User talk:W.carter/Archive 2
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Barbour Mill detail.
Many thanks. I made an error with the crop (somehow halving the file size) and had to revert it.Getting it fixed now. Caffarella Looks like dusk shots need more than auto.Warm regards Robert Notafly (talk) 15:07, 11 August 2016 (UTC) (in cold and wet today Ireland).
- Hi Robert, it can sometimes be tricky to upload new versions when there is much traffic on the site and you have to wait, sometimes for hours, before the new version appears. Summer is gone here too. It's colder and rainy in the mornings but it usually clears up in the evening and I take many walks in the old quarry where I always find something to photograph. The air there is fantastically clear and the light unbelievable. There are no big cities or industries nearby to pollute the air and the fjord by the quarry reflects the light in the most amazing ways. I'm just uploading my lastest catch.
Until later, w.carter-Talk 15:16, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! A crate of bent rebar.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Angled rebar.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Customized circular rebar.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Five rebar nets.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.
|
--QICbot (talk) 05:11, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Quartier Olympiades
Thank you very much for your guidance, which is highly appreciated. I'll do my best to comply. I'm afraid you'll see more of my pics. --Albert Bergonzo (talk) 19:01, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
- You are very welcome, just ask if there is something you wonder about. I would like very much to see more of your pictures! You have a good eye for composition, there are just a few little tweaks and some bureaucracy you need to learn. Oh, and on these pages, new messages goes at the bottom of the page. Just so you know in the future. I almost did not find your message first. And if you write something on your user page (you can click on this link) and save and thereby creating it, your signature will change from "newbie-red" to "user-blue". Anything, maybe just "Hi!" is sufficient. Looking forward to your next picture! --w.carter-Talk 19:15, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Put a note on this re fractures. "Textbook" photo. Did geology once R aka Notafly (talk) 14:30, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Notafly: Thanks a lot! :) That was interesting to learn. Btw, you never sign things in the description of a file page. Your contribution to the file is recorded in the "History" of the file if you click on that tab, nowhere else. Best, w.carter-Talk 14:37, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your FP hint
...for the Lech-Fragile-Construction-Site picture. I'll give it a try and will nominate it.
I nominated the Bench-in-the-Alps image because it was my first FP nomination and wanted to know how that works. Who knows perhaps there one to two more of my images that could get promoted.
Best regards,
--Basotxerri (talk) 14:46, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
- You are very welcome. :) The procedure is not so different from QI, but you have to have a thick skin and not mind getting rejected. The comments can sometimes be rather hard and straightforward, no mercy there... But new contributers are always welcome since the encyclopedia need all kind of very good pictures. Good luck! w.carter-Talk 14:51, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Rebar on a pallet.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Mould for casting concrete pontoons.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Outdoor fuel tank.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Yellow plasic pipes.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.
|
--QICbot (talk) 05:13, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! A bunch of rebar up close.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! A bunch of rebar.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Red granite cliff at sunset.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Sunset and moon at old Rixö quarry.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Sunset at old Rixö quarry 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.
|
--QICbot (talk) 05:25, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Lysekil från Åkerbräckan.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Grötö i Lysekil.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Sunset at old Rixö quarry.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Vertical granite cliff at sunset.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.
|
--QICbot (talk) 05:08, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Red five-leaved ivy on granite.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Åkerbräckans kyrkogård och södra hamnen i Lysekil.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.
|
--QICbot (talk) 05:19, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
FP Promotion
,_Parkbank_--_2016_--_1398.jpg) |
★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★
The image File:Bredevoort (NL), Parkbank -- 2016 -- 1398.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Bredevoort (NL), Parkbank -- 2016 -- 1398.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so. |
|
/FPCBot (talk) 21:01, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
FP Promotion
 |
★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★
The image File:North Harbour Lysekil warm and sunny.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:North Harbour Lysekil warm and sunny.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so. |
|
/FPCBot (talk) 05:01, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Red and green five-leaved ivy on granite.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Five-leaved ivy on granite.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.
