User talk:Colin

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive
Archives
  1. 25 March 2007 – 31 July 2013

Thanx for notting that HUGE error on church. I have corrected it. Hugin did it OK, this was "human" error from smudging. Otherwise I did stitching on my own. In this case wasn't problem since church is shot twice verticaly. Thanx again, too bad I haven't noticed on my own before, that's why lack of votes I suppose. --Mile (talk) 19:06, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Contents

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Rubha nan Gall lighthouse and cottage.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Rubha nan Gall lighthouse and cottage.jpg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates‎.

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Calve Island.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Calve Island.jpg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates‎.

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Connel Bridge 2013.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Connel Bridge 2013.jpg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates‎.

??[edit]

why? --Steinsplitter (talk) 08:28, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry. I got an edit conflict, and I thought my edit just added my image. Looks like it lost your edit. I think you've fixed it now. Thanks. Colin (talk) 08:40, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Okay Face-smile.svg--Steinsplitter (talk) 08:48, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
I know. It was not the best idea to add the necked woman to the DR... But we see, the Commons Users are humans- not robots :) --Steinsplitter (talk) 20:42, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Rubha nan Gall lighthouse and MV Clansman ferry.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Rubha nan Gall lighthouse and MV Clansman ferry.jpg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates‎.

FP Promotion[edit]

Rubha nan Gall lighthouse and MV Clansman ferry.jpg
This image has been promoted to Featured picture!

The image File:Rubha nan Gall lighthouse and MV Clansman ferry.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Rubha nan Gall lighthouse and MV Clansman ferry.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

Cscr-featured.svg

/FPCBot (talk) 21:11, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

St Matthew's Church - Paisley - Interior - 3.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! St Matthew's Church - Paisley - Interior - 3.jpg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates‎.

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

St Matthew's Church - Paisley - Interior - 4.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! St Matthew's Church - Paisley - Interior - 4.jpg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates‎.

St Matthew's Church - Paisley - Interior - Organ.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! St Matthew's Church - Paisley - Interior - Organ.jpg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates‎.

FP Promotion[edit]

St Matthew's Church - Paisley - Interior - 5.jpg
This image has been promoted to Featured picture!

The image File:St Matthew's Church - Paisley - Interior - 5.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:St Matthew's Church - Paisley - Interior - 5.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

Cscr-featured.svg

/FPCBot (talk) 05:41, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Onam greetings![edit]

Have a nice Onam tomorrow! JKadavoor Jee 17:18, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Tobermory Main Street 2012-08-09.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Tobermory Main Street 2012-08-09.jpg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates‎.

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

St Matthew's Church - Paisley - Interior - Tulip Motif 3.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! St Matthew's Church - Paisley - Interior - Tulip Motif 3.jpg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates‎.

The Russell Institute - Paisley.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! The Russell Institute - Paisley.jpg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates‎.

St Matthew's Church - Paisley - Exterior - NorthEast.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! St Matthew's Church - Paisley - Exterior - NorthEast.jpg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates‎.

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

The Russell Institute - Paisley - Desaturated.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! The Russell Institute - Paisley - Desaturated.jpg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates‎.

St Matthew's Church - Paisley - Interior - 1.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! St Matthew's Church - Paisley - Interior - 1.jpg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates‎.

Hi Colin. I've suppressed the notes. You've done a great work with Paisley abbey for WLM. I hope you'll be a prizewinner. Best regards. --JLPC (talk) 08:43, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Paisley Abbey from the west.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Paisley Abbey from the west.jpg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates‎.

Paisley abbey[edit]

I think all of them will pass if no submitted together. File:Paisley Abbey from the west - crop.jpg gives me a better idea about the entire abbey complex. File:Paisley Abbey from North West - Leaning western gable - 125mp.jpg is a classical view of a church. The new view let me know how big it is. A difficult choice. I think you can nominate them all in some intervals as Alvesgaspar does always. :) JKadavoor Jee 11:03, 30 September 2013 (UTC) I think you can try one gargoyle too. :) JKadavoor Jee 11:06, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Well the North West view will fail tomorrow night due to not enough support and too much in shadow. The West view isn't exactly setting the world alight but might make it -- we'll see. I just wondered if the South East view answered any concerns about lighting and angle, or would another defect be found.
The gargoyles are fun but not technically wonderful. I cropped and resized them all to be the same sized character, though the originals vary in size as they get further away. The uploaded version is too small for FP (though the original might pass). I wondered about making a collage of them but ideally they'd all be shot from the same angle -- which isn't easy to do but not impossible.
There's a black and white version of the South East view. I think this shows off the brickwork and carving better. No idea how the FP community would react to that. Possibly we are suffering from WLM fatigue at present. Needs some butterflies! -- Colin (talk) 11:18, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes; I noticed it. Details are more visible there. I remember a recent fountain FP in b/w. JKadavoor Jee 11:32, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Paisley Abbey from the west with White Cart Water.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Paisley Abbey from the west with White Cart Water.jpg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates‎.

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Paisley Abbey from the south east.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Paisley Abbey from the south east.jpg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates‎.

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

St Matthew's Church - Paisley - Window 2.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! St Matthew's Church - Paisley - Window 2.jpg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates‎.

FP promotion[edit]

Paisley Abbey from the west - crop.jpg
This image has been promoted to Featured picture!

The image File:Paisley Abbey from the west - crop.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Paisley Abbey from the west - crop.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

Cscr-featured.svg

FP promotion[edit]

Paisley Abbey New Gargoyles.jpg
This image has been promoted to Featured picture!

The image File:Paisley Abbey New Gargoyles.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Paisley Abbey New Gargoyles.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

Cscr-featured.svg

/JKadavoor Jee 05:15, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Is the #9 in other versions is intentionally omitted; or a mistake? JKadavoor Jee 09:00, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

FYI[edit]

I've just nominated some Swedish and German medical images for deletion / tagged them as having potential problems (including Hellerhoff's). Have a nice day. --Eleassar (t/p) 12:25, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

St Matthew's Church - Paisley - Exterior - South Side Entrance Detail.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! St Matthew's Church - Paisley - Exterior - South Side Entrance Detail.jpg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates‎.

St Matthew's Church - Paisley - Exterior - East.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! St Matthew's Church - Paisley - Exterior - East.jpg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates‎.

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Rainbow, Salen, Isle of Mull.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Rainbow, Salen, Isle of Mull.jpg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates‎.

You FPC review: an alternative is submitted[edit]

Hello Colin, Thank you for you review of Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ajaccio phare citadelle.jpg. Taking account of criticism about the composition, I propose an alternative. Would you be kind enough to have a second look? Regards, --Myrabella (talk) 20:58, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

"Happy Diwali!"[edit]

While Diwali is popularly known as the "festival of lights", the most significant spiritual meaning behind it is "the awareness of the inner light". It is the belief that there is something beyond the physical body and mind which is pure, infinite, and eternal, called the Atman. The celebration of Diwali as the "victory of good over evil” refers to the light of higher knowledge dispelling all ignorance, the ignorance that masks one's true nature, not as the body, but as the unchanging, infinite, immanent and transcendent reality. With this awakening come compassion and the awareness of the oneness of all things (higher knowledge). This brings Satcitananda (joy or peace). Just as we celebrate the birth of our physical being, Diwali is the celebration of this Inner Light. While the story behind Diwali and the manner of celebration varies from region to, the essence is the same – to rejoice in the Inner Light! And this year Diwali and All Souls' Day come together to fully defeat the Evil! "Happy Diwali!"JKadavoor Jee 06:01, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Happy Diwali[edit]

I also wish you a very very happy and prosperous diwali. --Joydeep Talk 06:24, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

FP promotion[edit]

Tobermory Main Street 2012-08-09.jpg
This image has been promoted to Featured picture!

