User talk:Tomwsulcer

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Welcome to my talk page.


Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Tomwsulcer!
Afrikaans | Alemannisch | العربية | Asturianu | Azərbaycanca | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | বাংলা | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Euskara | Estremeñu | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Frysk | Galego | עברית | हिन्दी | Hrvatski | Magyar | Հայերեն | Interlingua | Bahasa Indonesia | Italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | 한국어 | Latina | Lietuvių | Македонски | മലയാളം | मराठी | Bahasa Melayu | Plattdüütsch | नेपाली | Nederlands | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Scots | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Shqip | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Kiswahili | தமிழ் | ไทย | Türkçe | Українська | Vèneto | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | 中文(台灣)‎ | +/−

Please identify your photos[edit]

Uploading pictures of buildings with no identification is not very useful, and leaves to other people the work of identifying them. Please don't do that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:45, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I do as much as I can. It takes time to take photos, crop and resize them, upload them to Commons with tedious tools like the Upload Wizard. It's a free service courtesy. I'm a volunteer. I provide as much information as I have at my disposal. There is no requirement that other people must come along and elaborate on my captions; why not simply leave those few photos without much identification alone? Why fuss with them? And if other people wish or don't wish to elaborate on captions, it's up to them. Same thing with categories; I categorize as much as I can, but the categorization system is extensive, constantly changing, and others usually choose to recategorize as they see fit. The greater rule here is to try to be nice to people, to be appreciative for what they have done; it makes Wikimedia a better place to contribute.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 01:46, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, but that's complete bullshit. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:32, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Why?--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:33, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
[1] Examine any photo at random. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:18, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Wow. You take great photos. Impressive collection. So, wondering what is your system -- do you take the photo and have a pencil to write down the address? I keep my camera on my belt but I rarely have a pen and paper but I suppose I could keep one in my pocket. My method is to shoot perhaps 50 photos, say, then upload them to my computer (usually a few days to a week later, time permitting), crop them, resize them to make them smaller; but at this point it is difficult for me to remember what's what. Sometimes I'll take an extra photo of a plaque or building number but my memory is going and I can not always remember what goes with what. Clearly you have a superior system I'd like to emulate if you don't mind, so please tell me how you do this.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:48, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the compliment, and the questions, which you're probably going to regret asking.

I think of the process as having four distinct phases:

Phase 1: Taking the photos: This is pretty straightforward. I usually know where I'm going and have something of a plan of action (although I do carry my camera with me for "targets of opportunity" at random times). I've glanced at a map of the area to help me remember where I've been after the fact, and have identified probable targets in various references, such as the AIA Guide to NYC, Guide to NYC Landmarks, lists of places on the National Register, tour guides etc. As I'm taking shots, I'll occasionally take a reference shot of street numbers, street signs, plaques etc. - anything that will remind me later of where I've been. Depending on how many subjects, this can take up 2 hours or more. (I usually end up with 75-125 shots.)

Phase 2: Transferring and identifying the shots: I transfer the shots from the camera to my computer, orient them correctly, then do some light labeling of groups of images (for instance, the street name of the first photo I took on that street) to help my memory later. If I run into a snag and can't remember what the subject of a photo is, I'll do a little quick research online and in the references I consulted earlier to jog my memory.

Phase 3: Selection and correction: This is the phase you mentioned above: I select the specific shots I want to use (I usually take 3-6 shots of every subject (occasionally more), from different angles and at different settings on the camera), crop them, adjust the color balance etc. The amount of time this takes can vary greatly, depending on whether it was a sunny day (and where the sun was in relation to a subject) or an overcast one. When I finish with each image, I save it with a more descriptive file name, which, again, may require that I look up some information I don't recall.

Phase 4: Uploading: This phase probably takes the most time of all, since I do all the research necessary to make sure the shot is correctly named and to gather the information for the description, which will generally include the name of the building, the address, the neighborhood and place, when it was built, who designed it and in what style. Anything else of interest I've gleaned I add in, trying not to go too far. I use the references I mentioned above, plus the NYC GIS map, Landmark and Historic District designation reports, and -- for those "targets of opportunity" which turn out not to be mentioned in the usual texts -- I Google search the web. This phase includes all the categorizing.

