User talk:Tony Wills/Archive002

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 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.

Archiving?

Hi Tony. Time for an archive? It's getting BIG here ;-)) Lycaon 14:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but it makes it looks as if I'm busy :-) (which I am), I was also thinking of cutting down my user-page to just QI & FP as it's getting a bit big too :-) --Tony Wills 05:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I tend to leave five to ten messages when I archive, and I do it with a move so that the history is preserved in the archive. Simonizer, e.g., has a separate archives for messages and nominations. Possibilities are plenty. Cheers. Lycaon 05:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Thought I'd just leave current discussions, which makes it quite short :-) --Tony Wills 09:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your tireless work at COM:QIC. Ben Aveling 23:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your tireless work at COM:QIC. Ben Aveling 23:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Ben, though I wouldn't say it was tireless, it is sometimes quite tiring :-) --Tony Wills 04:16, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 :-)

Early Christmas

Hi. Well, I'm not going to take any of the 'demotees' to a higher court if they protest. It seems that most people (bar the too modest ones), easily assess their own capabilities. The ones I 'demoted' mostly had no gallery or less than ten (mediocre at best) pictures in them. I cleaned up the whole category and as well as finding some names that didn't belong there, I also missed some that clearly did belong there and some are still missing anyway). Friendly regards. Lycaon 06:06, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

NZ Red Admiral (Vanessa gonerilla)-5.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! NZ Red Admiral (Vanessa gonerilla)-5.jpg, which was produced or nominated 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.

Geodata recommendations

Dear Tony. Thank you for your input concerning the Image guidelines discussion I started about geodata. I have thought long and hard about this and I have written a reply that you might want to see. Best wishes. --Slaunger 22:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Lawn daisy.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Lawn daisy.jpg, which was produced or nominated 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.

NZ Red Admiral (Vanessa gonerilla)-4.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! NZ Red Admiral (Vanessa gonerilla)-4.jpg, which was produced or nominated 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.

Quality Image Promotion

Yellow - orange flower.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Yellow - orange flower.jpg, which was produced or nominated 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.

Male blackbird-b.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Male blackbird-b.jpg, which was produced or nominated 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.

Plymouth 1948

Thanks for your comment on my picture Plymouth_Coupe_1948.jpg. You are right: the surroundings are a mix of vintage buildings and modern cars and traffic lights. In fact, it was a snapshot made during a short stay in Miami last year. As I live in Belgium, it is not likely that I will go back there in a short future, and if so, that I will come across that same car again... -- MJJR 21:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Red billed gull-10.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Red billed gull-10.jpg, which was produced or nominated 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.

Red billed gull-11.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Red billed gull-11.jpg, which was produced or nominated 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.

Image:Wasp August 2007-23.jpg

I really felt that it should have made FP, I would only fault it on the DOF being slightly too shallow so that the prey isn't sharply focused. But it is an impressive shot even if it is an everyday part of the wasps life! Certainly one of wikimedia's best :-) --Tony Wills 10:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah it was close :) --Richard Bartz 12:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Thank you Tony. I must confess I was mildly disappointed for the failure, that was a hell of a lucky shot! But the technical quality seems to prevail now over the other elements in FPC and we have very good macro photographers. ;-) - Alvesgaspar 12:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Blackbird (male).jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Blackbird (male).jpg, which was produced or nominated 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.

Chaffinch (male).jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Chaffinch (male).jpg, which was produced or nominated 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.

Song thrush.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Song thrush.jpg, which was produced or nominated 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.

CombineZM

Thanks I will try it next time! --Beyond silence 14:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Pinus Radiata detail.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Pinus Radiata detail.jpg, which was produced or nominated 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.

Red billed gull-13.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Red billed gull-13.jpg, which was produced or nominated 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.

NZ Falcon

Hi Tony. I'm afraid I cheated with the Falcon - it was photographed at Staglands :-) Karora 05:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Puriri moth-02.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Puriri moth-02.jpg, which was produced or nominated 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.