The image File:Tobermory Main Street 2012-08-09.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Tobermory Main Street 2012-08-09.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

Cscr-featured.svg
Old Pier, Salen, Isle of Mull.jpg
This image has been promoted to Featured picture!

The image File:Old Pier, Salen, Isle of Mull.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Old Pier, Salen, Isle of Mull.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

Cscr-featured.svg

/JKadavoor Jee 08:35, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

FP Promotion[edit]

Electric steam iron.jpg
This image has been promoted to Featured picture!

The image File:Electric steam iron.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Electric steam iron.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

Cscr-featured.svg

/FPCBot (talk) 06:03, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

FP Promotion[edit]

Paisley Abbey from the south east.jpg
This image has been promoted to Featured picture!

The image File:Paisley Abbey from the south east.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Paisley Abbey from the south east bw.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

Cscr-featured.svg

/FPCBot (talk) 06:03, 16 November 2013 (UTC)


العربية | Català | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form) | Eesti | English | Español | Français | Galego | Magyar | Italiano | Nederlands | Polski | Română | Svenska | ไทย | Українська | +/−

Thank you for participating in Wiki Loves Monuments 2013! Please help with this survey.

Dear Colin,
Thank you for contributing to Wiki Loves Monuments 2013, and for sharing your pictures with the whole world! We would like to ask again a few minutes of your time.

Thanks to the participation of people like you, the contest gathered more than 365,000 pictures of cultural heritage objects from more than 50 countries around the world, becoming the largest photography competition to have ever taken place.

You can find all your pictures in your upload log, and are of course very welcome to keep uploading images and help develop Wikimedia Commons, even though you will not be able to win more prizes (just yet).

If you'd like to start editing relevant Wikipedia articles and share your knowledge with other people, please go to the Wikipedia Welcome page for more information, guidance, and help.

To make future contests even more successful than this year, we would like to invite you to share your experiences with us in a short survey. Please fill in this short survey in your own language, and help us learn what you liked and didn't like about Wiki Loves Monuments 2013.

Kind regards,
the Wiki Loves Monuments team

Wiki Loves Monuments logo

Thanks for your help offer which I've appreciated very much. But I've decided to withdraw my photo (nominated by Leitoxx) from the nomination list as to limit (time-) efforts involved with nominations and followups. Kind Regards --EpsilonEridani (talk) 20:18, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

WMUK bounty board?[edit]

Hi Colin, would you like to comment on a discussion that's going on on the WMUK Water cooler about ways to support highly active editors? I have posted a comment here. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:37, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I'll think about it. I'm very busy this week. Not sure I count as a "highly active editor" compared to some! -- Colin (talk) 21:53, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

--Steinsplitter (talk) 12:39, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Gargoyles[edit]

Marvellous featured image! Now I'm looking for a good one of the Mima mounds of Washington state for en:Patterns in nature. Maybe someone's taken one... Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:26, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

+1. JKadavoor Jee 15:35, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Front page[edit]

Congratulations on getting the 12 gargoyles on the front page. I saw the individual ones come through in September. I reckon the one of the Alien's my favourite just because it's so unexpected. Nev1 (talk) 21:28, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks folks. I wonder how you go about getting planning permission to update the gargoyles :-) -- Colin (talk)

Unfortunate error on my part with the Silhouettes[edit]

I thought that the "insert image here" was an invitation to begin posting. I'm not sure I have another image that would work. Thanks-Godot13 (talk) 23:09, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

File:Mephenytoin.png[edit]

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

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


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

Leyo 20:15, 16 December 2013 (UTC)



العربية | Català | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | English | Español | Eesti | Français | Magyar | Nederlands | Polski | Svenska | ไทย | +/−

Thank you for taking part in the Wiki Loves Monuments participants' survey!

Dear Colin,

Thank you for taking part in the Wiki Loves Monuments participants' survey. Your answers will help us improve the organization of future photo contests!

In case you haven't filled in the questionnaire yet, you can still do so during the next 7 days.

And by the way: the winning pictures of this year's international contest have been announced. Enjoy!

Kind regards,
the Wiki Loves Monuments team

Wiki Loves Monuments logo

FYI[edit]

28 April 2013: Russavia, this statement is so horrific that I am more convinced than ever that commons is ethically broken. You should be ashamed.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:27, 28 April 2013 (UTC).

8 June 2013: The video is uploaded.


Merry Christmas and Happy New year[edit]

I wish you and your family a very happy Christmas and a wonderful new year. --Joydeep Talk 11:05, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

File:SMP May 2008-9a.jpg[edit]

Merry Christmas to you too, Colin!

Regretfully I cannot count with my best silhouette images because they were uploaded long ago. That is also the case of File:SMP May 2008-9.jpg from which the present B&W version was prepared. If I could, the obvious choice would be this one or even this one! -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 19:34, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
Thanks for your work on Commons, Merrry Christmas and Happy New Year! Yann (talk) 11:59, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Yann. And the same to you! -- Colin (talk) 15:30, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Photo_Challenge/2013_-_December_-_Silhouette/Voting[edit]

I voted on File:Sunset August 2010-1c.jpg; but it seems the vote is not showing on Commons:Photo_Challenge/2013_-_December_-_Silhouette/Voting. Jee 09:32, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Translation unit markers[edit]

The fatal error is a serious problem and is being investigated, but for your information you should really not switch translation unit markers (numbers) like this. --Nemo 21:18, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

"Midnight"[edit]

Hi Colin. When you use time indicators such as "midnight", it would be helpful to indicate that you (probably) mean UTC midnight. Not all of us are in the same timezone. ;) darkweasel94 22:02, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Corregida mi votacion en Commons:Photo challenge[edit]

Hola -- Colin , he corregido mi votacion en Commons:Photo challenge Disculpe mi error, no soy habil con el idioma ingles, y suele confundirme, le agradezco su aclaracion. Solo quiero llegar a ser un buen colaborador de Commons acorde a mis conocimientos. saludos y gracias. -- Ivan2010

Picture of the Year 2013 R1 Announcement[edit]

Round 1 of Picture of the Year 2013 is open![edit]

2012 Picture of the Year: A pair of European Bee-eaters in Ariège, France.

Dear Wikimedians,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the 2013 Picture of the Year competition is now open. This year will be the eighth edition of the annual Wikimedia Commons photo competition, which recognizes exceptional contributions by users on Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favorite images featured on Commons during the last year (2013) to produce a single Picture of the Year.

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year are all entered in this competition. These images include professional animal and plant shots, breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historical images, photographs portraying the world's best architecture, impressive human portraits, and so much more.

For your convenience, we have sorted the images into topical categories. Two rounds of voting will be held: In the first round, you may vote for as many images as you like. The top 30 overall and the most popular image in each category will continue to the final. In the final round, you may vote for just one image to become the Picture of the Year.

Round 1 will end on . Click here to learn more and vote »

Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee

You are receiving this message because you voted in the 2012 Picture of the Year contest.

