User talk:JovanCormac/Archives/2009/August

File:Crowds of French patriots line the Champs Elysees-edit.jpg

Hello, What needs to be restored in this file? Thanks for your comment. Yann (talk) 17:20, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

There are some scratches and specks of dust, e.g. a big black one just left of the arc in a tree crown, or in the lower left corner of the picture. Also, I think a lot can be done with a contrast/color/brightness readjustment and a few filters. I'm not the right guy for the job, I'm afraid, but I suggest you check out the Graphic Lab, they perform miracles there. -- JovanCormac 17:23, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Will take a closer look at it again this evening. See what I can do to improve some of the points raised per JovanCormac. Thanks for the pointers. Julielangford (talk) 18:59, 01 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I took a good stab at it. Found a total of 27 scratches within the image and removed them. Reduced the noise by masking the sky and removing it at that source. Adjusted brightness and contrast levels and also adjusted highlights/shadows to compensate. Feedback/critique is always welcome :) Julielangford (talk) 15:17, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mission_Santa_Barbara_HDR.jpg

Hiya

Thanks for the information and feedback on images I have submitted to Featured Images page. Regarding the file above, I didn't realise that if someone posts a different version, that automatically goes up for voting as well. I thought it had to be added in image format with an invite for consideration to feature. I wouldn't want the false perspective edit to ever be featured [because it's false], but did it more to satisfy my curiosity and get feedback from the others who are participating. I like to learn, and improve my work [especially editing skills], so I take feedback on the featured images page and just run with it. I am still new to the ways of the commons, but I will eventually pick up the way things work - I hope :)

Julielangford (talk) 17:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Technically, an edited version doesn't "automatically" go on vote, but in practice people often vote for it. A current example is Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Ara ararauna Luc Viatour.jpg where I posted a noise-reduced version intended to give the author an incentive to publish his own, superior one (I'm hardly a Photoshop pro) and several people voted for it and opposed the original one in the process, with an unclear voting status being the result. I really love how much work you put into Commons, having only started working here myself a short while ago (was a Wikipedia editor before). Hope you have a great time! -- JovanCormac 17:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I hope people don't vote for it, as it does actually go against the guideline provided, where it states that nothing should be edited to the extent that it is false. Hopefully that will be enough to prevent it ever being featured. I have done a little on Wikipedia, and I stumbled onto the Commons by accident via it. I was very pleased with what I found here. The only downside I have found is that I can't think of a way to post some of my real work, which is mainly photomontage with a fantasy, sureal subject. Fairies, magical forests and the like. They are not really informational, so I feel they don't fit here anywhere. Julielangford (talk) 17:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

There is definitely a place for original art at Commons, and I encourage you to upload and categorize your works. They might be helpful to illustrate Fantasy Art in general, a subject on which there is little public domain material available as it is fairly recent. Probably the best-known artwork by a Commoner is File:Anime Girl.svg, which placed 7th in the Picture of the Year 2008 contest. -- JovanCormac 18:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Cheers, and thanks again for the info [people are so friendly and helpful on here]. I will take a look around the site and see what is here already, and then think which of mine would be more beneficial. Julielangford (talk) 18:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Change of scope on Cannery Row at Night VI nomination

I have changed the scope to narrow it down to "Cannery Row". If you have a moment would be willing to weigh in on this change and whether this meets criteria? Thanks.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:06, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I did, and IMO it now does. Changed my vote to  Support. -- JovanCormac 19:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

FP promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Platonic Solids Stereo 5 - Icosahedron.gif, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Platonic Solids Stereo 5 - Icosahedron.gif has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Platonic_Solids_Stereo_4_-_Dodecahedron.gif, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Platonic_Solids_Stereo_4_-_Dodecahedron.gif has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Platonic_Solids_Stereo_3_-_Octahedron.gif, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Platonic_Solids_Stereo_3_-_Octahedron.gif has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Platonic_Solids_Stereo_2_-_Cube.gif, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Platonic_Solids_Stereo_2_-_Cube.gif has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Platonic_Solids_Stereo_1_-_Tetrahedron.gif, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Platonic_Solids_Stereo_1_-_Tetrahedron.gif has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

Set nomination so only the last in this list links to the actual nomination. /Daniel78 (talk) 20:44, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I fixed the links with the "com-nom" option so the assessment templates on the pictures' description pages point to the actual nominations. -- JovanCormac 21:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