|
--QICbot (talk) 05:10, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Quai Malaquais
Thanks for your constructive comment. I fully understand that the difficult lighting conditions, even though an integral part of the image, may disqualify this picture. On top of that, I used an old cheap film-era lens, and this impacts sharpness. Lesson learned. As a side note, am I the only one who finds editing comments below nominated pictures a masochistic exercise? Either I end up with only my reply showing, or my comments outside the box, or strange error messages about third parameter warnings (!). Is there a course for dumb clueless newbies on how to do it? I looked for a help page on that subject, without success. --Albert Bergonzo (talk) 19:06, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
- Hello again Albert Bergonzo! Thank you for taking my comment the right way. I guess you will learn to take better pics the same way most of us have done: Through our mistakes. Generally you actually learn more from the 'Declined' than the 'Promote', heaven knows I had my fair share of those before my pics got good... About the editing, you got my full sympathy and commiserations! :-/ The system is called Wiki-code and it sort of resembles the html used in websites. It was developed for the Wikipedia part of this project that Commons is a part of, and that site is better at teaching it to users since it is about text and not pics. In a way you have actually come to the right place by coming to my talk page. On the English Wikipedia, I am one of the editors who help newcomers (or "newbies") with whatever they have trouble with and much of it is how the code works. So you are always welcome here with your questions.
- There is a basic "Code For Dummies" on the eng-wiki called en:Help:Cheatsheet. A full explanation of the code is at en:Help:Wiki markup, but that will surely give you a headache.
Here is the very short explanation about the code used at QI nominations: - Much of the things here are done via something called "Templates". That is basically a sort of link to a much bigger piece of code or program that is accessed by putting a code word inside double curly brackets:
{{code word}}. At QI the code words are/Nomination,/Decline,/Promoteand/Withdrawn. They are the links to programs that make the blue, green, red or grey boxes around the text and pics, and format the text. These specific code words also allows for text to be written within the double brackets, that is the text we write. To separate the text from the code word, straight "bars"|are used. The specific code at QI allows for two "bars" to be used inside the double brackets: One space for the nomination and one for the review. If you add a third, the system goes bananas and start shouting red error text at you. The code is very precise, so if you get even one part wrong, it will not work. - So you have
File:The name of your file/picture.jpg|{{/Nomination|First space for text...|... and the second space for text}}. Anything beside this and you get errors. As you can see in the editing window, the code is such that I had to write some "ignore-this-code"-code around each example here or we would have got some freaky version of the QI-page on this page.
- Not sure if I made this clearer for you or even more confusing, but be comforted by the fact that it is very confusing at first especially if you have not done any editing on any of the Wikipedia before coming here, but it will get easier with time. Otherwise just drop a question here. ← BTW, see how putting the code word "smiley" inside double brackets gave the command to make a smiley rather than just the word, that is one example of "Templates". Best, w.carter-Talk 19:59, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks a lot W.carter for these explanations, very clear and useful! --Albert Bergonzo (talk) 11:12, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Rohana RF2 Rotary formed split 5-spoke.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.
|
--QICbot (talk) 05:12, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
File:KitesurfingKremast2014 (5).JPG
I am not sure the pole was vertical (look at the hole it is inserted into and remember this is Greece) Also if the photo is cropped the flag will go. I may withdraw the nomination since the sea horizon is not horizontal. Very many thanks for your continuing patience and best regards Robert aka Notafly (talk)
- You do as you wish, totally up to you. :) And don't worry about any patience, I like discussing photos with you and see how you get better at "seeing" things in photos all the time. Btw, I really love your image of the pastel colours, but since I added the cats, I can't review it. Too involved. All the best, w.carter-Talk 12:35, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Hydrophore and pump at sunset.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.
|
--QICbot (talk) 05:12, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Subjectivity
No problem at all with any comment or critique. Here are two very poor (terrible) photos which have a lot of appeal at least to me.
