User talk:Ikan Kekek

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

Hello, everybody! If you'd like to discuss anything with me, please post new topics at the bottom of the page and sign the posts with 4 tildes (the ~ key) in a row. Thanks!

Currently inactive discussions can be found at User talk:Ikan Kekek/archive. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:36, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

This time reaching out to you - and what this Wiki is about[edit]

Hi Ikan,

on the QI candidates page you have just written something to me that reflects a misunderstanding of my intentions. And by telling me that this Wiki is not a private discussion space you have crossed a border of mutual respect, since of course I know that, and judging from your user page, I know that for nearly eight years longer than you.

I do not want to start a debate or write lengthy stuff about every disagreement among reviewers or image authors. That's an impression you probably got because just we two have collided with our views of quality twice within a few weeks. If it comes to lengthy statements on the QI candidates page, it is usually an indication that already something else went wrong before. I have seen people explode alarmingly often on the page during the last weeks, repeatedly changing to writing German in their excitment.

You have written: We're all volunteers here with limited time, and some of us are just using our eyes and mind to make judgments and might not be able to advise you on what to do differently. If you think that's not legitimate, then you don't respect the right of the viewer to make up his/her mind about what s/he's looking at. As I understand this, your writing reflects a very special view about what the work on the QI page is about. It is a legitimate view in some sense, and I respect that view. But I want to tell you that it is just a very special one (as might be mine, of course).

Quality - in what field soever, photography or elsewhere - is not a matter of majorities, and not a thing that everyone can judge about in any field. On the other hand, Wikipedia or Wikimedia is for everyone. It is a community project where everyone is invited to contribute. That's a discrepancy that Wikipedia has to live with in general, and it has been astonishingly successful in spite of it. Nevertheless it is a discrepancy. Hierarchical structures like roles with approval rights or admin roles can only mitigate the problem. At the same time the situation is aggravated by the volunteer character of its contributors. The majority of project members are probably amateurs in their fields. All contributions are just for free, and therefore professionals presumably stay away. I did not make a single Wikipedia edit on the fields where I earn my money from in normal life or where I hold a university degree. If I look at the image contributions on Commons I observe the same: I am quite sure that professional photographers are a minority there.

So what is the QI page about in my observation? As far as I remember, it was created when in the early days of this Wiki amateurs and photographic laymen began to upload any shots they had in order to illustrate the Wikipedia articles. Some more advanced photographers could not bear to see the blown-out white skies, distorted buildings and sharpening halos any more. Therefore they created the QI initative. It was meant to improve the quality of Commons by spreading photographic knowledge among contributors. Ten years ago, I experienced the QI page as a page for image authors to work together.

If I look at the page today, after being less active on it for considerable time, the impression is a bit different. There seem to be more nominations in shorter time, and most important, there is the filtering feature on Commons, where you can select out all QI from a category to be displayed in prominent position. This feature is nice for finding good pictures, and actually I suggested it many years ago. (I don't know if anyone remembered this at the time when the feature was really created. Anyone could have had this idea too.) But on the other hand, the feature increases the desire for QI status, resulting not only in better quality, but also in more review work load.

If you write that you are a volunteer doing reviews with limited time, you seem to reflect the new spirit of the page to me, which lies in the purpose of filtering much nominations in limited time. This is a legitimate aspect, as collecting and categorizing is an important acitivity. Some people seem to specialize on it also for other Wikis. It is important work, and therefore it is legitmate that you ask for respect for reviewers. On the other hand, you would have nothing to review, if no one would create images. Therefore let me urgently ask you for respect also for image creators!

Image creators are volunteers too, as are reviewers. (Most people assume both roles anyway.) Image creators might even invest more of their limited time than reviewers. Therefore, if I do a review, I try to respect the image creator. This does not mean that lengthy explanations of reviews or even advice on improvement procedures are necessary. If the situation is simple, simple headwords are sufficient. But if it is more complicated and the author has questions, I feel obliged to explain. That's a matter of respect for the image author. In some cases, I even help someone to improve the image, but only if he or she asks for it explicitly. I do it voluntarily, although my time is also very limited. And it is possible, because there is no project plan that says I should work on as many images as I can in my limited time. I did not invent this mode of working. I learned it from others.

