User talk:King of Hearts/Archive/2013/Q3
Clarification please...[edit]
I am re-reading your closing comment at the undeletion discussion of File:Detail of Moscow City, short sleeves show this is not a winter picture .jpg -- and I frankly don't understand what you meant. Geo Swan (talk) 21:14, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
- So... this case is very complex. First of all, I never did anything to File:Detail of Moscow City, short sleeves show this is not a winter picture .jpg; the main culprit here is File:Moscow City.jpg (DR). Here is the series of events: first a copyvio was uploaded to File:Moscow City.jpg by Yuri Dmitrienko, and then a correctly licensed image was reuploaded on top of the copyvio by Bawdiest. However, due to a bug, the thumbnail of the old (copyvio) version would show, which is obviously a problem. I tried purging my cache, purging Wikimedia's cache, and even deleting and undeleting the image, to no avail. Ultimately, A.Savin was able to successfully solve the problem by moving it to File:Moscow-City by Bawdiest.jpg. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:50, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks, following you so far -- but why would that trigger the deletion of File:Detail of Moscow City, short sleeves show this is not a winter picture .jpg -- which is a detail of the now renamed File:Moscow-City by Bawdiest.jpg? Geo Swan (talk) 01:57, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
- Hmm, I don't remember what "issue" I was referring to when I said "This is not the issue"; it's been a long time, sorry. Anyways, since it appears the image was used primarily as part of an argument at a DR which is now closed, why do you still want it undeleted? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:10, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
- Since the bug was never tracked down it could recur, so the detail, which required some effort to make, could be useful again. Geo Swan (talk) 11:05, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- I don't see why a crop is useful in investigating a bug. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:13, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
- Since the bug was never tracked down it could recur, so the detail, which required some effort to make, could be useful again. Geo Swan (talk) 11:05, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- Hmm, I don't remember what "issue" I was referring to when I said "This is not the issue"; it's been a long time, sorry. Anyways, since it appears the image was used primarily as part of an argument at a DR which is now closed, why do you still want it undeleted? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:10, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks, following you so far -- but why would that trigger the deletion of File:Detail of Moscow City, short sleeves show this is not a winter picture .jpg -- which is a detail of the now renamed File:Moscow-City by Bawdiest.jpg? Geo Swan (talk) 01:57, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Wikimedia Commons has a specific scope[edit]
i.е. v-mail 16:10, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion[edit]
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Rim Fire Yosemite August 2013 002.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.
|
So I think you can delete the renamed file too. :) JKadavoor Jee 05:13, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Done King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:31, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion[edit]
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Rim Fire Yosemite August 2013 004.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.
|
FP Query[edit]
As one of the most active reviewers at FPC, I'd like to ask you about a current nom that I'm puzzled about. I nominated the image File:St Matthew's Church - Paisley - Interior - 5.jpg last Friday but it seems to be getting passed over, with just a trickle of support. Perhaps I'm impatient and it will get the required support eventually. I'm disappointed as I think this is one of my best pictures, with a great subject and which was really challenging to take (due to the light levels and windows). I'm very happy technically with how it turned out (everything perpendicular and correct, and exposure just fine). Is FP suffering from WLM fatigue already? So, if you saw it, what made you go "meh" and scroll down? Should I change the nomination text? -- Colin (talk) 09:31, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
- Not really sure - I guess it's just a combination of the slightly muted colors and rather complicated composition that made it not stand out at thumbnail-size. These days I don't have time to consider every single picture carefully and decide to vote support, neutral, or oppose, or consciously choose to not vote. Rather, if something stands out to me, whether good or bad, I will only devote time to vote on that one, and otherwise I will just skip it. But now that I've taken the time to review yours, I agree that it's very nice, so I've supported. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:26, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for your reply. Yes I think the small preview size works against complicated or panorama images. I've got a panorama at QI that is going nowhere probably because it looks terrible in thumbnail. We need some Javascript enhancement that makes it easy to zoom fullscreen (and then zoom/pan around) for each nom. And although the Talk-FP page discusses the problems with images that "pop" too much, it is just natural human behaviour that images which don't "pop" fail to attract attention even if worthy. Cheers, Colin (talk) 07:52, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Delist?[edit]
Do we need to program the FPC Bot to understand "delist", "keep" and "delist and replace" votes too? JKadavoor Jee 03:22, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, that would be very useful. But we basically need to wait until Daniel78 has time for it. At the very least, I think telling the bot to ignore any FPC with "/removal/" in the title would be easy to implement and help a whole lot. Eventually, getting it to close delisting noms automatically would be awesome. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:30, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Your Yosemite visit[edit]
Nice to hear that you were also in Yosemite. As I could see from your contribs you were also in San Francisco? Which other places has you visited? I made a three-week roundtrip maintly through California, partly through Nevada, Utah and Arizona. It was great. I've never been before to the US. Did you like San Francisco? To be honest I was a bit disappointed. It was very busy and the city is somehow too narrow for too many people. --Tuxyso (talk) 09:05, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
- San Francisco is very fun; I go there about once every month or so. I'm not a big street photographer, so for me the main appeal of a city is lit-up buildings and structures during the blue hour (as well as the sunrise/sunset of course, as with any other place). Most of my trips are within California but I've also been to New York and Paris as well as several national parks like Yellowstone, Grand Canyon, Bryce Canyon, etc. (a long time ago, so I don't have good photos of those). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:31, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
- Maybe next time I get the special San Francisco spirit. But it will least a long time visiting California again. It is a wide trip from Europe. Best wishes, --Tuxyso (talk) 17:36, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Pava is causing trouble again[edit]
Hello KoH, please take a look at what I wrote about some recent disruptive edits by Pava. Thank you in advance!--FAEP (talk) 18:42, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
- KoH do you remember the arressement of FAEP to me? many blocks and other question? if you don't remember see you archive Talk, please help me, FAEP pursued me for months I'm sick. always trying to make me look bad with other users and discredit me, I demand that someone here preserves the cooperation and friendship between the users face and stop this person from committing these acts of vandalism, it is time to stop, please. --Pava (talk) 22:40, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
- I tell you these things because I just rollback its 40 amendments to the pictures uploaded by me, that FAEP has categorized so incomprehensible and unjustified just to annoy me, every time I try to avoid to come to you to complain, but it is really making me lose patience. Circumventing the blocks, I discredits with other users, cancel my contributions, and causes. But because no one invited him to stop? I lose so much time I spend to cancel his vandalism and discover that while you're making me look bad in a tendentious manner with other users. If you can not do anything you tell me who should I contact because this thing end?--Pava (talk) 23:17, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Quality Image Promotion[edit]
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Southside Drive Yosemite August 2013 002.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! Valley View Yosemite August 2013 panorama.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.
|
Quality Image Promotion[edit]
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Valley View Yosemite August 2013 005.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.
|
Quality Image Promotion[edit]
 |
Your image has been reviewed and promoted
Congratulations! Stanford Oval September 2013 panorama.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! San Francisco from Pier 7 September 2013 001.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! San Francisco from Pier 7 September 2013 003.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.
|