Re:Image:Krakow univesity of economics main building.JPG

The author has never given me permission to reveal his identity (he did gave me permission for free licensing of my choice). I am trying to contact him now and ask whether I can post his personal details.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, that is a bit hard when half of my conversations with that friend are in real life, and half on instant messengers that we don't log :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 01:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Many people who take photos don't have wikimedia accounts. Some of them may not even have emails. Yes, digital divide is real.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 04:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Congratz with your POTD

Immediately, when I saw the POTD today, I thought: "What a nice gull photo, that must be one of Tonys", and sure it was! -- Slaunger 12:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

I have assumed your /discuss edits have been done in good faith, and I have moved them to CR. You are welcome to move them directly to CR yourself, let me know if you need help. --Tony Wills 21:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC) Thank you very much! --Beyond silence 22.5px 21:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

  • If you assume good faith even when you suspect people are being provocative you will settle things down rather than fanning flames, never a good idea to revert peoples edits unless it is straight vandalism :-) --Tony Wills 21:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I didn't have to assume anything, I just fixed a mistake and explained why. The strong reaction came after, and was not mine. Sorry not to be politically correct, Tony. When someone behaves like a spoiled child he should be treated like one. I really do not accept that a single individual manipulates this site at will just because we are unable to react properly. We have to listen to and accept the opinions of everyone here, even when their knowledge of Photography is poor. But I will not accept this kind of behaviour. Not understandig or writing good English is not an acceptable reason. Regards, Tony, I really appreciate your good work in QIC - Alvesgaspar 22:07, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Hello, Tony. I'd like to thank you for helping me out with this sunset inferior mirage nomination. It is very nice of you. Have you seen my images of inferior mirage of the setting comet Comet mirage.jpg;Comet mirage 2.jpg;Comet mirage 3.jpg.These could be the only images of inferior mirage of the comet in the world, but could you imagine what happens, if I nominated them for FP?--Mbz1 22:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Black backed gull 02.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Black backed gull 02.jpg, which was produced or nominated 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.

Proposal concerning User PH-n templates

Hi Tony, I've written a proposal concerning the {{User PH-0}},...,{{User PH-3}} templates, that you may be interested in. Best regards Slaunger 09:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi again Tony. Just wanted to let you know that voting is now on-going. -- Slaunger 20:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Hungarian railway system.jpg

Thanks for help! I tried translate it. --Beyond silence 22.5px 12:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Proposal concerning User PH-n templates

Hi Tony, thank you for the notification. --LucaG 21:13, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations

Hi Tony! One of your pictures has been selected as "Today's featured picture" in the Spanish Wikipedia. Congratulations for your work, it's spectacular. --Xavigivax 06:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you :-), but the image was actually created by User:Benjamint444 with a minor edit (colour balance) by me, are you able to correct the attribution for me (I can not read Spanish). --Tony Wills 07:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I have worked out where to edit it, and have credited it to User:Benjamint444. --Tony Wills 07:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for forwarding this on to me Benjamint 10:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Userbox takeover

Hi Tony,

I was aware of that debate, but I haven't been following it. I wonder could we not just have templates like {{FP|3}} "this user has 3 FPs" and likewise for QI. What do you think?

In general the idea depends on QIC and FPC being robust and fair processes that get most things right most of the time, i.e. promote things that should be promoted and decline things that should be declined. And that relies on wide participation I think, to get representative views. If QIC and FPC and robust and fair, then a proposal like this should probably be okay -- I think it's important that we do encourage people to use our quality mechanisms. If this does go in place, I hope there would be a big emphasis on introducing new people to these things, rather than just saying "you're not allowed to use that anymore".