I know from your writing that your intentions may be different. That's OK in the sense of a division of work. But don't exaggerate. Just writing "bad quality", as some people do, is kind of insulting for the nominator. (You did not write exactly this and I did not receive it. But it is an extreme example from the page.) A nominated image may be even obvious trash, but if someone nominated it, he or she did not want to do any harm usually, but just was not able to perceive the problem, and therefore deserves respect by the reviewer nevertheless. To say it more clearly: If you feel not to have the time for paying a minimum of respect to the image creator by providing him or her with a clarification of your findings, you should not review the image at all after my opinion.

In summary: There are many aspects that make up this Wiki project. At the heart there is collaboration among volunteers. If you aim at collaboration on a high level of quality, this is neither a matter of majorities, nor can it be judged in an incontrovertible, absolutely objective way. There has to be discussion, here on the Wiki as in normal life, and that's the reason why every article on Wikipedia has its discussion page.

So yes, this Wiki is not a private discussion space. But in the above sense, it is a public one.

Best regards

--JRff (talk) 08:52, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

P.S.: Hope you don't blame me for having made you discussion page so much longer...

All of this makes sense, and thanks for recounting the history. It's certainly good to be reminded to be sensitive toward the photographers who choose to upload their own work to this site. That said, if something isn't sharp enough in my opinion for the QI designation, it should be clear enough to state that in my opinion, it's not sharp enough for the QI designation. If people don't agree, that's what Consensual Review is for.
All the best,
Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:25, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
If you still think that even after a question an image author cannot expect more than just pointing your thumb down (for the current case in terms of sharpness), it seems that I have not reached you with my plea. Some keywords where exactly on the image you see a problem in a less obvious situation would cost you only seconds and require no technical background. I did not want to make you change your judgement. I just hoped to create more sensitivity for communication. The name for the Wiki keyword that sends images to consensual review was not randomly chosen to be /Discuss instead of just /Vote.
Anyway, I have to thank you for your kind acceptance of a discussion on the review procedure at least, if not on the image itself.
Have a nice day,
--JRff (talk) 09:21, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
You mean pointing out where I mainly was seeing the unsharpness? It was on the left side of the building, but at least one other person pointed that out. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:23, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
OK, thank you finally. And yes, meanwhile user "King of Hearts" gave that hint, but much, much later. There is indeed a distinct difference in sharpness between the left and the right part. I did not take notice too much before, because I considered it more as background and concentrated on the castle. And still I don't find it too serious, but this is of course up to the reviewer to decide. The reason is the natural decrease of sharpness towards the image border, which is present for any lens, only somewhat less for the very expensive ones. This together with a non-centered crop made the effect most likely. --JRff (talk) 20:48, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you![edit]

Tunnel Belliard, coming out on Rue de la Loi.jpg

Hi Ikan,

I only recently realized that you never post pictures on QIC and all your FPC nominations are those of other photographers. Thank you very much for your avid selfless quality work on Commons! --Trougnouf (talk) 12:47, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

My pleasure. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 14:22, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

FP Promotion[edit]

Hemidactylus frenatus (Common House Gecko) on white background, focus stacking.jpg
This image has been promoted to Featured picture!

The image File:Hemidactylus frenatus (Common House Gecko) on white background, focus stacking.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Hemidactylus frenatus (Common House Gecko) on white background, focus stacking.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) 21:02, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Good evening Ikan Kekek,[edit]

Thank you for your comment on my photo of Cyclamen coum. This pink flowering cyclamen was the most beautiful one I could find under the trees of the avenue. Flowering cyclamen in various colors are currently blooming. From white to this pink and many colors in between. I have selected 4 photos. The other 3 are under this picture. Personally, I do not think these are the best because they have been photographed from above. and the others from the side. The flowers stand on fairly long stems above the marbled leaves.--Famberhorst (talk) 17:26, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
PS: I can always make a difficult choice.