Photo Challenge Winner[edit]

Plasma globe 60th.jpg Photo Challenge Winner
Camera2 mgx gold.png
Congratulations! Your picture Plasma globe 60th.jpg won the 1st place in the Photo Challenge Coloured light, in December 2013. You can find the results of the challenge here.

--Anton·٠•●♥Talk♥●•٠· 12:11, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

+1; but more for the initiative, than the win! Jee 12:33, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Heh, I didn't even realize you had an entry. The big win for you though was setting up a successful competition. Saffron Blaze (talk) 15:50, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Congrats Colin. Clin --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 04:12, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

You might get a chuckle out of this.[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Barack_Obama_with_artistic_gymnastic_McKayla_Maroney

-)

Saffron Blaze (talk) 02:29, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. I think the image is just a bit of fun and the FPC should be similarly not completely serious. But imo you are comparing apples and oranges and looking at EV from the POV of the image rather than the article(s). Such a viewpoint is fine for Commons but not for en:wp. A given image of Paris doesn't have great EV just because Paris is a fantastic encyclopaedic city, but because the article on Paris needs it. There's no question that our article on electric clothes irons should be illustrated with a picture of one. We have a surprising lack of quality candidates (unlike a typical stock photo site where they are ten-a-penny). So the EV of my iron is high because such an image is essential and this is the best such image we have (he says modestly :-). Whereas the only reason the above image is used (cropped) in the lead of the gymnast article is we have nothing better, though it is good for the "when I met the president" bit of her bio. And that certainly is a big event in many people's lives. The internet phenomenon article could be illustrated with all sorts of things and that meme doesn't even seem notable enough to have its own article. So all in all, I think the images is more featurable on Commons than WP and I hope the gymnast is remembered for more than just pulling a funny face. But I'm giving this more thought than it deserves... -- Colin (talk) 16:18, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
I voted for the dang iron. Now hush. Saffron Blaze (talk) 03:21, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Photo Challenge - Third Place[edit]

Spinning LEDs - Side.jpg Photo Challenge - Third Place
Camera2 mgx bronze.png
Congratulations! Your picture Spinning LEDs - Side.jpg won the Third place in the Photo Challenge Coloured light, in December 2013. You can find the results of the challenge here.

And finally, the awards for second and third places... ;-> Anna reg (talk) 10:09, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Congrats Colin. Clin (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 04:11, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Commons talk:Photo challenge#Newsworthy[edit]

Hello Colin,
please check my answer to Ganímedes - I hope my answer is also more or less what you have in mind for the challenges... Anna reg (talk) 21:34, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. -- Colin (talk) 21:46, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Got a bit unsure... ;-> Anna reg (talk) 22:18, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

can I vote for my own picture?[edit]

Hello Colin,

can I vote for my own picture in Photo challenge ? -Krish Dulal (talk) 01:36, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Replied on your talk. -- Colin (talk) 07:21, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Voting for the monthly photo challenges[edit]

Hi Colin, when voting for the monthly photo challenges, is it compulsory to vote for 3 images? Or can we choose to vote for just 1 or 2 images? (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 11:56, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I see that my query has coincidentally been answered on User_talk:Krish_Dulal#Commons Photo Challenge January 2014. Sorry for disturbing you. (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 11:59, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Backlit keyboard.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Backlit keyboard.jpg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates‎.

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Plasma globe 60th.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Plasma globe 60th.jpg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates‎.

File:Ruttkay Laura portre ff.jpg[edit]

Dear Colin! I saw you at the Commons:Featured picture candidates. I would like to ask you to reveal your opinion about «this photo». I did not take it, but I'm curious about your opinion. Thank you, if you do it. Fauvirt (talk) 21:02, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your words! I know that this image size is too small at FP on the Commons. On the Hungarian (hu.wikipedia) FP is min. 1000 px the minimum criteria, so I have nominated it there. I don't hope to receive a bigger image size, because we received many theatrical portraits from the same artist: Category:Photographs by István P. Szabó. (In a bigger resolution is this picture here visible: http://500px.com/photo/59907308 .) I just would have reading one - I should say - competent and independent(?) opinion. So I say thank you for it once more. :o) Fauvirt (talk) 22:54, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Saffron Blaze solved the situation (I wrote about this to the photographer, ha knows about)... should I nominate the photo? Fauvirt (talk) 17:17, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Did the photographer agree to grant the permission for the high resolution version too? Jee 17:24, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
I am not really convinced. An Hungarian OTRS operator wrote to me, that: "the permit from the picture refer to any size variant, because the permit is without a limitation"... Fauvirt (talk) 17:47, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Hmm. I'm not really pleased about what Saffron did. I was actually going to warn you about this issue with the CC licence that your photographer might not be aware of. It isn't clear that the higher-resolution falls under the same licence, only "it might". Legally, nobody knows for sure. So your photographer should avoid using CC for low resolution if he wants to be sure to keep "all rights reserved" on the high resolution. But if you know the photographer and he is happy to release the higher-resolution one, then everything is good. It still isn't particularly high-resolution for Featured Picture (2.8MP). It is above the bottom limit, but there are no strong reasons it shouldn't be a lot higher. We tend to accept low-resolution pictures for difficult shots like birds in flight, where it is hard to get close and you have to crop. So the resolution coupled with the colour processing would make me wary of nominating for FP just yet. If you can get a full-resolution copy, and it is sharp, then I think it is worth a gamble. -- Colin (talk) 19:51, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Scottish Parliament Debating Chamber 1.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Scottish Parliament Debating Chamber 1.jpg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates‎.

Tourists posing at the National Monument of Scotland.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Tourists posing at the National Monument of Scotland.jpg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates‎.

Picture of the Year 2013 R2 Announcement[edit]

Round 2 of Picture of the Year 2013 is open![edit]

2012 Picture of the Year: A pair of European Bee-eaters in Ariège, France.

Dear Wikimedians,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the second round of the 2013 Picture of the Year competition is now open. This year will be the eighth edition of the annual Wikimedia Commons photo competition, which recognizes exceptional contributions by users on Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favorite images featured on Commons during the last year (2013) to produce a single Picture of the Year.

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year were entered in this competition. These images include professional animal and plant shots, breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historical images, photographs portraying the world's best architecture, impressive human portraits, and so much more.

There are two total rounds of voting. In the first round, you voted for as many images as you liked. The top 30 overall and the most popular image in each category have continued to the final. In the final round, you may vote for just one image to become the Picture of the Year.

Round 2 will end on . Click here to learn more and vote »

Thanks,
the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee

You are receiving this message because you voted in the 2013 Picture of the Year contest.

