Our first steps help file and our FAQ will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy. You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold contributing here and assume good faith for the intentions of others. This is a wiki - it is really easy.
Hello, Carol, Thank you for your question. Tell you what, I've no idea what sex this pearl is. The thing is that I'm afraid my English is not so perfect. I translated from my native language, where I'd have used "he". If you believe, that I should have used "she" or "it" please feel absolutely free to change the description.Regards.--Mbz103:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
I think that you don't give yourself enough credit for your skill at communicating in English. Allow me to cite this as evidence of what I have suggested and allow me to further suggest that it might be interesting and good for you to expand your english skills into other variations of the form -- more than just condescension. That really was one of my two favorite reads (of things I did not write myself) in this years July. carol17:48, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Black pearl and his shell The question I decided not to ask was how you knew that the mollusk was a "he", I always thought that pearls were just extremely tidy collections of refuse that the mollusk created instead of polluting its environment. I am fine with both maintaining this assessment of what a pearl is and also in not knowing how you determined the gender of the mollusk. And I see that I did indeed misread the title of this image to begin with!carol04:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Carol,I cannot open the links you sent to me. I rarely process my images in a photo shop and I even do not have a good one. Beyond this I'm not sure how I could help you. Thanks.--Mbz114:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC)Mbz1[reply]
I think that photoshop cannot open those files. WikimediaCommons suggests GIMP and I read that it works on Windows (although, it is difficult to imagine). It is photo manipulation tools for people who don't have the money for Photoshop and don't want to steal it. Oh, it is available for people who have money and/or steal or purchase photoshop as well -- it is one of the few alternatives for the previously mentioned. Most scanned photographs I have seen need some help. I think that adjusting decomposition layers would be similar to the way colors are adjusted in the photo print process -- when they put the image on paper. So I don't think that this kind of adjusting is new or evil or anything.
Not why I came here, but yes, I've given up sometimes, to my regret. I know there are magik things that those in the know can do to trade off noise against resolution and, um, other stuff, sharpness? I confess, I've never put in the time to work out what they are. I know I should. All suggestions welcome. (Yes, I have GIMP.) Ben Aveling11:22, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't been able to get gimp to reduce noise in images very well, other than what downscaling can do. Most of the enhancing plug-ins seem to be destructive more than helpful to me.
Benmint or whatever that user name is has spent some productive time recently going through the old listed images looking for images that should be delisted for the same reasons that other images were opposed. That seemed to be one of the more honest attempts to do something right recently, in my opinion.
I read on wikipedia talk pages that Mbz1 is a 'little old lady'. is Ben Aveling one also?
My stepbrother, when he went into Navy boot camp, said that his drill sargent seemed to pick him out as he was getting off the plane and harassed him more than others that whole first boot camp session. I thought to myself that in the same situation, I would want to do so to protect myself. I said to him, to take the compliment because he was a very magnetic, funny and himself a hot spot. In real life, I am usually very quiet and let people just do their thing. I took that screenshot of the miscount not because I was looking at what one person was doing, but instead because I was looking at what everyone was doing. I am actually sorry it was Alves because it was really the miscount that I was looking at.
I realized one day that I am having problems here 1) because I used a conformal mapping plug-in on quite a few of the images I found here. I really liked getting them from wiki commons instead of flickr for the tutorial parts because of GNU and cc existing here. The other reason, probably because I am a female and I cannot hide this either in real life or online and everyone everywhere can count to 28.
Now, we used to have a thing that a woman would not make a very good president because of some mood issues (that she could not be depended on because she would go crazy and push the button launching the bombs). I suggest that men who are pushing the buttons on a woman to encourage her to 'go ballistic' are less dependable and probably should really not ever be put in charge of anything ever.
Apologies for not putting this new section at the bottom of the page, but noise is a problem I don't really know how to deal with, so I thought I'd accept your offer of advice while I'm here.
Back to business:
Oh, an attack on me maybe -- a simple /Decline would have been very eloquent in my opinion.
This is where things get tricky. Sometimes a critical comment is intended as an attack, sometimes it isn't, and only the author really knows for sure. That applies both to your nomination, and to its removal. I haven't dug back into the history here, though I can see that there clearly is one. To me, the nomination didn't feel like a good faith nomination - if you just wanted an example of vote miscounting you could have created one with fake names in. By using a real example, it gives the appearance that you are deliberately picking on the person who made what was, I think we can safely assume, an honest and harmless mistake. (As I said, I don't know the history here.) Maybe you weren't, but that was the appearance. If your nomination wasn't intended a personal attack then a mistake was made during the undoing by calling it a personal attack. But that's just yet another mistake, not a personal attack. It's always tricky deciding how to respond - sometimes it's best to just give people time and space to calm down, sometimes the right words can help everyone understand that the other side might be wrong rather than malicious. With something that looks like an attack, it's often best to remove it. Even if it wasn't intended as an attack, removing it is somtimes best - it prevents people from reading it and (wrongly) assuming it was intended as an attack. All the best - it seems you've been through some rough times lates. Regards, Ben Aveling11:22, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If I had been following the QI stuff (and not involved at all) if I had seen Lyacon /Decline that screenshot which was both too little and an action shot of cheating which did not affect the outcome, I would have laughed. Lycaon declines things for size often. So often that every once in a while TonyWills gets involved to remind Lyacon that it is a size suggestion and not a rule.
When I first started following the drama there, I was looking for images that had a specific purpose in mind. I remember reading the comments and thinking that many of the people making the comments were 'an expletive whose actual definition is a small part of the large area of the body that humans generally sit on pluralized' and it seems to be easier to be that online than in real life.
Hi Carol, By the purest coincidence I saw a picture manipulation of an arctic chickweed of mine here. I believe you are the creator? First I thought I was hallucinating, then I had a good laugh, as I find it really amazing how you transformed that image. Finally, I started wondering how you did it? It is not entirely clear for me. Could you enlighten me a little bit about the details please? I understand you used The GIMP....?? I use that too but only for simple photo enhancement. -- Slaunger22:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Most coincidences are pure. I am the person who mangled that beautiful photograph. I particularly liked that photograph because the subject itself is such an unassuming yet tenacious common weed; when viewed with the eye, it is difficult to see it as nice as it appeared in that photograph.
I made a TODO list of photographers here who need to be contacted about the mess I made of their images and you are there. I am waiting for an upgrade to the computer which is my email server. I am sorry for the delay. I did more to your image than I wrote about in the howto pages because the script was improved.
The GIMP has been renamed to GIMP for the next release, which should be soon. I learned about the plug-in and how to use it on a web site dedicated to photographer wannabes and then wrote about it on my web site. If you have questions about how to install the plug-in and/or how to make the script work and/or requests that other images of yours get the same treatment (or similar) I will be happy to do what I can. I spent much of July, all of August whirling and conformal mapping images in that machine and then this September I have spent trying to kick the habit -- it is very addictive.
That particular image of yours, everything I did with it looked so matrimonial that I only put one mangling of it online.carol08:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again. Thank you explaining that to me and for your comments about the photo. Although I am married, matrimonial was not the first word that came to me when looking at the result of you mangling. I like the original photo very much myself for the exact same reasons. I tried to nominate it as a QI, but that was not very succesfull. I can imagine fiddling with mathmap can be addictive and I think I will abstain from even opening that box as I am now back to a perfectly normal 110% stress level life after 3 months of leave and tranquility in Upernavik. I am curious however, if this Saxifraga nivalis flower image could be the subject of yet another experiment? I think that image has some nice symmetries, and the flower itself has the same qualities - it is minuscule and very anonymous when viewed from a distance, but when you get close, it looks much nicer. -- Slaunger20:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The matrimonial parts were just the whites and the beiges and as beautiful as it was, it is the reason that I only put one of them online. It really does look like an expensive wedding cake design. Beautiful but eeky also!
That Saxifraga nivalis image crashed my September 9 build of GIMP, I wonder what makes it so special? I am rebuilding to see if they fixed whatever this kind of image does to break things.
Many times and in forums other than this one even, the consensus disagrees with me about what is good and best and such. My little mess of a web site gets enough traffic so that I don't always need to work with the consensus to show off things (or feature them, even -- for lack of a better word) and quality images that I think are such. The problem starts to become more like a backlog of forgotten or overlooked images or plug-ins or entertainingly written text. The quality image candidates is where I found that image! That is a tough crowd there, don't you think?
Now I understood what you meant about matrimonial.
Yes, the bar is relatively high at QI and FP, but I actually think it is OK. It is motivating for me that things often can be improved and done better. If my photos could pass easily it would not be that interesting for me. I'm only frustrated when my short-comings can be tracked back to having average photo equipment and not the top-notch equipment used by the really good contributors. -- Slaunger08:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, can you tell me how you spotted the distrubed sky in Image:Lily_Lilium_'Citronella'_Flower_2578px-edit.jpg (I'm hoping there is a transformation that shows it more obviously than by naked eye) and how you made your edit? I can't see much wrong in mine (it's also more compressed) so I'd be curious to know how to do that sort of thing better. Thanks. Dori | Talk00:24, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am so sorry about all of that. I feel really bad when I mention something like that. It kept yanking my gaze to it though. That being said, I am the last person in the world who should criticize anything or anyone (except for close friends and family, some of whom dearly deserve it). I can see the blue edges even in the (773 × 600 pixels) page preview....
My first attempt was to use GIMP and the clone tool to try to smooth the sky details. I could see that as well. Brush shaped blue splotches where smoothness once was. Eventually I used some decomposition layers to isolate the flower and the clouds and redrew a gradient that I made by picking some colors from that sky. I think I have a tutorial about this somewhere; looking at my old web site pages (and even some of the new ones) is a terrible medicine that I don't want to endure, on this weekend in particular.
Does that help? I was going to suggest using GIMP threshold tool to see it with but even setting the threshold to 1 doesn't select just that area.
A quick tally of GIMP developers showed that most of them were near-sighted. I saw one of them (not me) notice a change in the width of a 10pt H during the early development of pango, GIMP toolkits font rendered.
Everybody has something....
btw, which do you think is more anal-retentive: me or that license?
You don't have to appologize, I was only asking so I could learn to do it better. If you have any tutorial links I'd appreciate it. My eyesight isn't the greatest, but neither is my monitor but I could see three circles in that image. Thanks, Dori | Talk19:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My personal experience is that there are thousands of ways to remove a background from an image and that all of those ways and the ones that will soon be invented don't really work well. I learned that saturation trick from the gimp-users mail list, and it almost always works, even with the most blown out skies. -- carol19:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, and thank your for sharing your files with Commons. There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. Please remember that all uploads require source, author and license information. Could you please resolve these problems, which are described on the page linked in above? Thank you. Siebrand09:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This message was placed by an automated process. Please go to Commons:Help desk if you need help.
Hello, and thank your for sharing your files with Commons. There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. Please remember that all uploads require source, author and license information. Could you please resolve these problems, which are described on the page linked in above? Thank you. Siebrand07:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This message was placed by an automated process. Please go to Commons:Help desk if you need help.
Hello, and thank your for sharing your files with Commons. There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. Please remember that all uploads require source, author and license information. Could you please resolve these problems, which are described on the page linked in above? Thank you. Siebrand01:13, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This message was placed by an automated process. Please go to Commons:Help desk if you need help.
Hello, and thank your for sharing your files with Commons. There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. Please remember that all uploads require source, author and license information. Could you please resolve these problems, which are described on the page linked in above? Thank you. Siebrand06:21, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This message was placed by an automated process. Please go to Commons:Help desk if you need help.
Hello, and thank your for sharing your files with Commons. There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. Please remember that all uploads require source, author and license information. Could you please resolve these problems, which are described on the page linked in above? Thank you. Siebrand09:02, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This message was placed by an automated process. Please go to Commons:Help desk if you need help.
Hi, thanks for helping archive the quality image candidate pages, but they really don't need manual intervention. We have a bot called User:QICbot that looks after archiving the entries and executing promotions 2 days after images have been reviewed (the 2 days is to allow for objections). I looked at your edits and decided it was easier to undo them and let QICbot sort it out. If QICbot is not working, its best to fix the Bot rather than having to intervene manually - it has the advantage that it doesn't get distracted or forget any of the steps needed :-) --Tony Wills03:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Yeah, thanks. I admit, it felt wrong but I also did not like seeing that image of that child sitting there with that daunting red border around him since September 22. Was the bot broke? -- carol03:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The bot is not particularly clever, and because someone added a comment to the end of the review, the bot sees that as the review date (in this case the 29th), so waits two days after that (and the bot only runs once a day, it might take almost 3 days before it actually moves things - slow but sure :-) --Tony Wills03:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hallo it might be a good idea to crop the pics before uploading them. Loseless crops can be done with XnView (perhaps in batch). If the borders of your pics are regulary, zip all the pics and I will try to do automatic cropping.