.jpg)
.jpg)
Some of my better photos I don't like at all. Yes please do archive my talk page. Very best regards Robert aka Notafly (talk) 15:10, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Notafly: I can say the same thing about some of my "excellent" photos vs those that mean a lot to me. :) I love both your photos here! They have a very high artistic value, a trait you should use more often when you take pics. Wonderful! The house-pic has some CAs, but the second one has excellent quality, I think you should try nominating that one at QI. If I see it there, I will certainly promote it. It's what is usually called 'a mystery pic' here, something you don't get at first glance but that becomes intriguing as soon as you get it.
- Ok, I'll set up an archiving bot for you. It is basically just a code you put at the top of your talk page. You can choose some of how it moves things to your archive, such as how old posts have to be to get archived and how many posts you want left at your page at a minimum. Mine is set to archive any posts older than 8 days and leave at least 3 threads/posts left. You can choose just the way you like it, just let me know. It usually takes a day or so before the system kicks in after the code is in place, and I'll monitor it to see that it functions ok at the start. w.carter-Talk 15:28, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
I am very pleased that you like those two.The first was pure chance, the space was so low that only the camera could see inside.In the 1960s there were not millions of photos but some linger in the mind still.And for a variety of reasons.Sometimes ordinary sights such as children at an ice cream van or people going to work were overlooked as too commonplace.Now they are social records. Instead we took photos of old buildings which are still there.Photography records time as well as place. Archiving-as yours please (8 days and leave at least 3 threads/posts left) Again very best regards and thanks Robert aka Notafly (talk) 17:02, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
- archive That is kind of you R Notafly (talk) 13:19, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
- No problem! :) Also I have recently discovered how very much easier it is to nominate pics for QI if I use the automatic thing for that. Thought I'd mention it to you. You click on the "Preferences" at the top of your page and then on "Gadgets". Almost at the end of that page is "Tools for subprojects" where you check the box for "QInominator" and hit "Save" at the bottom. Next time you go to a file page you will find a very convenient line that says: "Nominate this image for QI" (If it already is a QI it will say: "This already is a QI!"). If you click on the text a small window will pop up and you fill in everything about the image and save. It goes into a temporary memory that will hold 5 nominations. When you are ready you go to the QIC page as usual, but instead of having to fill in everything and get it wrong, you just click on the green bar in the editing window and all your noms will be transferred neatly into the list! After one try the temporary memory is emptied, so if you run into a edit conflict you have to "reload" your selection. Try it out, you can always uncheck that box at Preferences if you don't like it. Best, w.carter-Talk 13:33, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
FP Promotion
|
★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★
The image File:Vertical granite cliff at sunset.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Vertical granite cliff at sunset.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so. |
|
/FPCBot (talk) 21:04, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Smögen church 4.jpg, which was produced by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates. We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
|
.JPG){kind=link}
,_Parkbank_--_2016_--_1398.jpg){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
--QICbot (talk) 05:14, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Bridge and deck of Gullbritt.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Bridge of Gullbritt reverse view.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Deck and tower on Gullbritt.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Bridge of Gullbritt.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Tower on Gullbritt.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.
|
--QICbot (talk) 05:18, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Young juniper needles.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Rowan berries and leaves in August.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Top of pole with overhead lines.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.