I notice Slaunger has contacted some people that will be potentially affected by the change. That seems very sensible, and taking some more time is also sensible if it has really only been discussed for two weeks. Just keep making persuasive arguments, and keep asking to get some in return. I have great respect for all the FPC folk :) so I certainly hope you are all sensible enough to listen to each other and seek for consensus rather than a raw majority. --pfctdayelise (说什么?)

I don't think there's a "fundamental problem" if that "particular group" is absolutely transparently open in its membership. But changing the semantics of widely-used templates in a big way is not a great idea at the best of times. Which is why I suggested having {{FP}} and {{QI}} templates as a compromise. What do you think about that? pfctdayelise (说什么?) 09:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi Tony, I saw your note on Pfctdayelise's talk page concerning notifying all PH users about the ongoing discussion. I certainly think that is a good idea. As I have stated I do not like to have my proposal come through if it is against the wish of the majority of PH users. When I notified 10+10 users I checked for recent contributions and noted that a majority of the users seems to have left the community - or at least they are not currently active. Actually, it seemed like a lot of the users had just created a user page but never really got as far as making any contributions. therefore, in reality +300 users is probably not a "real" number. Concerning the take-over and reinforcement I certainly agree it should not be used as a ranking hammer where "I-am-a-better-photographer-than-you" user just goes in and edits or completely removes an existing PH user box, because the user does not comply with the "requirements". First of all, I now suggest that we give the talk a little more time and keep the vote open without jumping to conclusions too fast. Currently it seems probable that proposal one is selected. If that turns out to be the result, I will fight dearly for proceeding in a proactive and friendly manner.
  1. If possible and not too time-consuming, all current PH users should be notified that the use of the template has changed with a link to the cateory page explaining the new definitions, such that a user can do the necessary modification for themselves.
  2. Grace period (is that what it is called)? For one month or two after instantiating the proposal, there shall be no one reinforcing the new "law" upon other users. Many users only have commons as a secondary site and primarily use it as an image repository for wikipedia articles. They should have time to realize a change has happened.
  3. If after this period, some ph- users find ph-"errors" in other users pages (and the user is active), the "controlling" user may drop a note about it on the users talk page. For inactive users, let it be. Personally, I do not have this desire for "patrolling", but I can image a new user claiming to PH-4 would get a note very soon.
  4. If after some time this does not work and has resulted in hostility instead of clarity we can adjust the system as needed. -- Slaunger 10:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Anytime where users are "patrolling" other people's userpages for "illegally" using templates is a pretty stupid situation IMO.
In reply to your last comment, if membership if truly open, being a "self-selected group" won't last long, will it?
If a userbox {{fp|N}} has the number in a big bold font, don't you think that will satisfy those who want a "ranking" or "milestone" achievement recognition? pfctdayelise (说什么?) 10:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Concerning "patrolling", I agree, but I have no control what other users will do. For instance, Lycaon patrolled and demoted about 20 user pages on August 31, 2007. Such patrolling is likely to occur even if we keep the existing system
About the member-ship thing: I am sorry I did not understand that (I have really tried)
Concerning the {{fp|N}} system, I and a lot of other users find this is an unnecessary addition and will only lead to template ego spamming of user pages. A lot of opposer assume that the proposed new system is also an ego-display. I do not agree, it just brings some sort of objectiveness into the system based on some semi-objective measurables. It is not perfect, but better than the current prevailing randomness. For users arguing that this makes it different from the babel user boxes, I think there is a difference. We do not have objective measurements of language skills readily available on Commons. So for practical reasons it is not quantitative. Also, I find it much easier to relate to the qualitative babel descriptions than the current fuzzy PH- descriptions. -- Slaunger 11:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