This Picture of the Year vote notification was delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:23, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Photo challenge[edit]

Hello Colin,
I wanted to ask if you found the time to determine the winners of the January challenges or if I can help in any way? Wish you all the best, Anna reg (talk) 18:51, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I just realised that the voting is still open... and as there are only two more February days left, it makes more sense to wait until then... (all the more as there still a few voters in the last few days). Anna reg (talk) 20:37, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Oh, I completely forgot about the early deadline. Been busy this month and haven't even managed to take the pictures I hoped. I ended up voting past the deadline and didn't notice. I've extended it to end feb as nobody spotted. -- Colin (talk) 08:17, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
I noticed (between writing the two comments) ;->. But as there was very little discussion about the voting this month (Alvesgaspar's fear that the 3-2-1 favours emotional decisions), I think it's okay that the voting is running until today. The question is how the topic changes should be done today. I think I have three topics for March - but I'd like your help to ensure that my restrictions/descriptions are correctly phrased - I'm struggling a bit with textures, as I come from a family where natural sciences play an important role and therefore am mostly thinking of makro views of materials/surface structures - e.g. different wood types/barks, cloth, stone, etc. of one thing - which is quite different from e.g. a bunch of stuff, as it wouldn't include pictures of several objects - I tried to show with the following gallery what I'm thinking of (I the theme is understandable, I don't think that it would need more restrictions...).
My ideas for March would be
  • local traditions (time restriction 2014 - I think pictures from January & February would also be okay, but I can't imagine that there will be many from those two months)
  • surface structures (March 2014 - but not sure if the name get's my point accross)
  • proverbs (without restriction, but asking for a link or a citation of the proverb - which worked great with Newsworthy)
What do you think? Anna reg (talk) 22:00, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
@Anna reg: By "surface structures" were you trying to limit "texture" to very small texture rather than, say, the texture of a ploughed field or ripples on water? I worry "surface structures" might not be widely understood. I reckon most people will think of small textures so leaving it as just "textures" might be simpler. My only concern was that it was a similar kind of theme to "a bunch of stuff", not that it would produce the same photos. But that isn't a big concern.
I see you are thinking of making the traditions one extended. But am puzzled about "local traditions". This seems to exclude religious traditions like Easter even if celebrated locally or with local variation. How local is local? I'm struggling to think of any traditions only local to me that happen in March/April. Would it not be best to keep this just as "traditions" and perhaps give some examples?
Proverbs sounds like an interesting challenge. -- Colin (talk) 23:01, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay, so that seems confusing too - no, I don't want to exclude Carnival & Easter - but as Ivan2010 seemed to interpret quite a lot into traditions and asked what exactly was meant (as far as I understood), I tried to show that I'm mostly thinking of the regional variations/traditions of the common theme - not the commercial carnival costumes or Easter eggs, but the local versions (e.g. Polish Easter eggs, egg tapping, Easter palms, traditional processions, customs...). But perhaps that restriction isn't necessary and more confusing than helpful...
About (surface) textures (the easy theme for March - but the most difficult to define... ;->): Calling it structures wasn't really intentional - I was thinking of the word structure to explain it to you plus it's the direct translation of the correct German word (Oberflächenstruktur). I'd just like to make the theme more about materials than about stuff (so yes, rather small textures, but ripples on water would be within my limits) - and would be glad if surface textures (the article on wikipedia is not really helpful ;->) can bring that point across (at least more or less)... Anna reg (talk) 23:53, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I mean to reply to Alvesgaspar's comments. I didn't want a "themed feature pictures" so some of his aims seem different to mine. I appreciate that people do sometimes vote for images that look good at first but are poor technically. But also I think there are many valuable pictures and contributions that aren't at FP quality level but perhaps some of them satisfy the challenge theme better, or are great because it gets someone taking pictures rather than raiding their Lightroom archive. I don't think people have time to give a FP-like considered review to 100 photographs. Nor do I want the the kind of negative comments one gets at FP putting people off participating. I'd rather have 100 people participating with winners of various charm than 20 people participating but winners that are FP anyway. -- Colin (talk) 23:11, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm with you there (I don't think that the Photo Challenge can be run similar to FPC nor would it make sense to try) - though I'd like to promote commenting, as I think it would be nice if a greater percentage of submissions got some reaction...
Something else - I won't have time to set up the challenges before five p.m. tomorrow. If you think that's too late, I'd be happy to let you do it - I think you understood my choices, even though I'm still a bit unsure about the wording (and that's probably easier to find for you anyway). Ether way, I'll try to create galleries with examples for all three challenges - I think they help... ;->
Till tomorrow, Anna reg (talk) 00:30, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay, the new challenges are up - we will see how they work out... Anna reg (talk) 17:28, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry that I voted before the page was finalised, I just missed the line DO NOT VOTE YET - PAGE BEING PREPARED .... --Tsui (talk) 21:57, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Don't worry about it Tsui. I accidentally voted for the last month after the deadline -- a deadline that I set myself. So I've got no excuse. Nobody reads the instructions. :-) -- Colin (talk) 22:02, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Photo challenges[edit]

Hi Colin, is it possible to advertise the voting of photo challenges every month on the watchlist notice, like what you did for last month? Some people (like me) may forget about it and probably end up not voting. On a side note, what was your purpose behind the addition of the "Highly commended" template? For any other good photo in our opinion but not within our best 3? (✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 13:34, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes will do, I just haven't got round to it. The additional awards were Anna's idea but yes you can freely give them to other good photos, but they don't give them any points towards the winner. -- Colin (talk) 13:59, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Scope of License.[edit]

Colin, what are you trying to say here: So, for the avoidance of doubt, where there is any uncertainty over the intended scope of the licence and the creator's wishes, Commons requires there be a clear explicit indication that the free licence covers the source media file at a give level of quality.

I an not being delibertley obtuse. I just can't understand what you intend for this to mean for the policy. Saffron Blaze (talk) 14:46, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

I see it has potential to be circular. Replace the "any" (which I dropped already) with "potential": So, for the avoidance of doubt, where there is potential uncertainty over the intended scope of the licence and the creator's wishes, Commons requires there be a clear explicit indication that the free licence covers the source media file at a give level of quality.. Does that help? Using a CC/FAL licence creates uncertainty over whether the scope of the licence extends beyond the file directly associated with it. So either the creator needs to make the scope more explicit (either permissive or restrictive additional text) or ensure the licence is clearly associated with the version of the image we want to upload.
I have no problem with a productive fault finding exercise where the text is interatively refined to remove ambiguities or possibly confusing parts and improve the prose. But a vague "not simple enough" or "it is legalese" criticism gives one nothing much to work with. I'm far more concerned that the text is correct than being polished to the nth degree at this point. And three people offering their own three totally different variants where each thinks the other two aren't good enough is just a disaster. That's what I saw when I came back to the discussion after a few days -- the discussion had splintered into loads of variants each with their own flaws. I find it works best to start with a base text that is refined step by step. Rather than offering X completely different versions to oppose/support. At each step, point out issues or suggest improved changes in just one clause at a time. Eventually you end up with something everyone is more-or-less happy with. It was also unhelpful to get !votes while the text was being drafted, so sometimes it is best to work on this out of the glare of potentially hostile comments. You can see from Jarekt that some people won't want to merely acquiesce to creator's wishes so we need to additionally point out the legal uncertainty makes it unwise for us to host them. -- Colin (talk) 16:34, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
With that advice in mind have a look at this and tell me am I at least getting it correct. Once I am able to write it so that I understand it I should be more open to whatever else comes after.

A copyright license applies to the underlying work of copyright not necessarily a specific file. As such, content contributors should be aware when they upload a media file to Commons that in some jurisdictions re-users could legally use other versions of that work including those with better resolutions, bit rates, compression or other measures of quality. Whether re-users are permitted such action would depend on whether the different files are considered the same work under the applicable law, not on any differences in licenses applied to the files. Given the complexity of this issue, and in order to remove uncertainty, as well as respect contributor intent, Commons will not host any file that is not uploaded by the copyright holder or freely licensed at its source. In other words, the existence of a freely licensed low quality media file on Commons does not necessarily permit the hosting of a higher quality version of this same work.

