User talk:Ipoellet

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Ipoellet!

-- Wikimedia Commons Welcome (talk) 03:48, 14 April 2013 (UTC)


Good eye! I'm afraid that I've come across my photos in a variety of places out on the web without attribution. C'est la vie. Perhaps I should care more about it, but I really don't. Nonetheless, I might contact them to let them know that I know they're using my photo without attribution just to see if anything happens. Thanks for looking out for me. --Sanfranman59 (talk) 01:18, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Autopatrol given[edit]

Commons Autopatrolled.svg

Hello. I just wanted to let you know that I have granted autopatrol rights to your account; the reason for this is that I believe you are sufficiently trustworthy and experienced to have your contributions automatically sighted. This will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to help users watching Recent changes or Recent uploads to find unproductive edits amidst the productive ones. Thank you. INeverCry 20:07, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

File:Catrinas 2.jpg[edit]

Hi, File:Catrinas 2.jpg was the picture of the day of 2008-10-16. I think it shouldn't be selected as picture of the day of 2013-11-01. Please check. --Mywood (talk) 15:14, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

The new picture is OK. Since i have been working on translating of picture of the day to Chinese for 6 years, I knew almost all featured pictures. -)Small hint: If you choose one picture as picture of day, please add template "picture of day" to the description of the picture. It will be easier to check later. --Mywood (talk) 08:26, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for contributing to Wiki Loves Monuments 2013 in the United States[edit]

LUSITANA WLM 2011 d.svg

Dear Ipoellet,

Thank you for contributing to Wiki Loves Monuments 2013 in the United States. The images you uploaded will help illustrate Wikipedia articles on historic sites in the United States. We are delighted to share the winning images and our top 10 finalists with you.

Click here to read our press release and view the winning submissions »

We invite you to continue uploading images to Wikimedia Commons and we hope you will return for Wiki Loves Monuments again in September 2014. For more information about Wikimedia Commons, please visit our welcome page. For more information about Wiki Loves Monuments 2013, please click here. Once again, thank you for sharing your images and participating in our contest.


Organizing Team

Wiki Loves Monuments 2013 in the United States

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 Ipoellet,
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

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 Ipoellet,

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

NRHP Oregon map[edit]

Morning, Just saw the message about the NRHP Oregon map typo. Have fixed it and uploaded new version. Thanks for the heads up! 25or6to4 (talk) 14:21, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

OpenStreetMap map[edit]

Is there a how-to or tool for transferring OpenStreetMap maps or screenshots to Commons? I am interested in having maps for Portland's neighborhoods and parks, etc. -Another Believer (talk) 08:19, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Not really, unfortunately. I had been doing it a very clunky way:
  • Within OSM, spiff up the area I wanted to put on the Commons map. (Add buildings, straighten roads, etc.)
  • In OSM, zoom in to max or close thereto (because I wanted high detail for the HDs, though for neighborhoods you might not want to go in that close), click the "Share" button on the right, check the "Set custom dimensions" box, drag the box over the area you want, and click "Download". The download often fails (server load at OSM, I think), so you might have to go through these steps several times.
  • Then I would open the PNG locally in a graphics editing app (I just used Windows Paint - there's obvious space for improvement there) and add in all my special border lines, shading, labels, etc.
However, I recently took a GIS class, which got me thinking about better ways to do the cartography using ArcGIS and publicly available datasets. I'm probably going to tackle NW PDX / Alphabet HD that way sometime soon.
Some time back, you invited me to do map some neighborhoods, and I never really responded. I apologize for that - it was discourteous of me. Fact is, limited time doesn't allow me to do much or any more than I already am. But thank you for the implied compliment. Hope this helps. — Ipoellet (talkf.k.a. Werewombat 17:24, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. This sounds a little convoluted, but I might give it a shot some time. No need to apologize--I totally understand. And yes, please interpret my comments as compliments. You do great work! Thanks again, -Another Believer (talk) 18:29, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Named-after category[edit]