At your suggestion I have chnaged the scope to Cannery Row, Monterey

That was actualy a good point as the three articls on WIki do make the distintion clear. Here we are refereing to the old Ocean Ave., which I will add to the discription and locate the address of the camera location.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I liked the idea of adding the address. I looked for a tag or template similar to the Geodata tag but couldn't find one. Are you aware of one you can direct me to. I went ahead and placed the address on the description for now, unless that is what you actualy meant. Thanks.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

That's what I actually meant. I don't think there is a tag for adding an address. Thank you for doing this! -- JovanCormac 21:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

M20 - Trifid Nebula FP Nomination

Dear JovanCormac, I have changed the license for the file M20 - Trifid Nebula to CC-BY-SA 3.0. I have also removed the speedy deletion tag. I hope that is OK? When discussing the licensing with the author I recommended using CC-BY-SA 3.0 but mentioned it was also possible to make custom licences. He said he would prefer a custom license but CC-BY-SA 3.0 would be OK if the custom license caused problems. I hope you understand and this licensing misunderstanding has not caused too much inconvenience. I hope you will now reconsider a review of the image for FP status? Originalwana (talk) 16:39, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to do this. I added a vote of  Support for the FP nomination, as it really is a beautiful astronomy picture. Since the license is now compatible with Commons standards, I think the issue is settled. Please do note though that simply removing a speedy tag is generally not ideal (it should be changed to a standard delete so it can be discussed instead). But we are invited to Break All Rules after all, and as I said in this case the speedy reason has disappeared completely. I hope you have a great time here and bring us loads more pictures of this quality. -- JovanCormac 19:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment removal

Dear JovanCormac, Sorry for removing my comment regarding the licensing issue, I just thought that as it had been resolved this comment was not relevant to to the FP review any more. In future I will just leave all comments in the review. I only removed my comment. Your comment is still present.Originalwana (talk) 08:44, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok. It's really just a convenience issue, as it is always better to have a record of everything. Cheers! -- JovanCormac 17:18, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Hiya, and thank you for your reassurance on my talk page. I withdrew my nominations because of the valuable feedback given, which I actually learn from, and am not offended by. Constructive critism is something I always welcome :) Some people are very good photographers, some people give good feedback, even when its negative, and some people are just plain rude and pompous, and ever so slightly delusional about their own skill level too. The comments on my images are fine, but some given on the works of others is just plain elitism, useless as critique, and not at all constructive. I suppose you can't have it all eh! I suppose its difficult for some, who see themsleves as a great photographer to being able to give really good advice - shame that!

Anyway - I value all the feedback you and others have given me, and I will still contribute to the site, but mix with rude people [needlessly rude at that], probably not.

Also, a huge thankyou for your opinion on the Spectacled langur. I am a primate fanatic, having done heaps of charity work for primate organisations here and there around the world, so that comes as a massive compliment. I hope there is someone out there who can make good use of the image.

Cheers

Julielangford (talk) 18:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I just wanted to add here, that I have not ever found any feedback you have given me to be rude - always useful though :) Julielangford (talk) 15:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy to hear that! I was really embarassed when I accidentially opposed one of your first nominations twice... -- JovanCormac 15:39, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Nahh, that was fine, you and quite a few other people give really good, valuable advice, and more to the point, know how to do it in a tidy, pleasant and constructive way - all is good :) Julielangford (talk) 08:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Question about Uploading work

Hiya,

Sorry to be a nag, but can you help me with this query. When uploading an image that I have modified from an existing commons image, should it be uploaded as my work?

When I go to the upload screen, it states that this is so on the screen, but I want to be sure. I know to add the original source and link another version etc, but the author field is confusing me. Should it be my work under the exact same license, or should it be the original authors work, with myself as the person who edited it?

Thanks

Julielangford (talk) 13:36, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

No problem, please feel free to ask me anything you want, anytime!

There is a special tool for this purpose: ([1]). Just go to that page, fill in the blanks and the script will do everything else for you. The default license settings are fine, though I usually remove PD-Self (which is added automatically) afterwards, because I don't think small changes break the threshold of originality anyway. The original license information will be left intact by the script and a template, RetouchedPicture, will be added to the modified file along with a link to the original image. Just see my own edit File:Aerogelflower filtered.jpg for an example of what you are going to get.