I wrote this because I am trying to understand the practical implications for the policy. Saffron Blaze (talk) 18:00, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes this is more-or-less correct imo, though I've got a fair idea of what you are trying to say. However the issue isn't so much at the point of uploading a media file to Commons, or in regard to any existing files on Commons, but anywhere someone has chosen to use a typical copyright licence (CC, FAL) for a low-resolution copy of their work. One thing missing here (and in my text) is mentioning that this possibly-extended-scope isn't something everyone wants (Avenue mentioned it in his text). We wouldn't really have this problem if we could assume anyone using CC/FAL was perfectly happy for all qualities/sizes to be covered. Nor do we mention that they've been misled about this by CC/WMF/GLAM/existing-practice. And that tens of thousands of low-resolution files on Commons were donated with the assumption that the high-resolution file could still be all-rights-reserved. There is, of course, a limit to how much background a policy page needs. One other aspect not mentioned here is that given two files, we don't necessarily know that the bigger one is merely a better resolution copy and nothing else. This adds to the doubt upon which our application of the Precautionary Principle rests.
I do fear that even if we spend ages polishing some text, that when it comes to "getting permission" to add it to the policy page, all the grasping non-content-creators, or free-content-purists, will come out of the woodwork chanting "a free licence is a free licence" or some similar inanity and oppose it merely because it prevents them hosting the best image they otherwise could. In one regard, the purists viewpoint is a valid option: that Commons should only host works that are completely free with a licence that covers all qualities and resolutions. Perhaps that is what the Definition requires? I'm disappointed Eric Moller hasn't commented on this at all. If that is the case then Commons can probably say goodbye to many enthusiast amateurs, semi-pros, pros and corporate donations. It would really help if they could be clear on this. I suspect that when CC was initially created they mainly focussed on text which just doesn't have these issues. And the resolution aspect wasn't a concern in the days of film and prints. So this is quite a modern problem.
If you want to work on some new text step by step, we could carry on here. Really the first step is to work out who we are writing to. In your text above for example, you warned content contributors about the implications of their licence choice. This needs to go somewhere but does it go on the "project scope" page or the "licence" page or some help page linked to from the upload form/wizard. In my text, I was mainly concerned with the users who were uploading other people's work to Commons. Are there any other actors in this game we need to think about? Do we try to address them all or have separate texts for each? Are we just writing policy text or also a help page? -- Colin (talk) 22:12, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Happy to bang this out here rather than there. Less risk of us grandstanding in isolation. It should be no surprise I would prefer the "restrictive" policy but included Avenue's approach as an alt. :-)
A copyright license applies to the underlying work of copyright not necessarily a specific file. In some jurisdictions freely licensing one version of a work could cover any other version even if that version were published with a different license. This could include versions with better resolutions, bit rates, compression or other measures of quality. This situation occurs when different versions are still considered the same work under the applicable law.
Commons always wishes content creators provide the highest quality version of their work available. However, dual-licensing models have been a frequent approach to donate to free culture projects like Wikimedia Commons. Dual-licensing is where a contributor freely licenses a lower quality version of a work while retaining commercial viability of the higher quality version using a different license. We are aware individuals and organistions have frequently contributed with this model in mind. This complex situation regarding “same work” places the dual-license model at considerable risk. Knowing this risk, and given Commons is not in the business of circumventing the intent of those who donate to the project, a policy has been adopted in order to remove uncertainty as well as respect contributor intent.
Policy (restrictive): Commons will not host any file unless it is uploaded either by the copyright holder or from a freely licensed source. In other words, the existence of a freely licensed low quality media file on Commons does not necessarily permit the hosting of a higher quality version of this same work.
Policy (case based): Commons will not host a higher quality file where the copyright holder has made it clear only the file of a particular quality is intended to be freely licensed. In other words, the existence of a freely licensed low quality media file on Commons does not necessarily permit the hosting of a higher quality version when this is against the express intent of the copyright holder.

Saffron Blaze (talk) 00:04, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I'll comment on this text later. Has this moved from a written statement of your understanding to text you are proposing? If so then I'll need to be pickier than "I get the gist of it" :-). Also, if we are writing a help page then we can take things slower and be less worried about absolute language precision and leaving no loopholes, compared to policy. Perhaps a dedicated help page is needed, so we can point people at it so they understand fully the issues before inserting something more terse into policy. It is also easier to start with a long text and summarise it than to come up with something compact and perfectly formed to begin with. I've thought of another audience: the re-user. I suspect we can use Commons licence page to talk to all three potential audiences. So how about we consider the above text as the start of proposed help-page text explaining the issues and the rationale behind Commons' decision wrt policy (like Mattbuck asked for a summary on the copyright village pump). Once we fully agree that it describes everything correctly and is easily understood, we can decide on a shorter version for policy page or upload wizard or wherever. -- Colin (talk) 08:33, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Just to consider the first sentence. I don't believe it is absolutely necessary for a "copyright licence" to cover the entire work of copyright in all its forms and variants. It is merely a licence that permits someone to use a work of copyright -- there's no reason why it can't restrict them to using only certain copies of that work, in a similar way to how most works of copyright are purchased, rented or streamed. The {{Beerware}} licence appears to just apply to a file (though "I wrote this" isn't quite the language I'd use for an image -- not inappropriate language stops people using GFDL). Secondly, the text says "not necessarily a specific file". Well it does certainly apply to a specific file, but whether it applies to other files is the issue. So that clause needs a "not necessarily just one specific file". Hence what I wrote: Most licences apply to the work of copyright rather than individual instance of that work, such as a computer file, audio tape or photographic print. An alternative to "instance" might be "copy", which the term one of the CC people used. -- Colin (talk) 08:33, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Hard to propose anything until we decide where it needs to go and who is the audience. I sort of took on the notion of creating a comprehensive text to address the totality of the issue in a logical and coherent way while trying to retain straight forward language.

I have tried to address your comments while also expanding the scope of the text. The first para should be a summary of the issue regarding scope of a license. The follow on para addresses the implication this has had for Commons. Then a para as to what Commons is doing to address the issue as well as what contributors must consider. Then comes the policy blurb. Do you think the first (restrictive) has a chance of succeeding?

The scope of a license is a complex issue that includes how various jurisdictions interpret when a new work of copyright is created. Most copyright licenses apply to a work of copyright and not necessarily to just one specific version of that work. This situation occurs when different versions are still considered the same work under the applicable law. Versions are deemed to be the same work when a threshold of originality is not achieved by the differences in the versions. This could include where the only difference in the versions is the file resolution, bit rate, compression or other measure of quality. One particular impact of this situation is that in some jurisdictions freely licensing one version of a work could cover any other version even if the latter were published with a different license.

Commons always requests content contributors freely license the highest quality version available; however, dual-licensing models have been frequently promoted as a means to donate to free culture projects like Wikimedia Commons. An example of dual-licensing is where a contributor freely licenses a lower quality version of a work while seeking economic gain from the higher quality version by using a different license. We are aware individuals and organistions have frequently contributed to Wikimedia Commons with this model in mind. This complex situation regarding “same work” places these dual-license (or any multi-licensing) models at considerable risk. An example of this risk is where someone freely licenses a low-resolution copy of a work here on Commons. Then a re-user finds a much higher resolution, but otherwise identical, version on another website. Despite the higher resolution version being assigned as “all rights reserved” the re-user could claim both versions are the same work and is applying the free license to the higher resolution version. In other words, without a “terms of use” restriction on the lower quality work the dual-licensing model would not work in those jurisdictions where the different quality versions are deemed the same work. Many of the licenses supported by Wikimedia Commons, including those supplied by Creative Commons, do not recommend restrictions be added to the terms of use of their licenses. Creative Commons does not prohibit adding a restriction but if one is applied the licensed can no longer be called a Creative Commons license and all trademarks must be removed. Currently Wikimedia Commons does not promote any licenses that have, or allow for, the addition of a version restriction. The question then becomes, can I contribute freely licesed works to Wikimedia Commons and still retain the economic viability of the work of copyright?

