User talk:Mike Peel

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Welcome to my talk page. Please post new messages at the bottom of my talk page, use headlines when starting new talk topics and sign and date your entries by inserting ~~~~ at the end. I will generally reply on this page to keep conversations together; please watch this page for a short time after leaving a comment. Uncivil comments will be reverted without response. Thank you.

Start a new talk topic.

If you would prefer to contact me off-wiki, then my contact details and a contact form are available on my personal website.

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

At the Intrepid Museum 2023 116.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! At the Intrepid Museum 2023 116.jpg, which was produced 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.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments
Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Halavar 15:21, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
Reply[reply]

At the Intrepid Museum 2023 135.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! At the Intrepid Museum 2023 135.jpg, which was produced 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.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments
Buildings on the left are not vertical. --Mike1979 Russia 07:48, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Mike1979 Russia: Thanks for the review, perspective tweaked, does that look better? Thanks. Mike Peel 15:00, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Symbol support vote.svg Support Yes, It's much better. --Mike1979 Russia 15:08, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
Reply[reply]

At Fuerteventura 2022 118.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! At Fuerteventura 2022 118.jpg, which was produced 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.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments
Delete dust spot, please. --Mike1979 Russia 15:05, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Mike1979 Russia: Dust spot deleted, how does that look? Thanks. Mike Peel 17:48, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Symbol support vote.svg Support OK, good. --Mike1979 Russia 18:26, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
Reply[reply]

At Fuerteventura 2022 119.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! At Fuerteventura 2022 119.jpg, which was produced 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.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments
Too soft IMO. Adding more sharpness would help. --Halavar 07:58, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Halavar: Thanks for the review, I've sharpened it further, how does that look? Thanks. Mike Peel 15:05, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Symbol support vote.svg Support Looks better, QI for me. --Halavar 15:21, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
Reply[reply]

At the Intrepid Museum 2023 117.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! At the Intrepid Museum 2023 117.jpg, which was produced 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.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments
Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Mathieu Kappler 12:40, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
Reply[reply]

At the Intrepid Museum 2023 029.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! At the Intrepid Museum 2023 029.jpg, which was produced 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.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments Quality is acceptable to me, but please eliminate CA toward the upper left. Also, this is a concert band, not a brass band. See all those woodwind instruments? Please edit file description. Ikan Kekek 19:25, 17 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ikan Kekek: Thanks for the review! CA and description tweaked, is that better? Thanks. Mike Peel 22:42, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pictogram voting comment (orange).svg Comment The corrections are good, but I'm now noticing what looks like a cord furthest to the left that's partly blown, so that there are bits of it that look like they're suspended in mid-air. Is there any way to recover the rest of the cord, so that it's somewhat visible? -- Ikan Kekek 22:49, 22 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ikan Kekek: Not easily, I think the cord is lost. The simplest thing is to crop that out, does it look better now? Thanks. Mike Peel 17:52, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Symbol support vote.svg Support I think this is a big improvement to the composition. -- Ikan Kekek 06:33, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
Reply[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:32, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Mexico City 2015 010.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Mexico City 2015 010.jpg, which was produced 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.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments
Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 09:08, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
Reply[reply]

Mexico City 2015 012.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Mexico City 2015 012.jpg, which was produced 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.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments
Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Fabian Roudra Baroi 01:57, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
Reply[reply]

Mexico City 2015 013.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Mexico City 2015 013.jpg, which was produced 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.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments
Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 09:08, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
Reply[reply]

St Edward's Church, Leek 2015 01.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! St Edward's Church, Leek 2015 01.jpg, which was produced 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.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments
Tilted/lacking a perspective correction --Poco a poco 09:08, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Poco a poco: Rotated, perspective tweaked, does that look better? Thanks. Mike Peel 17:45, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 20:19, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
Reply[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:27, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Royal Society - John Frederick William Herschel correspondence 6.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Royal Society - John Frederick William Herschel correspondence 6.jpg, which was produced 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.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments
Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --MVmath20 07:21, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
Reply[reply]