I understand. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:38, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Good morning Ikan Kekek,[edit]

Thank you for your comments on my FP photo. My question: what do I need to change the text for the file?--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 07:35, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

"Ruïne Casti Munt Sorn Gieri (Burg Jörgenberg)" doesn't look English to me and is identical to your Dutch text. It's the ruins of a castle, right? So "Ruins of [Name, I suppose Munt Sorn Gieri] Castle (Burg Jörgenberg)" or something like that. If anything is unclear, let me know. I regret that I know so little Dutch. Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:46, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for your explanation. I have adjusted the text. Hopefully it is good now. We speak in our province Frisian. That is a minority language.--Agnes Monkelbaan (talk) 16:31, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Well, I know even less Frisian (none). :-) -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:19, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Moioio Island[edit]

Hi, thank you very much for your review of photo in QIC. And If you like to see; all my photos of Moioio Island are here. Do you think that one of this images has a FP potential? And can you see my photos here? Do you think that they are enough good for I nominate for FP? Thank you one's again and have a nice day! Tournasol7 (talk) 14:35, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Tournasol7. No time to look at everything now, but I'll try to get to this. The second link is red, though.
All the best,
Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:13, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Don't worry, it's not urgent :) Secont link is: here -> section "FP potentials". Best regards! Tournasol7 (talk) 22:02, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

thanks for the advice[edit]

Thanks for the advice, I haven't figured it out yet with the categories of pictures. --Alexandr frolov (talk) 16:40, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure how best to help. Maybe User:XRay has some advice on how to find the best categories, beyond the remarks that have been made in your Quality Image Candidates nominations. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:56, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
@Alexandr frolov: Just an answer here ... I gave an hint for the categories: Commons:Categories. Please read it. There are a lot of hints. IMO the best way for categorization. For me these things are important: Categories are not tags, look for categories for everything seen on your photograph, look for the categorization of other photographs in the appropriate category. --XRay talk 09:00, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

FP Promotion[edit]

Clivipollia pulchra 01.JPG
This image has been promoted to Featured picture!

The image File:Clivipollia pulchra 01.JPG, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Clivipollia pulchra 01.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) 21:03, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Why?[edit]

Do know Colin, and he's doing a false allegations... so why you are removing your votes? -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 00:20, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

The dialogue speaks for itself. Address the arguments where they're given and don't talk to me about this on my user talk page. Thank you. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:45, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

War memorial, Millport, Cumbrae, Scotland[edit]

Hi Ikan! Thanks for nominating my image. Sorry for not reacting there, I was away for a week or so. Regards, --Podzemnik (talk) 08:47, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

That's fine! I hope you enjoyed your vacation. Sorry most voters didn't like that photo the way I did. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:43, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

FP Promotion[edit]

Almsee Nordbucht-4224.jpg
This image has been promoted to Featured picture!

The image File:Almsee Nordbucht-4224.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Almsee Nordbucht-4224.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) 13:02, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

FP Promotion[edit]

Interior of The Shoppes at Marina Bay Sands, Singapore.jpg
This image has been promoted to Featured picture!

The image File:Interior of The Shoppes at Marina Bay Sands, Singapore.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Interior of The Shoppes at Marina Bay Sands, Singapore.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) 21:03, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi[edit]

European Central Bank Frankfurt.jpg

Hi Ikan hope you're doing great!

I want to ask you what you think about this picture of the EZB? This there anything I should improve?