|
--QICbot (talk) 05:31, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Juniper needle FPC !vote
I meant for you to see my comment here; I removed it from the nom because you withdrew it, but I do think you're on the right track. Daniel Case (talk) 15:07, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks Daniel, you are really a mind reader. And thoughtful. :) Not until I saw the photos when I got home, did realize how beautiful and interesting these small shoots were. I have been thinking about going back there ever since and re-shoot, and this time bring a tripod, but we've had nothing but gale, rain and thunder since then so no luck. That is really why I withdrew so easily, I wanted to at least try to get something decent instead. Even if these plants are very common there are no FPs of them and only one for that entire family, so I take comfort in thinking that I'm not the only one having trouble with them. Let's hope for better weather before fall sets in and ruin the site, in the meantime I have plenty of my trademark mid-sized, low-importance, hardware to bug you with. I really am new at plants and would never have tried it but for the tips I have collected here. Excellent place for learning, this is! w.carter-Talk 15:29, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
The other photo I was planning to nominate
Hi. I just want to let you know that it was this one. But since it's similar to the one you recently nominated that didn't get featured, I've concluded that, unfortunately, it's pointless for me to nominate this one, regardless of what I think of it. I wanted you to know that I like it, though. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:46, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
- That was really nice of you! :) But I totally agree with you that that photo would probably be a waste of time. That's the problem with living in a small boring town, no-one is wowed by it. ;) My personal favorite from that serie is this one and I am actually just trying to get it into a bit better shape and see if I can maybe nominate it sometime later. I find it more artistic and less "info about the town" that the rejected one was all about. In the meantime I think I'll just stick to what I told Daniel in the previous thread. I'm sure you'll find other worthier pics to nominate. I'm planning to make the next a double nom so I'll have to wait out my remaining current, when I saw that I just had to nominate it and ditched all plans for any of my own photos. :) w.carter-Talk 19:08, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
- I think you'd be likely to get some of the same objections to this photo that you got to the other one, as it still has several different elements. The crops also look pretty close to a couple of things sticking up on the left side. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:13, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek: The crop was actually the first thing I did something about!
I am aware of the possible reactions and didn't say it was my first choice as a nom, but maybe later some day. Let's see what you think of it when I'm done. w.carter-Talk 19:17, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Ikan Kekek: The crop was actually the first thing I did something about!
- @Ikan Kekek: Just to let you know, the pic is now fixed. I think that it has much more harmonious lines now, the clouds, sky, sea, road and even the cemetery run in sweeping lines across the image. Some day perhaps. :) w.carter-Talk 20:35, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Young juniper needles art version
Dare say this photo was not as you wished (what your reviewer calls discordant elements) I really loved the old manual macro lenses with a wide aperture which really confused the background. Perfect for isolating plant details and for portraiture (bokeh). Being manual they are quite cheap and some of the East German and Russian lenses (135 mm. telephoto needing extension tubes for close up) are very cheap. They are usually Zeiss copies and often excellent (my East German Zeiss binoculars are just superb.Nothing betters them utterly regardless of price but all that glass and steel means weight and they are very heavy indeed). For plant "art" old manual macros are more than worth a try.
Thankyou for the gravestone correction. Nominated the grave memorial/Venetian blind photo. Best regards Robert aka Notafly (talk) 20:15, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
PS Lysekil från Åkerbräckan. Boring to you perhaps but those clouds are wonderful.In England there is a cloud society.They have a lot of societies many in boring towns.
- Hi Robert! Regarding the PS, I was more talking about the town when I said boring, the love for clouds I think I inherited from my mother who spent an entire car vacation we did in Austria exclaiming. "They have such beautiful clouds here!" :) But those clouds are also present on the photo I just fixed, they are the best part of the picture, well together with all the sailing boats at the inlet.
- No, the juniper photo did not turn out exactly as I "saw" it when I saw the buds, perhaps I'll get another chance. Actually, when photography was still done with "real" cameras and film, I was a much better photographer. All these new half-automatic cameras with all their special settings gives me a headache. I'm more used to controlling every setting myself, I haven't really caught up with everything since photography went digital, mostly because the last ten years I worked too much to have any spare time for photography and now that I have the time after slowing down a bit, I can't afford so much new equipment. But I have a great time with what I have! Just don't expect any miracles from me.