Royal Society - John Frederick William Herschel correspondence 7.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Royal Society - John Frederick William Herschel correspondence 7.jpg, which was produced 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.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments
Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --MVmath20 07:19, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
Reply[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:31, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

At New York City 2023 068.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! At New York City 2023 068.jpg, which was produced 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.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments
Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --MB-one 17:48, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Reply[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:31, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RE:[edit]

hi Mr. Mike Peel, I saw your thank you and I am pleased with it, on the other hand alas there are scattered throughout the commons many files of excellent quality but without category, which is the cause of cloned uploads alas :) I would like to ask you if you are a ' administrator?? Nesinatra (talk) 15:19, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Nesinatra: Yup, there's plenty to do, keep up the good work with categorising. :-) I am a janitor/admin here. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 15:31, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
are you able to restore deleted files?? Nesinatra (talk) 16:14, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Nesinatra: I can, but it's best if you ask at Commons:Undeletion requests. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:37, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would absolutely avoid using it because it takes obscenely long to submit a request and then see the result, and then I would have files that would not accept me, and I would need immediate recovery. these are PD licensed files (portrait & paintings & vintage photographs). by chance if you had the emails, I could send you some of those files to show you, I would avoid doing it here so as not to fill your talk unnecessarily. I also say it out of a sense of education :) --Nesinatra (talk) 17:49, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Nesinatra: I'd still encourage you to submit the request, and ping me if it does take a while and I can have a look at it there. You can also email me via Special:EmailUser/Mike_Peel if you want. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:53, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
thank you very much. I will not fail to let you hear from me as soon as possible, thank you very much--Nesinatra (talk) 18:09, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pictogram voting comment (orange).svg Comment, @Mike Peel: In fact this user appears to be another sockpuppet of LTA abuser A3cb1, who has dedicated himself to mass uploading images of paintings and photographs of members of the nobility and European royal houses with little information about the authors and dates of completion, and all this for many years. Although some of those files are old enough to fall under PD, a considerable part of them were not yet –rather, they were copyvios– and, despite warnings, numerous DRs and checkuser requests, this LTA continues with the same actions. Their last socks appear to share with this user the same modus operandi: first they add and/or change categories of existing files, later, upload some files of different scope to nobility –although this user has not yet uploaded files–, and then they ask individual administrators for undeletion of their other socks' files. See Requests for checkuser/Case/A3cb1 for more information. 81.41.175.237 18:12, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
... and this is why I point to standard processes. Thanks for the info. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:14, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Nesinatra: I've had a look at the example you emailed, that case would need to go through Commons:Undeletion requests. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 14:43, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Quality Image Promotion[edit]

Chetham's Library 2015 1.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Chetham's Library 2015 1.jpg, which was produced 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.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments
Try to add some sharpening and cloning out the crane would be good, too --Poco a poco 16:40, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Poco a poco: Thanks for the review, sharpened and crane digitally removed, does that look better? Thanks. Mike Peel 19:38, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 20:21, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
Reply[reply]

Chetham's Library 2015 6.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Chetham's Library 2015 6.jpg, which was produced 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.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments
It is too soft, you may try to add some sharpening --Poco a poco 16:40, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Poco a poco: Sharpened, does that look better? Thanks. Mike Peel 19:42, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Symbol support vote.svg Support Good quality. --Poco a poco 20:22, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
Reply[reply]

Royal Society - Isaac Newton’s Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica manuscript 1.jpg
Your image has been reviewed and promoted

Congratulations! Royal Society - Isaac Newton’s Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica manuscript 1.jpg, which was produced 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.

We also invite you to take part in the categorization of recently promoted quality images.
Comments
Is the WB fine? it looks too yellowish to me --Poco a poco 08:09, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Poco a poco: Does the WB look better now? Thanks. Mike Peel 17:30, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Symbol support vote.svg Support Definitely --Poco a poco 16:36, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
Reply[reply]

--QICbot (talk) 05:28, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]