I am a lazy guy, I only use software which works quick and mostly automaticly. So I normaly work only on very bad photos. Or like in this case on those which are in the crop or rotate category. Picture cleaning is not mine. --Marku198818:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The database contains more than 3500 images. The thing about uploading them first is that more people could work on them. I have a lot of experience with one image at a time (a little with batches) but I haven't had the need since 1997 or so to crop so many images at one time. And then, it wasn't this many.
My email was forwarded to someone else, but they also gave me a phone number so I might end up calling about the high resolution images. Until then, help me understand what you just said: you said that you are familiar with software that will automatically rotate and crop images like this? -- carol20:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will check my E-mail entry today. Yes IrfanView ist a easy way for automatic jobs. Other tools promise it too. Another choise ist scripting. 3500 pics really ask for batches. Border remove can be done if the borders are in the same area. Rotating is manual work for scanned pics like this. But tools assist to do it fast. I let you kmow whe my Mail is fixed.--Marku198806:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The email is being sent and received from the people who have the higher resolution images (and the whole collection) of the few that I uploaded recently. My email is awaiting a new computer -- so don't fix your email for me. I used a gmail account to contact the US Forest Service, I don't take that mail account as seriously as I do the one that needs a new computer since 2005. I also use too many words when trying to speak with people who are not native English speakers. I have been sorry but unable to change my ways for many many years. I am glad to know is that you might be able to help to crop all of those images. Very glad to know that, even. -- carol09:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So let me know when you got the pics. But before upload to wiki, transfer all pics at a single zip to me. Down- and uploading pic by pic take time which can be used for working on the pics. --Marku198816:44, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem, I often don't cateorise images widely enough because it's not worth looking up whether it's "Canadian Forces", "Canadian Army" or "Military of Canada" - but the years should be easy enough to remember to do myself in the future :) Don't hesitate to recategorise any images you see marked incorrectly! Sherurcij20:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Time Cover March 8 1963.jpg has been marked as a copyright violation. The Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content, that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You can ask questions about Commons policies in Commons:Help desk.
The file you added will soon be deleted. If you believe this image is not a copyright violation, please explain why on the image description page.
Image:Time Cover July 23 1965.jpg has been marked as a copyright violation. The Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content, that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You can ask questions about Commons policies in Commons:Help desk.
The file you added will soon be deleted. If you believe this image is not a copyright violation, please explain why on the image description page.
Yeah, I had no idea that I needed keep an eye on anything. Let me tell you what I do when I make a mistake like that. I type {{speedydelete}} and try to read that in the preview. Chance are good that when I need to do that, I am already at least a little confused and frustrated. To make matters worse, right now I am trying to think through this before coffee today. Sorry. -- carol21:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know they had a Linux user wikiboxen. I shamelessly stole yours. I was also thinking about the en-0 template. It would be better if it said "does not understands English". -- carol08:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, sorry, I don't speak english very well! You want to speak about a photography like this? Bye Abalg, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I was thinking of a gallery on the Image page itself so that anyone looking at the one image would see all of the others as well. I did that with Image:VonBraunTeam1959.jpg to show that there were variations of the same image available (all of them are not great for one reason or another).
It might be unusual to do this with gallery, but as a user of the database, I would like to see this more often. -- carol21:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1883 is not an year (the other one has 1927 :D) but a serial number I guess. It seems an interbelic record, made most likely after 1937 (When Electrecord started to press its own records). --Alex:D17:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Better that I did not tag it 1883. It is a large scan! I remember reading about some software that could read the bumps in these disc (in the scanned pixels) and convert it to mp3. I should look that up.... -- carol21:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Hsvtmes.jpg 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 image, 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. If the file is up for deletion because it has been superseded by a superior derivative of your work, consider the notion that although the file may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new file.
In all cases, please do not take the deletion request personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!
Yes. I have been enjoying matching the satellite to whatever launched it, they also made interesting numbering schemes for their launches/operational satellites.
I might not understand the nature of your question, actually. Are you offering to help or should I start defending my actions here (heh)? -- carol06:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll clarify. It was an empty category when I found it, so I was wondering if you were going to add any more images to this category. I added one image myself, but I'm not too familiar with the Pioneer missions, so I did not add the category to any other images. Nishkid64 (talk)18:47, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Too bad about the help part.
Take a look at Category:Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite before they are satellites, they have a letter for the name. So all of the launches and all of the clean room images of GOES goes there. Once they are functioning satellites, they get a numerical name. To keep the order correct, it is almost impossible (at least for me) to work without the categories set up first. Once the structure was set, it was no big deal to put the rocket into the category. If I did this correctly, all I had to do was give the GOES A rocket a GOES A category and it is available from the launch location, from the Geo.. Stat.. Oper.. E-- category and from the rocket type category.
For the most part, the commons has (had even, before I started messing with them) several categories with images of launching rockets. No payload. Very cryptic information about what kind of rocket it was and often no mention of the date. Take a look at Category:Delta (rocket). Do you know that everyone of those rockets had a payload? Only a few of the very early rockets that were developed in USA didn't have a payload (or a purpose).
If you have a better way to do this, or if there is some rule against having empty categories (until an image is found) -- do let me know either the method or the rule. I am going to suggest that a rule like that (if it exists) would cause the commons rocket images to look like just a bunch of photographs of rockets being launched with no purpose at all but just to sit there looking like a rocket being launched. Sad, considering the money that was spent launching them.
Sad, because I was thinking that there was enthusiasm to help and this is probably more like enthusiasm to police. I cannot tell you here what a bunch of launching rockets looks like when they don't have a purpose though. I am doing good stuff to that collection.
Thanks for your interest. -- carol 21:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC) (btw, did you see that there is a car in this gallery. I have a phrase for a system of organizing images in this fashion: "High maintenance" which possibly cannot be adequately accomplished while high. carol22:21, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, Carol. I was a little confused by your replies at first (I just figured you weren't understanding your question), but it's all water under the bridge now. Anyway, no one can take "access" away from you, especially since you have done some fine work here. Thanks, Nishkid64 (talk)15:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:TV-5-sketch.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikimedia Commons (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page. If the content is a derivative of a copyrighted work, you need to supply the names and a licence of the original authors as well.
If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag, then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{self|cc-by-sa-3.0}} to release it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license or {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find all your uploads using the Gallery tool. Thank you.
Thanks for uploading Image:TV-4-satellite.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikimedia Commons (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page. If the content is a derivative of a copyrighted work, you need to supply the names and a licence of the original authors as well.
If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag, then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{self|cc-by-sa-3.0}} to release it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license or {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find all your uploads using the Gallery tool. Thank you.
Hi
I'm sorry if this is a really stupid question, but could you please tell me what the phrase 'Bottom Feeding Bitmap Graphics Creator' means? Thanks a lot, The Discoverer07:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good question. I think I ranked these somewhere -- these were my first and so far only templates. When I was first looking around at things here, I didn't like the graphics editor rankings that are here. I have been self taught and also coached by others who were self taught. I wrote at the top of that Category this:"These users have difficulties measuring themselves against the established standards/norms. They are willing to troll the dark underbelly of society as well as the bright shiney surface areas looking for just the right image." and to be honest, sometimes the new files gallery here is exactly that. I have found that (especially in this new century) that people who are willing to rank themselves often aren't able to live up to the expectations of the rank. Perhaps this is more FUD from the self taught and taught by the self taught, but that is how I see it.
One thing I have learned about how things work here, if you want to get a pat on the head and what might be the equivalent to "good doggie" all you gotta do is grab a NASA photo of the day and make that a candidate for Featured Picture. Do you have any idea the reason that online voting becomes such utter crap so very often? -- carol07:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My first clear thought was "POTY is funny!", especially as I am in the process of making a section on my web site right now where I unload a lot of somewhat ugly thoughts about professional processing of scans of old photographs and I am calling it "The Throne Room". I am actually considering making a print of one of the favorite photographs that was taken this year, throwing dust on it, scratching it, tear some of the print part off from a corner -- then scan it, reduce it by 25% or so, autosharpen it and then submit that to the Featured Pictures candidates to see how well it is received.
My second clear thought is that I have been using a point and shoot since 2002 and I have also become separated from my old film photographs and negatives as well as the camera and I can only imagine what it is like to have a nice digital camera and access to photogenic places/things/varmits. The one thing that I can easily imagine is that a person who is only using their imagination's opinion is probably not really wanted in such a debate. How many demerits are there for being honest about what you really know? -- carol09:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi carol. I find it very entertaining to read your talk page as your views are refreshing and very different. I may not agree with everything you write, but I would still say that your opinion on that vote mentioned by Foroa is welcome whatever your vote or comment will be. -- Slaunger09:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again Slaunger -- I must admit, often within a few days or weeks I don't always agree with the things I say. I think that I am the only person in the world who isn't certain of everything all of the time. I had what I think are some very good thoughts and I had no idea how to put them into that debate so I wrote them here instead.
I agree that was good thoughts. You are right that a better de-coupling of the photograph and the photographer would be good. Although I had not thought about that before, now that you mention it, I also find it difficult to distinguish the two of them. Please do not change your mind in believing this is good thoughts. -- Slaunger10:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have been biding my time recently imagining that I am rescuing the USA Space Program from the Germans (as Space Programs seem to historically need rescuing from them) instead of trying to figure out who is in around here and who is out and why. That photograph of the dog was really sad and disturbing, btw. -- carol10:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Disturbing as in "I do not think you should have uploaded that and nominated it for FPC?" or as in "I do not like what I see?" It is different from flies looking like bees, isn't it? -- Slaunger10:43, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Disturbing like a good photographs often can be. I am glad you uploaded it, I was unable to follow the voting; my wish is that it was accepted and that I never see it again. It is often convenient to think of people as animals, but it is in reality very rare that people are as simple as the other critters. This image was a lot like that and even more to me. Thank you(?) -- carol10:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Carol, could you imagine taking on an alter ego and a more masculine user name, such as Lorac, avoid hesitation and doubts in your conversations and experience how the world will respond to you ? Would that make you happier ? --Foroa10:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello there again. I used a nick lorac once when I thought I was sneaking onto an irc network to talk privately with one of the ops there. She (lorac) was more of a woman on the prowl than a man (and not even that prowly, actually) -- I am not going to do that again. I watched someone critique my 'sneak' and apparently i used some simple techniques which at that time worked really well. Taking on an alter-ego -- probably not. That is like acting(?). I attended a not very large high school, my graduating class was about 200 people, of the students there who were interested in dramatic arts, I was not such a great actress compared to them. Instead, I became my schools first Student Director. I did this as a girl, as a buxom girl and as a nice girl even and I did a pretty good job at it. Roles in life are different, they rarely seem to actually depend on a gender. I had a class about group psychology (special for the dormitory Resident Advisors at my university) there was a lot of crap in the content of that class except for a few things. The one I remember now and often is about how if you get a group of people, there are certain roles that need to be filled in each group. They had the roles named by how many were in the group and such -- it has been a very long while since I had that class and unfortunately I don't remember all of the details. The gist of it was that the individuals in a group will shuffle themselves until the roles for that many people are all filled. It had nothing to do with gender. So, sometimes I see "myself" as a clerk at a store or as a waitress or as a physics instructor but this time, it is an old man who is "me" or a -- well, you get the picture. This person is not really me, but has the role I usually take in that group. Age and gender rarely have anything to do with it when I 'see myself' this way.
I have a question for you. Do thoughtful men not hesitate when they speak?
When women in the seventies put on suits that had huge padded shoulders (making their frame to be more manly) it did not do too much to promote "women in the workplace" or "women as the boss" did it? It promoted women with manly profiles and clothing companies instead. At least, that is how I interpret this so many years later. So, thanks to the womens liberation movement, we pay higher car insurance here and still get paid less per hour or work year and are probably the ones raising the kids on that lesser income if there has been a divorce. So, regarding fantasizing about being male, no. See men being like me, yes. Act the other gender, probably not and also, quite possibly doing that will deny that I have done as many things successfully as a woman as I really have done which should be an insult to other women who have successfully accomplished things.