OK, so this is what I don't understand: why do we need "objectiveness" in this system? How would it ever be useful? The only purpose it serves is ego as far as I can see. And I don't object to a little bit of ego, it's healthy. But I don't think it's a good reason alone to take over an existing system. So please convince me about why the system needs objectiveness. --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 13:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Re 'objectiveness', I agree that 'objectiveness' is not needed in a user-box, but I also agree with others that clarifying what degree of expertise each level indicates would help. User:Slaunger's proposal-1 is basically a qualitative description and this is what we should concentrate on. --Tony Wills 11:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
The reason I would like more objectiveness is because current definitions are too fuzzy for my taste. Personally, I have no idea what I could possibly put on my own user page when trying to relate to current definitions (which also involves equipment, which I find irrelevant). The reason why I find the PH-N user box relevant on my user page is that it gives other users a quick impression of whether I could be of help, whether they should start from scratch when discussing photography or whether they can commincate on a higher level with me. Likewise it helps me when communicating with other users. Many users do not have the ph- box on their user page. There can be many reasons for that: Maybe they do not care, maybe they do not know how to insert one, or maybe they are confused about current definitions in the same manner as I am and therefore do not use it. In respect for those who are confused I think a clarification is in order. As long as control and patrolling is not reinforced I cannot see it is equivalent to taking over the user boxes. -- Slaunger 13:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
(at the risk of boring Carol ;-) I agree with almost everything you've said :-). I think your original proposal-1 is about right, but some of the voters want to turn the boxes into an accounting exercise and appear to me to have the intention of at some stage enforcing the criteria (which of course makes sense, no use having strict criteria without strict enforcement ;-). But I don't think we can promote something that will lead to edit wars over the content of someones user-page! So I suggest we take the vote of support for proposal-1 as being support for "Simple rules, one new level, little emphasis on volume" etc as you proposed and re-start the discussion of exactly what the levels mean. But emphasise that there can not be 'patroling' of userboxes, these are still self assessments. If people do not have the requisite QI/FP numbers to justify their rating, get them involved in QI & FP (if necessary by simply nominating their images) so they can get feedback about their standing as a photographer. --Tony Wills 10:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Another possibility I thought of is that we have an endorsement that we add to the userbox if the community agrees a user has indeed reached the level they claim - eg a template flag that inserts a little QI logo, I think we can claim moral right to control such a flag just as we control the use of QI and FP templates on images. --Tony Wills 10:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
I like this latest thought of yours. It could be a QC (Quality contributor) marker, a small quality contributor icon embedded in the existing template as an additional flag (I think it should be a seperate icon which differs from the quality images logo, but which is quite similar to that one). -- Slaunger 13:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
I did a check once or twice on the (at that time) perceived validity of PH-3 boxes. There weren't that many anyway. I 'demoted' a few giving a rationale in the summary, and promoted a similar number. Though I favour the original proposal 1, I have no problems with the other proposals, once given support by consensus. If there is a rule: follow it. I do have problems with some remarks concerning competition and boasting QI' or FP's. There is not a single Userpage (as far as I've been able to check), that is directly indicating the number of FP's or QI's. Why, of all people, yours is coming closest to hinting at such numbers Tony ;-). Those numbers (if they exist, and I have on gallery e.g.) are found only on galleries and other derived pages. It clearly is not the main thing for most photographers on Commons. Lycaon 14:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Hello, The Category:Graphic abilities was set with the aim to be really simple, and accordingly, was "3 based" (1-2-3).
The 5 based system is good and important for languages abilities, and to understand/expect perfectly the quality of possible translations made by un user. But this 5 based system seems unusefully complex for pictures.
Moreover, I really don't like a scale which judge not on the picture themselves but on the meadals. Many users upload amazing files whitout runing for "picture of the day" (ie:user:Sting)
Yug [in a forever wikibreak] 20:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Hear hear