Best regards --A,Ocram (talk) 11:54, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm doing fine. I think this is a good compositional idea. I'm not sure it's possible to take an FP of this motif, but greater sharpness would be good.
All the best,
Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:01, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello Ikan, about 2000 pictures of about 500 different types. I myself am surprised about the amount. The effort is not so big when the cars come by in short intervals. You only need sun for short shutter speeds and a lot of time to classify the models. Last year I found time for four events. This year it will probably be less. Thank you for your tireless and always objective work. Regards --Ermell (talk) 08:00, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

You're most welcome. I've been looking for a possible FP among those pictures. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:08, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

FPC discussion[edit]

Hi Ikan, thanks for this edit. You're absolutely free to vote as you like, either positively or negatively. The reason of our long discussion is partly due to my misunderstanding of your text, either because English is not my mother tongue, and because your review destabilized me at the beginning. Bootshift immediately voted "per Ikan", and I could imagine this painting being quickly disqualified by a rude succession of red votes following each others, as it happens sometimes in FPC, until a fatal configuration it becomes almost impossible for any potential supporter to share their feelings without considering it will just be a waste of time, since the result is already done. Yes I think the coloration of the texts below an FPC is influential and can also determine the further participation. Although maybe that's wrong, and in any case that's the "game" (or the process). This is a painting I appreciate very much, and finding it in good quality was a good surprise, thus an immediate disqualification in FPC was hard to follow from my side. Now of course I feel more relax and confident after other's supports, but I don't know what would have been the result (which is still not completely done) if my natural behavior had been total indifference. We can't change the past, only see what happens at the present. Also my first sight towards this painting was similar to yours as stated in your first comment, since I found strange the sculptor works on a wrapped subject with this uncovered lady, but only after a second interpretation, the work appeared funny and interesting to me, and as a consequence when I read your oppose I wondered if your personal view was superficial or legitimate. Now I'm still unsure but it doesn't matter, I just want to explain my misunderstanding of this sentence "you would never appreciate my father's art, since at the moment, it sells for 5 and not 6 figures." Talking about prices, in France (or maybe only in my neighborhood), we most often refer to the number of zeros. So, for example a piece of art sold 50'000 € has a price with 4 zeros. This is sometimes a matter of joke when talking about expensive things, we say "this is not 3 but 4 zeros", or "you can add one more zero and you're closer to reality", etc. On the contrary, I'm not really familiar with these "figures" you mentioned, until I catch their meaning in the context. So the confusion started here. There was 5 zeros in Dantan's price, so you were likely to mean your father's paintings were sold for 6 zeros, which means millions ! In your sentence, the it in "it sells" referred for me to Dantan's painting, while obviously you were talking about your father's. This has become very clear afterwards, but believe me at this stage, in my hurry reading, it was not, and I honestly thought you were saying your father sells masterpieces for more than 1'000'000 USD. So yes, you can imagine how dubitative I was, because one (or five or nine) million dollars for a painting is such a high price, usually artists don't paint only one but many pieces. However, as surprising it would have been, I was not completely mistrusting you, since you seem a honest person, and thought perhaps I missed something (sometimes family stories are very complex, family links too), and you could have an extremely successful ancestor doing some kind of powerful abstract art selling very well in some corners of New York, and making you just completely allergic towards other styles, or you could have added a bit of romance but not so much to the story, so finally, to be frank my first reaction was half skeptical and half curious and embarrassed. That's why I answered this slightly ironic text requesting more details. Sorry this could have been avoided if my English had been better, my reading less hurried, my contrariety weaker, and my knowledge better concerning the description of prices through "figures". I apologize for the mess resulted, since my error was fixed while I did not completely adopt your point of view either, but it would have been more hurting to strike completely my sentence after your valid explanations (you were right to defend a truth, but the truth also gives credit to my own position in this context). Well, finally this message on your talk page is above all to let you know that I have absolutely no judgement on your father's art, for the simple reason I don't know what he did. Perhaps I would be extremely admirative, perhaps at the inverse totally sick, or perhaps just 100% neutral. I don't think this is important here, but prefer to bring a bit of light, since the discussion can be confused or confusing. Debates are fine in FPC in general but this was not a great debate in my view. Maybe next time :-) Kind regards -- Basile Morin (talk) 11:06, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for this message. Of course I realize I have the right to vote pro or con, but I considered people's remarks about why the content of the painting is interesting or funny and ultimately found that a meritorious argument. Besides, after living with the painting for a while, while I still don't love it, at least from the reproduction (and no matter how good a reproduction is, the experience of seeing an artwork in person is different), it's really not as bad as it seemed to me at first.
All the best,
Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:45, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