Happier is an interesting idea here. Do you perceive that I need to be happier? I would be happier if capitalism had not failed me. I would be happier if I had gotten some credit for being able to manage a complicated project while also doing my share to save the little store from the the big guy. I would be happier now if I had made enough money while working to live where I was working. For 15 years or so, I got to hear that I did not qualify for a good income because I had not finished college. Now, I go in debt borrowing money from a young man who earns in one year more than 5 times what I earned in my best year and has 1/5th the amount of university completed as I have and none of the experience. I would be happier if I had not been scammed by the GNOME people towards contributing my time and effort to people who still live in the safety of their parents. Such an exquisite scam, I must say. I am told about the dangers of contributing 3 or 4 years after my successful project.
The additional insult here is that I have been staying in an area which has a history of considering women to be computers. If you think about it, really really think about it, the insult is ultimately given back to the people who dehumanize other beings like that. Especially when these people realize that they are nothing without the person they dehumanized.
Another question about your "space" speciality. When I visited the en:National Air and Space Museum in Washington, I looked inside the command module of an Apollo mission. What sort of person you have to be to accept to step in such a capsule ? Would you do that, or only every other month ? Any pictures on such claustrophobia generating capsules ? (space pictures tend to generate "wide" views, I guess that when you are inside, its very much different) --Foroa12:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I must defer this 'space specialty' label. Better to call me an admirer of dorks and geeks and their language and toys. I listened to what a rocket lover had to say about rockets whenever he would say something that made sense. Also, I was seven years old when they walked on the moon -- reading about that time and the stuff that lead up to that has been really really enjoyable. When I started to teach the Astronomy lab at the university, the labs really needed an introduction and additional instruction. I decided I would be good for doing that because I really enjoyed it and also I had had to struggle with it myself the first time through. I had keys to the observatory, but there were always a lot of people around who could find stars and things in the sky. The show was not about me looking for something with the 'scope, it was about looking at things with the 'scope. I went to the observatory one evening and located M81 and M82, it was difficult but it was also the two for one deal the sky has to offer. I knew that if I were ever the person in charge at a gathering there that I could find things. Do you think that only a female can be not a telescope hog? Everyone has to fight that "look at me" syndrome sometimes -- I don't think that has that much to do with gender either.
Perhaps there was enough information disclosed in that last paragraph, that an undergrad psych major can determine what role I had in that funny little group, eh? My gender did not have so much to do with things, I don't think. I was the first female, but these were also very very dorky beings that were teaching that lab and running that club.
When I first started teaching the lab, I had read in Nature or in Science (the journals) that we had just dropped a weather balloon on Venus. That was cool. I am looking forward to finding the launch that dropped that balloon.
I was over 40 years old when I flew in an airplane the first time. I enjoyed it very much. I get carsick from certain kinds of suspensions (actually a certain brand of car) in some automobiles; I was surprised when I did not get sick on the airplanes. When I was a kid, the astronauts were our nations finest and most intelligent athletes, at least, that was how they were presented. Can you profile yourself? Like look at who you are and determine what you probably aren't? I was born with a strong body but not very graceful and definitely not the structure of a pilot or athlete. Not claustrophobic, but realistic. I am not very competitive either.
Those guys, that sat in those early rockets and allowed themselves to be launched -- they were insane. Much more insane than I have ever been. I actually had the sense that these guys were insane before I saw the movies about them. Totally nuts.
My mom was a 'duck and cover' kid -- they quit teaching that by the time I was in school. I remember considering if the Ann Arbor area would be a good target for a bomb. The cold war had evolved like that by the time I was in school where we knew there wasn't much to do about it if it happened and instead calculating how close they would drop one. I just watched some of the commentary that was included with the Strangelove DVD and have been thinking about those times. I watched it the movie again because of everything I had been reading while sorting through those images. That was a great movie and it still is.
Cleaning and making some of those old images right again -- I think that is an honor and also, it is really cool. I like that old style. This image is totally my favorite out of the lot of them so far. It looks like a ham radio operator postcard. My dad and brother are hams. I know dorks. I know enough not to clean up after them also, but god love them, I love the style. When I first looked at the images from those early weather satellites, my thought was huh, yuck. That's not such a great image. I had to think about it. Can you imagine what it would have been like to be there when they received these first images? Putting a television camera in orbit and seeing the tops of the clouds and how the weather worked on the whole globe! I realize that the images they got were all skewed (I saw it somewhere), the idea of figuring out the maths and the transformations to make those first images look right -- I get a little jealous when I am working on them and thinking about it. What a time that must have been. And hell, I have seen how groups of people work -- finding ways to justify launching a rocket might have been the inspiration that lead to all of that. "Can you come up with a reason to launch another rocket?" The chicken or the egg? It doesn't matter, what matters is that chickens are willing and able to produce eggs. So, in the same spirit, it is really really good to have images of rocket launches associated with a project that was launched or even one that could have been had the launch not failed. Having a gallery of images of rockets where the payload was not mentioned or is cryptic --this is embarrassing to me and should be to the whole human species. (But perhaps there are no humans here because everyone is so elite in the zoo.) I am grateful this many years later that I had a rocket fan explain this payload thing to me. Purpose. People and rockets need purpose. Not porpoise, purpose.
So, the title of this section of my "Talk" page is "Bottom Feeding Bitmap Graphics Creator". The role in which no one seems to want to fill here is 'not the best'. 'Not the best brand of camera'. 'Not the best photographer'. 'Not the most highly ranked'. If you are attempting to place highly in 'Uploaded images' then cleaning them is not the best approach. So, I looked for something that I loved once and found they had been just uploaded and not loved. Not even loved by those who scanned them -- maybe that was due to the time alloted for the task, maybe that was because they weren't there when all that was happening. So, I am working on making those first images good. From before NASA got all of those layers of management yet after they had to justify the rocketry. Not a bad bottom to feed from and actually, awesome good feed because all there are here are very elite manly creatures who are the best at everything they do or touch.
Am I the only person working at the commons who is not the most elite and best at everything? Anonymous is safe. That adopting the other gender because the one you were born with is not working -- this might be interesting if allowed to complete itself, where all the women are men trying to look like women and all of the men are women trying to look like men -- but it also looks really stupid, really boring and really backward to accomplish, don't you think? And it is not difficult to imagine the peer pressure crap that would go on from that kind of thing. Where 'you are not one of us unless you hate the gender you were born with'. I don't believe so much in fate, but it is so much easier to look at what you got when you were born. I got female parts therefore I am female. No reason to fight that, especially not from 'peer' pressure.
Well Carol, an interesting read, but not a lot I can say.
Still, on your question: "Do thoughtful men not hesitate when they speak?" I would say: "Do real thoughtful men speak ?". I think they can only ask questions.
And happy, happier, peer, peer pressure, ...
I am still trying to find out if we, and the commons community for that matter, are really different from a ants colony, bringing in on average 3000 pictures a day, arranging them in the caves of the Commons warehouse, spinning and re-spinning thousands of category wires between them, jumping aside for storming bulldozer ants, ... Having no time to step back to have a full look, no time to look really inside the pictures, to taste them, to enjoy them ..., no time to talk with the other workers. And as with the ants (google ants study workers lazy), there is no management in our crazy world. And in some sort of magic way, it gets all sorted out somehow. Just amazing. Would that be a part of real happiness ? Our ants heaven ? --Foroa13:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That was a great web page! Painting chilled ants is insane. I worked for a few years with bug people like this. In real life, they don't seem to be that insane, usually.
This year, I got a photograph of a photographer taking a photo of what another photographer was looking at. He was behind her and had the camera aimed over her shoulder. What is really cool about that photograph is my memory of his face when he saw I was getting this 'graph. Photographers don't like to get photographed, for the most part and he seemed to be no exception to this rule. There is no place here for it and that photograph didn't turn out so well -- but the story is pretty cool, huh?
I lived 40+ years in a different location than I have been staying in recently. This land is somewhat foreign to me, different plants and critters and the familiar ones behave differently or have different strengths. The compost bin I filled made some mosquitoes. Here, I was glad to see them; where I lived for 40+ years, they were our state bird (at least were on many postcards that you could find at camp grounds there). I have had two ant infestations here. The first one was beautiful except the colony made one little mistake. They came in through the livingroom, probably ate banquet style where the renter here eats his dinner. They crossed several meters of carpeting which I think if you are an ant is difficult terrain. They climbed up the wall and this was their mistake, they took a left turn instead of a right turn. That turn probably tripled their march; if they had turned right, it would have been about a 3 meter march but they ended up touring the whole hallway before making it to the garbage container in the kitchen. They formed a 3 or 4 centimeter wide strip as they marched around the upper part of this house. There were a lot of them so the strip of marching ants looked like black tape or mesh and they maintained that depth the whole part of the wall journey. I really hated to break it up. The second infestation, they came in from everywhere and different places daily. They bit me several times and they were weird in that sometimes they liked to eat grease and sometimes they liked to eat sugar and sometimes they just liked to take a bite out of my foot. Not so easy to write nice things about them.
The New Images gallery is often very interesting to look at. I can look to see how long you have been involved here but I would rather ask. How long have you been involved here? I had no idea what to expect when I started to become involved (instead of just peeking in). 3000 images a day is breathtaking. If it slows down, and if it ever gets first categorized and then galleryified, it will be a miracle of even larger proportions, huh? I found a little something that needed and deserved some attention and some strong feelings about how nice it would be to be able to separate the vehicle from the project, if you want to. I also discovered a few funny things when I played in that one little corner of the ant farm. It took the rocket people a little bit of time to settle on a naming scheme for their launches and then the success if it was. It took me about the same amount of time to figure it out and it also took whoever did the scanning of the images at NOAA the same amount of time to work through it. I could tell by the pasted descriptions there. There was a moment for both me and that scanner person in which we both paused and said "Oh, so every prelaunch is a letter and if it doesn't explode, it becomes a number!" Probably at NASA they said "I think it will work better if...." and thankfully, it did. It has been much more entertaining and interesting than I would have ever thought to do all this stuff.
I am having other peoples strong ideas about things instead of my own which makes me feel more sure about them. (That is me justifying any mess I made of anything by pointing at my teachers....) I would like to ask questions that get you to tell me how your ideas changed from the days you started here and how the commons has changed since then as well. I know that I can look at your contributions, but that will tell things in a way that I might make some assumptions about and I would rather know what you would like for me to assume first. I get a little concerned that I talk about myself too much and I do seem to enjoy that. There are some very interesting people or varmits in those tales about myself though or I wouldn't have anything to write about. What brought you here and what keeps you here? -- carol15:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but not really looking for that. When I got involved with things GPL my goal was to live alone for a while and I wanted to do this in my hometown. My time since then has been spent 1) not cleaning up after the dork who was supposed to "help" and 2)not living somewhere I did not want to be. A perfectly good life got interrupted and I have no soul to find a mate for until I can have that life back. -- carol15:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What means "things GPL" ?
General Public License -- it made me feel warm and happy inside when I first read about it and thought about what it could do. GNU is the next acronym after that, I think. Richard Stallman wrote a document that dreams (good dreams even) and aspirations should be able to be built on and it seems like the basic idea behind it was that once you acquired a computer, you should be able to install software on it that works without continuing to purchase things, if you wish.
Përfectly good life: surely, you missed something out
I was poised to take a few steps up from where I was at, instead I became separated from the things that I had collected (a 40+ year collection of things that I loved and things that I thought I might need and have needed since I was separated from them). Thousands of miles away, and I really did understand the place I had been much better than the people who are here understand this place. I had been building a life there because I wanted one there. You pointed at the ant colony article. Perhaps the people from that part of my life where I thought I was building something good were so interesting that we were uprooted and replanted elsewhere like one of those colonies. I am just guessing all of the time now about what went wrong when and where. I suggest that people always try to remember what it is they thought they were doing. 'Perfectly' is not the right word. 'Perfectly good for me' is better.
Don't reckon to find that or any other life back --> first the soul
'I have no soul to find a mate for'. I am going to stick with this statement. It was fairly well thought out. 'Perfectly good' was stretching the truth while 'Perfectly good for me' is much more accurate. I have a soul.
Well it looks like I am behaving like an ant looking for its place in the colony. One day, I will come back on this. From what I understand, you are an ant that jumped to a completely new colony and keeps wondering why the ants behave differently than the ants in your previous colony. That GPL appeal must have been quite strong, or was it the missionary charisma from Richard Stallman or something that pushed you away ?
There seems to be no way back and you have difficulty making a home in your new colony. You seem to be trapped so you kick a bit around to trigger reactions and communications, to find reference points. --Foroa06:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
None of those photographs will do well in either of those 'contest' arenas but maybe some kid would enjoy seeing a nice gallery of that show.
I detest these photographs, btw. I have seen shows like this, and I understand that it is a way to study the animals and enjoy them and fund your studies but they needed to be removed from where they like to be to get here and perhaps they enjoy it there (the pictures make it look like they do); what would be really neat is seeing a photograph of these mammals opting to do this while living in their own habitat.
