighieri, who has his own special page regarding images. However I see you left him a note too in his discussion, so I think you can talk with him directly. Kocio (talk) 09:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Tony, I'm not really sure what you are getting at....are you trying to say that these aren't my images? I have no idea what OTRS is and quite frankly have better things to do with my time....like taking images of birds. Sounds like you spend a bit too much time on your PC. Aviceda (talk) 09:39, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tony. Just to say I think what you were saying was important & kinda got hijacked. I think it maybe should be pursued? I certainly have never been asked to delete a file completely out of process (hence my surprise at that idea). I certainly have deleted newbies contribs when it is fairly obvious that they uploaded & then read about Commons :) & I agree with Rocket000's comments that it is not all policy. I'd certainly be concerned if I thought admins were dealing with things "under cover" as it were. Let me know if you feel I can help - cheers --Herbytalk thyme11:00, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I added it with a separate sub-heading as it wasn't quite to the point of the thread, but it got over-whelmed by the main thread anyway :-). I notice such deletions occasionally when checking on the integrity of QI and FP promotions, where I see in passing that revisions and edits have been deleted by their uploaders when they think there is no further use for the images (an effort to tidy up) (see current Commons:Undeletion requests). Those examples are quite innocent really but still out of process and annoying to people like me who want to poke about in the history of things :-). The problem is that these sort of deletions leave little trace, and it is almost impossible for non-admins to see what went on. As to whether anything untoward goes on, how would we know? It is only by chance (maybe its on our watchlist, or as in LarHerby's case after a bit of digging because of something slightly odd) that we notice this kind of behaviour - likely to go unnoticed when the deletions are of the admin's files, or by request of the uploader. We can make a policy of never allowing admins to delete their own files (which could be monitored by a bot I suppose), it wouldn't catch those 'friendly' deletions by request :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 11:35, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(PS: I suppose that if the DR process was more efficient people wouldn't try to bypass it, but then in the case-in-point the admin was deleting things even after a valid DR keep process)
(PPS: I am trying to remember where I've seen other suspicious deletions lately :-)
Huh - I was honestly under the impression you were an admin - why aren't you :)?
A couple of people have said they'd nominate me, but my excuse is that I waste far too much time here, and that if I was an admin I would feel compelled to attack some of the backlogs, so I would never have time for anything else. Perhaps I just need to be more directed and use my time more efficiently ;-). The only time I currently need admin access is to see deleted files.
If ever you feel like it I would certainly support you but you are right - I get paranoid - do I upload material or deal with crap!
You are right on the broader point though - transparency is not great I guess.
How would other admins react to a bot double checking their deletions, too controversial?
To me - no issue at all. I'd like to think anything I have done I can justify & anything I can't I say sorry for. Not sure about others (or indeed the technical issues).
In fairness it was me digging on the basis of the RfA comment that made me find the deletions. However most Commons admins (working ones) would have such long deletion logs that wading through them would take more time than I have. I recall deleting two of my files I think - one was an "unknown flower" which was then identified & the other was a simple screw up in picking the wrong file for the description I gave it (noticed when I hit the upload button & causing minor swearing!). We are all human and we all make mistakes - however I do find admitting it better than any other approach.
Sorry :-(, I attributed that digging to Lar instead of Herby :-).
I've got a better camera (secondthird hand), but still need to earn enough to afford to get a decent lens, I'm currently using an old one from a film camera and a longer one that is full of mold (but only cost $10 :-). One day I'll learn enough about photography to actually produce impressive pictures ;-) --Tony Wills (talk) 12:27, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hell - I wish I took some of the ones you did & my equipment is newish (the latest one & cost more) - I have a lot to learn. Still it would be boring otherwise :) Regards --Herbytalk thyme12:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have uploaded all photos of these fishes in Category:Salaria pavo and have made a quality nomination. I fished with a small net. It not the fishing with hooks. For a bait i use meat of a crab. I photographed fish specially for Commons and released. Only recently I sorted photos for all days. This old male came across to me four times. He can be identified on a unique pattern on a skin. He very much loves meat of a crab. :P He has earned the meal as the photomodel. However in due course it became cautious and did not come any more into a net, only came more close and looked at me. It is pleasant to me to think that it is now live and, probably, is the leader of flight.