If its too much trouble to talk to someone, then I suggest the issue isn't important enough to bother with. :-)

Well said! --pfctdayelise (说什么?) 13:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Cooler.

You're right; I should have been more understanding to Liftarn, and I should have kept things much cooler than I did. I've made an effort at a grudge ceasefire on COM:AN/U. Lewis Collard! (talk, contribs, en.wp) 16:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

A bigger turkey for USA holiday

Thanks for your advice about that problematic image. I cannot think of a bigger turkey for the United States Thanksgiving celebration than that thing.

So if it doesn't get nominated before then, I will do that a few days before our national couple of days off. -- carol 09:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Agawa River, Ontario

Hello. Earlier today I found out that a photo of mine had been nominated as a featured picture candidate some months ago. Your comment in the nomination is 100% correct: the image was not tilted, the tree really was that crooked! If you take a look at my other photo of the canyon ( en:Image:Agawa Canyon, Ontario.jpg ), you can see the same super-tilted tree near the centre of the image. --Kralizec! 02:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

QIC rule adaptation

Hi Tony. Am I correct here or would you phrase this differently? Lycaon 06:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Dupes removal edit summary

Hi Tony. No need to invest too much time into creating an edit summary when removing entries from those lists. Once we have taken care of these 1000, I'll make a list of another 1000. No worries if you missed one or two. Thanks for the help. Cheers! Siebrand 11:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion

Mauve and yellow flower.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Mauve and yellow flower.jpg, which was produced or nominated 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.

Tojo info page translation

Gave the translation a shot, but the archaic Japanese award names were hard... not sure if any of them have more formal English translations... -- Joi 03:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

note

please see [1]. cheers. Jaakobou 11:22, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

finding a more suitable license

You know I've encountered some licensing problems and currently I'm not very happy with the GFDL. I've searched for other suitable licenses but couldn't find good ones. Don't get me wrong I encourage free licenses but strangely the license I'd choose from creative commons is not allowed on wikipedia (mainly because of commercial uses). Do you think that creating a license myself and restrict the use to wikipedia (including modifications) is possible? Fabelfroh 10:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

when thumbnails look like duplicates

I have discovered more than a few duplicates by taking a few minutes to scan some category (and even some gallery). That was the only reason I changed made those two images be in different category.

The preceeding has been an apology. -- carol 11:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting on this here. -- carol 21:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

re: Image:SFO at night.jpg

Whatever you (and others) think is right is fine by me. I'll send a note to the copyright holder about the discussion. Best, ~ Riana 11:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I would be curious to know why they've decided to retract. Cheers, Ben Aveling 12:01, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Not quite a 'barnstar'

-- carol 23:43, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Piano.

OK, no problem. --Lestat 12:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Image:Beethoven piano.jpg

Hi, I haven`t created the image, i found the image in this page: [2] And thaks for explain although, I understood regular. i don't know what is ASAP, sorry. Thank you. :D

--Paula 14:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

diff versus new messages

I could see what you wrote in the diff, but could not find it in the page.

I had imagined making a crystal ball with your screenshot in it several times while sorting the E but I decided to play with an image of Mount St. Helens exploding instead.

Time to start a with a new subject? -- carol 11:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

It was in the caption :-) --Tony Wills 19:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Paula

Thank you very much for all. :-) --Paula 14:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Mess, she said tearfully

I really like your clover photo. I put it there and then did what I could to make a category for it here. Then came the tears.

  1. Category:Trifolium pratense I made this and put it in Category:Trifolium
  2. Trifolium pratense exists as a gallery and is also in Category:Trifolium
  3. Category:Fabaceae is where you put it and a subcategory belongs to that called Category:Faboideae which has a subcategory Category:Trifolieae which Category:Trifolium is a subcategory of.

Damn those monks (or whoever came up with this method)! Now that I am listing the problems here, it doesn't seem as bad and the tears have ceased. New questions though. What reason do you think that the subcategories for Category:Faboideae all start with '.'? And how come you put your clover in the family and not the tribe and why is tribe a subcategory of family?

When the physics department at my university promised that everything they expected of me should go simply back to force equals mass times acceleration or energy equals mass squared, it was stuff like this mess which made that mass extremely attractive to me.... -- carol 09:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)