I helped my friend for a while photograph horse shows. I laughed at how similar those are to this. Capitalism works for her. I was the one who put a camera in her hand; ten years later after I ran out of money to live in the college area, I ran into her again. While helping with her horse show business, one event, I ended up doing the majority of the work (sorting and numbering the images) so that her and her brother could have a fight. Another time she invited a Russian friend along and he put a photograph of me and her online with a 'funny caption' about how she had to tell me where to put the tripod. I got a few dinners for all of that work and I did not like those images either. It is difficult, those show photos. The challenge is to make them all look the same. All of the horses in the same place and the proper amount of sky vs grass, yadda yadda yadda. My lens eye hurt along with other parts of my head the day my photograph was taken so the Russian could make fun of me. May 3rd is the day after her birthday as well.
It has been several years now since I have seen her. If life ever does for her what it does for me and I find her again and she is out of practice with her photography, I think I have enough respect for her to not ever let any of my friends make fun of her the way she seemed to import someone to do this of me.
I kept thinking about Vonneguts art novel where Circe had a foyer that was filled with 'lithographs of little girls on swings' while making a better looking show of these images. Also of Steve Zissou (the director of that movie has the same year birthday only a day earlier as my horse show friend) where there is such a good quote there something like "What the hell are these dolphins supposed to do anyways?" I was not surprised that it was easy to clone things in these images. I was surprised by how easy it was to clone things in these images.
Do you know of Skip and Chip? There are no images online that I can find, sorry about that. They are described as dung beetles so the rest of the description there about the fruit flies that are always there around their heads is probably not accurate and they are simply flies. Do you have a brother? -- carol06:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't remember seing those cartoons (anyway I haven't seen cartoons for a longtime). Well, it's not necessary to be dirty to attracts flies, I'm always chasing them away in my macro sessions outside. Very often they ruin my shots... The flies I know which feed on dung and carrion are those from the Calliphoridae ("blow-flies") and Muscidae ("house-flies") families. But I'm not an entomologist, far from it. I became interested in insects some months ago when I started doing macro photography. Yes, a have a brother (and a sister). - Alvesgaspar15:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The word 'dirty' is one of those words. As the opposite of clean, the images that I have been 'cleaning' digitally were not necessarily marred with dirt -- often it is cracks in the chemicals that made the prints. Then, I have a personal category for a kind of music that I like: 'Dirty Old White Guys' and they sing beautiful songs that are not dirty in the lustful meaning that I used that word for here. Skip and Chip were not drawn dirty. The character renderings of them are actually quite simple. It was the flies swirling around their heads that made me mention them to you. I did not want a television set in my life, but some days, that is all there is. I took a look at what they were showing to the children this decade. There was one about imaginary friends and I did not like the idea of that so much even if the few episodes I saw were entertaining. I saw one version of a Pokemon 'toon and I really did not like that. The message was to send a creature with certain powers to fight your battles for you. I didn't like that and don't know if that is what the whole pokemon scene is about or not. The one I pointed out here was both entertaining for me and I think that if I had a child that I would approve of the content/message most of the time. One of the last ones I saw was simply awesome. The antagonist, Edward made a French Ship because he had misinterpreted the word Friendship. Heh. I needed to see that before I went to France, perhaps. Well, live and learn.... -- carol16:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If I had a fly swatter.... All I have is a fly squatter though
I read the Quality Image guidelines carefully and thought, "Huh, I do have images to contribute." I cite for this the Purpose. "Additionally quality images should be a place to refer other users to when explaining methods for improving an image."
That image is from a scan of a 1960 document. How old are you? If you are almost 50 and not looking like a hunky 19 year old, what do you think should happen? -- carol13:04, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Every time I receive a message from you I'm sent to the dictionary. Good, my English is improving fast... Of course, I'll not satisfy your curiosity... but give you a hint. As about the quality of old photos, please look at this one, made in my home lab, with technology of the sixties - Alvesgaspar13:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On the internet, everyone is handsome, everyone is pretty and everyone might be ugly. You are very very very quick to hit the red button! I love that satellite and the ones that followed it. The weathermen here used to use chalk boards or something like colorforms when they guessed what the weather was doing. When these satellites started to send images back and the genius at NOAA began to figure out how to skew them back into the right shape for the earth -- the weather reports became that much more beautiful (not too much more accurate though). That is what NOAA scanned and put online. Acid boiled over time and there is a good chance that the photograph was not so great to begin with -- those people have different standards than you. I also particularly love how the guy is looking up at the bottom of the satellite.
Call it a submission or an admission that your equipment is so much better than mine and compliment the restoration. If anyone has a better copy of that original card and scans it and puts it somewhere that I can get it -- I will be more than happy to replace my restoration with the better one.
I don't know the reason that they didn't store this so that time would not hurt it and I also don't know the reason that those guys had cameras (especially when they did not have your good sense of good and not so good) they were perhaps busy doing other things.
Consider that the materials used to make such documents as my countries Bill of Rights and Declaration of Independence were better suited to withstand time than the materials they were using in the sixites. Do you know the song "Little Pink Houses" by John Mellancamp? I figured it out this year -- it is about all the color photography that happened in the sixties and seventies. Even if you did all of the right things and had pretty good equipment -- all of the whites are pink now because of the acidic materials. You should not blot out that whole era because of everything they didn't know. I claim that your equipment now would not be so good unless they hadn't reached out and embraced some new things back then. My dad didn't. He stuck with his black and white for a really really long while.
There is a huge segment of the population who probably think that my image is so much more lovable and technically correct than half or so of your fly images. Neither is correct -- they should both have their place. -- carol13:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A technicien with a white shirt and a bow tie, while working for NASA. Probably a once in a lifetime picture. --Foroa13:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both. And let me add that the technician with the white shirt and the bow tie and the camera man and whoever did the layout for that original card knew that they would be getting support via elections and voters and tax money for their space projects -- they did not spend the money to hire a professional photographer because they were doing other things and appealing to other people. -- carol14:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So, since you give all of your images that one particular time, it is actually not so much an approval but instead it is somewhat of an insult? I would like to think that both of my grandfathers were looking over my shoulder when I do things. Neither one of them are alive any more that they can actually do that, but can you respond to people as if that is what is happening? -- carol15:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing out my image on gimp.org, but I'm not sure that was your intention? Didn't really get the meaning: I'm the cause of bad publicity? Insult to who?
Sorry, your meanings probably perfectly clear and I'm just missing it :) Benjamint08:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
What do you mean by 'quite cute not quit cut'[reply]
I don't actually remember what it was I thought I was saying when I typed 'quite cute not quit cut'. When I saw that you put one time stamp on all your images, the laughter I had when the goose first went into the 'contest' there turned into an 'oh hell'. I am leaving the screenshot on my web site because when I first saw that -- the page loaded quickly and it really really made me laugh, instantly. Your timestamp seems to cheapen the real funny; I might be a little old school, so take that as a suggestion.
That last paragraph was supposed to answer just the quite quit and cute cut stuff but I think it answered everything. I only speak American English and I seem to write it as it is spoken (or at least I usually try to).
I am also thinking about how to start November there. I want to list my experiences with all of the many many many people who run their mouths, software or typing skills without thinking or actually knowing and using anti-tobacco propaganda and popular opinion. I hacked that extremely ignorant and thoughtless group of people for about 10 years with a breath mint. It starts to come together here, the smoking volcano, an 'In memory of' on the television that I watch -- the breathmint might have a doctored time stamp that takes the good intentions out of the picture for me.
Normally my camera doesn't spit out PSD files. ;-) So you have to settle for the jpg file. or do you mean a Highres version ? Best regards --Richard Bartz19:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The extended information claims that Photoshop touched it and I guessed that you wouldn't destroy the original by editing it and saving it as the edit. -- carol21:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I thought everything was clear :) I never save them as psd file. Pictures which i spent to Wikipedia are usually substandard which i delete after uploading. Best, Richie --85.181.58.14802:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There was a discussion about how the bar has been raised for the insect pictures recently, without knowing the whole story of this I can only know that it was your photograph of that bee that did that. Something like "When I tested the water there...." -- carol15:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but I looked for the bar and the discussion what you speak but I didn't find... Could you help me? Thanks in advance! Abalg
How to answer this in a short text? I think that I could search the archives of Featured Pictures Candidates for October and perhaps find the comment that said the "bar had been raised" for insect photographs in that 'contest' -- but it was something that I read there and easier to just write that than to find it. 'Raising the bar' always means to me that the requirements have gotten to be greater for all participants.
When I saw your images in the stream of new uploads, it seemed to be a rare whole story of images and the one that I picked was as good as several I had seen in the favored images there. With your image(s), I 'tested the water there' which in American English speak means 'checked for sincerity and honesty'. I have no proof that your image is the one that made the voters there be more honest and sincere (raising the bar on all images). I also know that I am sorry whenever I become involved because there are only some photographs that I am only a little qualified to review.
In short, the images being nominated for Featured Picture seem to have more variety lately and I like to think (without the actual proof) that your image failing there had a lot to do with this. People misuse the technology and also the forum that is supposed to be there for all people; I think that I have experienced this -- maybe not my share, but experience none the less. 'Tis sad. -- carol02:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I uploaded your version over the original. Thanks for fixing it. So you are on the GIMP team? Nice. I've been using it since version 1.2 (about seven years ago?).. ..on Linux of course. --Dschwen22:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have a GIMP web site. I am not certain what has happened, but they have found it easier to just appoint people now and do that very same thing. I think it is kind of funny that they have a new web site for GIMP that was made without using GIMP, but not funny enough to have spent the amount of time and community resources that they did to accomplish this little chuckle.
When I met them in Norway, they were much as I thought they would be. When we got together in France and Montreal, there were people involved that had been classmates of mine in high school between 1976-1980 -- they had different names and claimed to have come from different places. I have no idea what to do with that kind of thing.
I do not like the situation which exists that seems to set one group of free software people against the other, and it seems that this is what is going on.
Does that new site look like themes.gnome.org to you?
My dad and my moms parents loved the trains. Trains and models of trains were one of the better parts of my childhood. That image is great not just for the idea that the person in control of those trains has their own safety to think about, but it is also in my opinion, it is simply a great trainyard photograph -- carol23:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good for you!! "w:Role Playing Game", dweebs and other become master swordsmen or fighters in World War II first shooter games, or more -- I have not actually played any of these games (by choice or with knowledge of it), but I hear and read the rumors of them. Honestly, real life has had enough of this for me. That being said, it would be interesting and perhaps a little fun to go to a gameland version of this. Seriously, I might have some friends who are being immortalized there, if it exists.... -- carol01:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Carol,
Sorry! I have absolutely no idea about the RPG. I spend most of my internet time with work related issues and I am a really backwards person when it comes to games, communities, etc., etc. This is about the most I interact with people in the net, and as you can see, some of my interactions are not warmly welcomed!!!! That is the price for speaking out ones mind, but if one does not, who are we? --Tomascastelazo23:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Carol, I do not understand your objective for doing stuff like this? It seems to be triggered by this, which was again triggered by this strange decline comment of yours following this QI nomination, which was made by Alves a few hours before telling he was back on.line again. What is the point? Alves has given an informative message that he was off-line, and it seems to me that you use that as an excuse for declining an image nominated by him just because he has that message on his page at the time of nomination. Such actions do not seem very constructive nor beneficial for the Commons project to me. -- Slaunger10:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't remove anyones nomination -- I can see how that might be considered a problem. Look again at the diff my nomination was removed. The screenshot is honest and I looked at the history of the talk page, that message has been there for weeks. Perhaps there is no rule that images need to be nominated by people who are present, but there is also no rule that images might be declined because of the mixed messages being given. The screenshot could have been declined -- instead it was removed.
If he only returns today and after I decline the image, perhaps any images that were nominated while he was away before should be delisted. Is Alves a commons photographer?
I had some questions about the image. Not there to answer questions, not there to make nominations. It seems really simple to me.
To me it is quite evident that Alves is back on-line, when he nominates a QIC. If you have a question regarding the photo, just ask it there instead of just declining it. If unanswered for a long time (don't recall how many days), the QIC will just dissapear out of the list without being nominated. I think declining an image just because you assume the user is not available for questions is highly unusual tending to be obstructive. That you decline vote is cancelled as nonsense by Lycaon makes pretty good sense IMO. The following nomination of a snapshot of Alves User talk page on QIC is clearly nonsense and I do understand it is removed. You know it is not a serious QI candidate. All this stuff about delisting images while being away is pure nonsense to me. -- Slaunger11:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would not assume it, I read it and saw clear evidence of it. I don't have a good camera to catch animals in action but I do have a screenshot taker that can catch human beings working. To each their own image getter. -- Alvesgaspar 11:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC) Someone is abusing my identity, this comment was not made by me - Alvesgaspar12:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I won't sign with another name ever again. I don't like it, but it is very very easy to do, isn't it?