- The blind-photo is now reviewed. I find it fascinating! Sorry if I don't go public with my name the same way you do, but you may call me CJ like my friends do if you like. I got that nickname since I have a knack for accidentally finding myself in trouble, so the picture on my user page is carefully chosen. Best, CJ aka w.carter-Talk 20:53, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Why I have decided not to nominate pictures for Quality Images anymore
Dear W.carter
first of all I would like to thank you sincerely for the support you have shown in my clumsy, and not so successful attempts, to promote some of my photographic contributions as Quality Images. I will not take much of your time in the future on this subject because I feel that in the very short time that I tried to nominate a few pictures, I have met a series of obstacles the combination of which do not make the effort worthwhile. The last straw for me was the decision by a reviewer to nominate my pictures of the city of Kiev for deletion because of a breach of FOP legislation in Ukraine. I think this decision, though possibly formally valid, is, in effect biased, and I will try to explain why, but please bear with me first as I would like to point out a list of problems which, when added up, give the new contributor that I am the feeling that I fell into a bureaucratic quagmire. The first barrier of entry is of course the text editor. We discussed this and I understand the reasons why it has grown into such a complex system, but it definitely puts new contributors at a disadvantage when discussing nominations, because more time is spent on trying to publish an answer than on the content of the answer.
The second problem lies, if I may, with the technical requirements. I fully understand that if you wish to nominate pictures for quality you need quality guidelines. I have spent a lot of time trying to comply, and again I would like to thank you for your kind guidance. However, when i see that a picture taken with a 20mm lens (on a full-frame camera) is rejected because it is soft on the corners where there is nothing of particular interest and where the shot could not have been taken with anything but a wide angle, I think interpretation of the guidelines are pushed a little far. Granted, it was not the only criteria quoted for rejection. Of course you can ask for a discussion, but then the text editor winks at you again and you are back to square one. More generally, I find striking that nothing is ever said about what the image actually shows, whether it has any meaning. This is of course subjective, but when the guidelines end up allowing as Quality Images pictures of ordinary cars in the street, I am not sure that this was the original intention when the system was created. And if it was, well perhaps I was not in the right place after all. I can say for instance that none of the pictures I nominated represented views that were published before, to the best of my knowledge. In fact, for at least one picture that I wanted to nominate, I found a better sample elected a few years ago and I therefore abstained in order to avoid duplication.
Another issue I encountered is that a picture that I nominated and for which a reviewer asked for modifications came up again nominated by another user. Of course the original reviewer was not very happy and thought I had tried to force my way in by nominating the same picture twice. I tried to explain what happened but may not have been too clear (this is the perfect example when I spent more time trying to woo the editor with very limited success than to express anything that would make sense). Result: three nominations (two by me, taking into account that I did not know then that you can modify a pubilshed file without publishing it as a new file, one by another user), no decision, everything was taken out of the nomination page at some point, leaving me with the sense that I had done something wrong, but not sure what. Of course, I left a message on the talk page of the user who nominated my picture, explaining that he had left me having to justify myself for actions he had taken, and received no reply.
But I have to say (I am entering subjective territory here) that what really beat everything else is the message I received yesterday that four of my Kiev, Ukraine pictures that I nominated had been nominated for deletion because of a breach of FOP law. This included of course the image that had been rejected because of soft corners. I don't know how many new contributors see the same picture rejected twice in a couple days on two different grounds, may be I shouldn't complain because this is standard operating procedure or because someone really wanted to demonstrate that I am a rule breaker, but if the implicit meaning was that I am not wanted in this community, the point is fully taken. Let me say that, for what I know of Ukraine, the chances of anyone suing Wikimedia for a picture of a movie theater built in 1925 or of a metro station entrance are limited. Also a quick search shows that other similar pictures, by other contributors are alive and well in the repository, and even though I am fully aware that i cannot take example on the actions of others to justify my own misdeeds, I feel unfairly treated at best and actually discriminated against. As would have to be expected from such a Kafkaesque system, the reviewer didn't bother to send a personal message of explanation.