Discussion regarding the Categories "Fossil xxx" is occurring on Wp:ToL (here). As a member of the project you input is requested in to gain a larger view of the communities opinion on how to handle the points raised. Thanks --Kevmin (talk) 18:28, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tony. I nominated this File:Sailboat in San Francisco Bay.jpg image for QI on August 23. Few days ago the nomination was archived without any review. On the other hand I see in current QI candidates some images that were nominated on August 22, have no review, bur are still not archived. Could you please tell me, if my nomination was archived in error? Thank you.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The bot looks for the latest date in the nomination. And for an image nominated on Aug22nd this may be a comment, even if the frame is blue. --Dschwen (talk) 00:41, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tony, I would like to award you with this barnstar for your kindness, understanding and forgiveness. The messages you've left on both of my talk pages really helped me to feel better, and start taking pictures again!User:Two+two=4 and --Mbz1 (talk) 04:10, 13 September 2009 (UTC) :)[reply]
Hi Tony, remember my blue things from Yellowstone hot springs that nobody knows exactly what they were, and now my new "discovery" :)... Have you ever heard about anemone hermit crabs? They put anemones on their shells for a camouflage.I got into ocean at Madagascar, Seychelles, Papua New Guinea, Vanuatu, Palau, Indonesia, Australia, Kenya and I always looked for a crab with anemone, but I have never seen one until I walked over tide pools in Hawaii. I was so happy at last to find one.I took few shots with my point-and-shot 2 megapixels Sony and posted them to Wikipedia. Yesterday I got an email about my "anemone hermit crab". Please take a look at the image description [2]
I guess emails like this one makes me going on at Commons, yes, emails like this one and people as you, Tony :)--Mbz1 (talk) 20:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Should I assume that you are responding to my comment? I notice that none of us have attempted mollify the templated and harrassed user, or advised them of their appearance on the notice board. cygnis insignis12:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
:-), yes. I am sorry if it sounded too much as just a criticism of your comment, it was initiated by your comment but aimed at a far wider audience. There are no doubt people doing as you describe, but a lot of other admins would see it as a general attack on their integrity too (as they have been the recipient of that sort of criticism when carrying out quite proper and justified actions). You are also right, I didn't check in on the user, I sort of assumed they were just ignoring the bountiful bot messages :-). I didn't think they actually needed to be drawn into the discussion as they really don't have to defend their actions. --Tony Wills (talk) 20:00, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A few weeks ago you removed the "oppose reason" rule I crafted and put up for a vote here. After I reverted your change you reverted back, and with the argument of "revisiting" the proposal you started this thread.
Sadly, the proposal has not been revisited at all. The aforementioned thread quickly became a discussion about FP miscellani, and then died in a matter of days.
I suggest you make some kind of effort to either rekindle the discussion (and turn it into one concerned about revisiting my proposal, as originally stated) or to "wrap up" the results in some fashion, along with a justification for whether or not the "oppose reason" rule should be reinstated. Since I put considerable thought into writing this rule and to present it for a vote to the community (which came out positive by the standards used on FPC), I believe that is the least you can do in order to give some kind of legitimacy to your unilateral removal of that rule.
Your latest comment on the FPC talk page wasn't at all what I tried to elicit from you with my request. You had already made it abundantly clear that you dislike the rule I introduced. What you basically did was repeat that statement, not provide any justification for reverting a rule that was voted upon. Of course, I have to concede that we do not have an agreed procedure for changing rules (we should, though!!! - we have rules, after all). The way I see it, there are two possible options:
Either we somehow agree that the way rules are changed should reflect the way candidates are promoted (it makes quite a bit of sense, IMO). In that case the rule has passed and has to be reinstated immediately, regardless of what you think about it.
Or we agree that there is no agreement on how to change rules. Then rules may obviously be changed by anyone, to anything he or she chooses, provided it is done in good faith - for if there is no standing procedure for changing rules, how could you say it is wrong to do so? In that case, I shall be changing the rules completely in the near future, altering them beyond recognition to whatever I believe they should be. For as much as I dislike proving a point by disrupting the system, it is high time people realize what a wishy-washy, steaming pile of bull a system is where there is no agreed fashion for introducing new rules. My best guess for that "agreed fashion" was community consensus, which I tried to get by putting it up for a vote. But you didn't like the rule and reverted it without asking anyone about it, including me and all of the people who voted in favor of it. So if a rule cannot be introduced by voting, and if it can be reverted by anyone at will if he or she doesn't like it since we haven't agreed on how to change the rules, then I can only conclude that I can make whatever rules I want as long as I believe they benefit the system (="good faith"). -- JovanCormac21:17, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes, in fact it was just a coincindence. I simply made a quick trip arounf FPs in order to find two or three which would suit my needs to illustrate the topic, and the bulb was a more than obvious choice. Airwolf (talk) 08:45, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For clarity - I felt the thread you started was very important. My comment was merely that I agreed with Alvagaspar (sp?) however some more definition is required. I see it has moved on considerably since I was last on so I will try and catch up as soon as I can but I have some images to run through.
As importantly I appreciate your comments on my FP nom. Given the usual standard of unhelpful/derogatory comments it was good to have some useful thoughts. On that sort of subject, if you have any time comments on this would be very welcome just in case I'm thinking of nominating it for anything ...:)
I'm not sure about tilt - I think it isn't but based on my usual performance around a degree out would make sense :).
It was morning light. I agree with all the comments I think. The course I'm doing seeks critiques of images and some of us have a blog which I'd asked for comments on this image too - one person has posted a tweaked image which looks more like yours than anything else!