The “so what?” for content contributors is the need to fully understand what they are giving away when they license a work. If they are still interested in dual-licensing models where one version is freely licensed they might want to consider not making the higher quality versions directly available to the public. The responsibility for knowing what licenses to use to achieve a specific intent rests with the copyright holder. Nevertheless, Commons understands the complexity of this issue and is not in the business of circumventing the intent of those who donate to the project. As such a policy has been adopted in order to ensure we do not facilitate the practice of bypassing copyright holder intent. It should be noted this policy does not eliminate the risk with dual licensing in certain jurisdictions as that is a matter of copyright law.

Policy (restrictive): Commons will not host any file unless it is uploaded either by the copyright holder or from a freely licensed source. In other words, the existence of a freely licensed low quality media file on Commons does not necessarily permit the hosting of a higher quality version of this same work.

Policy (case based): Commons will not host a higher quality file where the copyright holder has made it clear only the file of a particular quality is intended to be freely licensed. In other words, the existence of a freely licensed low quality media file on Commons does not necessarily permit the hosting of a higher quality version when this is against the express intent of the copyright holder.

Saffron Blaze (talk) 17:30, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm pretty tired tonight so .. You replaced "file" with "version of that work". The problem is that if it really is just a version of that work (of copyright) then it definitely is included. It needs to be different enough that it is considered a different work. I guess it is like evolution and species... what point does the animal change enough we consider it another species? They share a common root but are no longer similar enough. I see I made a similar mistake with "The determination that two instances are the same work of copyright" when I should have said "two files". I don't know if any jurisdiction would apply the licence to "any other version" -- it is most likely to be something dealt with on a case-by-case basis though one could imagine a ruling in some country that decides increased resolution, say, is insufficient always. The statement "even if the latter were published with a different license" may apply sometimes where perhaps someone uses an -NC-ND licence say, but most likely the higher resolution version will have no licence at all and be fully all-rights-reserved. An additional complication of this is that images gain "all-rights-reserved" without any explicit statement at all. So perhaps best phrase that as one where the different version is published without a free licence.
The term "dual licensing" might cause confusion with the practice where someone dual licences a file (or text) CC BY-SA and GFDL. I know what you mean. Again, the 2nd image might not be licensed at all. I'm not sure how to refer to this practice.
It is definitely worth changing "but otherwise identical" to "but otherwise apparently identical". Introduce doubt. We have no idea of the provenance of any image on the internet. Remember when you though Jebulon's ultra-wide-angle photo alternative was from the same source negative but actually wasn't.
Getting into the "Creative Commons does not prohibit.." details is going a bit far with specifics. They effectively do prohibit adding a restriction to a CC licence. And if it became common practice that people adorned CC licences with restrictions on Commons then their legal bods might have a word with WMF about their trademarked logo and name being associated with licences that aren't really CC at all. I think they've effectively told us not do to this and we should leave it at that. We can link to the FAQ pages if anyone wants to read the details. Your last sentence in this paragraph is verging on an essay rather than a information page.
The next and final paragraphs both assume the low resolution copy is "donated to the project" or is "on Commons". I really think we have to avoid that. It is the act of associating CC/FAL/etc with a low-resolution copy that causes the issue. This might not occur on Commons. Indeed the main concern with this policy is wrt users who upload "free" material they find elsewhere.
The rationale given is the desire to not bypass copyright holder intent. As a rationale that may fail to get community support. The Internet generation are happy to exploit any loophole to deprive creative artists of their living. We have a stronger case if we emphasise that there is so much legal uncertainty that the free licence applies to the other file that we should not host it per our precautionary principle.
An aside. I believe normal publishers subscribe to some common fund/policy that lets them use apparently orphaned works with little damage should it turn out that the work is still protected and someone comes asking for money. Similarly, stock photo agencies protect their clients against claims should a photo turn out to not be from one of their members. All these insurance-backed protections are unavailable to us. And ultimately a newspaper has the choice to hire legal advice for specific images they want to use. We have not. And then there is the whole "fair use" argument. So Commons and Wikipedia are at a huge disadvantage compared to normal publishers. The above issue is one where we should be grateful for the scraps thrown to us rather than trying to bite off the hand that feeds us.
I wouldn't even offer the "case based" option. It doesn't appear we can suggest people add restrictions to a CC licence so why would we make a policy based on them doing so.
Does this have any chance? What do I know. I thought the GFDL policy change had a chance considering only about 6 people use it. There's an ark mentality on Commons. Hence any restriction on what Noah can take on board is a bad thing.
Btw, I suggest you chuck this text into a sub-page of yours or my user space to work on there. It will be easier to redraft the text on a wiki page than publish entire new versions, and the associated talk page can be used for discussion. -- Colin (talk) 21:36, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
I'll tweak the Scope sub-page later. Did you see Getty to allow embedding for 'non-commercial use' of images. I'm wondering again whether the Free-content projects really do need a file-based licence to properly allow for free use of low-resolution copies while retaining rights in the high-resolution copies. None of the existing licences are suitable. While WMF/Commons might wish all it likes for pros to donate 24/36MP out-of-camera shots it isn't going to happen on a large scale. It would introduce complete clarity over what was covered by the licence. This might even encourage a commercial stock library to donate some of its works (e.g., old stock that isn't selling) in low-resolution. One scenario I thought about wrt "work" confusion was where one took a product photo like my iron. The creative steps include the setup of the product/background, the lighting, framing and exposure and tweaks in Lightroom to adjust levels, etc. On a shoot like that, one might take many shots. Some with identical settings and some with a small tweak like aperture or what was focussed. It is even possible to copy/paste one's Lightroom work between shots. So is one shot the same "work of copyright" as another? What if I published one with low res and one with high? What is the "work of copyright"? The scene, the negative, the JPG? It is a mess. Proving a file-based licence goes with a given file needs to be thought out, though, but digital signatures/hash-codes could be used in some way. -- Colin (talk) 09:34, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, a real shit storm on the Getty Images forum over this move. Getty won't admit it but they are doing anything they can to monetize their library of images irrespective of what it does to the individual value of the images. They have effectively turned photographers into an open pit mine and the photographs are treated as a base metal commodity. Heck just a few weeks a ago they released a new iPhone app where photographers can submit their iPhone images directly to Getty editors for review/acceptance. Android is next. The photographers were all in a lather about how great this was not realizing the other shoe was about to drop. Getty will use their images to populate the embed player. They get nothing but a credit, as it is within Getty terms of acceptance on our original contracts, and Getty will get the ad revenue when they start pushing adds through the iframe player.
Back on topic... I would suggest you have tweak the first para above to address your concerns and offer it up as the bit for the project scope page. Saffron Blaze (talk) 00:06, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Commons challenge - voting[edit]

Hello Colin,
I just noticed that the vote-hiding doesn't work at the moment - or at least it didn't when I just looked at the two of something page - even after reloading.
Anna reg (talk) 00:46, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. It is working for me. Have you tried a different browser. Also try looking at it not-logged-in to see if that makes any difference -- if it does then it might be some add-in javascript you have installed. Failing that, Dschwen is the chap I'd ask. -- Colin (talk) 08:06, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

It was okay when I looked a day later - no idea what happened there... (mysterious computers... ;->) But I'm writing now as I just created the following templates: {{Photo Challenge Winner|File:Name.jpg|Year|Month|Theme}} and the corresponding {{Photo Challenge Silver}} and {{Photo Challenge Bronze}} - they are far from being perfect, as I only understand the basics of templates - but they seem to work! Here as an example:


Plasma globe 60th.jpg Photo Challenge Winner
Camera2 mgx gold.svg
Congratulations!