I have a new understanding that is also as dangerous and wrong as signing with another persons signature. That is that candidates can simply be removed without talking to the nominator or anything. Other things get over looked, like spamming the candidate list and miscounting the votes; I should assume that I will be allowed such freedoms when I start to just delete candidates? -- carol17:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not repeat postings like this, the only point of which appears to be to attack a respected contributor to Commons. If you have questions about vote counting, please post a query on the user's talk page. Making up a fake QI nomination just to make a point is simply disruptive and wastes everyone's time (including your own). A final warning: please desist now. --MichaelMaggs21:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Carol, If you would like to make a point, I suggest consulting, e.g., w:WP:POINT. Although this is a page on the English Wikipedia I think it gives some constructive suggestions of a general nature on how to make a point without being disruptive, thus avoiding all this negative feedback. -- Slaunger22:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for your note. Generally the categories contain every image that matches that category (including all the versions of an image) and an associated gallery page contains a selection laid out in a useful way (and certainly doesn't need all the versions, unless it is a category about editing :-). I had a quick look at some of your other edits and it looks like great work to me :-) --Tony Wills11:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Carol, now I've signed up my decline. What do you mean with the statement: "I think you are just trying to make things unclickable. Perhaps you and your little commons buddies." ? --LucaG15:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One thing, I was mostly awake for more than 24 hours and I get a little silly but I was looking around at the QI candidates -- after I left that on your Talk page I saw the signature in the == section heading == and started to think about how images are being nominated for people. How many admins are there (do you think) that have access to the passwords? -- carol20:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, and thank your for sharing your files with Commons. There seems to be a problem regarding the description and/or licensing of this particular file. Please remember that all uploads require source, author and license information. Could you please resolve these problems, which are described on the page linked in above? You can edit the description page and change the text. Uploading a new version of the file does not change the description of the file. This page may give you more hints on which information may be missing. Thank you. Siebrand00:41, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This message was placed by an automated process. Please go to Commons:Help desk if you need help.
Thank you Siebrand, you are a great bot. However, I wrote about this problem in the description of a duplicate of the image and I didn't even toggle the watch option to see how it is handled from there. btw, you seemed to miss the fact that there was no license on the original upload. -- carol01:01, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I already made an appeal/explanation at a talk to me even though I left the culture here page somewhere else. I did not remove an uncat template from an image, I undid changes that were made today and explained it both in funny anger and also with an honest appeal to any human being who might be putting a nine character template on images today. -- carol02:22, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your response. I don't often visit my en page. However, please do not remove uncat tags from images. This is a problem, because commons licensing requires all images to be categorized or listed on a gallery. I'm not quite sure why you've removed these tags, but it requires more effort then you might think. Please do not keep removing them. Patstuart (talk) 02:26, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I think that I have a little understanding of how much effort it takes to find those images. I tend to find them and then catalog them which, if you spend perhaps a couple of days thinking about this -- you might realize that, by definition, it takes just a little more effort to do this.
All I request is that you consider this for a couple of days and then by all means, start to paste uncat templates on as many images as you can find. 'Tis a valuable service.... -- carol02:35, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop. What you're doing is vandalism. You're reverting perfectly good edits for reasons probably no one understands. Continue this, and you'll find your name listed at COM:AN. --Boricuæddie02:58, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I already made an appeal/explanation at a talk to me even though I left the culture here page somewhere else. I did not remove an uncat template from an image, I undid changes that were made today and explained it both in funny anger and also with an honest appeal to any human being who might be putting a nine character template on images today. -- carol02:22, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your response. I don't often visit my en page. However, please do not remove uncat tags from images. This is a problem, because commons licensing requires all images to be categorized or listed on a gallery. I'm not quite sure why you've removed these tags, but it requires more effort then you might think. Please do not keep removing them. Patstuart (talk) 02:26, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I think that I have a little understanding of how much effort it takes to find those images. I tend to find them and then catalog them which, if you spend perhaps a couple of days thinking about this -- you might realize that, by definition, it takes just a little more effort to do this.
All I request is that you consider this for a couple of days and then by all means, start to paste uncat templates on as many images as you can find. 'Tis a valuable service.... -- carol02:35, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not a bot. I am, however, using a script that I put a good deal of time into: User:Patstuart/Extrascripts.js. You can even copy it if you'd like, though you should avoid the flickrreview section if you're unauthorized, and only tag images properly. To be honest, I don't appreciate your attitude. If you have a problem with me, I suggest you take this to the administrator's noticeboard, where I'm sure the administrator's will be happy to opine on whether it's appropriate to ask me not to apply an {{Uncat}} tag to images. In fact, please do so; I would love to hear their opinion on the matter. As a side note, please keep conversations intact, and if you paste on my talk page, only do so with the whole conversation intact. Thanks. Patstuart (talk) 02:56, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this is interesting at least. I thought that I was leaving a message on your talk page. I am not fond of my attitude right now either, it is difficult to control it when I am being interrupted. I think that I found a solution for all of us though.
Thanks for not being a bot. Somehow, use of javascript some how confirms things.
Here is something that should be unrelated but was fun to read: http://xkcd.com/341/ there are five parts to that (you have to push the little next button to read the next one). I found it to be interesting in that I went to school with this woman only her name was just a little different. We used to go to bars together and she would tell the boys that her father worked for the CIA and was taken away by a helicopter one day. Rumor has it that she also got kicked out of the school musical the next year (she was a year younger than me and I was not there any longer) for smoking in the costume room. The high school actually had a designated smoking area for the attendees way back then.
Well, this is interesting at least. I thought that I was leaving a message on your talk page. I am not fond of my attitude right now either, it is difficult to control it when I am being interrupted. I think that I found a solution for all of us though.
Thanks for not being a bot. Somehow, use of javascript some how confirms things.
Here is something that should be unrelated but was fun to read: http://xkcd.com/341/ there are five parts to that (you have to push the little next button to read the next one). I found it to be interesting in that I went to school with this woman only her name was just a little different. We used to go to bars together and she would tell the boys that her father worked for the CIA and was taken away by a helicopter one day. Rumor has it that she also got kicked out of the school musical the next year (she was a year younger than me and I was not there any longer) for smoking in the costume room. The high school actually had a designated smoking area for the attendees way back then.
Hi! When posting images from Flickr, could I ask that you please make sure to tag the page with {{Flickreview}}? Sometimes we, as a community, need to make sure that the license is verified, both now, and in case the page changes in the future. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask on my talk page or that of any other flickr reviewer. Thanks! Patstuart (talk) 03:22, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did that for a while and then I looked at the page and (if I remember correctly) the review was supposed to be only for images that were uploaded using the upload bot. Bottomfeeder actually has nothing to do with bots, btw. It is more like people who find images like this while doing some difficult work.
Here is another good job for you, if you are up for it and know how things work here and there -- I found this image on Flickr with an interesting license. I didn't upload it because of that. Maybe you could go through the hoops to figure out what to do with that one. It is on a potentially Featured List page so it should be effort that is not wasted. -- carol04:30, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, have you just been categorizing non-categorized images non-stop for the last 12 hours or so? And you got rid of all images beginning with "I" (for a short while). Impressive (and appreciative) work, although your requests to stop adding the uncat template seemed a little, well, unconventional. Do remember to eat, drink and sleep also... Take care. -- Slaunger11:32, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Aw! I seem to remember days not long ago when you could put a hold on wiki pages. ITC&R were the only ones I was going to work on! Dreamworks grabbed AEMN for bees, and I was going to get ITCR for me. Damn you. -- carol11:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
CRYTIXZE now neutralized (more vowels needed :-), I am defending your back and fending off any new additions (how many categories do you need to clear before you earn your barnstar?) --Tony Wills11:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for holding them off. You can quit now (although your 'Z' makes me consider getting 'E' also. (I see you can put the letters together...) I might take that barnstar off tomorrow; I really had a completely different thing in mind.
Really, finding that Galapagos image almost made it worth it without the silly screenshots. (Like scraping the stuffing from the inside of the bird, the last parts are usually the very best) 'night carol12:04, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
if you type 'doctored' they doctor one. It was obtained through a temporal browser that can see into the future ... that is now in the past as E-uncat has now come to pass :-)
Thanks for uploading Image:Kao abov.jpg. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikimedia Commons (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page. If the content is a derivative of a copyrighted work, you need to supply the names and a licence of the original authors as well.
If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag, then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{self|GFDL|cc-by-sa-all}} to release it under the multilicense GFDL plus Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike All-version license or {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find all your uploads using the Gallery tool. Thank you. Shizhao04:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, there are so many images in this collection without source listed. Thank you for finding the one that I uploaded! -- carol00:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is no reason of course not to provide them. I have personally been quite active lately with digging trough the NASA PD pictures, and cleaning up where I can. Adding sources, IDs and categories and tagging with "no source" where i really am unable to find a source. Images without a proper source and author (despite being NASA PD) should just not have been uploaded here in the first place. Everyone just doing their part. TheDJ00:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did not present a reason for anything. It is interesting to me that you would think that I was giving a reason for not giving the source.
I have been going through images and quite often, I had to look around for what the images purpose was. Occasionally, it meant going to another wiki that was written in a language that I don't know. A couple of times I had to look elsewhere (non-wiki sites) to find out what the image was about. Is that the wrong approach to take when looking for problems with images like this one? -- carol08:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
... you might have reached the limits of my English level! Therefore I'm not sure to understand what you mean in your message: it strangely sounds both mean and pleasant to me so I am really puzzled! Could you rephrase and sum it up please? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk...16:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK I've checked some few words (from the title and the first sentence) I didn't know in my dictionary and it now definitely sounds mean toward me! So I try to understand the rest (and mainly the reason!) and I answer you asap. --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk...16:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Damned! I read the rest again and in fact I confirm I do feel perplexed! It now sounds pleasant but if that's right I don't understand why I'm "a pain in the ass"! Is it just ironic joke or something like that? You see, that's really my English limits: irony, comparisons like what you've done with your restaurant discussion... I know my English is currently as rusty as the van on my photo (which is normal according to my best pal Down Under) but I'm always quite sad when I realize my limits. I love this language so much (all languages actually but I don't speak any other one apart from my own mother tongue) that I'd love to practice it more and to master it as my French... "Sniff!" would I say as a cartoon character!... --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk...16:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is both -- I cannot make it one way or another. Pain in the ass for me is like an irritation in which I don't understand the reason I have to deal with it. Like trying to walk with a pebble in your shoe. Your images, your other uploads and your support and declines as well as your comments -- you are like a pebble in my shoe and instead of removing it, I would like to know the reason it is there. It is mostly a compliment since there is no actual pain.
When I wrote about the grueling task that you undertook to manage the ratio of lighter flesh to darker flesh images in a collection here, I was being quite simply as rude and sarcastic as the software and venue here allows me to be. This is not a problem for you, is it?
I am learning to despise this language. It is fuzzy. We don't use the pronouns correctly -- for instance, I changed some 'you' to 'I'. I was talking about myself but I am so used to transferring it when being descriptive of a problem. And it is still there where I say you have a pebble in your shoe -- it would probably translate more accurately for me to have written "Like trying to walk with a pebble in my shoe." I have no idea when I started to communicate that way. It is almost impossible for me to communicate without metaphors or this was a simile since it followed a 'like a' (or 'similar to' which I think is where the word "simile" came from).
And, about your tower image (and mine). I remember creating some problems for my elementary teacher when I was 10 years old because I did something that emulated a classified advertisement I had read in our small little weekly hometown newspaper and then the next year (I was in 6th grade) I got in some trouble because Newsweek magazine had published a photograph of the Queen mum in England with the wind blowing the back of her dress up and she was not wearing any panties. I took the article and photograph in for "Current Events" that week. It was funny to me; in a respected publication and actually not very titillating of an image -- either then or now. Hell, they even called the class 'social studies'. These stories are from three decades ago (and more) by now. It seems as if there is this effort in the world to remove the middle ground. Where things are either one way ('graphic, lewd and wrong) or the other way (uptight and right) and I don't like it.
I didn't look, did you locate your tower on a google map? I am pretty sure that you abused your camera to get that.