I'll do some fixing (& see if I can find a higher res version :)) before I throw it to the wolves.
Lest readers assume the wrong thing, I will just add a link for context FPCBot request ;-). Yes that would fool the bot (I don't know whether it checks for double voting at all). The type of votes I was worried about are ones that don't show up on the page, so are unlikely to be noticed by us humans, but would have been counted by the bot. Things like double voting, IP votes, and puppet votes are still things us humans must watch for. --Tony Wills (talk) 20:23, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure, if you are aware that some time ago I attemted to write a bot to count FP votes. I have never finished it up, but it did exlude double votes and IP votes as well. Of course puppet votes could be, and are missed not only by bot, but by humans too.--Mbz1 (talk) 20:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I have to admit on wiki that a while back I could fill rather a large book with what I didn't know about photography :) It would be a few pages shorter now with more appreciation of what I don't know at least.
I was looking to get some of mine printed a little more than 10 x 6! It led me to look around a bit. Interesting that I used a point & shoot set at 3mp images which is "72 dpi". Now I have a 14mp camera (and shoot at that) which is ...."72 dpi" - my curiosity was aroused.
Notwithstanding all that junk there is a sense in which any numbers matter buggerall (technical photographic term - you may have come across) - the image is the issue. Trouble is I'm not sure if I am any clearer about what I see FP as (& I am certain that others are not clear either). Sadly I don't have time at present to get too involved but I am watching such stuff when I can - the course is taking up quite a bit of time (but I am learning a little!).
Mr Google suggests it is a "Pumpkin spider" "Araneus trifolium", apparently often fat and plump and conspicuous around about Hallowen, also available in green (shamrock spider) if that fits your decor better :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 00:51, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, looking at your arrangement again, I think the first two images should be swapped. I think the second bird is on it's upstroke, because its feathers would be spread on the downstroke. See if it looks any good that way around :). 99of9 (talk) 22:32, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you could be right about the second bird, but then I am not sure that the first bird is really showing a normal flight position, looks a bit as though it is breaking to land (that fanned out tail), I could image it was in a startled take-off position, I don't think it would look right as the second frame. Maybe the whole idea of the arrangement was a mistake :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 22:52, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the type of noise showing up in the sky is due to the stitching software you use, probably whatever component that blends colours is doing it. What software do you use? I did a quick blur of the sky and clouds which cleans it up quite well, but there was discolouration on the clouds and there is still a darker blotchy area top left in the sky. So I haven't uploaded it. Hold your breath and it might get through anyway :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 12:02, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did not create empty categories (what was the use to do it?), I created categories that were emptied without or moved without creating a redirect, aas it should have been done. Could you point me to such "empty categories£, please? --User:G.dallorto (talk) 21:20, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tony,
My name is Owen Carroll, and I work for Parks Australia. We are currently putting together a new birdwatching brochure for the Norfolk Island National Park, and I would like to talk to you about the possible use of one your photographs, the song thrush (Turdus philomelos) that is up on wikicommons). I understand it is under a creative commons license, but I am pretty sure I will still need a note of approval or similar (for Dept. records), and also thought it polite to personally clear it with you! If you could possibly email me about this that would be fantastic.
Thanks in advance,
ParksAustralia (talk) 22:25, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tony, Please forgive me my outburst of response. I really misunderstood you. You could click on "translate" at the link of French text I provided, and see, if their translation is not odd to your English :) I cannot do it myself. I do not know English good enough to see, if it is odd :) If this does not work, maybe Yann is the right person to correct translation. Best wishes.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:24, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing to forgive, my message was not very precise, I was commenting on two different things at once :-). I think Yann has already done some work on the translation. I suppose that as it is a relatively famous letter there must be proffessional translations of it that were done near the time of it's printing, and are now out of copyright too. I should go and have a look :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 09:08, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Might I add to this Tony, good wishes from me and thanks for your interest and support in the past year. I hope 2010 brings you some great photo opportunities :) Regards --Herbytalk thyme10:00, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tony, hope you can help me - I found a mergeto request on Category:Ascomycetes to Category:Ascomycota, I don't know anything about this, but the reasoning given ("on en: wiki the former was deleted in favour of the latter") seems informed. Can you confirm whether this is OK or not? I can move the cat. Thanks for your help & seasonal greetings too of course :) -- Deadstar (msg) 08:50, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did not observe them moving. Of course I have been watching only for 1-2 minutes. I believe they really were blue. I have no idea what was the tempeture of the water. They were around 3-5 cm. long. I've never seen algae like that before. I thought they could be some kind of lavra. Thank you--Mbz1 (talk) 23:20, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Done. A pleasure, a good photo! I like the photograph and return policy :-) --Tony Wills (talk) 22:27, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
![[2]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Calcinus_laevimanus_hermit_crab_with_Calliactis_sea_anemone._2_frames_in_one.jpg){kind=link}