All in all, a "normal" batch of photographs (one day's shooting) is usually about a week's project overall. I've been going out to Brooklyn lately, taking 100+ shots, which takes 3 hours or so. Identifying them takes an hour or less. Selection and correction takes a couple of evenings, and uploading the resulting 30-50 edited images takes the rest of the week. Even then, I'll go back and make changes when new information comes to light.

I used to work on one image at a time, identifying, selecting, processing and uploading each one in turn, but by the time I got to the later ones I'd forgotten a lot of stuff about the subject and the images. Working in batches, one phase at a time, seems to work much better. If you were interested in using some version of my methodology, I would suggest that you at least do my Phase 2 as soon after taking the images as possible. Then, when you have the time to finish the process, you've already got some pre-identification as a memory aid. That's what I do if I'm coming back from a trip or vacation with 500-1000 shots.

I know that I probably go overboard, and I don't expect everyone to go to this level of detail or be this anal about the whole thing. In fact, another contributor who uploads a lot of photos (far more than I have), User:Jim.henderson, isn't as comprehensive in his descriptions as I try to be, but he always includes the name of the building and other information. I believe he takes a lot of his shots while group bike riding, so I'm sure his method for keeping track of where he's been is a lot different from mine, and that his preparation and uploading process is probably less onerous than mine can be. It might be worth dropping him a note and asking him about it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:37, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Wow. You are professional in your approach. Wikipedia and Wikimedia is lucky to have you. You have taken excellent pictures with great descriptions. What makes your approach better than mine is that when you go out, you do so with a plan, a roadmap, planning in advance, and you are frankly just more disciplined about it than I have been in the past, plus taking more time to get things right, taking multiple shots, and so forth. Me, I would go places, and simply have my camera along, since I would be unsure before departure that I would be taking any photos; but if something interesting would come up, I would just shoot it, and have it in my camera, and maybe a few days later, upload it, and then decide whether it was worthy of Wikipedia; but by that time, I might not have remembered the specifics of the location. So, compared to your method, mine is rather haphazard I suppose, although sometimes it has resulted in some good shots by luck mostly. In future, I'll try to bring along index cards and a pen, and write down building names and move towards your method, but please don't expect overnight changes since I am getting older and it becomes harder for me to change habits. It would be really cool to have a camera that, after taking a picture, I could type in a few notes about the photo, and have it linked in with the digital image somehow; that way, right on the spot, I could insert the data like building address and other stuff. My biggest problem with uploading photos is the slowness of using the Upload Wizard, since I am constantly having to switch from keyboard, to mouse, and back again, multiple times within each photo; I would much prefer a system in which I could move between input boxes using a "tab" key. To upload about 50 photos takes me perhaps 45 minutes, and I find the process cumbersome. And I have not yet figured out how to get a better program such as Commonist working on my computer.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:43, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
I am honored to be brought into this discussion between already long-respected colleagues. My approach, as outlined in the somewhat out of date User:Jim.henderson/Picture pipeline is intermediately haphazard. Some pix are there because I've always got a camera with me, even on the dullest errands, even if just my smartphone. Others are snapped on biker gang rides that require keeping pace, hence afford sparse and extremely hasty opportunities. More are on specific solo photo expeditions seeking a pre-identified target or two and snapping everything else of interest along the way. Biggest class are after breaking away from the gang on the return leg from the suburbs, with lesser prep study. Except where the target is splendid, I spend only a couple minutes off the bike, looking for angles and later regretting my haste but in winter I have the excuse of needing to get off the road before dark.
High technology can be wonderfully helpful. My current main camera, the Nikon AW-100, is the worst I've ever owned as far as picture quality (except camera phones), but it's got the best geotagger, with the same exception. For many pictures, my haste does not preclude an informational shot showing institutional name, street signs or other aid to identification. With these items and Google Earth I can identify almost everything later at the desk.