Btw, I saw what I am going to call "The weirdest fscking photograph this year" and I asked to get a reprint of it. Image:Nuclear dancer.jpg. What I don't know is if I am allowed to scan it and upload a higher resolution of it here. That posed 'graph is really something -- it was taken when my country was putting its sons in the way of these explosions to see what effect it would have on them and according to some of the fictional replays I have personally seen of those days, the scientists had no idea if the things they were doing might ignite the atmosphere or not. When I was growing up, they told me that it was the land of the brave and the free. I now see that the soldiers were brave and the experimenters were free and for some reason, those two appear together but rarely as a singularity.
I hardly understand "where" you're going! I mean your long texts are very confusing to me. It looks all mixed and I don't get what you want to tell me!!! Aren't you able to sum things up with simple sentences? Just for a while so I could understand more! Please!! --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk...00:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC) (PS: the other message on my talk page is not linked to you. I just posted a message in French at the village pump while I wanted to post it on the French one! Just a mistake. So someone told me that...)[reply]
That might be the problem. The only places I go for several years now are French speaking countries which is not what I was working for.
How about this to start with: You are funny.
Now, you decide if it is worth your time to ask questions within the text I wrote to try to understand or not.
And since you took on the task of correcting the balance of white flesh to dark flesh in the collection here, let me ask you this question. What reason do you think that everytime I go to the grocery store here, a photograph of Zambia shows up in the featured photographs? -- carol00:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK well I suppose I'll stay with the "you are funny" part! ;-) I have enough problems and worries in my current life to wish something else! I prefer to think you appreciate me since I don't feel the need to be hated at the moment!...
I think it's mainly Namibia instead of Zambia BTW... Anyway, it's funny you asked me that because there are two things that looks strange to me on Commons (maybe more of course): the first one was the high purcentage of white bodies in the naked and anatomy categories, which is obviously not representative of our world. The other one is those "ethnic" shots that look great but make me feel like we're definitely (and unfortunately) in a neo-colonial world! It looks somehow like a human zoo sometimes... Africa is mainly represented with its traditional features, there's quite an oblivion of its modernity IMO. Anyway, I think I won't manage to change those problems/bias myself but I sometimes try to correct some as I can.
Last thing (totally different): I've nominated your photo of clementines for QI since I loved it and it's currently on the way to be promoted.
I disagree with that image being a quality image. It was a better photograph for a web page about the fruit than were available. That page has a 'better photograph' already. My computer and the tools that are on it are better than my camera. There is something very wrong about the voting being what chooses good images when the better image is ignored.
One of the things that I really really appreciate about your images is that they do not seem to make references to current or recent media (television and films) as some of the other consistent candidates do. -- carol03:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well I'm sorry about that nomination then! Where's the better image?
Yeah, well, the high school kid just deleted a fairly well written text about images and marketing and the state of education as I saw it. And it was about (perhaps) an image on my web site that I have put into 'entertainment'. I wrote about an animation and the one character from that show that I really loved. When I watch that stuff, I try to reconstruct the goal and other things that the people who made it had. That one particular animation seemed to have the goal of having all of the characters seem mostly bad and self serving and I might have written about how it was an accident that the one character that I loved in it was mostly good.
I am responding badly to a movie reference which was underscored in my real life by a person who looks like a character from the movie at the grocery store when I went there. It is difficult to turn things around though, I have been in a state of defense and/or recovery for several years now. It is as if I am imprisoned by a pyramid of wrongs and rules from the 13th century. The fiction presents possible answers to my problems and the problem with that is that I would like the real ones.
I was watching a comedy series from Australia. In one of the episodes, two of the characters consumed some ecstasy, the drug that is illegal here. I had a moment of 'huh' here when I saw that because it actually does explain what the class that I couldn't control and caused me to become unemployed had done. There were between 20 and 30 of those children and I was supposed to get them to watch a movie about the early 20th century Sears catalog. I have not purposely consumed this substance, so the fiction that portrayed it was helpful. I wrote on my web site that the mysterious 'they' (unknown people who run things) should make a rock that they cannot lift -- which is a silly reference to an atheist saying 'oh yeah, can god make a rock that is so heavy that he cannot lift it?' Getting 25 high schoolers who have just consumed that substance to watch and be educated by a movie about an early 20th century goods catalog might be that rock. I should be reinstated along with an apology.
However, that story was somewhat stolen from me this summer on a daytime drama that I watched. Because I saw it before I wrote about my bad experience, I don't own it any longer. My experience was in 2003 and this show aired in summer of 2007.
Since 2004 there is just fiction around me and fiction to play off from and fiction suggesting reasons for the way things happened and I really did attempt to use it for a while to express my problem.
In United States, there was for a while only AM Radio that provided entertainment via the air waves. Then, television stole much of that monopoly. Then they started with FM Radio and it stole much of what was left of the AM Radio stations. AM radio is mostly sad when I hear it now and I haven't heard it for several years. Network television is becoming like that and it is sad to see it happen. The statistics on what is being viewed are constantly inaccurate and fabricated and so many more things that are wrong with it.
Since 2004, that last paragraph is the only non-fiction that is in my life, and that is really sad for me because I worked quite hard and this was not my goal. -- carol23:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to leave the plant categorises to the TOL people, who like (mis)organising that area, on the basis that when the revolution comes most of their work can be fixed with a bot :-). I would create a category for each species (and maybe sub-species and variety if there are lots of photos), and put the gallery page as a sub-page in the equivalent category - so Trifolium pratense is categorized in Category:Trifolium pratense, and any gallery pages above species level need not contain any images, but just be a directory of the species pages - this is what I do with the bird categories. I suspect that having the sort order set to a "." is just something to do with somebody currently working their way through the category and they either move them to "." as they've sorted the sub-category, or move them from there to the appropriate letter - the ways of the TOL are wondrous and varied :-). Even though it was only yesterday (or perhaps today, but I started yesterday ;-), I can't remember how I decided upon the category, I expect I just put it in the category of other similar images - as I said I have only been skirmishing with TOL on their corruption of the commons categorization processes and haven't delved deeply into their lore. Basically while there are dedicated people putting things into some sort of order, I'm happy to let them go to it, I only object when they start undoing the work of others un-necessarily (like removing categories). Thanks for liking my photo :-) PS I think energy equals mass times the speed of light squared (not mass squared), but that does make a big mess when you release it all at once .... :-( --Tony Wills09:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, I forgot the c! It is interesting that both of these schools of thought are called science; obviously I am not able to go reliably from one to the other even. What is a TOL? (Give me some time to think about it...) -- carol09:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
hmm, tree of life. It is difficult for my brain to think that a tree where the tribe is lesser than the family would be a stable tree. -- carol09:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, yes I was referring to TOL, yes a good point, I think it must be an extended family that is so broad that it covers many tribes (perhaps there is something lost in translation from Latin ;-) --Tony Wills11:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, I am not sure about that at all. I got my information from wikipedia, maybe from a different page about it. Or I got my information from wikipedia and screwed it up when transferring it here. I know so little about this sort of classification and I only recently learned that there are several flavors of this as well. If you want to change anything that I did there, I am completely unwilling, unable and unqualified to challenge you. I was trying to get all of the category and gallery together so it will be easier to see all of the images that have been either categorized or galleriated or both with the least amount of work for me.
I also heard on the radio about 10 years ago that the genetic remapping that they have been doing will change the relationships, so possibly your children will have to undo everything that you do in a couple more decades or so. All just hearsay and rumor though.
Good question. I think it is the sign of a brave soul, any person who is willing to even begin to try to do anything with any image here of any bird that even somewhat looks like a gull. Now, I am going to try to think of something that would make en:Richard Bach turn in his grave (except he is not dead yet). Good luck with whatever you decide to do! -- carol16:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to butt in :-), I too am not an ornithologist but I think the image description is right, it is a Sterna fuscata, different beak colour to start with, and the black mask over the eye comes all the way down to the beak. I also note that the only google image page using the spelling "Sterna benghalensis" has images from www.ornithomedia.com and "www.bubo.org", the rest of the world seems to use "Sterna bengalensis", and our own wiki page has it under "Thalasseus bengalensis, Lesser Crested Tern".
Regarding conflicting taxonomic categorization systems, you are right, there has been a push to adopt the DNA classifications, but a lot of the stuff here is using the old systems, I'm not sure what wikispecies is using. I started trying to reconcile our system, but realised I was way out of my depth as I know nothing about these systems really. So I will leave it up to those who know what they're doing to change over our categories. But meanwhile, I think it is fine to put things under the old names, as (in general) the same birds are still going to be seen as one species, only the species name and th e species position in the hierarchies will change (and those moves can be done by a bot). --Tony Wills23:09, 8 December 2007 (UTC)![reply]
I read your comment in Tony's Talk Page and along with your photography, am quite impressed with you and your efforts and your User Page photos as well. Keep up the good work. WayneRay13:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)WayneRay[reply]
Hi carol, can you see what this is? It's my xmas card to you. A Droste puzzle is a good intellectual challenge for kids and adults. You need to apply other pattern-recognition strategies to make it. Using the patterns on the individual pieces is not of much help due to the repeated patterns in the final image. Recognizing the shape of each piece is much more usefull. My kids find it very interesting to do it. -- Slaunger15:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to look at the rest of those images in the slideshow, but right now, it is the coolest set of photographs I have seen in a very very very long while -- maybe ever! Thank you so much for showing this to me :) -- carol16:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am glad you liked it, although I did not quite understand your comments about a cool slideshow (and although I am always in doubt whether you are ironic, so easy to misunderstand when English is just my second language)? I think there are only two photos in that album. The other is one of a retired Greenlandic school teacher I know and have requested whether it would be OK for her to publish it the photo on Commons. -- Slaunger20:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I spent literally minutes making that image. The child who was in that photograph playing with the puzzle could have pushed the buttons to make that image. Another thing, I wrote on the polar mapping that was there and voted favorably for, the digital art sections at wikipedia are an incredible mess. I looked there for a place to put that polar mapping (a plug-in that comes with GIMP since before I started to use it -- I think to make that image, you toggle a tog or two and say 'Ok'). The stitched panorama and the treatment of the edges that will be joined are where the real work and art are there, the circular mapping is almost nothing.
It may be that you only had to spend minutes doing it, but I think that very much reflects that you are a very experiences GIMP user and secondly that you have a good eye at selecting your subjects.--Slaunger00:09, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And there is an essay here about the dive that the intelligence level of the average user of GIMP took when it started to work on Windows. I think that the mathmap people (not all of them, but the ones with the censor button) don't even know that GIMP has had a polar mapping plug-in since the last century, independent of the mathmap plug-in.
Yeah, as one of those Windows GIMP users lying in the minus three sigma tail of the IQ probability distribution I am probably greatly responsible for that vast lowering of the average intelligence level.-- Slaunger00:09, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What would be fun is for one of the other photographers to upload their mapped images. It would be honest and real fun for me. I spend a little time wondering if I am blocked for them or not, so it would be the kind of 'fun' that would replace the 'what the hell'. Or fun would be for you to get GIMP and the mathmap plug-in and the script and get your child to make a mapping -- it takes only a few tries to figure it out. Upload that and be honest in the description that your 7 or 8 or however old child made this. That is fun!
I spent days on that other image. I got 3 16x20 inch prints of it because I was uncertain of my eye due to the darkness of my monitor. (Getting those prints was good because now I am much more certain about my brain to eye coordination and less impressed with monitor calibration -- I started using GIMP on 8bpp monitor and have a serious trust in the numbers more than what some company says is the correct color display for my monitor). Having an image I spent minutes making accepted and having that other one ignored is so not fun.
Which other photo? one of your image restoration projects?
Being censored for stating that I would like anyone who calls himself a 'software engineer' to be able demonstrate that he can build software for himself is not the kind of people I need to endorse more than I already have. Except if your child would make that mapping, I would break my vow of no voting and cast my support and call him a 'software engineer to end all previous definitions of it'.
The droste script (not the mathmap plug-in, those guys really know their stuff) but the writing of the script had its chance to be a great story about how free software works and honesty and tolerance. Instead, it is playing out to be 'Even though I wrote this little script with the help of a lot of people, I am a godlike thing who knows everything and especially what is good for YOU!' I can't wait for that script to become passé or superceeded (written and shared by a more honest individual). Not everyone using Windows is a moron with a major fantasy life and issues living up to it, not everyone using Linux is a pimply anti-social teen. The acceptance of any mapping that I upload here by the FP yea and nay sayers would further lower my measurements of their intelligence level. That is not fun to me -- I lived in a world for 40+ years where average people had greater access to their brains than what happens online since I have been so rudely relocated.