Your picture File:Plasma globe 60th.jpg won the 1st place in the Photo Challenge Coloured light, in December 2013. You can find the results of the challenge here.



--Anna reg (talk) 14:34, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I renamed the template for the first place into {{Photo Challenge Gold}} and created the assessment box {{Photo challenge winner}}, which can be added to the pictures. Best regards, Anna reg (talk) 12:26, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Picture of the Year 2013 Results Announcement[edit]

Picture of the Year 2013 Results[edit]

The 2013 Picture of the Year. View all results »

Dear Colin,

The 2013 Picture of the Year competition has ended and we are pleased to announce the results: We shattered participation records this year — more people voted in Picture of the Year 2013 than ever before. In both rounds, 4070 different people voted for their favorite images. Additionally, there were more image candidates (featured pictures) in the contest than ever before (962 images total).

  • In the first round, 2852 people voted for all 962 files
  • In the second round, 2919 people voted for the 50 finalists (the top 30 overall and top 2 in each category)

We congratulate the winners of the contest and thank them for creating these beautiful images and sharing them as freely licensed content:

  1. 157 people voted for the winner, an image of a lightbulb with the tungsten filament smoking and burning.
  2. In second place, 155 people voted for an image of "Sviati Hory" (Holy Mountains) National Park in Donetsk Oblast, Ukraine.
  3. In third place, 131 people voted for an image of a swallow flying and drinking.

Click here to view the top images »

We also sincerely thank to all 4070 voters for participating and we hope you will return for next year's contest in early 2015. We invite you to continue to participate in the Commons community by sharing your work.

Thanks,
the Picture of the Year committee

You are receiving this message because you voted in the 2013 Picture of the Year contest.

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:00, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Hi Colin. Thank you for all your ongoing work on the photo challenge, it is noticed and appreciated. HelenOnline 07:18, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Commons:Photo challenge/2014 - February - Two of something/Voting/Result[edit]

Hi Colin, I'm puzzled after looking at the content on this page. What do "321", "421" etc. and their corresponding numbers represent? --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 09:45, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I've added an explanation on the page. Thanks. -- Colin (talk) 11:58, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Just one thing I noticed - would it be difficult to correct the rank for ties? I just looked at the results again as we lost our second place winner and I was contemplating if the next picture(s) should be moved up or not (I would lean towards not). Anna reg (talk) 13:09, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
We should move it up. IMHO deleted entries should be considered as disqualified, and its votes and ranking disregarded. --(✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎) 13:15, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
I have a program I wrote to do the maths and checking rules. So could change this to handle ties. Yes, if we move up to fill the gap, then we get two images for #3. I'll raise the question of what to do at the talk page. -- Colin (talk) 14:17, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Jim[edit]

You're spot on about Jim's completely wrong attitude to adminship. I've experienced his 'poor us' routine first hand many times. It's frankly pathetic. There's a lot of things wrong with en.wiki, but in this respect, it's light years ahead of this place. No wonder Jimbo is advocating an insurrection. Ultra7 (talk) 11:39, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Compared to en:wp, Commons suffers from a very small community; a set of guidelines and policies that are mere amateur stubs; a user base who's talents do not extend to expressing themselves in prose, let alone a common tongue; a project that requires little collaboration; procedures (such as deletion) that do not expect a consensus to form let alone be respected (the word does not appear in our deletion policy); a huge amount of amateur original research (wrt legal issues say); ... I could go on. There are parts of Commons that function well enough but others that are just plain broken. If Jim is right that deletion is performed by just a handful of people, then that in itself is a sign of serious brokenness and WMF should rethink how contributions are managed. I do sometimes wonder if they realise they own the place. I had no idea Jimbo was advocating an insurrection or who would step forward to run our media repository differently -- I don't watch Jimbo's en:wp page as it seems to be a den for wp's weirdest trolls. -- Colin (talk) 12:24, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, this project has many serious issues, many of which you just listed. The WMF knows they own it, but they can no more interfere in its running than they can do the same in en.wiki (save for OFFICE actions). I doubt he would call it an insurrection, but he has advocated changing it by getting users on other projects to register here and then effect change from within. We both probably have our doubts how successful that could be, given it doesn't involve the forcible removal of obviously bad admins like Jim and the like. I think it would benefit everybody if one of the Wikipedia's were to formally adopt the community aspects of Commons - the obvious choice being en.wiki - meaning all the Commons project space functions occur in their project space, while all the media stays here. I think that would at a stroke solve most issues that arise from Commons being a completely separate project. Ultra7 (talk) 12:57, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Hmm. While it might seem that getting more eyes (and more admin eyes) from another project on user/admin behaviour would be a good thing, it would be hard to resolve the specialism that goes on here -- Commons admin involves a lot of copyright/scope deletion issues whereas WP admin is much more about sourcing/text disputes, user behaviour, etc. In fact, I think the admins here are pretty inexperienced in dealing with user behaviour issues, hence the threat to block as the only dispute resolution tool. And this lack of experience/process for user issues is one reasons why so many banned WP users end up here -- because it seems rather hard to ban someone from Commons unless they do something illegal. And some of those banned users end up becoming admins or even 'crats.
Commons does have an international flavour lacking on the other WPs -- even though en:wp is international English, we share a lot of culture. And international viewpoints/"expertise" on legal issues is useful.
The demographics of Commons are fairly poor: there are hardly any women for a start, which always has a moderating effect on behaviour and attitudes. The interests of the users are rather narrow and often involve lone hobbies. To be blunt: a lot of socially inadequate w**kers. And they aren't going to let the prudes at en:wp spoil their hobby. -- Colin (talk) 15:15, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

FP promotion[edit]

St Matthew's Church - Paisley - Stained Glass Window.jpg
This image has been promoted to Featured picture!

The image File:St Matthew's Church - Paisley - Stained Glass Window.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:St Matthew's Church - Paisley - Stained Glass Window.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

Cscr-featured.svg

Quotation issue[edit]

Hi Colin, I'm not sure what happened with your comment at my RfA, but you've only quoted half of my comment, which gives it a rather different meaning. Could you include the full quote please, which was "I consider uploading other people's work to be vastly superior to content creation when it comes to building copyright knowledge."