If you are still with me, I would like to conclude that I contribute pictures here on Wikimedia because I love photography, I think that some of my work is worth publishing and show something that has not been shown a dozen times before, and above all I like to share. Getting pictures nominated as Quality Images is always nice but doesn't pay any bills, takes a lot of time, and overall has not been a positive experience.
Thanks again for your time and all the good advice.
--Albert Bergonzo (talk) 22:19, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
- Hi Albert, thank you for your message. I am sorry that the Commons have been such a disappointment to you and I'll try to explain some of the things you encountered (although it was quite a bit! :) )
- First of all, this site is run entirely by unpaid volunteers, we all started out the same way you did and we do all this as a hobby to spread free pictures and information to others all over the world. We come from many different countries and have very diverse backgrounds and since we don't have the same training or education we all judge pictures a little different. Some of us have been here longer and thereby gotten more used to this system that can be rather overwhelming for a newbie and we try to pass along what we have learned. This means that the different reviewers have very different knowledge about things such as copyright, FOP and such things so you can get very many different answers to the same question.
- Unfortunately Commons does not have the newbie-starter-programs with mentors that most Wikipedia have and therefore there is no one to help you with the text editor. I agree with you that this is not good. Not at all. This collection of pictures is also done in many different languages which makes it even harder to set up some common help that everyone can understand, this is easier at the Wikipedias where everything is in one language. The programming is also done by volunteers and the equipment is paid for by donations, that is why the site is not as top of the line and up to date as for example Facebook or Twitter who have millions of dollars from advertising to spend on personnel and state of the art programs. But most of us would rather have this than having advertising on these sites.
- As for all the copyright things, the servers that Commons is on are in USA, and therefore we must follow not only international copyright laws but also the American laws and those are very, very strict. Wikimedia and Commons can only exits because every user is expected to follow those laws as much as possible. In fact you agree to follow those law just by clicking on the "Save" button here, look below on this page and you will see. All of the copyright things is something that most of the users here have rather limited knowledge about so mistakes happen. There are also thousands of pictures uploaded here every day and there is no time to check every one of those, so we are constantly finding pictures that should have been deleted long ago or pictures that must be deleted now that some copyright law has changed in some country. All this is also done by volunteers. That is why you can find pictures of the same subject here that was rejected for you. If you find such it is up to you to nominate those for deletion, you are also part of this volunteer system.
- Not all pictures that are nominated for QI get reviewed, some do not catch the interest of any of the volunteers reviewing them and after a week or so they get washed out by the system. Many newcomers think that there is a paid staff here that takes care of everything, but nothing could be farther from the truth! If you read the instructions for nominating QIs, it says very clearly that you should also review as many pictures as you nominate. You are also part of the reviewing team! We all review each others' pictures. Perhaps you yourself belong to some photo club, chess club or sports club where things don't always work because no one wants to do some of the boring jobs in the club. This is the same thing, only with millions of members.
- Regarding the pictures of the cars. Since this is a repository of images for an encyclopedia, all images of different things are equally valuable here. In fact really good pictures of every-day things are even harder to get hold of for the articles since most photographers only want to take pretty pictures of beautiful or interesting things. So if I want to write an article about roses, I have about a hundred QIs to choose from, but if I want a really good picture of an automobile alternator, a very important piece in a car, for an article there are no QIs at all.
- Hopefully this has answered some of your questions. It has taken me a bit of time to answer them, all volunteer time, but fortunately it is Sunday tomorrow and I don't have to go to work and can sleep late instead. Helping newcomers and reviewing pictures does not pay any bills for me either! ;) Try to think about it all and hopefully we will see you at this site a while longer. Best, w.carter-Talk 23:37, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
File:Pihtsusköngäs canyon in winter.jpg
Dear W.carter,
Thank you for your comment under this photo nomination. I didnt noticed CA on that photo before your comment (and - obviously - reviewer of QI candidacy didnt neither), but you are completely right that CA on that photo is technical defect. But I am affraid I dont now how to fix that photo on my own. I am just beginner in photo editing and I tried to find some way how to fix that CA in some open-source software (and there must be some way!) but I havent find the right way yet. It seems you are more advanced in photo editing - could you, please, help me and show me some way how to remove CA from photo?