On the road the smartphone is even more capable, using either the Alpha test version of the Wikipedia site, or the Commons app downloaded from Android Play. With these I can type in a description as it uploads to Commons. I hope for improvements at the Wiki end, including apps, to collect more information with less typing on the tiny glass screen with stiff cold fingers. I also hope for better Android cameras (Nikon and Canon already sell early ones) or more likely smartphones with better camera. Most cameras, incidentally, have a microphone and can record sound video. Set video resolution to minimum, point the camera at either yourself or the target, and record a 10 second snippet of description. I did this twice in past years before the camera had GPS. Smartphones can also download a voice recorder app if you don't want the informational video to take space. Jim.henderson (talk) 16:25, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, I am honored to have two prolific and advanced Wikimedia contributors counseling me, since it suggests optimism that I can improve, although clearly I have a ways to go. I am an admitted geotagging virgin, technologically somewhat behind-the-times, with only a simple point-and-click digital camera (Sony SteadyShot 14.1 mega pixels) and it is unlikely I'll get anything more expensive camera-wise in the foreseeable future (unless there's a cheap but good model out there, possibly used, letting me do this stuff). I read through much of Jim's User:Jim.henderson/Picture pipeline and noted that photos were chosen based on whether they could go into any articles -- an interesting approach -- I've been uploading photos which I think might be possibly useful to anybody in the future, and I am now wondering if this is the right approach. I generally declare all my photos "public domain" since I believe it is more likely they'll be copied and used by others (sometimes newspapers have picked up my photos for their stories) and I highly doubt any photo I take will be worth anything to me commercially. Sometimes I use my photos in Wikipedia articles; my hunch is it is hard for us to know, now, what will or won't be useful at times in the future. What I would like to do, in future possibly, is get more photos of people, but I have yet to figure out an efficient method of recording their approval, although I think all I need is verbal permission. I think I've wasted more time getting third parties, such as the subject of a biography article in Wikipedia, by coaxing them via email, to send me a picture of themselves, and then trying to track down permissions and such; it bears fruit maybe one time out of five, so generally I don't do this anymore. Cool possible experiments I'm thinking about: getting permission from someone in a profession, such as a police officer or plumber or dentist, to photograph them as they work, and publish photos of course with their approval. I'm also trying to get up to speed with learning svg graphics, so I can make charts that are scalable. I would love to be able to make a "gif" file -- not there yet -- and uploading short videos would be cool too, possibly. Very cool, Jim, how you do these great photos on bike trips -- really cool. Another thing I try to shoot if I come across it -- auto accidents. Plus it would be cool to assemble BMK's building photos into a collage somehow.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:16, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
If it's any consolation to you, I also use an inexpensive point-and-click camera (Canon PowerShot A810 16 megapixels), which I got as a Christmas gift and is actually a step UP from the camera I used to take most of my shots (a hand-me-down from my son).

I, too, was a geotagging virgin until Jim instructed me in the basics, and it's not all that hard to master. My camera doesn't have a GPS, so I simply pull up the Google map of the subject, estimate where I stood when I took the shot, get the coordinates for that spot and do my best on the heading. I think I've gotten to be pretty accurate - certainly enough that someone could go to the spot and verify the subject.

As for whether the photos will be used for anything - well, obviously the historic buildings and such are pretty likely to be used, and (if Jim hasn't gotten there first with a better shot), I'll insert my photo and, while I'm there, do a general cleanup of the article. Still, I also take a lot of less-than-historic buildings, targets of opportunity, things that catch my eye or look interesting to me, and I never hesitate at taking the shot and uploading it. I figure that it's impossible to know exactly what use a photo may be to someone -- on Wikipedia or elsewhere -- so I go ahead and provide the shot, and leave it for others to decide whether to use it or not. Certainly, those of my pictures that have been picked up for media use have generally been of non-notable buildings that just happened to be a good accompaniment to some article. So, basically, I don't worry much about it, I just take what I take and let the chips fall where they may.