Many thanks, Nick (talk) 12:04, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Nick. Looking at your comment afresh, rather than in the context of defending Fae's ludicrous boast, I think I may have misunderstood your point. For some reason, I interpreted your "building copyright knowledge" as something like "building free knowledge" (i.e. building Commons as a free educational resource). Perhaps it was the "building" rather than "gaining" that led me to misread. I didn't intentionally leave off the final clause of your quote; I just assumed it didn't change the point, but it clearly does. I still don't understand why you made your point there, in defence of Fae's claim to have "created the most content for Commons by a good margin" and his opinion that "many of the most prolific content creators" (like him) "have a good pragmatic grounding in [copyright] issues". His argument reads entirely opposite to yours unless one substitutes the words "uploaded" and "uploaders" for "created" and "creators" in Fae's statement. So I hope you can see why I might have been confused about your point, and your apparent defence of Fae's boast, which I regard as indefensible.
I remain concerned wrt your removal of that "personal attack" of Jee's. As an admin, you would be expected to be on the receiving end of some blunt language and criticism of your knowledge and abilities, and to handle and respond to that in a mellow way.
I apologise for claiming you "don't have a clue about the value to Commons of content creators" on the basis of the text you wrote earlier. I do think it is most silly to try to equate the value of content creators (whether on Commons or not) with those who (mostly) perform other roles on Commons. I remain concerned that some very active and vocal admin/labour (vs creative) users have little regard for those who provide the content or are the subjects of our images, and are over-protective of those they (wrongly) see as God's gift to Commons. -- Colin (talk) 13:09, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, your not the only person I confused with my statement. It wasn't intended to be a slight against photographers and content creators (I'd like to include myself in that to some extent) just an observation based on my own experiences, where I've learned quite a bit more about copyright policy (and specifically, a lot of more uncommon or unusual items, like URAA and how all that relates to older images in particular) from finding images and making sure they're legally OK to upload, than I have thrown my own photography work. Nick (talk) 14:18, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

FPC Voting Stats[edit]

Did you grind those out yourself or did a script generate them? I'd be curious to see my own recent pattern and whether I am getting harsher. Saffron Blaze (talk) 00:32, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Well I do sometimes fall for the fallacy "Why spend 30 minutes doing something tedious when you can spend all morning coding a script to do it in one." I have written some programs for WLM and PhotoChallenge (I don't know JavaScript so can't help with the online automation that goes on here). I did consider writing something for this but working out who voted and which way isn't trivial when people can change their mind and write "support" in all sorts of places. Add to that the complexity of handling alternatives. I guess if I saw the code the bot uses then that would help. So, no, I just opened the archive pages in the browser and searched for "Colin" and pasted the FP nom into a text editor in the appropriate section. And to get a rough idea of overall support/oppose votes for the community, I took the HTML source for the three months into one big text file and asked Notepad++ to count the number of times the icons were used -- not totally accurate but good enough.
Saffron Blaze, here's yours: User:Colin/SaffronBlazeFPVoting. Your "opposed but got promoted anyway" ratio is the same as mine at around 16%. And all three of us tend to be mostly "with consensus" on our supports. That's assuming "with consensus" is something to measure against, and of course our votes influence other votes.
But does this answer the question: "whether I am getting harsher"? There are so many variables. Does one month have better candidates than another? Do you vote on more contributions in one month than another? Given nearly 2/3 of nominations fail, as one tends towards voting on all nominations, one's ratio would also tend to approximate 2/3 oppose without necessarily being harsher. Then there's the issue of not bothering to vote on an already clearly failed nomination or an already clearly super-supported nomination. Add in that some subjects perhaps don't interest. Who knows? Have your comments got harsher? I would say that the second half of this comment was "harsh". But I'm sure you've made similar remarks in the past too. :-). Colin (talk) 08:53, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks much for doing that. You hit the nail on the head... I think my voting isn't any harsher, but I am becoming less tolerant of mediocre images. Need to guard against becoming an asshole (or a bigger one depending on perspectives). Saffron Blaze (talk) 15:22, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Saffron you are too cruel. While I might suggest an FP candidate was QI and no more, I draw the line at suggesting their work would be "perfect for Geograph". You go too far this time. -- Colin (talk) 21:02, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Vitruvian Barnstar Hires.png The Technical Barnstar
Thanks for improve FPC section with your excellent comments. Well done.. Wilfredo R. Rodríguez H. (talk) 02:28, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Power On - texture.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Power On - texture.jpg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates‎.

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Cheesegrater and Gherkin.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Cheesegrater and Gherkin.jpg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates‎.

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Sony A77 II - top.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Sony A77 II - top.jpg, which was produced or nominated by you, was reviewed and has now been promoted to Quality Image status.

If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Quality images candidates‎.

Trying the notify feature to let you know I replied to you on my talk page. Cheers. Benh (talk) 18:45, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Flickr[edit]

Hi Colin. FYI Flickr has changed to "Zeta" (aka Fred) now, pretty much the old look, albeit with some differences. However it is no longer the "New Photo Experience" that you do not agree with. Do consider returning to Flickr. Cheers. --Graphium 15:52, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

+1. Now Flickr is not that much bad. :) Jee 16:16, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Did you mean to post this here? My memory's not great, but I can't remember caring much about Flickr's UI either way, or having left. -- Colin (talk) 17:50, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Are you this guy? Or I got it wrong? Saffron's following him so I thought it was you. Perhaps you can post a link to your photostream here? --Graphium 09:03, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Nope, not me. I'll think about it, but please read WP:OUTING (don't know if there is a Commons equivalent to that Wikipedia policy). Please don't try to speculate about people off-wiki lives/accounts even innocently -- it really can get you banned. -- Colin (talk) 09:35, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know about that "outing" policy. --Graphium 09:41, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Good gracious. With that said, the new Flickr layout blows chunks. Saffron Blaze (talk) 18:46, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

July photo challenges[edit]

Hi Colin. FYI the July photo challenges are ready (just need to be unhidden) and I have drafted a new watchlist message in my sandbox. I haven't created any new voting pages yet, just hidden red links in Commons:Photo challenge/Voting. HelenOnline 17:38, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh dear is it that time again. I keep forgetting to vote! -- Colin (talk) 17:47, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Just checking[edit]

Does this count as "the work of the nominator"? HelenOnline 16:21, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Helen, well the full text is "Photographs must be the work of the nominator" and this clearly isn't Adam's photograph. He's restored it and I have plenty respect for the effort and talent involved in that (even though he doesn't gain any copyright or other legal recognition). I'm not clear how a photo contest could accept derivative works [of other people's original works], unless creating a derivative work (restoration, collage, layering) was the theme. Also, technically, the image isn't of a ruin -- the subject was ruined later. If you remain in doubt, I'd suggest posting a request to the challenge talk page, possibly pinging some of the other regulars. I'm surprised Adam hasn't done so, although this is all rather last minute. -- Colin (talk) 18:34, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, I have removed it and left a note on his talk page. HelenOnline 19:45, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Actually, I live in Britain, so I do gain a legal right to it. It does rather annoy me that pretty much all of Commons' contests are photographer-only clubs... Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:52, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Adam, I really can't see any viable way for a photo challenge to accept non-original work. To be honest, I'm disappointed most of the recent challenges have not required only newly-taken photographs, which was the purpose behind the "challenge" rather than just a "thematic competition". Other media that people have raised for consideration include diagrams and video, but neither are accepted on the photo challenge at present. There's nothing stopping anyone setting up specific contests for other media or for those editors on Commons who upload other people's work. -- Colin (talk) 20:08, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

FP Promotion[edit]

Sony A77 II.jpg
This image has been promoted to Featured picture!

The image File:Sony A77 II.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Sony A77 II.jpg has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

Cscr-featured.svg

/FPCBot (talk) 05:02, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

OTRS[edit]

Colin, thanks for your note about the copyright status of some of my photos. I'll send a note to OTRS to clear up any misunderstanding about ownership. Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 13:06, 8 July 2014 (UTC)