Yes, I like the stories about things you can pick from outside your back-door that are repackaged and sold for large amounts. As children (and even adults) we used to pick bucket fulls of wild blackberries (classified as a noxious weed locally), the other day I saw some in the super market for $10 for a small punnet ... how much would our bucket fulls have been worth :-). I also am amused by things like toothpastes that advertise that they contain sodium-bicarbonate as though it is some new wondrous cleaning agent, why would one by expensive toothpaste instead of just buying baking soda and using it directly (same sort of thing for other household cleaners). I'm not sure "how perfect that was", but I'm sure it makes someone a lot of money :-)
I picked raspberries once, they paid by the pint. It was over 95°F that day and pint containers would not fill up because the fruit was melting. When I collected my very small income from that difficult day of work, the lady told me they would be making preserves (probably jam) from that days harvest because it was too warm for the fruit (but not the pickers or the owner who didn't understand what the heat does to her fruits).
The reason I want to get away from photos of weeds and introduced plants is that this country has a large number of unique plant species, but the country is being over run by introduced plants, and now we 'officially' have more introduced species in the wild than native ones ... the long term outlook for the indigenous flora is not good :-(.
When I left the area I had been gardening in, chives were becoming a weed in the lawn. I planted 90 to 95% useful plants. That areas swamplands were becoming over-ridden by loosestrife and in August, they were very beautiful inspite of the fact that it was a dying swamp that was supporting them. In England, it is a well behaved and beautiful garden flower. I mention these two things now because I have been wondering about things I brought into that area that might have gone wrong. The one thing that makes me feel better about whatever damage I might have caused, the plants I introduced were mostly the kind that already had cousins that were native there (or introduced long long ago -- who knows about that clover btw, in other occupations, it is called 'hay') and all of them had some purpose or use (either for food or medicine -- I left before I was able to plant the right kind of conifer to make cleaning fluids).
I think that this kind of thing should be expected when people are not paid enough to live comfortably where they work. In my mind, I needed to improve my housing situation (not pay rent, not live in a trailer in an area where the seasonal dip in the temperature was sometimes -20°F -- paying to heat that thing was insane). I needed to stop buying goods and the whole wealth chain as well as the natural environment gets affected. Back to the woman who did not understand the crops she was not paying people very much to pick.
How I was like that lady was when I became involved with the free software and encouraged others to do the same thing. I think right now about my little web team. It is a little like the woman who did not understand the crops she was in charge of. It is a little not like that either as in my situation, the information about how this system works is not published or easy to figure out and also, that lady to be me in the similar situation, should have been right out there picking along side me and the others so at least she would know the next time what it was like for fruits and human beings when it is so hot out. -- carol03:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Finally I think you'll find adding impurities to water lowers the freezing point (not the other way around), so you add alcohol to radiators as anti-freeze, and sea water freezes at a lower temperature. I think pure water freezes easily. But rain drops - don't they need dust in the air for the drops to condense around ? ... :-)
What Slaunger said, and it would depend on the melting point of the fluid and its ability to combine with water. Most things are too complicated for simple rules, which is such a shame and where the sham quite often comes from. -- carol03:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Concerning water and freezing it you are both right. Adding soluble impurities to clean water normally lowers its freezing point. The familiar example is when sodium chloride (salt) is applied to icy roads, causing the ice to melt. But Carol is also right. If pure water is cooled in a clean container of, e.g., glass it can be cooled well below the freezing point. Adding impurtites or disturbing the supercooled water causes a spontaneous phase transition transforming the liquid water to ice and releasing heating as seen e.g. here. And you are right Tony, rain drops nucleate aroung impurities, one of the most interesting correlations in nature is that of the sun spot activity and the gloabal cloud coverage correlates very nicely. It is speculated that the sun spots releases charged particles, which penetrate the atmosphere of the earth. Here, the charged particles perhaps act as nucleation centers for droplets of water thus forming (more) clouds. -- Slaunger21:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've pulled up some information from the English language Wikipedia where this has been a featured picture for a year.[2] Hope that's satisfactory. Durova22:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was right! But just in case I went through with the technical answer, that I suspect that you do not need it. But yes, bring on the sense of humor... it is needed! Life is not THAT serious! BTW - I like the analogy about the ink blackness...
The joy of replying to people on their talk page, rather than where the conversation began (and not quoting the original conversation ;-), is that one can have a 'private' conversation that other people only over-hear snatches of, unless they are very interested and bother to try and piece it together. Whereas the participants can carry on the conversation happily. Of course other people might think the practice is more because watch-lists can be rather crowded and people might miss their important replies otherwise ;-) --Tony Wills22:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I lost all sense of privacy long ago; 2003. I have not lost the sense that it is a right that I did not want to give up though. -- carol06:23, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The hoverflies don't generally need airports as they have vertical take-off and landing ability. I'm not familiar with Hiercium species (well I might be, but don't know they are Hiercium species, unless of course I have photographed them in which case I must have forgotten). The main trouble with the invasive species here is they take over habitats that native species would normally inhabit, and with lack of their natural consumers we are liable to endanger the native species, and of course all those species that rely on it. Most of our government organisations that deal with such things tend to look at things from a farming point of view, rather than the general effect on the environment. Following the links from the landcare research site I still haven't come across why they care about it (does it affect the sheep?), a possible solution would be to get the sheep to wear nappies (diapers to those of a USofA persuasion) to stop them spreading seeds ;-). The NZ indigenous people[3] may well have a view as to whether Hiercium is an invasive species, of course the sheep and us late comers (en:Pākehā) are also invasive species :-{ --Tony Wills00:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it was lack of sleep, but I started feeling very creepy reading a web page about the introduction of root flies into an environment. Alves last hoverfly collection that were entered into QI were all hanging out on Hiercium and it in closeup looks a lot like your sow thistle (which I really really looked at to make certain it was not perhaps one of alves photographs -- they look that similar). Where I lived, some insect that looked like a ladybug except it was orange had been introduced and they would bite and then it was not unusual to find dozens of them dead on your window sill. Introducing insects into an environment to combat a flower invasion -- that seems like it could accidentally be like using gasoline to douse a comparatively well behaved fire.
Like everything else, some pages of information about these plants are written about how nice they are to have around and others are written about the invasion in a way that is full of fear, drama and loathing. I actually would like to go to Idaho and see what the commotion is about. I have a very strong feeling that the plants I am reading about live very nicely along with the potatoes (which also were introduced) there. -- carol11:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Biological controls are rather tricky, we have a long history of introducing things to control our earlier mistakes ... like some bright spark introduced rabbits (probably for a fur trade, or maybe just because they liked eating rabbits, I don't remember), they quickly got out of hand, so ferrets and stoats were introduced to control them ... (this was about 100years ago) and surprisingly the ferrets and stoats found other species to wipe out instead (bird species). These days government departments are rather more careful and look at the possible site effects, and run tests to see if their biological control agents will attack anything else ... but what their decisions will look like in one hundred years time is another matter ...
I of course had to look for a photo, so you wouldn't have to imagine them any more ... but alas I have not yet succeeded. I found a few references, many relating to Iraq, eg "AQ in Iraq are requiring diapers for sheep to keep their genitalia from being visible", which I suppose applies to rams only. I seem to remember some NZ report relating to research involving sheep where they gave them diapers, while taking measurements in a lab, to stop them making a mess. There must be a photo out there ... --Tony Wills11:35, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned avocado on your talk page, and now I seem to be thinking more about giant ground sloth now (except that I did not click through to see what that is all about. These things showed up in my life at about the same time the these pets did. As household decorative pieces, the latter was less demanding and seemed to actually look better over time. The seventies. I was too young to totally enjoy them, too old not to know better. -- carol17:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You must have mentioned it very quietly because I didn't notice, the "Co-evolution hypothesis" would appear to have no place in an encyclopaedia as it is purely speculation, although mildly interesting ... I expect that one day someone will find fossilised sloth droppings to supply the necessary gravitas to the hypothesis. Yes pet rocks were the start of a low maintenance pet craze, that seems to have evolved into Japanese robotic pets, which seem to miss the point somewhat. I never had much success in sprouting avocado pits suspended above a cup of water etc, my tried and true method is a lot more reliable - toss them out into the compost heap, then six months later spread compost on garden - avocado trees will pop up everywhere. --Tony Wills06:30, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, where was I thinking about avocados? The people who lived here (North America) before the Europeans invaded hunted the (wikipedia says it was Gomphotherebut I thought it was the Mammoth) large beasts that used to do the planting and the fertilizing of avocado to extinction. The point was really something more like a lack of innocence that is shared by everyone.
The astronomy prof I used to work for was Dr. Wooley. He was (or still is) a Capricorn, had great hair and lost more in the big stock drop in 1989 than he earned that year at the University (or something like that). Time flies. -- carol09:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I [Yug] personnally don't know what is a "BF" image or software, that's why I'm unable to answer to your question. I personnaly think that we should only create templates for the REALLY FAMOUS free formats. If BF is rare, then just make a box in your user page, no need to make template, a category and 3-4 sub-category.
BF my BF-3 template -- I thought a lot about that. When I first started talking with people on the internet, I described this neat problem we had in one of my math classes in the '80s and they showed me a programming language that is in that disambiguation which is pretty much what the theoretical problem was in that class. They were doing things with that interesting little language that I had never even dreamed of doing.
Also, weren't you two discussing this movie a while back? Perhaps the last time someone asked about my user boxen? -- carol07:59, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The BF language sounds interesting, and probably could be used for 'real world' applications (makes me think of the way some communications systems were designed for people with severe physical limitations, eg where they were paralysed and couldn't talk, but could blink an eye-lid etc, so needed a serial system of selecting letters on a computer screen to form words, sentences etc). BF sounds as painful. That also reminds me of how, with the early personal computers (late 70s early 80s), people had time to really delve into the machines, and stretch them to doing things well beyond their designed capabilities. These days things just seem to get bigger and faster before anyone has really stretched the possibilities of the last machine. And I just love how we need to use a 4GHz CPU, 1GB RAM and 250GB HDD to type a page that was adequately done on a machine with 8MHz CPU, 32MB RAM and a 360kb floppy disk drive (then again someone told me the other day about when typewriters were introduced to newspaper newsrooms, the old hands refused to have them in the same room as them, and the infernal machines and their users were banished to a backroom so the old pros could get on with composing their stories in long-hand in piece and quiet ...) --Tony Wills10:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My first new computer (that someone else made) is very very nice. I can see no need for anything faster. Perhaps a bigger monitor one day but I don't like large rooms and the bigger the monitor, the larger the room should be (aesthetically speaking). Sometime soon, I am going to be downloading an image that is 2 times bigger than the harddrive I had when I started to work on GIMP's website. 4 times bigger than the one my brother let me use when I first started using GIMP. Long ago, CP/M was fun (electric pencil is all the text editor anyone really needs) but then all of the computers arrived with DOS installed. I think I said something about waiting until computers could display and edit images then. DOS was just terrible -- it was such a step backwards in look and feel and ease. Maybe 10 years later, my brother dropped off an old 'laptop' (the use of the word laptop is funny here because it was comparable to an IBM Selectric in size and portability) of his that ran Coherent. I didn't play much with that; I don't think I got past the anonymous gopher login at the closest university and that was a long distance phone call, and I did not think that it would be so great for cataloging my music collection, but that was huge at the time and I just didn't do it. 1997 with linux, the bash shell with tab autocompletion, gcc (I watched people write in machine language -- I was never that good) and GIMP -- it was everything I wanted in 1982-1983 and worth the wait because there is a lot more things on this earth than computers.
BF is a great exercise in logic. It wasn't called BF in the theory book, it was called the 'Unlimited Register Machine' or URM. In the early part of this decade, the people who were using and writing things for GIMP were making graphics with BF. Beautiful ascii graphics -- it was honestly, the kind of thing that I could not imagine in 1986 and I was extremely impressed, honored to know them and happy to see that such a limited little unlimited thing could do so much more in such a short time. I was never one of the people back then who thought that GIMP should not run on Windows, but the intelligence and cleverness of the community took a dive -- it is very difficult to even imagine such a drop can be taken. I don't know if it is Windows or if it is publishing companies or a combination of them and the stupid stupid television that caused this. Perhaps it was my relocation and what I was seeing was a local intranet. The charm of that group for me was not that I was as clever as they were but that I was at least clever enough to understand the great feat of logic they were using to make that stuff work. The URM exercise did something else for me. It made me understand in the simplest of terms how statistics are by definition flawed. Very few of them are generated with a place to tally the not expected. URM had three things (not just 0 and 1). It had a nothing also; kind of like a yes, no and maybe. It is a more honest logic. Working with that changed the way I think. Statistics are all built on knowns, so it is really difficult to make something new with them and very easy to get things wrong. I write that having never taken the class so, maybe I get that wrong. My brain didn't want to embrace that language. Thermodynamics was difficult enough for that -- in the ideal black box, the world starts to use fuzzy thinking.