I know what you mean about convincing people to provide photographs. I'm in the middle of trying to get a fairly well-known professor to allow me to upload a photo of himself that he owns. He was pretty agreeable and then things slowed down, so I have to work a little harder on that. I've had better luck convincing people on Flickr to change the license on their photos so I can upload them here - I've been able to do that a handful of times. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:18, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Photo freshly geotagged, hopefully correctly, although the photo's title of "Church in New Jersey town probably Little Silver NJ" should probably be changed because it is in Shrewsbury NJ not Little Silver NJ.
Hey I geotagged my first photo! Took me a while but I used your (BMK's) method to figure out the two numbers, which I fetched from Google Maps, and then I borrowed the location template from one of BMK's photos (File:100 West 15th Street.jpg), and added it to my photo, changing the numbers of course, and I think I got it right. I guessed at the heading (NNE). My town of Summit NJ is celebrating wildly with floats, a marching band, and ticker tape hurled from second story windows (or was that somebody merely throwing out their garbage). I'll try to do more geotagging as I go along although it does add one more step in the whole photo uploading process, so I am still kind of wondering how helpful it will be for future users to have those two numbers on there -- I suppose it will definitely be helpful for some purposes, but I am wondering if the overall helpfulness will justify me taking more time to add these numbers. Any thoughts on this? And, wondering which is overall best for Wikimedia -- only uploading photos if geotagged coordinates were there, or having (more) photos sometimes lacking geotagging coordinates? Next camera I get, I'll include geotagging capability as a preference. Plus I've been doing through both your (BMK and Jim's) photos marveling at the contribution. And the idea of converting Flickr users to the right license -- will keep that in mind, thanx.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:33, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Congrats! You're now a geotagging pro!

I think the tagging helps for a number of reasons. First, it's the equivalent of "verification" on en:Wiki - that is, anybody can (if they want to) go to those coordinates and verify that the subject is there where it's supposed to be. Second, things change. In a dynamic world, buildings get torn down, or built where there was none before, facades get changed, stores open and close. I think of the Commons as a repository of images not just for now, but for the future. I look at the Berenice Abbot photos of NYC from the '30s and note the changes that have taken place, which would have been almost unknown if not for the existence of the photographs (take a look at her picture in en:Gashouse District and my equivalent below it). Having a geotag on an image will (I think) immeasurably help those who set out to find how a place has changed over the years. I'm sure there are other reasons, but those are two that seem important to me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:42, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok, thanx. I'll strive to geotag as best I can from now on.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:47, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
That would be great! I was so impressed with the importance of it, that after Jim showed me how to do it, I went back and geotagged some months worth of previously uploaded images. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:52, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Big help. Coords are the only part of the process in which I'm excessively fussy; my filenames and categories often need correction by more patient minds. First the GPS camera puts its geotag on the picture. On a later day, I adjust a batch (usually 4-12 in a batch), upload, and adjust once more on the file description page. Or thrice more. Often the coords must pass through my head, which often loses a digit. This can be avoided by pasting, for example from Acme Mapper or Ald-Hjl-Koord-en.kmz. Ah, Monmouth County. Been a couple years since I biked from Sandy Hook landing to South Perth Amboy station. Must take another look this Summer, perhaps going south this time to Bay Head or beyond. Incidentally I don't think Hanson Place Central United Methodist Church is showing our best picture. Jim.henderson (talk) 21:05, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, Jim, until I get a new camera, I'll probably be using BMKen's method. I think there's a way to cut-and-paste the numbers from Google Maps.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:40, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
@Jim: Re: HPCUMC - Agreed. The shadows were so deep the day I took mine I had a devil of a time making the image look like anything usable. I've replaced mine with Tom's. (You don't have one, do you?) Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:42, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Coincidentally, I took my shot the day before Tom took his! Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:45, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Where camera geotagging fails (formerly about 40% but now under 10%) I use maps to tag before doing the crop, tilt and color adjustment. Sometimes in the field there's time to snap the same picture by my smartphone, whose location is more reliable. Studying at the desk, when an otherwise good picture has no location sometimes I get a preliminary location from the successful autotag of a nearby picture. And sometimes the shot intended for upload looks worse than the establishing shot or the smartphone shot, but somehow has a better location. Surprises abound; roles switch.