Cheers, JovanCormac 14:22, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, this will be very useful :) Julielangford (talk) 15:00, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Does it usually take a long time to load the original? This one is taking forever! Julielangford (talk) 15:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Usually it is loaded instantly. Maybe just server jam. -- JovanCormac 15:24, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to want to load here for me, have tried it a few times now, and I just get the loading animated icon, but it doesn't load. I will try it again this evening, see if it will work. Julielangford (talk) 15:47, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Seems to work fine for me in Firefox, but not in IE Julielangford (talk) 15:57, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I uploaded one using the above screen and it seemed fine, but then this second one, has messages about copyright on it. Could you take a look at it for me please and let me know if I did something incorrectly, especially if it regards copyright. Thanks in advance.

File:JoanCrawford-colour.jpg

Julielangford (talk) 11:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

It worked perfectly, actually. The copyright notice was taken verbatim from the original file, which is how it's supposed to be (I took the liberty of adjusting the permission to match the one in the original file, in order to make this connection more obvious). However, as the notice states both files may soon be deleted, since copyright (which we can't do anything about) is not a valid license for Commons. -- JovanCormac 12:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I got a little worried when it first appeared with those non valid copyright messages :) I,m glad it is ok, we need a colour image of that beautiful lady here, even if it is a painted one :)

Julielangford (talk) 12:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

ahhhh, I realise what you meant now, and it's not ok to have it on here. Perhaps I should request a delete? Julielangford (talk) 12:17, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd let the Copyright Stasi worry about that if I were you (don't tell them I called them that ). They're gonna find it, you can count on that. -- JovanCormac 15:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

For Meritous Service

A smal token

For a constant succession of interesting FPC nominations, your dedication to the quality of Commons:Featured Pictures via your delisting efforts, designing and implementing a picture comment box, starting numerous interesting and worthwhile discussions, creating a detailed rundown of the Featured Picture statistics and much, much more besides, I award you this Tireless Contributor Barnstar. Wear it with pride, for a job(s!) well done. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 14:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you very much, I greatly appreciate it! -- JovanCormac 13:56, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Of interest

This might be of interest to you in your delisting efforts. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 19:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the info. Please see the comment on Commons talk:Featured picture candidates#New Delisting Template for my opinion. -- JovanCormac 10:02, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Image usage out on the web

Hiya

I was just wondering, what should one do, if they stumble upon a commons image out on the internet. An image that has a CC V3 attribution license on here, but there is no attribution, or licence on the image where it is being used.

Julielangford (talk) 23:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Julie! Personally, I'd do nothing, because I believe that I have more important things to do than worry about licensing issues. If it was my call, the whole world would just abolish licensing altogether, so I'm taking a first step in that direction by ignoring everything that has to do with licenses whenever possible. Many people do worry about licensing a lot, though, both on and off Commons. You should ask your question on the Village pump where it will reach a wide audience. Someone on there will know what to do, you can rely on that. Cheers & have a great day! -- JovanCormac 06:58, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to interrupt here, but I just noticed the question in passing. It differs a lot how different users perceive licensing. Personally, I get annoyed when commercial reusers do not abide to the very simple and reasonable terms of reuse there are for CC-BY-SA licenses. However it is up to the creator of an image how much they bother, and whether they want to follow up on it. Therefore, I would just contact the creator of the image and tell about your observation. A good way to do this is to place the template {{Published}} on the talk page of the file. It has an argument to indicate that it has been used in a manner which does not comply with the license. It is actually always a good idea to add the published template when you notice reuse on the internet, also when it is done in compliance with the license. It can be an encouragement for the creator to see their creations in use and give valuable input to how they are used. At least it was encouraging for me recently to see that The Boston Globe had reused three of my images in full compliance with the CC-BY-SA license. --Slaunger (talk) 07:29, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

thanks for reply, both of you :) I feel much the same way as you do Philipp, and wish we lived in a world without restrictive licenses - but for the moment, while we do, I think it is important for people to abide by the licenses put in place by anyone. I probably wouldn't do much if it were one of my images, but I think the author of the image in question needs to know what has happened, so that they can make that decision for themselves. I would think that if they weren't that concerned about image use, they would place it in the public domain, but as they haven't, I can only conclude that they wish for attribution Julielangford (talk) 10:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

FP World Map

I did exactely what you told us to do. Still, all I can see is a bunch of thumbs... --- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:52, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