Yours sincerely, --Grtek (talk) 20:55, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- Hi Grtek! Do you have any photoshop program like Adobe or Gimp or something? w.carter-Talk 20:57, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- I have Gimp 2 installed.. I downloaded "fix-CA" script for extension, what could potentially help me, but dont know how to install it and use it properly... Thanks for your help!--Grtek (talk) 21:10, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Grtek: Ok, getting rid of CA in places that are almost black/grey/white is rather easy. Most programs have a tool to desaturate or remove color connected to a brush-tool of some kind. Set that to a size that just covers the CA you want to remove and move it over that place. The green or purple will turn grey instead and become as one with the rest of the picture. For places that are next to something with color, you select a tool with a brush for replacing color. You choose the color of the background close to the CA and move the replace-brush over the CA. For CA close to a part of heaven you can use the clone-tool and clone a bit of the sky right next to the CA over that CA to get the same shade of sky. To make it easier to work on the right area, enlarge the picture first to 100% to see where the CAs are, and then work on it at 200%. This will make it easier to hit the right spot. These are the first basic ways you can do this. There are other more sophisticated methods and even programs for this like the "fix CA" you mention, but for a beginner these are probably the best ways. Please let me know if there is something you don't understand, and I'll try to explain it better. You can of course also ask some of the users that usually help out with fixing pictures, like User:The Photographer, but I guess you want to figure out how to do it yourself. :) Best, w.carter-Talk 21:28, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- I have Gimp 2 installed.. I downloaded "fix-CA" script for extension, what could potentially help me, but dont know how to install it and use it properly... Thanks for your help!--Grtek (talk) 21:10, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Clouds
Stunning clouds.This is where I live Nature of Lisburn.The clouds are at the bottom of the page. (The bird and animal photos are mostly by other commoners but all live here too. The rest are mostly mine.I think I will take more cloud photos.Have to be quick don't you? The clouds are moving fast and therefore the light is too.And the evening light has more red, sometimes a lot more.I got to fifty quality pics and will have to stop soon (to resume later) as my other wikis are falling behind.I will continue to learn from the quality image pages though.Warm regards Notafly (talk) 19:44, 30 August 2016 (UTC) PS You should apply to the diplomatic service.
.JPG)
- @Notafly: What a lovely place! Thank you for showing me. :) I too have been a bit distracted from my "usual job" at English Wikipedia, but summer with good light is so short here, so I try to make the most of it. I can do more writing when the autumn gales force me indoors again. Tonight I'm catching up with some of the articles in my little Gotland project. I used to live there before I moved here and I like to finish what I started back then. Not sure I could handle diplomatic work :), training newbies and explaining things I have done my whole life though. See you around! w.carter-Talk 20:04, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Altocumulus and cumulus over Gåseberg.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Cumulus and cirrostratus over Gåseberg.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Stratocumulus and cirrostratus over Gåseberg.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.
|
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Stratocumulus and cumulus over Gåseberg.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.
|
--QICbot (talk) 05:20, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi Wolfgang Carter.
I've followed your advice in "darkening" a tadd the picture above, especially the very clear parts. What do you think ? Anyway, thanks for all your excellent and friendly reviews.--Jebulon (talk) 21:05, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
- Good evening Frère J, that looks just what I was talking about, that very slight difference in nuance. I will vote for it if you nominate it at FP. Others will surely protest and say it's too bright per usual, that is until they bother to open it at full size and everything will be revealed. Many thanks for your comment about my reviews, I try to be as fair as I can. Hopefully people don't find me too meddlesome. Best, cart-Talk 21:19, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
FP Promotion
 |
★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★
The image File:Xanten RömerMuseum 2.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Xanten RömerMuseum 2.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so. |
|