Resolution and licensing issues[edit]

Wondering what you both think about picture resolution; I've been trimming mine to about 800x 600 roughly, since they upload faster and may be easier to store, or does Wikipedia prefer higher resolution photos? Btw I added BMK's geotag data to the Hanson photo. Cool you were there around the same time.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 22:01, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I generally just upload at whatever resolution they end up at after cropping; I only resize if there's some specific reason to do so, such as with this composite image where I needed to match sizes. Although my new camera can take 16 megapixels (4608x3456), I use 8 megapixels instead (3264x2448) as I'm not convinced that the extra resolution is all that worthwhile (although I'm open to arguments otherwise). (My old camera topped off at 1600x1200, so the vast majority of my uploaded images are under that size.) My wife is the better photographer in the family (although still an amateur) so if I'm uploading one of her images (under her name) I'll resize down to preserve any potential future commercial value, however unlikely that might be.

I think as a matter of policy, Commons prefers that the resolution be as high as possible, but I'm not sure where I read that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:01, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks maybe I won't resize the photos as much as I have been doing. Yes I think I read something about Wikimedia wanting more pixel-intensive photos somewhere too but I can't remember where.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:59, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
I was wondering about licensing: public domain vs cc-by-sa 2.5. I generally use Public Domain as the license since I believe more people are likely to use a PD-licensed photo, since users need not even understand the particulars of the CC-licenses. But at the last Wikipedia event I went to, one argument against PD licensing was that somebody could copy my photo, alter it slightly, then return it to the private sphere, making the work once again unavailable without payment. But I don't mind if this happens; in my view, the original freebie photo is still available. So I continue to use PD since I want people to use my photos; but I am wondering what your thoughts are about this, ie, which licenses do you prefer and why.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:59, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

More tends to be better, other things being equal which they rarely are for me. There's a Commons distaste for reduced resolution pictures, in part because sometimes there's a way to use them for an unfair advantage in "best picture" contests. That sort of contest, of course, is not a worry for the likes of us with our little P&S cameras and inadequate study. For file size, the Wikimedia server operators say the cost of more Terabytes is trivial. Some Web sites send the original file to the reader and tell the browser to cut it to appropriate size, which can cause seriously slow transmission on a slow DSL like mine. That also isn't a problem for Wikimedia which reduces the resolution before sending the page.

My little camera is like many recent ones, having 16 MPx which are more pixels (cheap, nowadays) than the the little lens (good lenses are still expensive) can resolve, so I cut the camera's resolution to 12 Meg which also helps my slow computer and connection. I assume it also improves performance in bad light, speaking of which, Sunday when I'm in the neighborhood for the BPL Wiki Workshop the Sun might be right for a snap for Hanson Place. Jim.henderson (talk) 12:52, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