What browser are you using? -- JovanCormac 20:54, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Another question: Are you using a skin other than the default one (monobook)? -- JovanCormac 21:08, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• I'm using IE8 and the default skin -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 23:03, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  • That's the very same setup I have used, and on two different computers! So it cannot be a configuration issue at all, since the template does not depend on browser settings (no JavaScript). I honestly don't know what to tell you. The only possible explanation I can think of is that somehow, you cache wasn't cleared after all. You could try pressing Ctrl+F5 on both the monobook.css and User:JovanCormac/FPWorldMapTest pages. In theory, that shouldn't really be able to make any difference, but who knows... -- JovanCormac 06:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I have followed my entire instruction set with IE8, and found an issue which might well be the source of your problem: When clearing the cache with Ctrl+F5 after installing the monobook fixes, IE also clears all session data, causing the user to be logged out. Of course, without the user being logged in, the custom monobook.css file isn't used. So one needs to first clear the cache and the log in again in IE for it to work (all of this only has to be done once, though). I would really appreciate it if you could try again and see if that fixes your problem. -- JovanCormac 07:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

FP Promotion

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

/FPCBot (talk) 21:35, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations Julielangford (talk) 22:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

FP Promotion

★ This image has been promoted to Featured picture! ★ The image File:Muybridge race horse animated.gif, that you nominated on Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Muybridge race horse animated.gif has been promoted. Thank you for your contribution. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so.

/FPCBot (talk) 22:56, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I thought I'd consult.

After my last...interesting...nomination, I thought I'd get your opinion (both quality- and compositional-wise) on a few more possibly controversial images I'm considering putting up for FP status. See my arguments on the aforementioned nomination for why I think these deserve to

• A US tank demolishes a building during fighting in Iraq
• The dog tag of marine killed in An Nasariyah, Iraq
• File:Compliant Guantanamo captive is allowed to stroll the exercise yard.jpg I might not nominate this one, due to the quality, what do you think? Valued Image for sure, though.

In case you were wondering, the reason so many of my nominations are products of the US military is not due to any particular liking of them, but the fact that they are the only military in the world that releases their pictures into the public domain. Hence the large number of pictures. I'm running through them at the moment, weeding out the bad ones.

Yours

Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 08:25, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your trust. There is nothing wrong with Featuring military pictures in general. It's propaganda pictures labeled as ordinary, "random" shapshots (the very idea of propaganda) I don't like.
As for the pictures you named:
File:Fallujah 2004 M1A1 Abrams.jpg is a cool and valuable action shot, but might have problems passing FPC because of the harsh crop on the bottom. I myself would probably oppose it.
File:MIA dog tag1.JPEG has no chance of making FP IMO. The quality issues, especially the color balance problems, are just too glaring to ignore, and the picture is not that special subject-wise either. I would definitely oppose it.
File:Compliant Guantanamo captive is allowed to stroll the exercise yard.jpg is a different matter entirely. This picture, IMO, is just brilliant, and you should definitely nominate it. There are only a few pictures of Guantanamo that have been published in print media, and from what I know this is not one of them. Also, unlike the infamous "Camp X-Ray" pictures showing people in orange suits gagged and tied up, this one presents a much more balanced view of the subject. IMO, it is definitely not a propaganda picture; it shows a pretty ordinary scene, while not attempting to hide the fact that the Guantanamo issue is far from overcome. Also, the fact that we cannot see the man's face takes all emotion out of the picture, which is a good thing in this case as it allows the viewer to deal with the subject as objectively as is possible when dealing with a controversial subject like Guantanamo. With a hard-to-take picture like this, the blurriness can easily be excused. This picture would get my enthusiastic vote of support were it nominated.
Cheers, JovanCormac 08:56, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for a useful and objective review; it's nice to be able to have a rational discussion. These type of pictures seem to have an effect on people. Which, I suppose, is their purpose. A picture that does not evoke any response is not a picture at all. Anyway, I won't nominate anything just now, I'll trawl through my library and put out a few less contentious ones. File:Cukrowicz nachbaur Kapelle 1.JPG and File:TautropfenRose2.JPG, possibly. Though I'll have to remove the dust spots on the rose. I space out my military nominations with other subjects (2 others for ever 1 military), to avoid overloading people with them. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 13:38, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

FifthDay for FPCBot

I have implemented support for the two rules of the fifth day: diff. /Daniel78 (talk) 17:25, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Cool, well done! -- JovanCormac 18:07, 29 August 2009 (UTC)