Hello, I'm wondering if you know of a particular policy or consensus regarding categorization based on naming, as with the example of Category:Oswald West State Park and Category:Oswald West. Most, but not all, of the categories in Category:Parks named after people are in the form of "Category:Parks named after NAME". I am not mainly asking this to contest your edit, but to know if this is a rule I should keep an eye out for and start de-categorizing things named after people which don't have any other connection to them. djr13 (talk) 01:00, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

No, I don't actually know of a specific rule addressing this situation. The named-after situation doesn't specifically fit under any of the relations described in Commons:Categories#Types of reflected relations, but I don't think that section is intended to be exhaustive. Beyond that I was just going on my personally feeling that a place named in honor of someone is not a substantive relationship, unless there's some more specific association between the two (e.g. if West had had a hand in establishing the park, if he had a home there, etc.). On the other hand, it makes gut sense to me that if a person had several places named after him/her, then they could be gathered into a category, and that category would be attached to the person's own category. However I'm not able to argue why this idea should apply to instances of several places but not instances of one place, so if you feel it makes sense to categorize the state park under Category:Oswald West, then go ahead and re-do it. One question to consider, however, is if the categorization should go the other way around: i.e. categorize Category:Oswald West under Category:Oswald West State Park. Anyhow, I wouldn't suggest going on a de-categorizing campaign based just on my gut. — Ipoellet (talk) 19:36, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Category:Boundary maps of United States historic districts[edit]

Hi, Ipoellet. The reason I took the NRHP categories off of this category is that this category name does not specify NRHP. Because it doesn't specify that, it could contain boundary maps of any US historic district. Even if it doesn't have any now, it could in the future. If you want a category that's only for NRHP districts, you could either change the name of this one to specify NRHP, or make a new category that specifies that. I am re-doing the change I made. Please don't undo it again unless you change the category name. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:36, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

The problem with your action is that you have completely removed the category from the NRHP category paths, even though the overwhelming majority of the contents belong in those paths - i.e. you've diminished the information available in the category structure. If it's important to you to make the distinction between NRHP and non-NRHP historic districts, then what you've done is only half the job. The second half is to create a sub-category for NRHP-listed districts that is in the NRHP category paths, then move all the NRHP-related contents down to the new category. Either you need to finish the job, or a revert is appropriate. — Ipoellet (talk) 06:12, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
I see your point. I will look at all the entries and make sure this is addressed. For subcategories (or even the main category) where all the entries are on the NRHP, I might rename the category rather than create NRHP subcategories. Thanks for pointing this out. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:01, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I believe I have addressed this issue. I found one file that was for a historic district that did not appear to be on the NRHP. That was File:Madison Square North Historic District map.jpg. Let me know if you see any issues with the way I recategorized things. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:42, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I've got to salute you for the amount of work you've done. Good job. I don't see anything you've done that seems wrong to me. But to increase your scope a little, can you remove the word "boundary" from the beginning of the Iowa, Ohio, Oregon, and Pennsylvania categories to harmonize them with New York? Thanks! — Ipoellet (talk) 20:10, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
No problem: I like that kind of detailed project. We could change the category names only if we also change the name of Category:Boundary maps of United States historic districts. If we're saying the subcategories aren't necessarily boundary maps, then they shouldn't be underneath a boundary map category. Just as a point of interest, though, is there any reason you don't want to take care of that yourself? --Auntof6 (talk) 04:27, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
I can. I just assumed you were doing something that involved administrative rights, which I don't have. — Ipoellet (talk) 15:44, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
No, I'm not an admin here. I can use the move function, though: I don't remember if that's something everyone can do, or if you have to be given the right to do it. I see you've done some of them; if you can't do moves, let me know and I can do whatever might be left (and move the contents with HotCat). --Auntof6 (talk) 16:19, 17 July 2015 (UTC)