And yes, most my pix are CC0, which is almost the same as Public Domain. Decorating the Web site of small travel agency I saw my picture of a tour boat on the Harlem River which also illustrates the Tourism in New York City article. In a brochure of Open House New York I saw my picture of the Old Croton Aqueduct in The Bronx. A friend called my attention to a Bay Ridge news site using my shot from landward of the Bay Ridge car float yard. This last was kindly credited to me and Wikipedia. The others were not. Presumably a great many other uses are not attributed, and anyway it's not a problem. Jim.henderson (talk) 12:52, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm not quite sure why I use CC-BY-SA and GFDL instead of CC0 or PD - it's just what I started doing and I kept on doing it. I guess I like to have a bit of ownership of the shots, and I don't think that the licensing inhibits anyone from using them, since the terms are extremely liberal (and are ignored much of the time in any case). Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:50, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Interesting. Yes it kind of confirms my sense that the licensing is probably not that important an issue, overall; I had found the cc-by-sa somewhat confusing to understand, conceptually, and I had thought that others, wanting to use my picture, might have been similarly confused and also would have been dissuaded from the attribution requirements, and would choose a PD photo instead of a cc-by-sa one. Several of my photos have been used by newspapers and that is fine with me -- more people getting to use them, see them.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:52, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Far as I know, concern lest big business hijack private creativity via derivative works for corporate profit is an important theme of the Free Culture Movement. Having spent over 40 years as a corporate drone, I find myself unterrified by this prospect, and prefer the simpler idea that, yes, go ahead, do what you will with my picture. Don't worry about violating my legal rights as author, because I have surrendered them. Of course, if I happen to be photographing Tavern on the Green on a winter morning when an airliner falls into Sheep Meadow, one of the things I'll do is reconsider questions of rights and money before uploading. Jim.henderson (talk) 13:14, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes. :) I'm with you on the simpler approach. Plus, I really think a possible user is more likely to use our public domain photos -- they don't have to bother to ask permission, to study what cc-by-sa means, to fuss with attribution (even though many attribute them regardless) -- so I believe that giving away photos is in keeping with the Free Culture Movement. And if a particular photo has obvious commercial value, perhaps that one I'll sell. Seems reasonable.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:42, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Check used in Internet scam with victims name removed.JPG[edit]

Pay attention to copyright
File:Check used in Internet scam with victims name removed.JPG has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may find Commons:Copyright rules useful. You can ask questions about Commons policies in Commons:Help desk.

The file you added may soon be deleted. If you believe this file is not a copyright violation, please explain why on the file's talk page.


Afrikaans | العربية | Asturianu | Azərbaycanca | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Български | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Español | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Հայերեն | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Malti | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Svenska | ไทย | Türkçe | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

McGeddon (talk) 15:32, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

This was a check sent to me. I photographed it. It was not fished off the web. So I do not understand why it would be a violation of copyright.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 15:56, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I should have trimmed that template back a bit, I appreciate the context. Thanks for raising a formal deletion discussion, I've left a comment there. --McGeddon (talk) 19:38, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Read Sowell[edit]

On your page you say "if you don't like feeling this way, THEN: read Sowell." Which book? I'm intrigued. --Tom dl (talk) 01:21, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Thomas Sowell's book A Conflict of Visions. I found the first chapter or so to be helpful in understanding many underlying belief-systems for liberals and conservatives. Sowell tries to explain why liberals and conservatives think the way they do. I am less sure about his vision hypothesis about how much of human "thinking" (or lack of it) happens at a pre-analytical stage in human development, but, in my experience, I agree with Sowell that ideas tend to cluster together in peoples' minds. So, liberals tend to have one way of seeing the world, conservatives, another. Why? Sowell offers one explanation; I think it is on the right track but there is still much more to figure out.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 11:21, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks :-) I'll check it out --Tom dl (talk) 16:30, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Hyperloop diagram based on design by Elon Musk.png[edit]

So - this is your own work? I suppose you did it as a vector graphic? Can you give us the source, not just the rendered PNG? Commons accepts files in SVG format for that, I can try to convert to SVG if you want...--92.201.166.156 12:29, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it was my work, based on the image from the news story (see the link on the page). I would have liked to do it as a vector graphic so it is scalable, but my graphics program does not permit this. I tried learning Inkscape a while back but never quite mastered it, and then I switched Linux distributions and don't have Inkscape any more. So, if you can do an SVG-format image, that would be great! Please try to improve the diagram, perhaps make it longer (?) and better looking and we can switch to your diagram, if you wish.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:33, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

What did you create it with? No chance we can extract the vectors out of there?.. :-( Oh - and Inkscape should be available in the repositories for any major Linux distribution...--92.201.166.156 12:37, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

GNU Paint. Sorry I don't know much about vectors. Yes Inkscape could be used but I haven't gotten around to loading it yet, then learning it; busy with other projects.:)--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:35, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