N178FA Cirrus Vision[edit]

Thanks for the review. I had the same reservations, and I'm not fond of the busy background with the hangars and porta-potties, but the alien-looking plane with the sun gleaming on it and the sunrays were too good to pass up in the 30 seconds available. It was intermittently raining, and there were occasional opportunities for sparkle. Acroterion (talk) 12:17, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm glad you didn't pass up the opportunity. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:20, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Need your presence at Featured sound candidates[edit]

FPCandiateicon.svg We request the honor of your presence at Featured sound candidates
Dear Ikan Kekek,
Featured sound candidates needs your help and you can participate by reviewing or nominating sounds for the FS tag.

You can start reviewing/nominating sounds now. Welcome! -- Eatcha (Talk-Page ) 06:45, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Sure. I'll check that out when I have the chance. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:21, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Eatcha, I hope you don't regret inviting me now. I may be serving as a giant buzzkill at FSC, but I'm an opinionated professional musician with high standards. I hope everyone on that board doesn't hate me now. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:23, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
What ? Why would I regret ? I actually want more musicians & audiophiles to participate in that project, I don't want some nonsense crap to get featured. And your proposal to start a Valued sound project is nice, but I agree with others that we first need to get the FSC up and stable until we don't have about 20 regular participants, I also started a project for featuring videos, but now I'm sure that it will crash within next few weeks, want to know why ? See this. The number of videos is just 0.259% of all the files on commons, want to know about sounds ? It's just about 2%, on the other hand pictures are more than 90% of what commons is. But I hope that commons will change and we'll see some more diversity. ————Eatcha (Talk-Page) 17:17, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, I get you. But I don't think that's a reason to shelve the featured video project. It can be quiet for a while but continue in the background. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:53, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

FP Promotion[edit]

Fusinus syracusanus 01.JPG
This image has been promoted to Featured picture!

The image File:Fusinus syracusanus 01.JPG, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Fusinus syracusanus 01.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) 21:02, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

FP Promotion[edit]

Angela Conner 'Renaissance' water sculpture, Hatfield House, Hertfordshire, England 1.jpg
This image has been promoted to Featured picture!

The image File:Angela Conner 'Renaissance' water sculpture, Hatfield House, Hertfordshire, England 1.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Angela Conner 'Renaissance' water sculpture, Hatfield House, Hertfordshire, England 1.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) 21:01, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Special Barnstar Hires.png The Special Barnstar
Hi, I want to award you with this barnstar. This is my way of apologizing for all the trouble I caused recently. Thank you BoothSift 23:11, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
It's OK. I'm fine; I just speak forthrightly when I see the need. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:27, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

re:[edit]

Please see Commons:Valued image candidates/Mourning in Shanghai (1).jpg, I have replied to that question, and, thanks for your reminding. --WQL (talk) 06:41, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Review of c:File:Pisaner_Dom_Westfassade.jpg[edit]

Thank you for the review of my picture. I would like to learn from it, so i looked up the category of similar pictures. There are 11 pictures shot from nearly the same position. None of those seems sharper to me. At least mine is the one, where the inscription above and to the right of the main portal is readable best. So my question is: What did I do wrong and could I really have done better? Thanks for advice and best regards --Cyberolm (talk) 13:36, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

I can't address how other people may have reviewed other pictures. Reviewing at Quality Image Candidates is very inconsistent because different people are reviewing at different times. I also can't really tell you technically what you did wrong, except for what I said in the review: The Duomo is out of focus, and then it looks to me like you tried to sharpen it with software, but that resulted in a lot of unpleasant noise while not making it sharp. So all I can suggest is, make sure to have a better focus. The composition is very good, so I hope you have a chance to retake the picture. Ikan Kekek (talk) 15:58, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

FP Promotion[edit]

Astern IMG 3343.jpg
This image has been promoted to Featured picture!

The image File:Astern IMG 3343.jpg, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Astern IMG 3343.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) 21:01, 25 June 2019 (UTC)