That is the thing about those contests which are supposed to be used to put the best images into a collection. Yes, no or maybe. The picture of the day is chosen from the collection which is gathered by FP and QI? As I have watched that stream, the pictures that are there are honestly very very good. How many pictures don't make it into the collection for consideration though?
This was a very nice way to start my day today -- a little walk down logic way. I have got a shadow to unfix or something.... :) Thank you very much. -- carol17:01, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not really a software problem, just a human one. From my observations there is an assumption by new users and new admins that tidying up and deleting stuff (janitorial stuff) is important. People slap duplicate tags on things in the belief that it is somehow important to only have one copy of an image (perhaps to save space). Whereas it is important to only have one copy of the information page for an image so that people aren't creating pages for the same image with different descriptions, categories and licenses - which just makes things confusing. So the important thing is to put all the info together on one page (resolving any differences), and removing the redundant image page (and incidentally the redundant copy of the image). Instead the modus-operandi tends to be - "ah-ha 'duplicate images'! so it doesn't matter which one is deleted, point software at one of them and push the button" (decision is human, execution is automated).
In your case, having failed to mis-use the {{Duplicate}} tag (as they were not actually identical), you could try applying the {{Badname}} tag to the one you didn't want (and there's a good chance the right one would get deleted), but the proper way is to nominate it for deletion (and grind through the process :-) --Tony Wills09:40, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would have uploaded the jpg over the png if it was possible. Actually, is it possible? I assumed that it wasn't. That being said, I wouldn't want a jpeg with the name of png. -- carol10:35, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very interesting talk on my page. From now on, when I notice you tagged something and you were the uploader, I'll just delete it, that's probably a good rule of thumb anyway. BTW, I use FF and I will make the screen shots from my 15" (diag) laptop. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:45, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted the png version and left this in the summary "deleted per uploader request. dupe exists at Image:Sherzer_Observatory_at_dusk.jpg " — Rlevse • Talk • 23:52, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at your flickr photos briefly after I wrote that. Working with that age group is a challenge, I think. My experience with high school aged people was that even the advanced college placement classes (the smart ones who did their homework) were a challenge after the lunch break. I have a serious question for you. Do you think that the watertower photograph is unsuitable for a general audience? It is my university and while I was there it was mostly funny and not the best thing about the area nor was it a symbol of anything. Turn of that century's comedy, perhaps. Locally, where it is located, I always felt like it was something like honesty and simplicity in design. My university is less than 10 miles away from a more well known and better accredited university. The people who went to my school compared to the people who went to the bigger school tended to be working while attending classes and we used the same books; at least for physics. I felt like (and still feel like) my university was the less complicated of the two; simple that way, which would be the place where any symbolism ends. Like any university, the tower is involved in some legends and lore -- that is the reason I put it near to the graduates on the wikipedia page about the university.
Locally, the school buses do not reroute to avoid letting the kids see it but sitting here so far away from there and thinking about the reasons the photograph is funny to me -- I would like to trust your judgement about it instead of me guessing.
I could never be responsible for as many of that age group, as you were. I was supposed to watch my friends' three boys and I got involved talking with the oldest one, who asked good questions and really made me think. The middle one was dangling the youngest one out of the window I think (only one story so probably no one would have gotten hurt). Undrugged high schoolers (or mildly sedated) I could handle mostly -- sugar is being counted by me as a drug after my after the lunch hour experiences.
I have a feeling that the image would upset the parents more than the children. My mom started a dialog with me about this sort of symbolism in art and design when I was quite young. I don't think it hurt me any, in fact, I think it helped me to see the world with a little more alacrity (I had to look that word up) for lack of a better word. -- carol00:45, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand the relevance to this particular candidacy.[6] If you wish to comment upon FP voting standards generally, or about WMF policies, there are other pages. I had nothing to do with those other FPCs. Durova20:50, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know that, and your work is really really good; and there are real reasons that I know this. It is all I can do to not ask you whose ass you kissed (or worse) to get some positive recognition from FP, Ben Aveling and from other similar voting events because my respect for your work is greater than the forums that are accepting it. And thank you for actually appearing to be human. -- carol21:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the compliment. What I've actually been doing is sifting through images in the public domain slush piles in search of the rare neglected photographs that have feature potential, then putting the best examples into a gallery and seeing whether I can fix them up for FAC. Fewer than one in a thousand is even worth a second look. At this point I've reviewed nearly 100,000 files for that purpose. Then I've spent hours in Photoshop on the best ones. That's 99% of it. The other 1% is just being polite and decent to people. I'm sorry you have grievances and if you'd like to collaborate on fixing up more pictures for FPC, you're welcome to join me. My workshop gallery is linked from my user page. Best wishes, Durova21:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any FP and QI images nominated and/or accepted before November 2007? -- carol 00:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC) Also, one of these FAC? -- carol00:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I meant to type FPC. I've had an account on Commons since September 2006 but really didn't become active until the California wildfires of October 2007. Someone suggested I put up a couple of my own shots for QI but I haven't tried for that yet. Durova01:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I sometimes think that you think there is a cabal of users who control QI, FP etc, but from my observations over about a year, I don't think there is. People come and go, standards change, and decisions are very human (ie full of inconsistencies and errors ;-), very organic really :-). New people come along and push their way into the 'system' and sometimes seem to 'take control' simply because they are very active, but the QI & FP processes are not controlled by anyone apart from those who choose to participate. Naturally some people have mutual tastes and vote for each others images, and I expect there is some degree of people supporting (or at least not opposing) images because they think it might help their own prospects (all very human).
If FP and QI aren't what you want, then either push to have them changed by voting and/or working on the guidelines (but realise some things may be too obscure to influence people who are from a wide range of backgrounds and cultures , so be specific :-), or start a new system that advocates the qualities you want to see. QI (now about 18 months old) was started because of a dissatisfaction with FP and interestingly FP has now adopted QI standards so that FP is no longer the straight popularity contest that it once was (I'm not sure this is an improvement ;-).
Perhaps not a cabal, but that wiki page did not exist and the discussion before this one is with a person who is being warmly received in the review of JPEGS, PNG and SVG for the collection of images which are supposed to represent the best images (little rectangles of pixels displaying light on a computer monitor). That person, together with another person who doesn't know the difference between noise and grain. Together they what? And yes, I suspect there is a crime going on. I have worked very hard for GNU things and as usual, someone shows up after me who has it very easy and there is no reach back other than that 'now I am your leader' crap. Proper channels sent me there and now it is easy and warm and welcoming for others. Those others generally become very rude and abusive to me. The discussion above is similar. "Here, you made it easy for me now let me lead you." 10 years of this same sort of thing over and over and over again, with no reach back. What do you think Durova did to get the warm reception? I ask because that doesn't happen from doing good work. -- carol03:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are getting a warm reception where I got a cold one. Actually, I am trying to think differently but the facts are not showing it that way.
Btw, Dave Pape tried to get me to upload an image from NASA which was a doctored SVG rendering of a photograph that he had taken which might have been imported into an SVG rendering software and then exported to raster again. I am not saying that he did this; he does claim to work for Goddard though. Or perhaps it is a POV rendering, which if it is it is a really good one. There are people here who have enough talent to do that and are involved here. NASA sucks in that they put that stuff online -- they destroy their own credibility. Do you think they always sucked like that? I am fairly certain that I uploaded a few wrong images before I figured it out. I want to believe in the life I have lived and the stuff that was supposed to being going on in the world around me while I was living it. This made me vulnerable to this new NASA with their way too nice softwares which look a lot like the stuff that has been available for linux and before that unix for a long while now. Did photoshop ever work on unix?
Since 2003 there have been a lot of very very very wrong things. Do you think it is right that you get a warm reception in that contest and a person with 10 years of GNU software experience and similar images get a cold one?
How many problems do you think might be here because I mentioned it where the Flickr people could read it on my web site?
TonyWills: I don't mind helping with the 'diapers' of the QI promoted, but I am forced to deal with those two monkeys soon enough on en.wikipedia and don't want to also have to look at or think about the photograph of them as well. Or in other words, I will help again, but after that one is gone. -- carol04:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My own expertise is pretty limited. Wish I could help you with that issue, but it's out of my league. I hope things work out for you. Durova10:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I seem to have tweaked a very raw nerve :-(. Sounds like there is some off site history that I am not aware of. I observe that most people here have not given you a cold reception, despite many being bemused or confused by your postings :-). A very few have taken exception to your actions, possibly due to lack of understanding (or imagination) or because the humour is lost in translation (across cultures as well as language). I would have hoped that the reception from the rest of us was enough to defrost any chill you felt from the few :-). Commons is still a small enough community that individuals can have an impact and make changes, but we sometimes seem to have to fend off en:wikipedia ex-pats who bring unwanted attitudes to our shores :-(. It's about 2am so I'd better go and get some sleep :-) --Tony Wills12:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It hasn't been all bad. Just those contests. I despise voting anyways. I am impressed that the Image of the Day is almost always pretty good given the good or bad nature of voting anywhere. good night carol13:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FP is a bit of a popularity contest and I haven't been nominating my images or voting there for a while. Requiring a 2/3rds majority is quite good for ensuring that images must have 'something' going for them, so few 'bad' pictures can get through. But it has a numbing effect on getting through anything that is not 'pretty' or that has other strong things going for it - effectively every oppose vote has twice the power of a support vote, so there is a lot of uphill work to persuade people of an image's merits other than simple eye appeal. So, yes, the images that get through are generally 'good', but many other images of great merit fail. I think en:wikipedia:FP is even more self limiting, eg their idea of a good animal photo seems to be something of high contrast with a completely out of focus and blurred background, and with the creature in a classical pose - it seems to be more a fashion thing than anything. But then the use of FP pictures is for things like POTD, where a glossy airbrushed looking pic is just the thing :-).
I have no illusions that FP or QI numbers are a strict measure of photographic expertise, they are a measure of ones participation in FPC & QIC and ones willingness to edit photos to suit the current Commons fashions. I'm trying to get back to uploading useful (and interesting) photos of things, which is why I started participating here, its nice to have some recognition and submitting things to QI at least gives me some reality check (as my personal involvement often lets me overlook great flaws in technical areas ;-), but my personal favourite images are often not those that get any recognition :-) --Tony Wills23:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I really thought that I would be working on the article about that sow thistle by now. I don't know what the cows think, but I would guess that the sow thistle is not considered to be hay by them. Alvesgaspar has been worse than that Russian wrench I just pulled out of my brains as far as mucking up the works goes. He claims to be in Lisbon but his camera seems to be somewhere in South America, most of the time. At wikipedia, my articles keeping getting spammed by a project that evaluates that a species needs a photograph when it hasn't been seen for a couple of hundred years and says so on the page. I don't mind projects, but I consider a template pasted that also gives an evaluation and recommendations without having read the text to be not as good as spam. Everyone, including the project that works that way, deserves better. I really thought they would take the time to clean up their act before spamming my articles again.
After using Inkscape just that little bit, I can say quite honestly that it is a cool application and that it is not GIMP's bastard child as I first thought it might be. And, if I think about this too much, I start to be in the mood to attend a Little Richard Impersonators Festival. Do you know if such a thing exists? -- carol00:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DEar SPEars
Do you know a better image of Carex, as I cropped low the "definition", e.g. Koehler Images were processed¡
--Penarc14:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, nope. I think that even my books did not have too much about the grasses in them. When I saw that image in the recent uploads stream, I considered putting it on the talk page for its genus at wikipedia so the images are all there when whoever gets around to authoring the species articles. Then I saw that there many images (not just that one) and a gallery here for them.
A good article should have (in my opinion) a line drawing, a water color and at least one photograph -- if possible.
I don't like the galleries to be here and not where the information should be. That is a great way to start this new day and look into that bunch of images -- thanks! -- carol20:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First steps tutorial
Getting help
Goodies, tips and tricks
Made a mistake?
.jpg)
if you type 'doctored' they doctor one. It was obtained through a temporal browser that can see into the future ... that is now in the past as E-uncat has now come to pass :-)
![[2]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons%3AFeatured_picture_candidates%2FTartan_Ribbon.jpg&diff=8904574&oldid=8902148){kind=link}
![[6]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/Image:Locomotives-Roundhouse2.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=9191693){kind=link}