I had a try:

Hyperloop capsule.svg

--92.204.73.217 15:36, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Oooooo. I think you had a succeed. Great job! I replaced my image with your better one on Hyperloop.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:11, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Some baklava for you![edit]

Baklava - Turkish special, 80-ply.JPEG Thanks for quickly developing a graphic schematic of the Hyperloop concept pod. It adds a lot to the article. Cheers. N2e (talk) 15:39, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, N2e but an IP has rendered a better drawing, using SVG scalable graphics, but I love baklava!--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:12, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

File:Dactyl like a finger.png[edit]

Commons-emblem-issue.svg File:Dactyl like a finger.png has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!


Afrikaans | العربية | Беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | Ελληνικά | English | Esperanto | Español | Eesti | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Galego | עברית | Magyar | Bahasa Indonesia | Íslenska | Italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | Norsk nynorsk | Norsk bokmål | Occitan | Polski | Português | Português do Brasil | Română | Русский | Slovenčina | Slovenščina | Српски / srpski | Svenska | Türkçe | Tiếng Việt | 中文 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−

Pompilos (talk) 23:17, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Not sure what this is about but if there's a better svg version, then ok to delete.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:09, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Rutgers University College Avenue campus building in February.JPG[edit]

Български | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Magyar | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Norsk bokmål | Polski | Português | Română | Slovenščina | Svenska | +/−

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Rutgers University College Avenue campus building in February.JPG. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the OTRS system and follow the procedure described there.

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. (You can get a list of all your uploaded files using the Gallery tool.) Thank you.

Steinsplitter (talk) 16:41, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Issue was some copyright information (several fields on each of these three photos) failed to upload with UploadWizard, the information was re-added, the photos are ok, I took them, declared them to be public domain, and hopefully these issues are resolved.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:39, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Rutgers University Geology Hall building in February.JPG[edit]

Български | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Magyar | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Norsk bokmål | Polski | Português | Română | Slovenščina | Svenska | +/−

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Rutgers University Geology Hall building in February.JPG. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the OTRS system and follow the procedure described there.

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. (You can get a list of all your uploaded files using the Gallery tool.) Thank you.

Steinsplitter (talk) 16:43, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Copyright status: File:Rutgers University Geology museum Allosaurus head.JPG[edit]

Български | Català | Čeština | Dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | فارسی | Suomi | Français | Magyar | Italiano | 日本語 | Македонски | മലയാളം | Norsk bokmål | Polski | Português | Română | Slovenščina | Svenska | +/−

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:Rutgers University Geology museum Allosaurus head.JPG. I notice that the file page either doesn't contain enough information about the license or it contains contradictory information about the license, so the copyright status is unclear.

If you created this file yourself, then you must provide a valid copyright tag. For example, you can tag it with {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multi-license GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or you can tag it with {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. (See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of license tags that you can use.)

If you did not create the file yourself or if it is a derivative of another work that is possibly subject to copyright protection, then you must specify where you found it (e.g. usually a link to the web page where you got it), you must provide proof that it has a license that is acceptable for Commons (e.g. usually a link to the terms of use for content from that page), and you must add an appropriate license tag. If you did not create the file yourself and the specific source and license information is not available on the web, you must obtain permission through the OTRS system and follow the procedure described there.

Note that any unsourced or improperly licensed files will be deleted one week after they have been marked as lacking proper information, as described in criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other files, please confirm that you have provided the proper information for those files, too. (You can get a list of all your uploaded files using the Gallery tool.) Thank you.

Steinsplitter (talk) 16:46, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

ArchiveBot[edit]

Hi, I noticed you have set up User:MiszaBot to archive your talk page. Unfortunately, the bot has stopped working, and given how its operator is inactive, it is unclear when/if this will fixed. For the time being, I have volunteered to operate a MiszaBot clone (running the exact same code). With that said, your input would be appreciated at Commons:Bots/Requests/ArchiveBot 1. Regards, FASTILY 07:42, 20 April 2014 (UTC)